I read an interesting article on this the other day. I can't recall who 
said it, but the author said that before this years' election started he'd 
longed for a republican candidate who would REFUSE to apologize to these 
self-annointed "superiors" that progressive nutjobs view themselves as 
being.

I think he could do a better job of rubbing their noses in their tendency 
to be such arrogant asshole bigots than he does, but hey, nobody's perfect.

On Sunday, September 18, 2016 at 3:01:11 PM UTC-4, gtheist957 wrote:
>
> I can't see how nobody saw this coming. I will refer to the culprits as 
> the uniparty because Keith's label is just to damn many words to type :) 
> when stepinopolis or whatever tried to pin Romney on the contraception 
> issue followed by the war on women that was when the rhetoric from the 
> establishment started on the path of diminishing returns. They just tried 
> to misdirect the Trump campaign by bringing up the birther issue and got 
> their heads handed to them.
> And now the never Trump globalist traitors from the republicans continue 
> to shoot themselves in the foot.just call me deplorable.....
>
> On Sep 18, 2016 1:06 PM, "'Perplexed' via PoliticalForum" <
> politic...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>> wrote:
>
>>
>> I agree completely, Keith. And I also think these "Never Trump" morons 
>> are 100% deluded if they think they won't pay for what they are doing now 
>> in 4 or 8 years and possibly beyond.
>>
>> The battle lines have been drawn. Either you accept the status quo of the 
>> establishment/political/ruling totally disconnected career politicians from 
>> BOTH parties, or you don't. And there is no way in hell half of Trump 
>> voters will ever forget or forgive or excuse the attacks from the sore 
>> losers in the GOP who - even if they didn't want to support Trump - didn't 
>> have the common sense to shut the F up and keep it to themselves.
>>
>> Kasich, Cruz, ALL of the Bush family, Flake, Graham - all of them have 
>> absolutely ZERO chance of doing anything but whimpering and bitching and 
>> losing national elections in the future.
>>
>> On Sunday, September 18, 2016 at 11:07:47 AM UTC-4, KeithInTampa wrote:
>>>
>>> Like Gottfried,  I'm not nearly as kind or forgiving as Limbaugh. I once 
>>> was, and believed that we needed to regroup after the Convention, but the 
>>> attacks by the "#NeverTrumpers" became too intense, personal and nasty.  
>>>
>>> They've made their bed, and I want them to go and lie in it.  
>>>
>>> More importantly, the thing that Limbaugh I don't think realizes, and 
>>> Gottfried doesn't touch upon, is the proverbial light that Donald Trump has 
>>> shown on that particular faction of the Republican Party. We've all known 
>>> that they were there; we just didn't realize how despicable they were!  
>>> That whole Globalist/Elitist/Establishment/Rockefellerian/New World Order" 
>>> crew I can never support again.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 10:53 AM, MJ <mich...@america.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *"But in the case of the never-Trumpers, I would never make this 
>>>> criticism. Here we are dealing mostly with GOP shills who four years ago 
>>>> were drooling on cue over Mitt Romney and who four years earlier were 
>>>> gilding the lily for John McCain. What exactly were the high 
>>>> “conservative” 
>>>> principles that these candidates of the never-Trumpers articulated that 
>>>> Trump has failed to express?" *September 16, 2016
>>>>
>>>> *DAVID LIMBAUGH AND EXTOLLING THE NEVER-TRUMPERS *
>>>> *What exactly are the high “conservative” principles of Romney and 
>>>> McCain that Trump has failed to express? *Paul Gottfried
>>>>
>>>> A few days ago David Limbaugh, a widely-syndicated Republican 
>>>> commentator (and Rush’s less fiery younger brother) posted a commentary 
>>>> <http://townhall.com/columnists/davidlimbaugh/> intended to deescalate 
>>>> the tensions between Trump’s supporters and the “never-Trumpers.” Limbaugh 
>>>> defines himself as a “reluctant Trumper,” who decided to support the 
>>>> Donald 
>>>> as the lesser of two evils after his preferred candidate Ted Cruz stumbled 
>>>> in the primaries. Limbaugh does not hide his dislike for Trump’s 
>>>> free-wheeling rhetoric and believes that the GOP nominee’s critics on the 
>>>> right may be fully justified in doubting his “genuine commitment to 
>>>> conservative policies.”
>>>>
>>>> Despite these doubts, Limbaugh endorses Trump for reasons that one also 
>>>> hears from Sean Hannity, Pat Buchanan, Jerry Falwell, Jr., Larry Elder, 
>>>> and 
>>>> yours truly. Trump has “many incentives to implement our [conservative] 
>>>> policies,” while Hillary Clinton has absolutely none. He is also, not 
>>>> incidentally, bestowing on the Republican Party a large working class 
>>>> constituency; and even among racial minorities, he is doing at least as 
>>>> well, and in the case of prospective black voters, better than his GOP 
>>>> centrist predecessors, Mitt Romney and John McCain. Moreover, it is hard 
>>>> not to see Trump’s focusing on the problems of illegals and sanctuary 
>>>> cities as anything other than a “conservative” issue. That remains the 
>>>> case 
>>>> even if most of his primary competitors and certainly the editorial board 
>>>> of the *Wall Street Journal* might wish those issues had never been 
>>>> brought into the primaries.
>>>>
>>>> Although Limbaugh dutifully provides the reasons that someone claiming 
>>>> to be on the right should vote for Trump, he still can’t resist extolling 
>>>> the never-Trumpers. (Although they’re not my buddies, they may be his.)   
>>>> These supposedly principled conservatives deeply believe that “the best 
>>>> chance of saving the nation in the long run is to avoid elevating Trump to 
>>>> president and leader of the party because he could forever destroy 
>>>> conservatism and the Republican brand.” Although Limbaugh concedes that 
>>>> some establishment Republicans may be found among these noble idealists, 
>>>> most of the never-Trumpers “shared our frustration” about where the party 
>>>> was headed in the hands of unprincipled operators.  Limbaugh closes his 
>>>> remarks with this statement: “I respect the never-Trumpers and will not 
>>>> presume to judge them as abandoning the nation’s best interests.”
>>>>
>>>> It is of course possible to be so principled that one refuses to settle 
>>>> for politicians who don’t entirely live up to one’s ideals. About ten 
>>>> years 
>>>> ago I addressed a club named for the great conservative Republican of an 
>>>> earlier era Robert A. Taft. During my interaction with members I found 
>>>> that 
>>>> some of them would only vote for a leader who patterned himself on the 
>>>> organization’s namesake. Although I continue to refer to myself as a “Taft 
>>>> Republican,” I thought some of the young people I spoke with held 
>>>> unrealistically high expectations.
>>>>
>>>> But in the case of the never-Trumpers, I would never make this 
>>>> criticism. Here we are dealing mostly with GOP shills who four years ago 
>>>> were drooling on cue over Mitt Romney and who four years earlier were 
>>>> gilding the lily for John McCain. What exactly were the high 
>>>> “conservative” 
>>>> principles that these candidates of the never-Trumpers articulated that 
>>>> Trump has failed to express? Indeed Trump has raised social issues that 
>>>> Romney and McCain, who were hailed as “conservatives” refused to even 
>>>> touch 
>>>> on the campaign trail. Unlike them, he has promised to appoint 
>>>> “conservatives” to federal judgeships and to protect the religious liberty 
>>>> of devout Christians, who have been beaten from pillar to post by Obama 
>>>> and 
>>>> who are not likely to be treated any better under a Clinton presidency.
>>>>
>>>> Although one may be justified in questioning the genuineness of Trump’s 
>>>> commitment to certain conservative principles (and right now I am troubled 
>>>> by his support of a six-week maternity leave proposal that would inflict 
>>>> unfair costs on employers), it is doubtful whether the never-Trumpers are 
>>>> all inspired idealists. Roughly the people Limbaugh is referring to can be 
>>>> divided into two types: establishment Republican propagandists and 
>>>> neoconservative partisans and dependents. The two types often merge (as 
>>>> with Bret Stephens, Rich Lowry, Bill Kristol and Jonah Goldberg); in other 
>>>> cases (e.g., Katie Pavlich, Cal Thomas, Bill Murchison, and Eric 
>>>> Erickson), 
>>>> we’re talking about GOP establishmentarians who became never-Trumpers in 
>>>> line with their professional duties. I won’t even get on to the topic of 
>>>> those academic “conservatives” who flaunt their hatred of Trump at 
>>>> gatherings financed by neoconservative donors. Since at least some of 
>>>> these 
>>>> “conservative” scholars also significantly hold positions financed by 
>>>> neocon patrons, we may conclude that they’re only doing what is expected 
>>>> of 
>>>> them. 
>>>>
>>>> Among the never-Trumpers whom Limbaugh does not get around to are such 
>>>> unappetizing defectors to the Left as Max Boot, Robert Kagan and Jamie 
>>>> Kirchik.  These publicists were not content to show their true colors and 
>>>> in the case of Kagan, his well-established ties, through his wife Victoria 
>>>> Nuland, to the Obama-Clinton administration. These defectors have befouled 
>>>> the political landscape with their reckless denunciations of Trump as a 
>>>> “fascist.” I won’t bother to place former secretary of state Colin Powell 
>>>> in the category of recent defectors. Although a nominal Republican, Powell 
>>>> enthusiastically backed Obama in two presidential races and was denouncing 
>>>> the Milquetoast party of McCain and Romney as racist before he turned his 
>>>> fire on Trump.
>>>>
>>>> I’m also not surprised that Kirchik, a renowned neocon-hitman known for 
>>>> his vicious attack on Ron Paul as a Nazi sympathizer and raving 
>>>> anti-Semite 
>>>> <https://newrepublic.com/article/98811/ron-paul-libertarian-bigotry>, 
>>>> has now gone back to his smearing talents. Kirchik has criticized Hillary 
>>>> Clinton for limiting her denunciation to only one half of her opponent’s 
>>>> backers. He insists in an interview with the*Daily News *that “it’s 
>>>> not 50% of Trump supporters who are bigots.” The “basket of deplorables 
>>>> <http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/james-kirchick-hillary-basket-deplorables-article-1.2788830>”
>>>>  
>>>> whom Hillary denounced last week “is closer to 100%.”  Kirchik may be the 
>>>> most repulsive of all the grotesques who have moved from the neocon camp 
>>>> into Hillary’s baggage. Honest disagreement seems entirely foreign to his 
>>>> nature. A peripatetic nudnik, he manages to get into the news by 
>>>> denouncing 
>>>> those who think differently from him as an existential danger to his 
>>>> Jewish 
>>>> gay identity. As in his condemnation of tens of millions of Americans, 
>>>> including many readers of this website, Kirchik seems to believe that by 
>>>> depicting anyone he doesn’t like as a “bigot,” he can always earn applause 
>>>> and make a living. He is a gift to the Hillary campaign that our side 
>>>> should be delighted to hand over.
>>>>
>>>> The never-Trumpers undoubtedly believe they’ll survive professionally 
>>>> even if the Donald pulls it out.  And as much as it disgust me to say so, 
>>>> I 
>>>> think they may be right. No matter what happens in this race, we’ll see 
>>>> the 
>>>> same faces on Fox-news and the same hacks writing for the establishment 
>>>> conservative-Republican press. Perhaps helping to contribute to a Trump 
>>>> defeat by blackening the candidate and urging others not to vote for him 
>>>> is 
>>>> a less risky career move than openly defecting to Hillary. Despite my 
>>>> doubts in this matter, I would like to imagine that the outright defectors 
>>>> will suffer particularly if Trump wins. But unfortunately they’ll still 
>>>> find takers for their services; and (alas) Kirchik will still be amply 
>>>> rewarded for smearing whomever he puts into his “basket of deplorables.”
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/264203/david-limbaugh-and-extolling-never-trumpers-paul-gottfried
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> -- 
>>>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
>>>> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>>>>  
>>>> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ 
>>>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
>>>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>>>>
>>>> --- 
>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
>>>> Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
>>>> an email to politicalforu...@googlegroups.com.
>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>> -- 
>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
>> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>>  
>> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ 
>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>>
>> --- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "PoliticalForum" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to politicalforu...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>

-- 
-- 
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to politicalforum+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to