Senior administration official blasts Trump in anonymous NYT op-ed

[Sighlass]

Never Trumpers do and it's on the record. The lines are drawn Trump or the Rats, you choose.

The lines are 1) Vote for democrat 2) Vote for who ever has R by their name (hopefully a real conservative) 3) Don't vote 4) Skip vote on candidate/position you can't support/decide, fill in rest of ballot 5) Write-in someone you can vote for.

For me it was a combination of 2, 4, and 5. I use option 4 when I can't find out enough about a person running for office that I will leave it to others with more knowledge to decide.

Option one (1) seems to me to have been unused (or at least publicly admitted to here) by all the members of TBR that I have seen. Perhaps a jerk or two elsewhere used that option, but here, I personally ain't seen someone admit to doing it. I know I wouldn't. If it is on record as you proclaim, it probable a rare one-offer thing.

[GrouchoTex]

The person using ‘lodestar’ in a sentence should be easy to find.  Just look for the Texan with a cold.

 

[Emjay]

Perhaps Melania is now plagiarizing Pence.

Why would you make an idiotic post like that? 

[Idiot]

"Don't think it would be necessarily a good thing??"

If Democrats ever -- and I mean ever - get control of Congress and the Presidency again, they will make structural changes that will make it impossible for Republicans/conservatives to ever win another national election.  Voting, mass legalization...it'll all happen, and will be irreversible because they'll always have the votes.  That's not even touching on what they are likely to do with the FEC, etc..  The Supreme Court won't be of much help because it takes years for cases to reach them, which is more than enough time to screw with particular elections.

So-called conservatives who are hoping for the Democrats to regain power to teach Trump and his supporters a lesson are playing with a fire that will burn down the Republic.

No truer words ever written.....

[Maj. Bill Martin]

@Maj. Bill Martin
'Hoping for' is mind reading, and incorrect. NOBODY wants the democrats.

You sure about that?  @roamer_1

Conservative George Will says vote against Republicans in midterms

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/conservative-george-will-says-vote-against-republicans-in-midterms-2018-06-23

[roamer_1]

You sure about that?  @roamer_1

Conservative George Will says vote against Republicans in midterms

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/conservative-george-will-says-vote-against-republicans-in-midterms-2018-06-23


That's not even mentioning the Bushes/Kasich's of the world who claim to be Republicans but voted for Hillary.

@Maj. Bill Martin

I vote against Republicans all the time... That doesn't mean I am voting for Democrats.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

@Maj. Bill Martin

I vote against Republicans all the time... That doesn't mean I am voting for Democrats.

I never said you did, so I have no idea why you're taking this personally.

George Will expressly called for a Democrat House, and a Democrat Senate.  If you want to keep arguing that doesn't mean he advocates voting for Democrats, I don't know what else to tell you.

[roamer_1]

I never said you did, so I have no idea why you're taking this personally.

@Maj. Bill Martin
Because I am often painted with that broad brush.

George Will expressly called for a Democrat House, and a Democrat Senate.  If you want to keep arguing that doesn't mean he advocates voting for Democrats, I don't know what else to tell you.

Who considers George Will to be conservative at all? Your original statement implied anyone voting against Republicans were 'so-called conservatives'. Voting for Republicans is not a Conservative criteria.

Conflating Republicans and Conservatism is a falsity.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

@Maj. Bill Martin
Because I am often painted with that broad brush.

Believe it or not, you are not the center of my universe.  I said absolutely nothing about you or your personal opinions, and frankly neither knew nor cared what your position was on Trump, or democrats, or any of it.  You weren't in my thoughts at all. 

Who considers George Will to be conservative at all?

He does, for one. 

Your original statement implied anyone voting against Republicans were 'so-called conservatives'.

I neither said nor implied anything of the sort. You apparently are hypersensitive about this topic because...well, I really have no idea.  Not being breast-fed as a child?  I dunno.

It was a "shoe fits" statement directed towards those "so-called conservatives" who have openly advocated giving Democrats control over Congress.  They clearly exists, and Will is a prime example.  So is Jennifer Rubin, another "so-called" (by the NYT) conservative.  If you have not done that -- and I have no idea if you have or not -- the statement didn't apply to you.  Yet here you are anyway, arguing the point.
 

Conflating Republicans and Conservatism is a falsity.

Good thing I didn't do that, then.  Perhaps you should start another thread where you accuse yourself of various misdeeds, then argue against the accusation.  Should keep you busy for awhile at least.

[Emjay]

@Maj. Bill Martin
Because I am often painted with that broad brush.

Who considers George Will to be conservative at all? Your original statement implied anyone voting against Republicans were 'so-called conservatives'. Voting for Republicans is not a Conservative criteria.

Conflating Republicans and Conservatism is a falsity.

I've noticed that NTers tend to take things very personally. 

Most of them are just bloviating when they want revenge against Republicans because a lot of them are not totally satisfactory and some of them are not even mildly satisfactory.

But the minute you take that petulance into not caring if a democrat wins because 'it will teach the Republicans a lesson' you are moving into insanity.

[roamer_1]

I've noticed that NTers tend to take things very personally. 

Most of them are just bloviating when they want revenge against Republicans because a lot of them are not totally satisfactory and some of them are not even mildly satisfactory.

But the minute you take that petulance into not caring if a democrat wins because 'it will teach the Republicans a lesson' you are moving into insanity.

@Emjay

And thus rises the ever-narcotic meme, because somehow, Republicans will stop the Democrats... In nearly fifty years of voting, the Republicans have not stopped a ding-dang thing.

Liberalism does not win on any merit.
It wins because it has no opposition.

[Frank Cannon]

@Emjay

And thus rises the ever-narcotic meme, because somehow, Republicans will stop the Democrats... In nearly fifty years of voting, the Republicans have not stopped a ding-dang thing.

Liberalism does not win on any merit.
It wins because it has no opposition.

So why do you waste your time here if it is all irrelevant?

[INVAR]

So why do you waste your time here if it is all irrelevant?

Because if limited Government Conservatism is going to survive in any capacity whatsoever, Principles must be argued, fought for and defended. 

I'm beginning to think it was a mistake to have assumed that the best place to argue steadfastness for those things is among those who either call themselves Conservative, or who thought they were voting for a party that was Conservative. 

But I'm beginning to see the error of that thinking now.  Not only have we been told that those principles are "losers" and can never win elections by members here on this very board, I see just as much contempt and loathing for those principles among self-identifying Conservatives and Republicans as one finds from the rabid Left.

Perhaps you can rejoice soon when it is decided that it is as wasted an effort of time to discuss and argue for those principles here as it would be at the D.U. and you can have the echo chamber the rest of the Trump fans want to turn the entire internet into.

[Chosen Daughter]

I've noticed that NTers tend to take things very personally. 

Most of them are just bloviating when they want revenge against Republicans because a lot of them are not totally satisfactory and some of them are not even mildly satisfactory.

But the minute you take that petulance into not caring if a democrat wins because 'it will teach the Republicans a lesson' you are moving into insanity.

ROFL.  Bloviating.  Do you ever change the channel? 



I suggest that you bloviate all over this board all the time.  And you must be pretty happy.  We now have a President who has constantly been in one scandal to another.  Nothing like having to have your cabinet subjected to lie detector tests because the big guy doesn't know how to hire help.

Nothing but the best!  Amoroza was Hillary's girl.  From one leak to another.



Incredible, but entertaining.  Plenty for FOX News to talk about.

[roamer_1]

So why do you waste your time here if it is all irrelevant?

See @INVAR 's reply, because there is no way I could say it any better.

[Chosen Daughter]

Because if limited Government Conservatism is going to survive in any capacity whatsoever, Principles must be argued, fought for and defended. 

I'm beginning to think it was a mistake to have assumed that the best place to argue steadfastness for those things is among those who either call themselves Conservative, or who thought they were voting for a party that was Conservative. 

But I'm beginning to see the error of that thinking now.  Not only have we been told that those principles are "losers" and can never win elections by members here on this very board, I see just as much contempt and loathing for those principles among self-identifying Conservatives and Republicans as one finds from the rabid Left.

Perhaps you can rejoice soon when it is decided that it is as wasted an effort of time to discuss and argue for those principles here as it would be at the D.U. and you can have the echo chamber the rest of the Trump fans want to turn the entire internet into.

We're supposed to believe that God chose Trump to move us into chaos.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

Uh.... you don't have to be a "Trump fanatic" to suspect Sessions of nefarious intentions... considering he is doing NOTHING (literally) and allowing the ongoing Mueller fishing expedition ... which he enabled by recusing himself needlessly.  If anyone should have recused, it would be Mueller.  But noooo!

@XenaLee I could be wrong, and when you put it that way I can see your point of view.  The thing is, I knew Sessions long before 2016.  He was a well established player in the GOP when he endorsed Trump. 

Congressman Hunter had name recognition because of his father, but so what?...and the other Trump endorsing congressman currently under investigation was a nobody, but Sessions was a figure.

Not known to be a go along to get along Senator.  He was actually viewed as solid conservative voice in the party.

... and what I can't wrap my head around is why?  If Session's was a soldier of the Deep State Establishment, GOPe, or whatever...Why did he endorse Trump instead of one of the other more conventional and likely GOP winners so early??? 
Nobody except @DCPatriot thought he could win the nomination at that point

...Was it just to sabotage Trump after he won the Presidency?  Who thinks like that?  Who structures their future on the destruction of their party?  It makes no sense to me.

Somebody up-thread called you a Trumpette.  That is ridiculous.  TBR is lucky to have your contributions.  I think you are intelligent, articulate, and persistent, and I enjoy our interactions.  I can honestly say you have helped me question my views.

Thank you for your reply.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

John Barron wrote the op-ed.

Nope.  It was Brett Kavanaugh.

[Chosen Daughter]

@XenaLee I could be wrong, and when you put it that way I can see your point of view.  The thing is, I knew Sessions long before 2016.  He was a well established player in the GOP when he endorsed Trump. 

Congressman Hunter had name recognition because of his father, but so what?...and the other Trump endorsing congressman currently under investigation was a nobody, but Sessions was a figure.

Not known to be a go along to get along Senator.  He was actually viewed as solid conservative voice in the party.

... and what I can't wrap my head around is why?  If Session's was a soldier of the Deep State Establishment, GOPe, or whatever...Why did he endorse Trump instead of one of the other more conventional and likely GOP winners so early??? 
Nobody except @DCPatriot thought he could win the nomination at that point

...Was it just to sabotage Trump after he won the Presidency?  Who thinks like that?  Who structures their future on the destruction of their party?  It makes no sense to me.

Somebody up-thread called you a Trumpette.  That is ridiculous.  TBR is lucky to have your contributions.  I think you are intelligent, articulate, and persistent, and I enjoy our interactions.  I can honestly say you have helped me question my views.

Thank you for your reply.

From Wikipedia

Upon the revelation that Sessions had met several times with the Russian ambassador, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham called for Sessions to recuse himself from any investigations into the connections between Russia and the Trump campaign

___________________________________________________________________________________

And now the weasel says Trump should fire him for recusing himself.  Lindsey Graham fake.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

The person using ‘lodestar’ in a sentence should be easy to find.  Just look for the Texan with a cold.

That was lame.  I'm embarrassed to say I snickered.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

Dan Rather would disagree with you.

Fake but accurate.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

And now the weasel says Trump should fire him for recusing himself.  Lindsey Graham fake.

It's funny to watch the Trumpsters decide Lindsey "the used to be effeminate" Graham is OK.
It's like watching WWF superstar "the Rock" turn heel on "Stone Cold Steve Austin" and jeering along with the script. 

[catfish1957]

See @INVAR 's reply, because there is no way I could say it any better.

Yep...  Once upon at time being a Republican law maker meant you supported fiscal responsibility, and reigning in the debt.

Sadly, those animals are extinct now I think.

[roamer_1]

Yep...  Once upon at time being a Republican law maker meant you supported fiscal responsibility, and reigning in the debt.

Sadly, those animals are extinct now I think.

There were very few times in my lifetime when they paid it anymore than lip-service.

[XenaLee]

@XenaLee I could be wrong, and when you put it that way I can see your point of view.  The thing is, I knew Sessions long before 2016.  He was a well established player in the GOP when he endorsed Trump. 

Congressman Hunter had name recognition because of his father, but so what?...and the other Trump endorsing congressman currently under investigation was a nobody, but Sessions was a figure.

Not known to be a go along to get along Senator.  He was actually viewed as solid conservative voice in the party.

... and what I can't wrap my head around is why?  If Session's was a soldier of the Deep State Establishment, GOPe, or whatever...Why did he endorse Trump instead of one of the other more conventional and likely GOP winners so early??? 
Nobody except @DCPatriot thought he could win the nomination at that point

...Was it just to sabotage Trump after he won the Presidency?  Who thinks like that?  Who structures their future on the destruction of their party?  It makes no sense to me.

Somebody up-thread called you a Trumpette.  That is ridiculous.  TBR is lucky to have your contributions.  I think you are intelligent, articulate, and persistent, and I enjoy our interactions.  I can honestly say you have helped me question my views.

Thank you for your reply.

Aw, shucks.  Thanks, Once-Ler!