Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Both Parties Digging Graves: Republicans Deeper

 

republican-logo-gop-upside-downAbout 14 months ago, American politics began to resemble a grade B Washington novel. A former Secretary of State is revealed to have endangered US secrets and possibly sold aspects of US foreign policy to the highest bidder. Will she face indictment? No, but the FBI chief acknowledges that the only way she could possibly attain a security clearance would be through her election as commander-in-chief.

The writer might have come up with a more compelling character. Clinton is robotic, shamelessly money-grubbing, calculating, secretive, and promiscuously deceitful. To the degree that she has any discernible principles at all, they’re the wrong ones. When she raises her voice, which is often, the sound is like tires screeching. She represents the status quo in a change year.

As deep as the hole is that Democrats have dug, the Republicans have bested them with a full-on suicide that not even a novelist would have imagined. A mob of self-styled “conservative” activists, jumped up talk radio and TV hosts, Republican Party apparatchiks (oh does that word have new relevance), a plurality of primary voters, and spineless elected officials across the fruited plain have signed on with a repellent demagogue who will destroy the party at its moment of maximum opportunity.

Now that it is too late, the rats are asking to be rescued from the sinking ship they helped to launch. Newt Gingrich, who hailed Trump’s convention speech on July 22 as a “revolutionary moment” and reinforced Trump’s reckless suggestion that NATO might not come to the aid of Estonia in the event of a Russian attack — among countless other lickspittle bits of analysis — has discovered after Trump’s terrible post convention week that candidate Trump is “unacceptable.” He and other lackeys like Rudy Giuliani and Reince Priebus are reportedly planning an intervention to get the candidate to stop being Donald Trump. Ha. Why now? Trump’s ignorance, malevolence, and instability have been on spectacular display for more than a year. Yet men and women of honor and sanity buckled into his cliff-destined train.

There is no doubt that Trump has been at his Trumpiest lately. He committed outrages against decency, the truth, and even his own best political interests at about twice his normal rate. In addition to dishonoring and insulting a gold star couple and keeping up the feud for days (when he might have been discussing the dismal economic numbers), he vocally fantasized about punching out the speakers at the Democratic National Convention, lied about his relationship with Putin (though his previous lie was on videotape), threatened to fund challengers to fellow Republicans Ted Cruz and John Kasich to punish their disloyalty, claimed that he had received a letter from the NFL complaining about the debate schedule (the NFL denies this), assured an interviewer that “Putin’s not going into Ukraine ok?” only to issue a corrective tweet later when he remembered (learned?) that Putin was already in Crimea. He claimed that he turned down a meeting with the Koch brothers. False.

Now Trump has batted eyelashes at Speaker Paul Ryan’s primary opponent, and mused that he would not support Senators Kelly Ayotte or John McCain. There’s your party leader, Republicans. Well done.

Martha Bayles reminds us in the Claremont Review of Books of two barrels — one contains sewage, the other wine. If you pour a cup of wine into the sewage, it’s still sewage. But if you pour a cup of sewage into the wine, it is no longer wine but sewage.

Trump is a pathogen. A man who heedlessly promotes conspiracy theories (vaccines cause autism, Obama was born in Kenya, Bush lied us into war in Iraq, Rafael Cruz was caught up in the JFK assassination), is either not fully sane or at least indifferent to the demoralizing effect that such lies have on our social cohesion. A man whose confidence is so shaky that he must attest to his own intelligence, malign even the most insignificant critic, scapegoat minorities, and threaten the free press is to be pitied, maybe, but not trusted with power. He is very, very comfortable stoking mobs and threatening violence. His warning that there would be riots in Cleveland if he failed to get the nomination – to cite just one of the thousands of ways he has transgressed basic norms this year – ought to have been enough to activate the antibodies of a healthy electorate.

Every single Republican with influence, from the local sheriff to the Speaker of the House, at every stage of this process, should have stood up on his hind legs and denounced this fraud (where are his tax returns again?), condemned his ugly methods, and scorned his flood of lies. Every Republican should have lined up for Judge Curiel. Chris Christie’s endorsement was the first tablespoon of sewage. Jeff Sessions’ was the second. The list of defilers is too long to itemize now. RIP GOP.

There are 46 comments.

  1. rgbact Member

    Lets not have another round of “Lets beat the Republican politicians up cause it makes us feel good”. The Trump disaster is all on the voters. They knew how unpopular Trump was and they foolishly thought other Republicans would fall in line, cause Hillary. Paul Ryan’s not to blame for that. Neither is Mitch McConnell. Its GOP primary voters. And maybe Fox, for giving Trump unlimited uncritical attention.

    Conservative media desperately needs to start talking about good things about Republicans. Else, don’t be surprised if your own enraged voters run to the first con man alternative

    • #1
    • August 4, 2016, at 12:11 PM PST
    • Like
  2. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher

    Go Clinton!

    • #2
    • August 4, 2016, at 12:13 PM PST
    • Like
  3. Lash LaRoche Inactive

    Bryan G. Stephens:Go Clinton!

    An accurate summary of the above article.

    • #3
    • August 4, 2016, at 12:31 PM PST
    • Like
  4. Misthiocracy grudgingly Member

    Mike LaRoche:

    Bryan G. Stephens:Go Clinton!

    An accurate summary of the above article.

    Hey, whichever one wins, I’ll be rooting for them to do a good job.

    • #4
    • August 4, 2016, at 12:35 PM PST
    • Like
  5. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher

    Misthiocracy:

    Mike LaRoche:

    Bryan G. Stephens:Go Clinton!

    An accurate summary of the above article.

    Hey, whichever one wins, I’ll be rooting for them to do a good job.

    With the size of the regulatory state, there is no way for anyone to do a good job.

    Maybe if the Republicans in Congress would take power right after an election and change the rules so that they can reassert their power, then we could do better. Until Congress takes back its power, things will not improve no matter who is President.

    • #5
    • August 4, 2016, at 12:41 PM PST
    • Like
  6. Caryn Member

    “Every single Republican with influence, from the local sheriff to the Speaker of the House, at every stage of this process, should have stood up on his hind legs and denounced this fraud (where are his tax returns again?), condemned his ugly methods, and scorned his flood of lies.”

    Many did, just not enough or without enough influence. And too many thought they could ride his ugliness to stay in power–or were afraid to have it turned on them. In either case: cowards!

    In any case, we are all–the whole country, regardless of party–in very serious trouble and I don’t see a way out. We have a choice of bad or worse and it isn’t necessarily clear which one is which. What a great time it would be for a lucid and serious 3rd party candidate. Oh well…

    • #6
    • August 4, 2016, at 12:42 PM PST
    • Like
  7. Jager Member

    Mona Charen: Now Trump has batted eyelashes at Speaker Paul Ryan’s primary opponent, and mused that he would not support Senators Kelly Ayotte or John McCain. There’s your party leader, Republicans. Well done.

    Can someone flush this out for me? Trump might not endorse an incumbent in their Republican Primary election. No matter who wins they will be Republican. Do candidates for the Presidency have to endorse every Republican incumbent against all Republican challengers?

    • #7
    • August 4, 2016, at 12:43 PM PST
    • Like
  8. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher

    Jager:

    Mona Charen: Now Trump has batted eyelashes at Speaker Paul Ryan’s primary opponent, and mused that he would not support Senators Kelly Ayotte or John McCain. There’s your party leader, Republicans. Well done.

    Can someone flush this out for me? Trump might not endorse an incumbent in their Republican Primary election. No matter who wins they will be Republican. Do candidates for the Presidency have to endorse every Republican incumbent against all Republican challengers?

    Not Supporting the GOP Nominee for President is OK it if it Trump.

    The GOP Nominee not supporting GOP incumbents against all primary challengers is bad, if it is Trump.

    Basically, the rules are “We don’t like Trump, therefore, no matter what the old rules of the road were, Trump gets his own. We are changing the rules of what is acceptable, because we stand on firm, consistent principles.”

    Clear? ;)

    • #8
    • August 4, 2016, at 12:49 PM PST
    • Like
  9. Jager Member

    Bryan G. Stephens: Clear? ?

    Yeah, sort of. As long as everything ends in Trump is bad consistency does not matter.

    If Trump is insane, toxic, a pathogen, not a conservative and not a real Republican, why would you want him putting his finger on the scale between two Republicans. People proclaiming that they will only be voting down ballot to avoid voting for Trump, really want Trump’s help to pick the Republican candidates in Primaries?

    • #9
    • August 4, 2016, at 1:02 PM PST
    • Like
  10. Profile Photo Member

    What if the National Review crowd had told Rubio to get out of the primary when it was clear he couldn’t win (but Cruz still could)? Then we might not have Trump. But they had to have Marco!

    • #10
    • August 4, 2016, at 1:39 PM PST
    • Like
  11. Ned Vaughn Inactive

    Strong agreement with only minor quibbles about the last paragraph. I don’t love the “hind legs” reference (what’s the implication?) and despite the insanity of where we are, I still wouldn’t yet bet the farm on the GOP being dead. I’ll grant the future for the party looks grim right now but a long, painful recovery (reformation perhaps?) might still be possible.

    Overall… Bravo. And thank you, Mona.

    • #11
    • August 4, 2016, at 1:44 PM PST
    • Like
  12. Jane W Inactive

    I think it is important for conservatives to understand why Trump happened. He happened because many of us are sick of the elites, don’t trust anyone in Washington, and are suspicious of everyone in the press.

    It may be their world, but it is our country.

    • #12
    • August 4, 2016, at 1:58 PM PST
    • Like
  13. Hammer, The Member

    Mike LaRoche:

    Bryan G. Stephens:Go Clinton!

    An accurate summary of the above article.

    …except that it is literally not.

    This is a bad situation, and refusing to be honest about Trump will make it a worse one. I don’t recall the part in Mona’s piece where she praises Clinton, but perhaps someone can point out out?

    • #13
    • August 4, 2016, at 3:04 PM PST
    • Like
  14. Hammer, The Member

    Jane W:I think it is important for conservatives to understand why Trump happened. He happened because many of us are sick of the elites, don’t trust anyone in Washington, and are suspicious of everyone in the press.

    It may be their world, but it is our country.

    Jane, this was asked on another thread, but it is worth repeating. Who are the elites, how are they elite, and what exactly are they doing to you?

    • #14
    • August 4, 2016, at 3:05 PM PST
    • Like
  15. Trinity Waters Inactive

    I’ve said this before, and it’s worth repeating. I don’t care if the GOP dies. It has been totally ineffective when in power or as a check on the Dems when they have been the majority power for decades. No leadership is displayed by our party’s executives, and no fight ever happens when it could make a difference. All I ever see lately is a lot of fierce head nodding at the perfection of pursuing an elusive pure “conservatism”. Bah. The party self destructed and ignored the Silent Majority.

    After the election, and I do mean after the defenestration of Clinton , we conservative patriots should get about forming a new party, one that doesn’t participate in the bloated crony government, one that will fight the good fight for citizens and freedom, not smoke dope, and mainly love America, the idea.

    I hope this stream of posts bemoaning the fecklessness of the GOP and the consummate evilness of Trump stops soon. We could expend our energy in a more positive fashion and share some ideas and conversation about how to survive the next four years, how to (maybe?) repair the GOP, or how to participate in forming a new party that actually appreciates our constitution and that should form achievable plans for reversing the decline of our nation, and that intends to communicate those plans clearly.

    • #15
    • August 4, 2016, at 4:34 PM PST
    • Like
  16. Jane W Inactive

    Jane, this was asked on another thread, but it is worth repeating. Who are the elites, how are they elite, and what exactly are they doing to you?

    Ryan,

    I think the elites are all elected officials, as well as most bureaucrats. They are elite because they have a separate set of rules, and they are constantly taking my freedom away. I also believe much of the media falls into the same category, as they decide what facts you are allowed to hear.

    • #16
    • August 4, 2016, at 4:49 PM PST
    • Like
  17. Eugene Kriegsmann Member

    In trying to decide why it is that Trump is apparently making a very small, if non-existent, effort to attract more voters I finally think I understand. For Trump all that matters is those that worship him, his base. He does not feel like he needs anyone else. His base validates him, after all, there are millions of them. What he doesn’t seem to conceive of is that you need more than 50 million people voting for you in order to be elected. His base is a very small fraction of that number. However, he is very loyal to his base as he expects them to be to him. His every word and action are aimed at his base. His relitigation of all of the various “insults to him” during the primaries is for his base. His attacks on Cruz and Kasich are aimed at his base. He doesn’t care about the rest of us Republicans. We don’t love him, so we don’t count. We are like Ted Cruz, if we offered our endorsement, he wouldn’t take it. Except, come November 8th, when we fail to pull the lever for him, even if we do not vote for one of his opponents, he is going to lose disastrously. His limited imagination can’t conceive of that. All he sees are the millions who love him, and that is enough. Ave Donald!

    • #17
    • August 4, 2016, at 4:55 PM PST
    • Like
  18. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher

    RyanM:

    Mike LaRoche:

    Bryan G. Stephens:Go Clinton!

    An accurate summary of the above article.

    …except that it is literally not.

    This is a bad situation, and refusing to be honest about Trump will make it a worse one. I don’t recall the part in Mona’s piece where she praises Clinton, but perhaps someone can point out out?

    Mona is a leading Conservative Pundit. Every anti Trump post is likely to change the mind of a voter who might have voted for Trump. If Trump gets less votes, Clinton is more likely to win.

    Decreasing Trump votes = Helping Clinton.

    Go Clinton

    • #18
    • August 4, 2016, at 5:01 PM PST
    • Like
  19. Hammer, The Member

    Jane W:Jane, this was asked on another thread, but it is worth repeating. Who are the elites, how are they elite, and what exactly are they doing to you?

    Ryan,

    I think the elites are all elected officials, as well as most bureaucrats. They are elite because they have a separate set of rules, and they are constantly taking my freedom away. I also believe much of the media falls into the same category, as they decide what facts you are allowed to hear.

    ok – so, keeping with your definition of “elite,” I could buy that frustration with an out-of-control government could lead to a great deal of frustration in the electorate (a frustration that I share). But while that might explain Cruz, it does not explain or justify Trump. Trump’s promises, even if we could agree to take them at face value, would give us – perhaps – different elites, but it would not in any way reduce their number. Mona’s point remains. If we have a problem with elites, then neither Trump nor Clinton are even remotely acceptable.

    • #19
    • August 4, 2016, at 5:35 PM PST
    • Like
  20. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher

    RyanM:

    Jane W:Jane, this was asked on another thread, but it is worth repeating. Who are the elites, how are they elite, and what exactly are they doing to you?

    Ryan,

    I think the elites are all elected officials, as well as most bureaucrats. They are elite because they have a separate set of rules, and they are constantly taking my freedom away. I also believe much of the media falls into the same category, as they decide what facts you are allowed to hear.

    ok – so, keeping with your definition of “elite,” I could buy that frustration with an out-of-control government could lead to a great deal of frustration in the electorate (a frustration that I share). But while that might explain Cruz, it does not explain or justify Trump. Trump’s promises, even if we could agree to take them at face value, would give us – perhaps – different elites, but it would not in any way reduce their number. Mona’s point remains. If we have a problem with elites, then neither Trump nor Clinton are even remotely acceptable.

    No kidding.

    People who are feeling helpless act in odd ways. I think you must see that in your practice.

    • #20
    • August 4, 2016, at 5:42 PM PST
    • Like
  21. Hammer, The Member

    Bryan G. Stephens:

    RyanM:

    …except that it is literally not.

    This is a bad situation, and refusing to be honest about Trump will make it a worse one. I don’t recall the part in Mona’s piece where she praises Clinton, but perhaps someone can point out out?

    Mona is a leading Conservative Pundit. Every anti Trump post is likely to change the mind of a voter who might have voted for Trump. If Trump gets less votes, Clinton is more likely to win.

    Decreasing Trump votes = Helping Clinton.

    Go Clinton

    Bryan, I understand the logic that says every vote for Trump is a vote against Clinton… and that every person not voting for Trump is also not helping him win. But the argument that anti-Trump = pro-Clinton can no longer be considered to be good faith.

    Would you have accepted the argument that every primary vote for Trump was a vote for Hillary? Actually, at that time, that particular coalition made the determination that it did not need a sizable group of conservatives in order to win the white-house. That is fine, but the argument that it is unacceptable to vote (or refuse to vote) based on actual support of a candidate – or that any decision that isn’t the decision you like amounts to “moral preening,” is both disingenuous and hypocritical.

    Feel free to argue that Clinton is worse. Maybe you will convince some people. But calling the blue sky purple is counterproductive.

    • #21
    • August 4, 2016, at 5:48 PM PST
    • Like
  22. Hammer, The Member

    Bryan G. Stephens:

    RyanM:

    Jane W:Jane, this was asked on another thread, but it is worth repeating. Who are the elites, how are they elite, and what exactly are they doing to you?

    Ryan,

    I think the elites are all elected officials, as well as most bureaucrats. They are elite because they have a separate set of rules, and they are constantly taking my freedom away. I also believe much of the media falls into the same category, as they decide what facts you are allowed to hear.

    ok – so, keeping with your definition of “elite,” I could buy that frustration with an out-of-control government could lead to a great deal of frustration in the electorate (a frustration that I share). But while that might explain Cruz, it does not explain or justify Trump. Trump’s promises, even if we could agree to take them at face value, would give us – perhaps – different elites, but it would not in any way reduce their number. Mona’s point remains. If we have a problem with elites, then neither Trump nor Clinton are even remotely acceptable.

    No kidding.

    People who are feeling helpless act in odd ways. I think you must see that in your practice.

    Do I see people behave irrationally? Rarely irrational – very often misguided, and almost always self-destructive. What I have never done, however, is encourage self-destructive behavior simply because I sympathize with a person’s motivations.

    • #22
    • August 4, 2016, at 5:52 PM PST
    • Like
  23. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher

    RyanM:

    Bryan G. Stephens:

    RyanM:

    …except that it is literally not.

    This is a bad situation, and refusing to be honest about Trump will make it a worse one. I don’t recall the part in Mona’s piece where she praises Clinton, but perhaps someone can point out out?

    Mona is a leading Conservative Pundit. Every anti Trump post is likely to change the mind of a voter who might have voted for Trump. If Trump gets less votes, Clinton is more likely to win.

    Decreasing Trump votes = Helping Clinton.

    Go Clinton

    Bryan, I understand the logic that says every vote for Trump is a vote against Clinton… and that every person not voting for Trump is also not helping him win. But the argument that anti-Trump = pro-Clinton can no longer be considered to be good faith.

    Would you have accepted the argument that every primary vote for Trump was a vote for Hillary? Actually, at that time, that particular coalition made the determination that it did not need a sizable group of conservatives in order to win the white-house. That is fine, but the argument that it is unacceptable to vote (or refuse to vote) based on actual support of a candidate – or that any decision that isn’t the decision you like amounts to “moral preening,” is both disingenuous and hypocritical.

    Feel free to argue that Clinton is worse. Maybe you will convince some people. But calling the blue sky purple is counterproductive.

    I am not calling a blue sky purple. Let me spell it out:

    I am not talking about voting, I am talking about a post of a pundit.

    If Trump loses, then Clinton wins. That is a statement of fact.

    It is reasonable to assume that pundits have an impact on voters. How much depends on the pundit. I am sure Mona wishes she had more of an impact, as would any pundit. If Mona has an impact with this article, it will be to depress votes for Trump more than Depress votes for Clinton.

    Now, it is fair to assume that Mona, as a pundit, expects her writing to have some effect on others. That is what pundits are shooting for, after all. Since it is clear that her intended effect it to attack Trump more than it is to attack Clinton, she is hoping to hurt Trump more than Clinton.

    Therefore, since we know a Trump lose results in a Clinton win, Mona’s article is helping Clinton win.

    There is no moral judgement in any of this. This is simply fact. It is not about how Mona votes, it is about her as a pundit, effects the votes of others. Every Republican Voter that Mona gets to not vote for Trump hurts Trump. Those voters were not going to vote for Clinton for any reason anyway. Now they don’t vote for either, but Trump is the one who loses out.

    I do not understand why NeverTrumpers are so strongly resistant to these facts.

    Helping Trump lose means you are helping (indirectly) Clinton win. Period. End of story. That is reality.

    I don’t care if you someone is helping Clinton win directly or indirectly, but these are the facts.

    • #23
    • August 4, 2016, at 6:00 PM PST
    • Like
  24. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher

    RyanM:

    Bryan G. Stephens:

    RyanM:

    Jane W:Jane, this was asked on another thread, but it is worth repeating. Who are the elites, how are they elite, and what exactly are they doing to you?

    Ryan,

    I think the elites are all elected officials, as well as most bureaucrats. They are elite because they have a separate set of rules, and they are constantly taking my freedom away. I also believe much of the media falls into the same category, as they decide what facts you are allowed to hear.

    ok – so, keeping with your definition of “elite,” I could buy that frustration with an out-of-control government could lead to a great deal of frustration in the electorate (a frustration that I share). But while that might explain Cruz, it does not explain or justify Trump. Trump’s promises, even if we could agree to take them at face value, would give us – perhaps – different elites, but it would not in any way reduce their number. Mona’s point remains. If we have a problem with elites, then neither Trump nor Clinton are even remotely acceptable.

    No kidding.

    People who are feeling helpless act in odd ways. I think you must see that in your practice.

    Do I see people behave irrationally? Rarely irrational – very often misguided, and almost always self-destructive. What I have never done, however, is encourage self-destructive behavior simply because I sympathize with a person’s motivations.

    I don’t think voting for Trump is “self-destructive”.

    But, that is what freedom means, the right to be wrong.

    Freedom also means the right to yell at people for being wrong.

    Freedom also means the right to resent being yelled at for being called wrong.

    • #24
    • August 4, 2016, at 6:02 PM PST
    • Like
  25. Eugene Kriegsmann Member

    Bryan, you have the right to vote for whoever you want. You don’t have the right to tell anyone else how to vote. Your judgment as to the efficacy of a vote or lack there of is your opinion which you are also fully entitled to. However, opinions are like a certain part of the anatomy often cited as being the least attractive, everyone has one. I feel no need to convince you to abandon your vote for Trump. Please have the courtesy to extend to me the same right to make my own choice based upon my ethical considerations. Part of my right to choose is my decision to support a person I believe is qualified and appropriate for the office. Neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump meet that standard. I, therefore, choose to vote for neither. That does not represent a vote for Hillary against Trump or Trump against Hillary. It is simply a choice to not vote for someone I do not believe is qualified for the office.

    • #25
    • August 4, 2016, at 7:13 PM PST
    • Like
  26. Trinity Waters Inactive

    RyanM:

    Bryan G. Stephens:

    RyanM:

    …except that it is literally not.

    This is a bad situation, and Clinton, but perhaps someone can point out out?

    Mona is a leadmore likely to win.

    Decreasing Trump votes = Helping Clinton.

    Go Clinton

    Bryan, I understand the logic that says every vote for Trump is a vote against Clinton… and that every person not voting for Trump is also not helping him win. But the argument that anti-Trump = pro-Clinton can no longer be considered to be good faith.

    Would you have accepted the argument that every primary vote for Trump was a vote for Hillary? Actually, at that time, that particular coalition made the determination that it did not need a sizable group of conservatives in order to win the white-house. That is fine, but the argument that it is unacceptable to vote (or refuse to vote) based on actual support of a candidate – or that any decision that isn’t the decision you like amounts to “moral preening,” is both disingenuous and hypocritical.

    Feel free to argue that Clinton is worse. Maybe you will convince some people. But calling the blue sky purple is counterproductive.

    Nothing changes the fact that this is now a binary contest. Hope and opine about how it could have been different, but we are where we are. Vote Trump or help Hillary, but choose and quit annoying us.

    • #26
    • August 4, 2016, at 8:29 PM PST
    • Like
  27. Martel Member

    RyanM:

    Mike LaRoche:

    Bryan G. Stephens:Go Clinton!

    An accurate summary of the above article.

    …except that it is literally not.

    This is a bad situation, and refusing to be honest about Trump will make it a worse one. I don’t recall the part in Mona’s piece where she praises Clinton, but perhaps someone can point out out?

    I obviously can’t prove it, see into Mona’s heart of hearts, etc.

    However, I get the distinct impression she wrote those first two paragraphs criticizing Clinton only so she could shield herself from critics claiming she’s pro-Clinton, therefore allowing her to spend the next several paragraphs attacking her real target: Trump.

    I won’t go so far as to say that not voting or voting third party is necessarily “pro-Hillary” or “helping” her; you’ve no obligation to vote for anybody.

    However, attacking Trump in right-leaning forums may well result in fewer people voting for Trump. This helps Hillary. The intention may not be to help Hillary, but it’s still an attempt to get people to do exactly what makes her more likely to win, namely not vote for Trump.

    So essentially I see this piece as a “don’t vote Trump” advertisement disguised as a “both candidates are awful” article.

    Even though Trump and Hillary are equally bad, it’s Trump and only Trump we need to keep people from voting for.

    • #27
    • August 5, 2016, at 12:27 AM PST
    • Like
  28. Martel Member

    “I’m not trying to help Hillary win. I’m just trying to discourage as many people as possible from voting for her opponent.”

    • #28
    • August 5, 2016, at 12:34 AM PST
    • Like
  29. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher

    Eugene Kriegsmann:Bryan, you have the right to vote for whoever you want. You don’t have the right to tell anyone else how to vote. Your judgment as to the efficacy of a vote or lack there of is your opinion which you are also fully entitled to. However, opinions are like a certain part of the anatomy often cited as being the least attractive, everyone has one. I feel no need to convince you to abandon your vote for Trump. Please have the courtesy to extend to me the same right to make my own choice based upon my ethical considerations. Part of my right to choose is my decision to support a person I believe is qualified and appropriate for the office. Neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump meet that standard. I, therefore, choose to vote for neither. That does not represent a vote for Hillary against Trump or Trump against Hillary. It is simply a choice to not vote for someone I do not believe is qualified for the office.

    I am not telling anyone who to vote for. I am not talking about you as an individual voter. I am talking about a pundit, on a national website (NRO) who is attacking Trump more than Clinton and looking to sway voters for voting for Trump.

    I am not trying to convince you to vote for anyone.

    I do not understand why NeverTrumpers keep responding to a clear statement of fact this way, despite repeated statements from me that is not what I am doing.

    From day one, I have laid this mostly at the feet of the pundits. After being told by NeverTrumpers how little their vote matters, I have moved to put it all at the pundits. Please read what I wrote, and do not take it as an attack on NeverTrumpers. It is not an attack on pundits. It is a statement of fact that if someone, anyone, does something that helps Trump lose, it means Clinton is more likely to win.

    That is the point I am making. IF that is what you want to disagree with, then argue that point.

    • #29
    • August 5, 2016, at 3:02 AM PST
    • Like
  30. Front Seat Cat Member

    Mona – I think CNN is looking for your phone number….

    • #30
    • August 5, 2016, at 6:30 AM PST
    • Like