More than 120 former Republican officials hold Zoom meeting to discuss forming breakaway anti-Trump

[mystery-ak]

More than 120 former Republican officials hold Zoom meeting to discuss forming breakaway anti-Trump third party based on 'principled conservatism' - as ex-president's spokesman brands them 'losers'

    Evan McMullin, who ran as president in 2016, held a Zoom call last week
    On the call were 120 former Republican officials concerned about their party
    They discussed forming a new party based on 'principled conservatism'
    Names floated included the Integrity Party and the Center Right Party
    They were dismayed by January 6 vote from over half Republicans in Congress
    Eight senators and 139 representatives voted to stop certification of Biden's win
    Trump's spokesman Jason Miller dismissed the 120 people as 'losers'

By Reuters and Harriet Alexander For Dailymail.com

Published: 21:38 EST, 10 February 2021 | Updated: 04:26 EST, 11 February 2021

More than a hundred former Republican officials, who view the party as unwilling to stand up to former President Donald Trump, are in talks to form a center-right breakaway party, four people involved in the discussions told Reuters.

The early stage discussions include former elected Republicans, former officials in the Republican administrations of Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush and Trump, ex-Republican ambassadors and Republican strategists, the people involved say.

More than 120 of them held a Zoom call last Friday to discuss the breakaway group, which would run on a platform of 'principled conservatism,' including adherence to the Constitution and the rule of law - ideas those involved say have been trashed by Trump.

more
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9248011/Dozens-former-Republican-officials-talks-form-anti-Trump-party.html

[sneakypete]

I love it when my enemies self-identify.

[PeteS in CA]

Lincoln Project reunion?

[skeeter]

Whats anti-conservative about putting the country first?

[roamer_1]

Whats anti-conservative about putting the country first?

It depends on what that actually means... That's the problem with bumper sticker sloganeering.

But as far as Eggin McMuffin and company are concerned, have no fear - There ain't a principle among them either.

[skeeter]

It depends on what that actually means... That's the problem with bumper sticker sloganeering.

But as far as Eggin McMuffin and company are concerned, have no fear - There ain't a principle among them either.

I'm referring to MOST policies promoted by x45 compared to the policies China Joe is pursuing.

[PeteS in CA]

Whats anti-conservative about putting the country first?

One of the things Trump said early in his Presidency, to which the MSM predictably gave scant notice, is that all countries' leaders should put their countries first. I guess you could call that "Nationalism", but it's nothing like the nationalism of Hitler or Mussolini.

[roamer_1]

I'm referring to MOST policies promoted by x45 compared to the policies China Joe is pursuing.

Be that as it may, neither one can call itself conservative. That is a discreet and defined set of principles. Yet another hyphenated 'conservatism' rises to bid.

[skeeter]

One of the things Trump said early in his Presidency, to which the MSM predictably gave scant notice, is that all countries' leaders should put their countries first. I guess you could call that "Nationalism", but it's nothing like the nationalism of Hitler or Mussolini.

Thats right. Nationalism has nothing to do with racism or aggressive expansionism, although the left would have us believe otherwise.

[skeeter]

Be that as it may, neither one can call itself conservative. That is a discreet and defined set of principles. Yet another hyphenated 'conservatism' rises to bid.

Frankly I don't care what it's called, as long as it has America's interests and the originalist's Constitution at its core.

[roamer_1]

One of the things Trump said early in his Presidency, to which the MSM predictably gave scant notice, is that all countries' leaders should put their countries first. I guess you could call that "Nationalism", but it's nothing like the nationalism of Hitler or Mussolini.

Without anything to anchor it, yes in fact, it is. Or rather, can be.

[roamer_1]

Frankly I don't care what it's called, as long as it has America's interests and the originalist's Constitution at its core.

That ain't as pretty as it looks.

[skeeter]

That ain't as pretty as it looks.

As the policy of my government it'll do just fine.

Of course it takes a moral and religious people to maintain it properly, but thats the individual responsibility of each one of us.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Frankly I don't care what it's called, as long as it has America's interests and the originalist's Constitution at its core.

 

[catfish1957]

Anyone with any brain matter knows this isn't the 3rd party we had in mind.  The "Center-Right" description screams RINO bastards like a flashing neon sign.

In fact here is a snap shot of the zoom call...

[catfish1957]

Any true working 3rd party is going to have to have a strong 50 state base, and at least 10-20% of the existing most conservative in DC. To really get this going to have any success by 2024, better start pretty quickly.

[roamer_1]

As the policy of my government it'll do just fine.

Predictably, no it won't.

Of course it takes a moral and religious people to maintain it properly, but thats the individual responsibility of each one of us.

That's right.

[Axeslinger]

Anyone with any brain matter knows this isn't the 3rd party we had in mind.  The "Center-Right" description screams RINO bastards like a flashing neon sign.

This is nothing but a Trojan horse to destroy the movement for conservatives to splinter off.

This group forms their own party
Conservatives say good riddance, now the Republican Party is more conservative like we want it to be.
Then when the Conservative party movement has sufficiently lost momentum, this group rejoins the Republican Party and we’re back to the status quo

[rangerrebew]

@Right_in_Virginia

I feel the same way, but this gives me a lot of cause to fear what could happen.  Presumably, this number gives us a good look at the number of rhios in congress.  The part that bothers me is the old divide and conquer strategy, used brilliantly by Robert E. Lee in the Civil War, is being used today by the left in what is another Civil War.  I say these 120 people are doing what Lee did, especially if Trump forms a party.  The time between seeking members and formation would be enough for the communist left to totally seize control of government.  While the left gets more united, hateful, and aggressive, the right becomes more namby pamby, intimidated, and divided which can spell nothing but disaster.  And with the houses of congress so evenly divided, the next election could turn back Americans to the way they should be which means the left has got to steal America in the next two years.

[Longiron]

More than 120 former Republican officials hold Zoom meeting to discuss forming breakaway anti-Trump third party based on 'principled conservatism' - as ex-president's spokesman brands them 'losers'

    Evan McMullin, who ran as president in 2016, held a Zoom call last week
    On the call were 120 former Republican officials concerned about their party
    They discussed forming a new party based on 'principled conservatism'
    Names floated included the Integrity Party and the Center Right Party
    They were dismayed by January 6 vote from over half Republicans in Congress
    Eight senators and 139 representatives voted to stop certification of Biden's win
    Trump's spokesman Jason Miller dismissed the 120 people as 'losers'

By Reuters and Harriet Alexander For Dailymail.com

Published: 21:38 EST, 10 February 2021 | Updated: 04:26 EST, 11 February 2021

More than a hundred former Republican officials, who view the party as unwilling to stand up to former President Donald Trump, are in talks to form a center-right breakaway party, four people involved in the discussions told Reuters.

The early stage discussions include former elected Republicans, former officials in the Republican administrations of Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush and Trump, ex-Republican ambassadors and Republican strategists, the people involved say.

More than 120 of them held a Zoom call last Friday to discuss the breakaway group, which would run on a platform of 'principled conservatism,' including adherence to the Constitution and the rule of law - ideas those involved say have been trashed by Trump.

more
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9248011/Dozens-former-Republican-officials-talks-form-anti-Trump-party.html

BS and fake NEWS. 120 on a ZOOM Call. Tried 10 yesterday and does not work correctly. If a NEW PARTY is formed it will be a OPPOSITION to the REPUBLICAN Party. TRUMP does not have nor ever had control of the REPUBLICAN PARTY.

[skeeter]

Predictably, no it won't.

That's right.

Lol. You just rejected the literal description of the government Ben Franklin challenged us to keep.

[roamer_1]

Lol. You just rejected the literal description of the government Ben Franklin challenged us to keep.

No, I have not.

The Constitution does not address fiscal matters, as an instance, nor does it address social matters (as you have already admitted upthread)...

There is a prism through which the Constitution MUST be viewed in order to gain a rightful interpretation. And without that prism as it were, almost anything goes.

There is a comparable parallel in religion, where orthodoxy is robbed of its authority by well meaning folks who use a loosened interpretation to malform the very purpose of the religion, all unawares, to the point that the religion is no longer viable according to its original purpose.

That is the beauty of Conservatism, preserving extra-circularly by way of principles, the correct interpretation... Defining the 'good and moral people' you had mentioned earlier. You will preserve nothing without Conservative principles, and the governance possible from the Constitution without them should scare you.

[skeeter]

No, I have not.

The Constitution does not address fiscal matters, as an instance, nor does it address social matters (as you have already admitted upthread)...

There is a prism through which the Constitution MUST be viewed in order to gain a rightful interpretation. And without that prism as it were, almost anything goes.

There is a comparable parallel in religion, where orthodoxy is robbed of its authority by well meaning folks who use a loosened interpretation to malform the very purpose of the religion, all unawares, to the point that the religion is no longer viable according to its original purpose.

That is the beauty of Conservatism, preserving extra-circularly by way of principles, the correct interpretation... Defining the 'good and moral people' you had mentioned earlier. You will preserve nothing without Conservative principles, and the governance possible from the Constitution without them should scare you.

I guess I don’t see conservatism as a political construct but more a condition of the individual’s soul. Again, the constitution is fine as originally written and will enable the order you describe if the voters have their heads and hearts right. You can’t force that from the top down.

Your beef is with the progressivism of the past 150 years and more specifically with its author, the Old Man, the Father of Lies of the Old Testament. It certainly isnt with me or most of those like me.

[libertybele]

Any true working 3rd party is going to have to have a strong 50 state base, and at least 10-20% of the existing most conservative in DC. To really get this going to have any success by 2024, better start pretty quickly.

3rd party win?  Realistically never going to happen; the DEMS will change the rules to gain ballot access for 3rd parties, they will change the electoral process and they could even refuse to allow a 3rd party to even run.  Ballot integrity is gone; it flew out the window and we have no DOJ worth a dang, including SCOTUS.

New party inserted into a renewed constitutional govt.  Yes, to have any success, a leadership team is needed very quickly. 

Build on the Constitution Party is a consideration; but they need leadership and a whole lot of $$$.  They've never achieved getting on the ballot in all 50 states...again who knows what rules the DEMS will come up with to stay in power.

[libertybele]

No, I have not.

The Constitution does not address fiscal matters, as an instance, nor does it address social matters (as you have already admitted upthread)...

There is a prism through which the Constitution MUST be viewed in order to gain a rightful interpretation. And without that prism as it were, almost anything goes.

There is a comparable parallel in religion, where orthodoxy is robbed of its authority by well meaning folks who use a loosened interpretation to malform the very purpose of the religion, all unawares, to the point that the religion is no longer viable according to its original purpose.

That is the beauty of Conservatism, preserving extra-circularly by way of principles, the correct interpretation... Defining the 'good and moral people' you had mentioned earlier. You will preserve nothing without Conservative principles, and the governance possible from the Constitution without them should scare you.

The Constitution addresses the power, responsibilities and limitations of the three branches of government and the rights of the states and the people.

Serious deviation from from those powers, responsibilities and limitations has taken place by both parties and power has been taken away from the states little by little and our rights have been infringed.

The Constitution is being ignored by all branches of government.

Get back to adhering strictly to the Constitution and our Republic will be renewed.  Getting leadership to form a party to do just that is IMHO what is needed and once that party is built -- raise the Stars and Stripes proudly!