• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

‘Never Trump’ national-security Republicans fear they have been blacklisted

S

sanman

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 22, 2015
Messages
11,994
Reaction score
4,635
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Ohh, boo-freakin-hoo! The poor whiny NeoCons feel excluded! Tough luck, buttercups.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...fadf54-d9a3-11e6-b8b2-cb5164beba6b_story.html

They are some of the biggest names in the Republican national security firmament, veterans of past GOP administrations who say, if called upon by President-elect Donald Trump, they stand ready to serve their country again.

But their phones aren’t ringing. Their entreaties to Trump Tower in New York have mostly gone unanswered. In Trump world, these establishment all-stars say they are “PNG” — personae non gratae.

Their transgression was signing one or both of two public “Never Trump” letters during the campaign, declaring they would not vote for Trump and calling his candidacy a danger to the nation.
Click to expand...
 
sanman said:
Ohh, boo-freakin-hoo! The poor whiny NeoCons feel excluded! Tough luck, buttercups.

They are some of the biggest names in the Republican national security firmament, veterans of past GOP administrations who say, if called upon by President-elect Donald Trump, they stand ready to serve their country again.

But their phones aren’t ringing. Their entreaties to Trump Tower in New York have mostly gone unanswered. In Trump world, these establishment all-stars say they are “PNG” — personae non gratae.

Their transgression was signing one or both of two public “Never Trump” letters during the campaign, declaring they would not vote for Trump and calling his candidacy a danger to the nation.
Click to expand...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...fadf54-d9a3-11e6-b8b2-cb5164beba6b_story.html
Click to expand...

If true they have no one to blame but themselves. After all, they voluntarily blacklisted themselves by adding their names to those #NeverTrump lists. :shrug:

Of course, they did this back when they had a firm belief that he could never get elected and expected no consequences for their actions.

But who in their right minds would then expect to be appointed to any post of trust by the very person they had previously declared their enemy? :screwy
 
Last edited:
I can remember when this happened and wished for the day for him to be elected and tell them to kiss off. Hell, they, most of them, are so wrapped up in the hows and whys but not what to do and then doing it and so we have been screwed foreign policy wise for years. Lets let fresh, yet experienced, eyes to look at the existing problems then lets gets some fresh ideas.

To paraphrase Trump, what have we got to lose?
 
If these morons are so stupid to think that Trump would be calling them, I'm glad he's not, I don't want those dummies doing anything that could affect us.
 
Mr Person said:
You approve of bullying tactics?
Click to expand...

OpportunityCost said:
You have 3 things in DC: skills, loyalty and your word. If you sell out 2 of the 3, you don't have a job in DC.
Click to expand...



I suppose I'm not particularly sympathetic for people who signed a letter but didn't do much more to stop Trump - because they just wanted Hillary to lose - and are now chagrined that they aren't going to be allowed on this ultra-nepotist gravy-train.

They opposed him because he said he wasn't going to support this kind of cronyism. The idiots actually believed him. Now that his appointments prove he was lying out of every last molecule of his ***hole (about being anti-DC, anti-WallStreet elite), they want in? They're going to whine about it?

And we're going to then, in turn, cheer on Trump's vengeful cronyism?





Color me disgusted, 9 ways from Sunday.
 
Mr Person said:
You approve of bullying tactics?
Click to expand...

So not hiring people who actively went against you is bullying now. You might want to look up what that word means. So tell me was it bullying when Obama didn't nominate republicans for important positions or is it only bullying when a Republican does it.
 
It's one thing if you just don't like one candidate or another. However, if you're going to go on a freakin' crusade over it, then you need to man up to any consequences that may arise.
 
Mr Person said:
I suppose I'm not particularly sympathetic for people who signed a letter but didn't do much more to stop Trump - because they just wanted Hillary to lose - and are now chagrined that they aren't going to be allowed on this ultra-nepotist gravy-train.

They opposed him because he said he wasn't going to support this kind of cronyism. The idiots actually believed him. Now that his appointments prove he was lying out of every last molecule of his ***hole (about being anti-DC, anti-WallStreet elite), they want in? They're going to whine about it?

And we're going to then, in turn, cheer on Trump's vengeful cronyism?




Color me disgusted, 9 ways from Sunday.
Click to expand...

Its not vengeful cronyism. He needs to be able to trust them. He can't. I am not cheering it, but I understand it.
 
OpportunityCost said:
You have 3 things in DC: skills, loyalty and your word. If you sell out 2 of the 3, you don't have a job in DC.
Click to expand...

Lol, if that were the case then virtually all of the politicians in DC would be out of a job. There are few that even have 1 of those.
 
Nap said:
Lol, if that were the case then virtually all of the politicians in DC would be out of a job. There are few that even have 1 of those.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but it explains a lot of party loyalty.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Maybe, but it explains a lot of party loyalty.
Click to expand...

Party loyalty is the problem with American politics. They should be showing loyalty to the people they represent 1st, the American people in general 2nd, then the party. We see too often the needs of the party taking precedent over the other 2.
 
Are they being avoided because we already know they do not believe in our leader or are they being avoided because their life's work usually sucks?

And do I care?
 
Nap said:
Party loyalty is the problem with American politics. They should be showing loyalty to the people they represent 1st, the American people in general 2nd, then the party. We see too often the needs of the party taking precedent over the other 2.
Click to expand...

Some of that was upended this election cycle, but you see how its spun.
 
sanman said:
Ohh, boo-freakin-hoo! The poor whiny NeoCons feel excluded! Tough luck, buttercups.
Click to expand...

Right. They probably are worried the VA hospitals will run out of patients if they don't get a job and drum up some business with another war.
 
This is hilarious:

Last week, the Trump transition held a private briefing for secretary-of-state nominee Rex Tillerson to prepare him for his Senate confirmation hearing. One former Bush national security official who works at a Washington think tank said that some of his younger staff assistants were invited to participate but that he was not. He assumes it was because he signed the letter.

“It’s hostile,” :shock: said this person, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of further retribution. “It’s not just that we’re frozen out. . . . I was told they said there was an enemies list.”
Click to expand...

It's hostile? No ****! An "enemies list"? As in Richard Nixon? Well, duh! :lamo Unlike Nixon, Trump didn't even have to make one. You gave it to him when you signed your names to public letters saying Trump would be "dangerous," "not qualified to be president" and "would put at risk our country's national security and well-being."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom