The traitorous cadre of slimy Republicans

[unknown]

The traitorous cadre of slimy Republicans

http://www.wnd.com/2016/08/the-traitorous-cadre-of-slimy-republicans/

Exclusive: Larry Klayman rips 'conservatives' content with seeing a President Hillary

Aug. 19, 2016
Larry Klayman

It’s not just the George Soroses of the world that are attempting to destroy our beloved republic – just this week it was disclosed that this vile, self-hating, Nazi-collaborating, ultra-leftist Jew is largely behind the financing of Black Lives Matter – but certain so-called conservatives who are out to see that Hillary Clinton and a Democratic Senate and House are elected this November. If this occurs, the Wicked Witch of the Left, along with her comrades, will have free reign to finish the job President Barack Hussein Obama, our socialist Muslim king, has been pursuing for eight years.

The motivation of these traitors: to defeat Donald J. Trump so their money gravy and power train can continue at least until 2020, when they will attempt to run “their candidate,” someone like Sen. Ted Cruz or Gov. John Kasich (or perhaps even a “resurrected” Mitt Romney) against her. In short, these selfish and greedy political hacks would sink the nation into a sea of even more criminality under the Clintons and allow the Wicked Witch and her Soros-like benefactors to pack the Supreme Court with even worse justices than we now are forced to endure.

Who are these disloyal conservatives among our ranks? Sean Hannity, who is one of the few conservative commentators to call it like it is, calls them “Republican crybabies,” their having previously lost in their bid to defeat Trump in the primaries. While Sean is being diplomatic about this, I cannot be. This disgusting display of treason cannot be overlooked, even if I am not endorsing any candidate, as head of Freedom Watch.

At the top of this traitorous cadre of slimy self-serving Republicans are the likes of Cruz and Kasich...

{..snip..}

[truth_seeker]

And slimy democrats, too

[unknown]

And slimy democrats, too

Oh that is really good!

 

[andy58-in-nh]

Trumpism has among its most ardent advocates former conservatives who have now eagerly embraced a poisonous and hateful strain of American nationalist populism. And they are eager now to redefine conservatism to suit their own policy preferences, including economic protectionism, isolationism, and at least, a tacit embrace of white supremacist ideology.

Honest and intellectually coherent Conservatives will reject both socialism and fascism, and embrace ordered liberty and the rule of law, as they always have.  To oppose Trump is not to support Clinton: it is to recognize the fatal flaws and essential deceitfulness of both. The charge of "disloyalty" against American Constitutionalists who oppose Trumpism reveals more about the accusers than the accused.   

[sinkspur]

[geronl]

Trump and the people he has endorsed are the slimies

[geronl]

better title:

Welcome to the Gang of 8, Mr Trump!

[Cripplecreek]

Trumpism has among its most ardent advocates former conservatives who have now eagerly embraced a poisonous and hateful strain of American nationalist populism. And they are eager now to redefine conservatism to suit their own policy preferences, including economic protectionism, isolationism, and at least, a tacit embrace of white supremacist ideology.

Honest and intellectually coherent Conservatives will reject both socialism and fascism, and embrace ordered liberty and the rule of law, as they always have.  To oppose Trump is not to support Clinton: it is to recognize the fatal flaws and essential deceitfulness of both. The charge of "disloyalty" against American Constitutionalists who oppose Trumpism reveals more about the accusers than the accused.   

Constitutional conservatism or death.

Their move.

[Oceander]

How's it feel having your noses rubbed in the fact that you're all chumps who got pwned by Trump big time?

[jmyrlefuller]

Let's see.

We have antisemitism:

Just this week it was disclosed that this vile, self-hating, Nazi-collaborating, ultra-leftist Jew

We have an egotistical personal vendetta:

To line his own pockets, Little Ben, undoubtedly at Fitton’s direction, removed any mention of me from Judicial Watch’s biographical history.

We have a string of petty, personal insults:

slimy self-serving Republicans are the likes of Cruz and Kasich. Cruz, the man who lacks even the ability to give a speech where he does not sound like a less eloquent pontificating dictatorial version of Mussolini before a panel of appellate court judges

Kasich, regrettably the present governor of that failure of a state Ohio and a native son of that crumbling and polluted mistake of a city on Lake Erie

a high-pitched, devilish-looking elf known as Ben Shapiro, a young punk who thinks and acts as if he is smarter than he is. Just this week, this self-appointed, Cruz-backing hack of the minor leagues of conservative commentators

And we have a threat of violence:

revolt. I, for one, chose the latter!

What a winning argument.

The worst part is, there are a whole boatload of Republicans who have explicitly endorsed Clinton, where Klayman's unhinged wrath would be well-directed. Yet he doesn't. His enemy, like so many others, is Cruz.

[TomSea]

Never Trumpers can not acknowledge that among the Cruz supporters:

Cruz supported legal status for those illegally in the US which Trump is now being said to be doing. So, it is said, Trump is offering up amnesty.

Cruz can’t fully fault his supporters for misunderstanding him. He himself has summarized Obama’s immigration programs as “executive amnesty.” More generally, it’s been obvious from the outset of Cruz’s campaign that his strategy of trying to out-conservative everyone else carries the risk that he’ll be taken to task when any such misunderstandings come to light. In this case, his task should be easy enough. He’s already made the case that the difference between a pathway to citizenship and a pathway to legal status is more than merely symbolic. He can, and should, make it again. I think it’s revisionist for Cruz’s supporters to argue that he didn’t really support any form of legal status in 2013, that it was all a ploy. It’s also an odd line of defense, because it’s tantamount to insisting that he was lying through his teeth in 2013. And ultimately, it seems counterproductive: if Cruz disavows his support for any form of legalization now, he’d be conceding Rubio’s point that the two are equivalent, and that either can be properly defined as amnesty.

http://www.texasmonthly.com/burka-blog/ted-cruz-amnesty-enthusiast/

Ah, but Cruz held a rally with Trump, had a "bromance", but now, Trump is not the conservative? He is now the NY Liberal?? Really.

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/12/did-cruz-support-legalization/

[geronl]

the traitorous ones have just flipped to amnesty, lol

[GrouchoTex]

"The motivation of these traitors: to defeat Donald J. Trump so their money gravy and power train can continue at least until 2020, when they will attempt to run “their candidate,” someone like Sen. Ted Cruz or Gov. John Kasich (or perhaps even a “resurrected” Mitt Romney) against her."

One fatal flaw in this argument:

Trump cannot fight Hillary on pay for play, (however hard he may try) as he has admitted he has done so, and to the Clinton's.
This makes him like Romney.
Romney couldn't fight Obama on Obamacare, as he had launched Romney care.

Blasting the 60% of republicans who did not vote to nominate Trump is also a very stupid strategy.

Stop Blaming Cruz, Kasich, Romney, etc.
They are not running.
Give us something to vote for, not against.

[unknown]

"The motivation of these traitors: to defeat Donald J. Trump so their money gravy and power train can continue at least until 2020, when they will attempt to run “their candidate,” someone like Sen. Ted Cruz or Gov. John Kasich (or perhaps even a “resurrected” Mitt Romney) against her."

One fatal flaw in this argument:

Trump cannot fight Hillary on pay for play, (however hard he may try) as he has admitted he has done so, and to the Clinton's.
This makes him like Romney.
Romney couldn't fight Obama on Obamacare, as he had launched Romney care.

Blasting the 60% of republicans who did not vote to nominate Trump is also a very stupid strategy.

Stop Blaming Cruz, Kasich, Romney, etc.
They are not running.
Give us something to vote for, not against.

I understand what you are saying, but I believe there is one fatal flaw in your argument.

Trump cannot fight Hillary on pay for play, (however hard he may try) as he has admitted he has done so, and to the Clinton's.

The difference here is that Trump was coming at it from the other side. And you are correct, Trump has admitted it - he was in that system. But here is the difference. Clinton's were taking the bribes. Trump was paying the bribes. This is more of an "if then", not an "equivalence statement". So, this does not make Clinton = Trump, and then this does not make him like Romney. I totally agree that Romney = Clinton, because they were playing on the same side and the equivalence holds.

[geronl]

Clinton's were taking the bribes. Trump was paying the bribes.

equally bad.

Only a Trumpcuck would think that's acceptable

[jmyrlefuller]

Never Trumpers can not acknowledge that among the Cruz supporters:

Cruz supported legal status for those illegally in the US which Trump is now being said to be doing. So, it is said, Trump is offering up amnesty.

http://www.texasmonthly.com/burka-blog/ted-cruz-amnesty-enthusiast/

Ah, but Cruz held a rally with Trump, had a "bromance", but now, Trump is not the conservative? He is now the NY Liberal?? Really.

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/12/did-cruz-support-legalization/

You say that as if one issue is all at stake.

It is, in fact, many more. Yes, Cruz and Trump's stated positions may be equal on some issues, but on most others, Trump is actually quite far to the left, as most New York City politicians (both Democrat and Republican) tend to be.

[geronl]

You say that as if one issue is all at stake.

It is, in fact, many more. Yes, Cruz and Trump's stated positions may be equal on some issues, but on most others, Trump is actually quite far to the left, as most New York City politicians (both Democrat and Republican) tend to be.

Trump is a Donnie-come-lately to any of these conservative causes and switches on a dime while Cruz has always been staunchly conservative and always will.

[Cripplecreek]

You say that as if one issue is all at stake.

It is, in fact, many more. Yes, Cruz and Trump's stated positions may be equal on some issues, but on most others, Trump is actually quite far to the left, as most New York City politicians (both Democrat and Republican) tend to be.

Just a couple of other issues off the top of my head.

The first amendment, Cruz has been rock solid on and Trump has repeatedly threatened infringements.

The Feds and Land use, Ted Cruz has and is still working to strip the feds of power over millions of acres while Trump says he doesn't trust the states with their own land management.

[jmyrlefuller]

Oh... and by the way... the more you read about Larry Klayman... the more entertaining his story becomes!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Klayman

Suing his own mother, vexatious litigation, paranoid conspiracy theories (including both Obama and Cruz birtherism, and a lawsuit claiming that Obama brought ebola here to kill white people) and he's been banned from two courtrooms and censured at least one other time for his derangement.

This guy makes Trump look sane.

[HonestJohn]

equally bad.

Only a Trumpcuck would think that's acceptable

Can we not adopt the language of the "alt-right"?  (Note: The term "alt-right" is the Politically Correct way of referring to the skinheads, klansmen, neo-Nazis, and white supremacists found on the right)