Never Never Trump

The Republican dilemma

Any Republican has a difficult pathway to the presidency. On the electoral map, expanding blue blobs in coastal and big-city America swamp the conservative geographical sea of red. Big-electoral-vote states such as California, Illinois, New York, and New Jersey are utterly lost before the campaign even begins. The media have devolved into a weird Ministry of Truth. News seems defined now as what information is necessary to release to arrive at correct views.

In recent elections, centrists, like John McCain and Mitt Romney – once found useful by the media when running against more-conservative Republicans — were reinvented as caricatures of Potterville scoundrels right out of a Frank Capra movie.

When the media got through with a good man like McCain, he was left an adulterous, confused septuagenarian, unsure of how many mansions he owned, and a likely closeted bigot. Another gentleman like Romney was reduced to a comic-book Ri¢hie Ri¢h, who owned an elevator, never talked to his garbage man, hazed innocents in prep school, and tortured his dog on the roof of his car. If it were a choice between shouting down debate moderator Candy Crowley and shaming her unprofessionalism, or allowing her to hijack the debate, Romney in Ajaxian style (“nobly live, or nobly die”) chose the decorous path of dignified abdication.

snip...


Read more at: Never NeverTrump: Not Voting Trump Is Republican Suicide | National Review

WCH said:

The Republican dilemma

Any Republican has a difficult pathway to the presidency. On the electoral map, expanding blue blobs in coastal and big-city America swamp the conservative geographical sea of red. Big-electoral-vote states such as California, Illinois, New York, and New Jersey are utterly lost before the campaign even begins. The media have devolved into a weird Ministry of Truth. News seems defined now as what information is necessary to release to arrive at correct views.

In recent elections, centrists, like John McCain and Mitt Romney – once found useful by the media when running against more-conservative Republicans — were reinvented as caricatures of Potterville scoundrels right out of a Frank Capra movie.

When the media got through with a good man like McCain, he was left an adulterous, confused septuagenarian, unsure of how many mansions he owned, and a likely closeted bigot. Another gentleman like Romney was reduced to a comic-book Ri¢hie Ri¢h, who owned an elevator, never talked to his garbage man, hazed innocents in prep school, and tortured his dog on the roof of his car. If it were a choice between shouting down debate moderator Candy Crowley and shaming her unprofessionalism, or allowing her to hijack the debate, Romney in Ajaxian style (“nobly live, or nobly die”) chose the decorous path of dignified abdication.

snip...


Read more at: Never NeverTrump: Not Voting Trump Is Republican Suicide | National Review

Click to expand...

If you guys don't like the "Never Trump" campaign you shouldn't have voted in Trump. Deal with the consequences of your choice. You guys wanted a controversial character as your nominee so now you got him.

WCH said:

The Republican dilemma

Any Republican has a difficult pathway to the presidency. On the electoral map, expanding blue blobs in coastal and big-city America swamp the conservative geographical sea of red. Big-electoral-vote states such as California, Illinois, New York, and New Jersey are utterly lost before the campaign even begins. The media have devolved into a weird Ministry of Truth. News seems defined now as what information is necessary to release to arrive at correct views.

In recent elections, centrists, like John McCain and Mitt Romney – once found useful by the media when running against more-conservative Republicans — were reinvented as caricatures of Potterville scoundrels right out of a Frank Capra movie.

When the media got through with a good man like McCain, he was left an adulterous, confused septuagenarian, unsure of how many mansions he owned, and a likely closeted bigot. Another gentleman like Romney was reduced to a comic-book Ri¢hie Ri¢h, who owned an elevator, never talked to his garbage man, hazed innocents in prep school, and tortured his dog on the roof of his car. If it were a choice between shouting down debate moderator Candy Crowley and shaming her unprofessionalism, or allowing her to hijack the debate, Romney in Ajaxian style (“nobly live, or nobly die”) chose the decorous path of dignified abdication.

snip...


Read more at: Never NeverTrump: Not Voting Trump Is Republican Suicide | National Review

Click to expand...

In farming, I learned there is no good harvest, only each year one that’s 51 percent preferable to the alternative, which in 2016 is a likely 16-year Obama-Clinton hailstorm.

Read more at: Never NeverTrump: Not Voting Trump Is Republican Suicide | National Review

Click to expand...

I don't understand this quote at all. If anything, Clinton is exceedingly more likely than an average president to only serve one term, with her baggage, her age, and her ridiculous unfavorables. Trump is too, for much the same reason. Not that I would ever even consider voting for her, but as someone not voting for Trump either one thing I do find comforting about a Clinton win is that in 2020 it will be a chance to get a candidate I really support on the Republican side. With a Trump win it will almost definitely be Trump, who has too many positions I disagree with to ever vote for, vs. a Democrat who will likely have to many positions I disagree with to ever vote for.

Praxas said:

If you guys don't like the "Never Trump" campaign you shouldn't have voted in Trump. Deal with the consequences of your choice. You guys wanted a controversial character as your nominee so now you got him.

Click to expand...

Well, I was a Cruz voter. Unlike the Left, if you don't agree with our politician, we try to win those people's vote rather than shame or alienate them.

Anagram said:

I don't understand this quote at all. If anything, Clinton is exceedingly more likely than an average president to only serve one term, with her baggage, her age, and her ridiculous unfavorables. Trump is too, for much the same reason. Not that I would ever even consider voting for her, but as someone not voting for Trump either one thing I do find comforting about a Clinton win is that in 2020 it will be a chance to get a candidate I really support on the Republican side. With a Trump win it will almost definitely be Trump, who has too many positions I disagree with to ever vote for, vs. a Democrat who will likely have to many positions I disagree with to ever vote for.

Click to expand...

The damage Hillary could do in the first 100 days [executive amnesty, refugees, SCOTUS appointments, etc] offsets anything negative about Trump...in my eyes.

WCH said:

The damage Hillary could do in the first 100 days offsets anything negative about Trump...in my eyes.

Click to expand...

I disagree. Trump's economic and trade policies along with his inconsistent isolation/Uberhawk foreign policy make him bad enough that I could never vote for him. Especially since he ensures 8 years of **** whereas Clinton would only ensure 4. Trump would also probably help the Democrats in the midterms and the redisctricting elections in 2020. If Trump really is a disaster, and the Democrats got control of the redisctricting process the way Republicans did in 2010 that could hamstring them for a decade.

I'm not voting for Clinton because I disagree with her on almost every major issue. But Trump manages to have different, but just as wrong in my eyes, policies on most of those issues as well. And the future electoral effects of a Trump presidency are much worse than Clintons. I don't see any good reason to vote for him.

Edit: There's also the fact that Clinton would have to deal with a very Republican House and probably a split Senate through 2018 and a Republican one until 2020. That caps the damage she could do pretty clearly.

Anagram said:

I don't understand this quote at all. If anything, Clinton is exceedingly more likely than an average president to only serve one term, with her baggage, her age, and her ridiculous unfavorables. Trump is too, for much the same reason. Not that I would ever even consider voting for her, but as someone not voting for Trump either one thing I do find comforting about a Clinton win is that in 2020 it will be a chance to get a candidate I really support on the Republican side. With a Trump win it will almost definitely be Trump, who has too many positions I disagree with to ever vote for, vs. a Democrat who will likely have to many positions I disagree with to ever vote for.

Click to expand...

It is somewhat interesting to read how sanctimonious folks on the right are these days. The left was the same ways in the late 60's, early 70's. Then we learned that losing stinks, and it has consequences.

So we will hold our collective noses and vote for Clinton understanding her flaws. We also understand that her victory also means putting perhaps three people on the supreme court, which will impact America for the next 30 years not just the next 4-8. We understand that things like taxes, immigration, national defense will be impacted long after the next president leaves office.

In 2012, the real reason Romney lost in my view was not what you talked about above, but because he was a Mormon. Not Christian enough for just enough in the midwest who stayed home, like you will do to give Obama the election.

Don't blame the big bad media. The problem on the right is if the candidate your party picks is not to your liking you sulk and stay home. Sort of like losers in all endeavors.

Anagram said:

I disagree. Trump's economic and trade policies along with his inconsistent isolation/Uberhawk foreign policy make him bad enough that I could never vote for him. Especially since he ensures 8 years of **** whereas Clinton would only ensure 4. Trump would also probably help the Democrats in the midterms and the redisctricting elections in 2020. If Trump really is a disaster, and the Democrats got control of the redisctricting process the way Republicans did in 2010 that could hamstring them for a decade.

I'm not voting for Clinton because I disagree with her on almost every major issue. But Trump manages to have different, but just as wrong in my eyes, policies on most of those issues as well. And the future electoral effects of a Trump presidency are much worse than Clintons. I don't see any good reason to vote for him.

Edit: There's also the fact that Clinton would have to deal with a very Republican House and probably a split Senate through 2018 and a Republican one until 2020. That caps the damage she could do pretty clearly.

Click to expand...

Not with EOs. She promised executive action on the border.

washunut said:

It is somewhat interesting to read how sanctimonious folks on the right are these days. The left was the same ways in the late 60's, early 70's. Then we learned that losing stinks, and it has consequences.

So we will hold our collective noses and vote for Clinton understanding her flaws. We also understand that her victory also means putting perhaps three people on the supreme court, which will impact America for the next 30 years not just the next 4-8. We understand that things like taxes, immigration, national defense will be impacted long after the next president leaves office.

In 2012, the real reason Romney lost in my view was not what you talked about above, but because he was a Mormon. Not Christian enough for just enough in the midwest who stayed home, like you will do to give Obama the election.

Don't blame the big bad media. The problem on the right is if the candidate your party picks is not to your liking you sulk and stay home. Sort of like losers in all endeavors.

Click to expand...

Yeh, we know the Left votes party first....even a POS corrupt candidate like Clinton has a shot.

Anagram said:

I disagree. Trump's economic and trade policies along with his inconsistent isolation/Uberhawk foreign policy make him bad enough that I could never vote for him. Especially since he ensures 8 years of **** whereas Clinton would only ensure 4. Trump would also probably help the Democrats in the midterms and the redisctricting elections in 2020. If Trump really is a disaster, and the Democrats got control of the redisctricting process the way Republicans did in 2010 that could hamstring them for a decade.

I'm not voting for Clinton because I disagree with her on almost every major issue. But Trump manages to have different, but just as wrong in my eyes, policies on most of those issues as well. And the future electoral effects of a Trump presidency are much worse than Clintons. I don't see any good reason to vote for him.

Edit: There's also the fact that Clinton would have to deal with a very Republican House and probably a split Senate through 2018 and a Republican one until 2020. That caps the damage she could do pretty clearly.

Click to expand...

Here is DJT's Trade Plan per his website:

1. Bring China to the bargaining table by immediately declaring it a currency manipulator.

2. Protect American ingenuity and investment by forcing China to uphold intellectual property laws and stop their unfair and unlawful practice of forcing U.S. companies to share proprietary technology with Chinese competitors as a condition of entry to China’s market.

3. Reclaim millions of American jobs and reviving American manufacturing by putting an end to China’s illegal export subsidies and lax labor and environmental standards. No more sweatshops or pollution havens stealing jobs from American workers.

4. Strengthen our negotiating position by lowering our corporate tax rate to keep American companies and jobs here at home, attacking our debt and deficit so China cannot use financial blackmail against us, and bolstering the U.S. military presence in the East and South China Seas to discourage Chinese adventurism.

What is it you don't like exactly? You feel America has benefited from our current trade policies, is increasing in vigor and potential prosperity? Think Obama was pro business and increasing American prosperity, ingenuity and productivity? Think Clinton will be any more pro American business than Obama?

To me, just the fact that she will be in a position to make liberally skewed appointments to an already far too liberal Supreme Court, which affect us far beyond the next two election cycles, is scary enough to overcome any doubt about Trump.

Always always Trump..

Anagram said:

I don't understand this quote at all. If anything, Clinton is exceedingly more likely than an average president to only serve one term, with her baggage, her age, and her ridiculous unfavorables. Trump is too, for much the same reason. Not that I would ever even consider voting for her, but as someone not voting for Trump either one thing I do find comforting about a Clinton win is that in 2020 it will be a chance to get a candidate I really support on the Republican side. With a Trump win it will almost definitely be Trump, who has too many positions I disagree with to ever vote for, vs. a Democrat who will likely have to many positions I disagree with to ever vote for.

Click to expand...

This election really is about the Supreme Court. While the winner might only serve one term, the impact they will have due to their Supreme Court appointees is unimaginable -- limitless.

Trump has proposed a Heritage Foundation-approved list. Hillary's list will make Garland look like a moderate!

Hillary could, through SCOTUS, impose changes on this country that will last for generations, in terms of open borders and the erosion of gun rights.

I'm a young Republican, but I dutifully cast votes for Romney and McCain, being unimpressed by either. Trump might not be a conservative purist, but this country needs us to vote for and rally around him.

washunut said:

It is somewhat interesting to read how sanctimonious folks on the right are these days. The left was the same ways in the late 60's, early 70's. Then we learned that losing stinks, and it has consequences.

So we will hold our collective noses and vote for Clinton understanding her flaws. We also understand that her victory also means putting perhaps three people on the supreme court, which will impact America for the next 30 years not just the next 4-8. We understand that things like taxes, immigration, national defense will be impacted long after the next president leaves office.

Click to expand...

Of course things will be affected after the 4-8 years, but they will be for Trump and Clinton. And I think that both of their policies are terrible. And terrible policies for 8 years can probably radiate longer than terrible policies for 4.

In 2012, the real reason Romney lost in my view was not what you talked about above, but because he was a Mormon. Not Christian enough for just enough in the midwest who stayed home, like you will do to give Obama the election.

Click to expand...

There's no evidence of that. Romney got more votes than McCain. Obama didn't do any better in 2012 than 2008 in most of the South or Midwest which is where you'd think that would have the biggest impact. Exit polls showed Christians voting in about the same percentages in both elections.

Don't blame the big bad media. The problem on the right is if the candidate your party picks is not to your liking you sulk and stay home. Sort of like losers in all endeavors.

Click to expand...

Who's blaming the media. It's not just that they picked someone I didn't like. They picked someone who I fundamentally think will be bad for this country. I see no good reason to vote for him. If that makes me a loser than fine.

WCH said:

Not with EOs. She promised executive action on the border.

Click to expand...

Trump's proposed executive action is not much better, and he seems to have most of the Republicans at least nominally behind his agenda.

Gaugingcatenate said:

Here is DJT's Trade Plan per his website:

1. Bring China to the bargaining table by immediately declaring it a currency manipulator.

2. Protect American ingenuity and investment by forcing China to uphold intellectual property laws and stop their unfair and unlawful practice of forcing U.S. companies to share proprietary technology with Chinese competitors as a condition of entry to China’s market.

3. Reclaim millions of American jobs and reviving American manufacturing by putting an end to China’s illegal export subsidies and lax labor and environmental standards. No more sweatshops or pollution havens stealing jobs from American workers.

4. Strengthen our negotiating position by lowering our corporate tax rate to keep American companies and jobs here at home, attacking our debt and deficit so China cannot use financial blackmail against us, and bolstering the U.S. military presence in the East and South China Seas to discourage Chinese adventurism.

What is it you don't like exactly? You feel America has benefited from our current trade policies, is increasing in vigor and potential prosperity? Think Obama was pro business and increasing American prosperity, ingenuity and productivity? Think Clinton will be any more pro American business than Obama?

Click to expand...

A lot of that is just empty rhetoric. "forcing China to uphold intellectual property laws and stop their unfair and unlawful practice...", "by putting an end to China’s illegal export subsidies and lax labor and environmental standards." Trump has no power to do any of that. The most he can do is threaten to impose huge tariffs on them unless they end those practices. China has no incentive to do so. The U.S. is only 18% of China's exports. It wouldn't make sense to raise their production costs for all of their exports, when they can just pay the increased cost for the U.S. This will dramatically raise prices of everything we import from China, and everything that has part of it imported from China.

And it will not be balanced out by the jobs created here. Trump says: "3. Reclaim millions of American jobs and reviving American manufacturing", but just like the 35% tariff imposed on Chinese tires had only 1,200 more people employed in the American tire industry, it's still simply cheaper for a lot of companies to keep their manufacturing in China or elsewhere with low labor costs. Manufacturing brought back here will also not have anywhere near as many jobs as many think because while it makes sense to have a ton of low cost Chinese workers in a factory, here it's cheaper to have fewer workers and more automation.

And there's also the fact China will likely raise retaliatory tariffs that will hurt much of our food industries the hardest.

To me, just the fact that she will be in a position to make liberally skewed appointments to an already far too liberal Supreme Court, which affect us far beyond the next two election cycles, is scary enough to overcome any doubt about Trump.

Click to expand...

This is the most persuasive argument for me to vote for Trump, but it's not enough. Supreme Court justices are important, and this one more so since it heavily shifts the balance, but Roberts, Alito, and Thomas are still plenty young, and I don't think it's likely there will be more than 2 appointments in the next four years.

Anagram said:

Of course things will be affected after the 4-8 years, but they will be for Trump and Clinton. And I think that both of their policies are terrible. And terrible policies for 8 years can probably radiate longer than terrible policies for 4.



There's no evidence of that. Romney got more votes than McCain. Obama didn't do any better in 2012 than 2008 in most of the South or Midwest which is where you'd think that would have the biggest impact. Exit polls showed Christians voting in about the same percentages in both elections.



Who's blaming the media. It's not just that they picked someone I didn't like. They picked someone who I fundamentally think will be bad for this country. I see no good reason to vote for him. If that makes me a loser than fine.

Click to expand...

As an aside by son went to school in St. Louis, thus the Washunut.

WCH said:

The Republican dilemma

Any Republican has a difficult pathway to the presidency. On the electoral map, expanding blue blobs in coastal and big-city America swamp the conservative geographical sea of red. Big-electoral-vote states such as California, Illinois, New York, and New Jersey are utterly lost before the campaign even begins. The media have devolved into a weird Ministry of Truth. News seems defined now as what information is necessary to release to arrive at correct views.

In recent elections, centrists, like John McCain and Mitt Romney – once found useful by the media when running against more-conservative Republicans — were reinvented as caricatures of Potterville scoundrels right out of a Frank Capra movie.

When the media got through with a good man like McCain, he was left an adulterous, confused septuagenarian, unsure of how many mansions he owned, and a likely closeted bigot. Another gentleman like Romney was reduced to a comic-book Ri¢hie Ri¢h, who owned an elevator, never talked to his garbage man, hazed innocents in prep school, and tortured his dog on the roof of his car. If it were a choice between shouting down debate moderator Candy Crowley and shaming her unprofessionalism, or allowing her to hijack the debate, Romney in Ajaxian style (“nobly live, or nobly die”) chose the decorous path of dignified abdication.

snip...


Read more at: Never NeverTrump: Not Voting Trump Is Republican Suicide | National Review

Click to expand...

The party isn't more important than the country. I'd rather have the part commit suicide and see what we can scrape together from the corpse than vote for Trump. I voted for Bush, McCain, and Romney, I've donated and volunteered for numerous GOP congressional and senate campaigns, and I refuse to back Trump. The fact that this appeal is being made as a plea to save the GOP from suicide just disgusts me even more.

Anagram said:

A lot of that is just empty rhetoric. "forcing China to uphold intellectual property laws and stop their unfair and unlawful practice...", "by putting an end to China’s illegal export subsidies and lax labor and environmental standards." Trump has no power to do any of that. The most he can do is threaten to impose huge tariffs on them unless they end those practices. China has no incentive to do so. The U.S. is only 18% of China's exports. It wouldn't make sense to raise their production costs for all of their exports, when they can just pay the increased cost for the U.S. This will dramatically raise prices of everything we import from China, and everything that has part of it imported from China.

And it will not be balanced out by the jobs created here. Trump says: "3. Reclaim millions of American jobs and reviving American manufacturing", but just like the 35% tariff imposed on Chinese tires had only 1,200 more people employed in the American tire industry, it's still simply cheaper for a lot of companies to keep their manufacturing in China or elsewhere with low labor costs. Manufacturing brought back here will also not have anywhere near as many jobs as many think because while it makes sense to have a ton of low cost Chinese workers in a factory, here it's cheaper to have fewer workers and more automation.

And there's also the fact China will likely raise retaliatory tariffs that will hurt much of our food industries the hardest.



This is the most persuasive argument for me to vote for Trump, but it's not enough. Supreme Court justices are important, and this one more so since it heavily shifts the balance, but Roberts, Alito, and Thomas are still plenty young, and I don't think it's likely there will be more than 2 appointments in the next four years.

Click to expand...

This is supposed to be persuasive, "A lot of that is just empty rhetoric."?? Most of what politicians say is fairly empty rhetoric, so at best your point is a wash.

There are other methods than just tariffs in an effort to rein in rogue and recalcitrant trading partners. Import quotas, sanctions, lawsuits etc...to ignore the problem is only to exacerbate the problem. We increase our trade deficits, we are over three and a half trillion in debt to China alone, we lose jobs [with the major losers being small businesses and workers while the big multinationals doing business in China help the rich get richer], we appear weak because we, in actuality, are and therefore more apt to be taken advantage of in the future.

Showing weakness, hardly ever holding China to account allows it to become bolder in its unfair trade practices, increases China's fortunes allowing it to grow in military might thus challenging us both economically and militarily. It is apparent with this communist country beginning to flex its muscles on the sea and in the air... further and further afield.

This is not the direction we should be encouraging; it does not bode well for the US nor the world at large.

Some numbers of note, in 2015 we imported from China $410 billion [ that 18% you stated ]... which is an indicator, by the way, that the US is China's largest trade partner. You say only 18% of its trade. Only? Those numbers are huge, certainly numbers that can be used to wield for influence in changing Chinese illegal and unfair practices. But you are saying we should remain the docile America we have become and not stand up for America and fellow Americans?

How much do we export to China? In 2015 it was $113 billion. Sort of an imbalance. How about the EU, how much does it import from China? $350 Billion. So less than the US. And how much does the EU export to China? About $170 Billion. So the EU has positioned itself much better...but you feel we should just slink back into the background and not be quite a bit more aggressive?

Trump, or someone like him, is just what we need at this point. There will be no world wide depression. China cannot afford it. To be afraid to play the strong hand we hold is the ultimate in weakness.

China has been in the WTO 15 years now, we should be taking them to task as diplomacy and a wait and see attitude after that long seems faulty policy. Forbearance has not worked and there is little chance of that changing unless we develop a backbone. To be always fearful of acting from strength gets one labled as weak and cowardly, we need some boldness. Reagan showed a bit how to handle currency manipulation by Japan and Germany by imposing a 10% surcharge on their imports, they soon thereafter stopped manipulating.

With the rule of thumb that for every $1 billion in trade balance there are 10, 000 jobs gained or lost, well, that amounts to a lot of American jobs. Yano?

Anagram said:

This is the most persuasive argument for me to vote for Trump, but it's not enough. Supreme Court justices are important, and this one more so since it heavily shifts the balance, but Roberts, Alito, and Thomas are still plenty young, and I don't think it's likely there will be more than 2 appointments in the next four years.

Click to expand...

I think you're wrong in this assertion. Besides, the future of the country, which has rarely been as divided as it is now, rests on the Supreme Court balance. Even if you think there's a low probability Clinton could appoint more than 2 Justices in the next four years, that's still an immense risk to take. And who knows if she'll be President for only four years.

That's an immense gamble to take, with the risk being, without exaggeration, MASSIVE changes to our understanding of gun rights, in particular, as well as other issues extremely important for the future of American conservatism, limited government, etca.

Clinton will likely legalize all illegal immigrants already in this country, adding another 11-30 million Democrats and future Democrats to the voting roll, and that number will be higher at the end of her term when it becomes clear that the way in which the border is guarded changed fundamentally under her leadership. It's going to be a radical change, that's for sure, compromising:

1. our security and;
2. adding in yet more Democrat voters, reducing the influence of the conservative demographic.

Sherman123 said:

I voted for Bush, McCain, and Romney, I've donated and volunteered for numerous GOP congressional and senate campaigns, and I refuse to back Trump.

Click to expand...

McCain and Romney were both lackluster choices. I supported both, but at the time I was frustrated that neither had real conservative chops, and both seemed particularly weak on immigration. However I voted for both because I viewed not voting out of conservative purism as tantamount to aiding and abetting Obama, who knows damn well that his victory relies on conservatives such as ourselves not turning up in droves, while his core demographic groups turn out in record numbers.

Are we going to make that mistake yet again?

Sherman123 said:

The fact that this appeal is being made as a plea to save the GOP from suicide just disgusts me even more.

Click to expand...

No one is making the appeal to save the GOP. The GOP is just a vehicle for a certain set of ideals. Those ideals are under biting attack from the Left, who are winning the cultural war in this country.

Buttressed by a Supreme Court majority, Madame President, who'll likely have the Senate behind her too, will be able to drive a fatal nail into the body of ideals you or I respect and adhere to. To save those ideals we need to keep her out of the WH.

Malloy said:

McCain and Romney were both lackluster choices. I supported both, but at the time I was frustrated that neither had real conservative chops, and both seemed particularly weak on immigration. However I voted for both because I viewed not voting out of conservative purism as tantamount to aiding and abetting Obama, who knows damn well that his victory relies on conservatives such as ourselves not turning up in droves, while his core demographic groups turn out in record numbers.

Are we going to make that mistake yet again?



No one is making the appeal to save the GOP. The GOP is just a vehicle for a certain set of ideals. Those ideals are under biting attack from the Left, who are winning the cultural war in this country.

Buttressed by a Supreme Court majority, Madame President, who'll likely have the Senate behind her too, will be able to drive a fatal nail into the body of ideals you or I respect and adhere to. To save those ideals we need to keep her out of the WH.

Click to expand...

I'm voting for Clinton. I'd rather see her in office than Trump.