Breitbart coordinated with liberal activist and organizer who disrupted GOP primary campaign events

[skeeter]

For the first time,  I'm thinking seriously of not just declining to vote for Trump,  but to affirmatively - especially here in Pennsylvania, the ultimate swing state - vote for Clinton.   Not out of support for the harridan, but to send a message to Trump and his death-eaters that their day is done.   

Interesting. You do realize that this would imply that Hillary Clinton is somehow a better candidate and person than Donald Trump.

If you believe this is true I'd be interested in why you feel that way.

[XenaLee]

This was a hostile takeover of the GOP,  engineered, it appears, by Trump with the help of liberal allies. 

What conclusions may be drawn?

First, no real conservative should feel the least bit of loyalty to the top of the GOP ticket.   IMO,  the GOP simply didn't put up a candidate for President this year.   

Second,  to get our party back it is necessary to ensure Trump's utter repudiation.   For the first time,  I'm thinking seriously of not just declining to vote for Trump,  but to affirmatively - especially here in Pennsylvania, the ultimate swing state - vote for Clinton.   Not out of support for the harridan, but to send a message to Trump and his death-eaters that their day is done.   

Sorry...but....voting for Clinton is not a valid option....and will certainly never 'send a message' to Trump.  It's what he and Hillary wanted, after all.  You would give in to them like that?  I never would.  I would write in "Jesus" himself before I'd ever cast a vote for ANY damned Liberal/Democrat, New Yorker or otherwise.

[TomSea]

This was pushed by the establishment and is already debunked. More dirty tricks, the expose harmed  the Clinton campaign so much.

Politico, Megyn Kelly Rush Out Fabricated Narrative to Attack Breitbart News

Politico’s Hadas Gold and the Fox News Channel’s Megyn Kelly severely misrepresented a series of events during the Republican primaries in an attempt to attack the Breitbart News Network, Breitbart News can reveal.
In a headline out on Monday evening, Gold presented Breitbart News’s cutting edge journalism as somehow “coordination” of activities with a source.

“Breitbart coordinated with liberal activist and organizer who disrupted GOP primary campaign events,” the headline read.

The article contained a description of how Aaron Black—a progressive organizer who dressed up as Robot Rubio during the GOP primaries—did interviews with Breitbart News about his activities. It is not a surprise or news now that he did this at the time. Breitbart News featured these interviews live on the website and on this network’s SiriusXM Patriot channel 125 radio program at the time.

Read More: http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/10/24/politico-megyn-kelly-rush-fabricated-narrative-attack-breitbart-news/

[ABX]

This was pushed by the establishment and is already debunked. More dirty tricks, the expose harmed  the Clinton campaign so much.

You do realize that Breitbart, in that article, basically admits to it, they just play the 'it depends on what the definition of 'is' , is' game. They admitted in that very article they had coordinated with him and acted proud of it....

Directly from the Breitbart article:

If anything, Black is a solid source with actionable intelligence on newsworthy events about many different goings-on in the political arena—and we’re proud he has trusted us enough to work with us on a number of stories, including his work as Robot Rubio exposing the globalist Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL).

[TomSea]

This story was shown slanted at the time, Soros money is just trying to divert the truth.

With how bad the Clinton campaign trickery has been, it's rich on whom never criticizes them.

[XenaLee]

Fact: There are Republican politicians, former and current, who say they will vote for Hillary over Trump

Fact: Democrat party operatives worked to get Trump nominated, this and the Wikileaks e-mail prove it.

So, once again, everybody, tell me why I should vote for one of these 2?

I will not ever vote for a democrat running for POTUS, especially Hillary.
I have been anti-Clinton since they burst onto the national scene in 1992.
Obamacare is just Hillarycare, for those of you who remember that.

I can't vote for Trump, either.
Too far left for me, among other things.

I will write in Evan McMullin, and vote Republican the rest of the ballot.

Fact indeed.  And facts (and truth) are so very inconvenient for Trump supporters.  They have that in common with the rabid left, in 'fact'.

Speaking at the annual spring meeting of the Democracy Alliance, a liberal donor group, in California, Clinton operative David Brock dismissed Republicans’ efforts to stop Trump’s romp through the primaries as limp compared to what Democrats have waiting for him if he’s the GOP nominee.

“We sat on it all so as not to help the [Republican] candidates who might have been stronger general election candidates,” Brock said, according to his prepared remarks.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-04-12/party-operatives-clinton-v-trump-or-cruz-will-feature-lots-of-oppo-research

[Jazzhead]

Interesting. You do realize that this would imply that Hillary Clinton is somehow a better candidate and person than Donald Trump.

If you believe this is true I'd be interested in why you feel that way.

I think Clinton and Trump are both terrible candidates (one's corrupt, one's crazy) and I despise 'em both. 

However,  as a Republican,  Trump's my problem to deal with rather than Hillary.  Up to now,  I've been telling myself I'm doing my job by declining to vote for Trump,  and to instead vote for someone I respect and admire,  like McMullin or Johnson.  Now I'm having my doubts.  I'm concerned that my stance is nothing more than a cop-out, especially in a state like Pennsylvania where my vote may actually matter.   

I respect everyone who's #NeverTrump, and don't expect anyone to agree with my logic.  But if Trump's an existential threat to my nation, my party, and the philosophy of limited-government conservatism to which I've subscribed my whole adult life, then how is it not my duty to most effectively wield my vote to defeat that threat? 

I have no desire to vote "for" Hillary, but I sure as hell want to vote against Trump.  In Pennsy,  I can do the most damage to the Donald by voting for his opponent.   Is it my civic duty to do so?  Can conservatism be best supported by affirmatively defeating Trumpism rather than withdrawing from the fight at hand?    That's what my conscience is wrestling with.   

[Longmire]

Interesting. You do realize that this would imply that Hillary Clinton is somehow a better candidate and person than Donald Trump.

If you believe this is true I'd be interested in why you feel that way.

[Jazzhead]

Sorry...but....voting for Clinton is not a valid option....and will certainly never 'send a message' to Trump.  It's what he and Hillary wanted, after all.  You would give in to them like that?  I never would.  I would write in "Jesus" himself before I'd ever cast a vote for ANY damned Liberal/Democrat, New Yorker or otherwise.

I respect that stance, XenaLee.   If I didn't live in Pennsy,  I'd be following that same road. 

Whatever I end up doing at the top of the ticket,  I'm voting GOP for Senate and House.  ESPECIALLY if Hillary's the next President, she must be opposed.  She must have no mandate.   

[Sanguine]

This was pushed by the establishment and is already debunked. More dirty tricks, the expose harmed  the Clinton campaign so much.

So,  Breitbart is your source to debunk a story about Breitbart?

[ABX]

So,  Breitbart is your source to debunk a story about Breitbart?

And what's funnier, see my post right above this. Instead of debunking it, they actually confirmed the story. (some folks have to read past the title).

[Luis Gonzalez]

Donald Trump, Jr.

The Presidency is a "step down" for his dad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKNBMRIvBGQ

[EC]

I think Clinton and Trump are both terrible candidates (one's corrupt, one's crazy) and I despise 'em both. 

However,  as a Republican,  Trump's my problem to deal with rather than Hillary.  Up to now,  I've been telling myself I'm doing my job by declining to vote for Trump,  and to instead vote for someone I respect and admire,  like McMullin or Johnson.  Now I'm having my doubts.  I'm concerned that my stance is nothing more than a cop-out, especially in a state like Pennsylvania where my vote may actually matter.   

I respect everyone who's #NeverTrump, and don't expect anyone to agree with my logic.  But if Trump's an existential threat to my nation, my party, and the philosophy of limited-government conservatism to which I've subscribed my whole adult life, then how is it not my duty to most effectively wield my vote to defeat that threat? 

I have no desire to vote "for" Hillary, but I sure as hell want to vote against Trump.  In Pennsy,  I can do the most damage to the Donald by voting for his opponent.   Is it my civic duty to do so?  Can conservatism be best supported by affirmatively defeating Trumpism rather than withdrawing from the fight at hand?    That's what my conscience is wrestling with.

Ask yourself - which sends a stronger message? Reinforcing the two party system, or rejecting it completely? Just saying.

[TomSea]

Johnson, Stein and Clinton are all globalists, supporting the slaughter of innocents,  some supported by leftists like Soros.

Only Trump stands in their way, that's why people are so against him.

[Jazzhead]

Ask yourself - which sends a stronger message? Reinforcing the two party system, or rejecting it completely? Just saying.

Personally, I seek to preserve the two-party system.  When it's working properly, it forces both parties to assemble broad coalitions that temper extremism.   I'm both a conservative AND a Republican, and have ALWAYS faithfully supported the party's nominated candidates.   But this year we nominated a nutcase,  and too many of his supporters come from a planet I hardly recognize.  To save the party and conservatism,  Trumpism must be repudiated.   

[EC]

Personally, I seek to preserve the two-party system.  When it's working properly, it forces both parties to assemble broad coalitions that temper extremism.   I'm both a conservative AND a Republican, and have ALWAYS faithfully supported the party's nominated candidates.   But this year we nominated a nutcase,  and too many of his supporters come from a planet I hardly recognize.  To save the party and conservatism,  Trumpism must be repudiated.   

Fair enough.

I like having viable alternatives to the two main parties. It gives more options for the voters to hold their party accountable by switching vote if needed, and thus more say in the direction of the party. Half the bitching about the GOPe (or the Dem establishment) would simply disappear if the parties were forced to constantly woo voters with words which translated into real actions, instead of the current rounds of red meat speech to get elected, then same old shit once seated.

[txradioguy]

You just can't get enough of posting lying demo bullshit! Politico, daily beast?
I am very ashamed that this site quotes such propaganda!

Why do you defend Hillary?
That is not how republicans/conservatives work!
Your hatred for for TRump is so bad you can't see the forest for your hatred!

Why are you supporting a Liberal pretending to be a RINO who's only purpose in running is to help Hillary get elected?

Trump and his minions are the problem...not Conservatives who see him for what he really is.

[txradioguy]

So,  Breitbart is your source to debunk a story about Breitbart?

They've debunked themselves into a corner. 

[skeeter]

I think Clinton and Trump are both terrible candidates (one's corrupt, one's crazy) and I despise 'em both. 

However,  as a Republican,  Trump's my problem to deal with rather than Hillary.  Up to now,  I've been telling myself I'm doing my job by declining to vote for Trump,  and to instead vote for someone I respect and admire,  like McMullin or Johnson.  Now I'm having my doubts.  I'm concerned that my stance is nothing more than a cop-out, especially in a state like Pennsylvania where my vote may actually matter.   

I respect everyone who's #NeverTrump, and don't expect anyone to agree with my logic.  But if Trump's an existential threat to my nation, my party, and the philosophy of limited-government conservatism to which I've subscribed my whole adult life, then how is it not my duty to most effectively wield my vote to defeat that threat? 

I have no desire to vote "for" Hillary, but I sure as hell want to vote against Trump.  In Pennsy,  I can do the most damage to the Donald by voting for his opponent.   Is it my civic duty to do so?  Can conservatism be best supported by affirmatively defeating Trumpism rather than withdrawing from the fight at hand?    That's what my conscience is wrestling with.

Voting for Hillary to spite Trump seems to me to be the classic definition of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[Jazzhead]

Voting for Hillary to spite Trump seems to me to be the classic definition of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

I'm not trying to spite Trump, I seek to defeat him.  Voting third party as a protest or vanity exercise is spiting Trump.  And that's fine - I truly respect the NeverTrumps here who will do so as a matter of conscience.

But my thinking is that in a swing state, my vote may actually count for something.  And a vote for Clinton is simply a more effective means of defeating Trump than is a vote for Evan McMullin.   I've given McMullin some bucks - I admire the guy and pray he can take Utah.   But my vote is in Pennsylvania.   I seek to make it count.  I WANT MY PARTY BACK.     

[ABX]

Voting for Hillary to spite Trump seems to me to be the classic definition of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[XenaLee]

I'm not trying to spite Trump, I seek to defeat him.  Voting third party as a protest or vanity exercise is spiting Trump.  And that's fine - I truly respect the NeverTrumps here who will do so as a matter of conscience.

But my thinking is that in a swing state, my vote may actually count for something.  And a vote for Clinton is simply a more effective means of defeating Trump than is a vote for Evan McMullin.   I've given McMullin some bucks - I admire the guy and pray he can take Utah.   But my vote is in Pennsylvania.   I seek to make it count.  I WANT MY PARTY BACK.   

First of all....you won't get it back 'that way'.  Secondly....your party is no longer your party.  It has been hijacked by leftists and has morphed into a Uniparty.  Voting for either of the top two candidates (Trump or Hillary) is, at this point, giving in to the leftist "progressive" elitists that seek to remove our 'choice'.  And I will never give in to those aholes.  Never.

[musiclady]

A friend of mine just said if she votes for either of them, she'll have to ask the Lord's forgiveness afterward.

I agree.

So don't do it in the first place....

[skeeter]

I'm not trying to spite Trump, I seek to defeat him.  Voting third party as a protest or vanity exercise is spiting Trump.  And that's fine - I truly respect the NeverTrumps here who will do so as a matter of conscience.

But my thinking is that in a swing state, my vote may actually count for something.  And a vote for Clinton is simply a more effective means of defeating Trump than is a vote for Evan McMullin.   I've given McMullin some bucks - I admire the guy and pray he can take Utah.   But my vote is in Pennsylvania.   I seek to make it count.  I WANT MY PARTY BACK.   

Isn't defeating statist authoritarians embodied by people like Hillary the reason for a republican party? Won't electing her make it harder for the republican party to be effective in the future?

Isn't the POSSIBILITY, however distant, that Trump MIGHT nominate relatively reasonable SCOTUS justices and not offer mass amnesty to illegal aliens make him a marginally better choice from the average republicans POV?

[Leto]

So basically Breitbart who has been in the bag for Trump since day 1 worked with corrupt dem activist (see O'Keefe vids) to undermine Rubio.


IOW the Clinton campaign and dems wanted to run against Trump not Rubio, and of course we now see what a terrible candidate Trump is.