‘My Voice Will Be Heard!’ Livid Trump Supporter Goes Off on GOP, National Review in Video Rant

The Gateway Pundit ^ | Jan. 22, 2016 | Kristinn Taylor

[Rennes Templar]

A furious backlash is building against the full-on attack by some conservative leaders led by the National Review on leading Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump.

A woman in southern California who supports Trump posted a video overnight that has captured the mood of many Trump supporters fed up with being lectured and condescended to about what it means to be “conservative.”

Kambree Nelson, a businesswoman dedicated to supporting veterans and helping the homeless, recorded the 10:48 stream of consciousness rant after watching the Kelly File on Fox News feature guests from the National Review hit team against Trump trash her candidate–and by extension his supporters. The Trump-bashing panel consisted of Dana Loesch, Brent Bozell and Katie Pavlich.

Nelson titled the video “I am LIVID at the GOP”. Speaking about the video on her Twitter account, Nelson called herself “one ANGRY American.”

Nelson says in the beginning of the video:

“…I am one of the noisy majority and I am one of the people that is voting for Donald Trump. And guess what GOP, and guess what Tea Party, I am a conservative.

“And what you guys said up there tonight was completely offensive to me. I never knew that there was a handbook that we had to abide by to be considered conservative to vote in this next election. Do I have to come to a tea party to be able to be considered considerate–and to be conservative.

“It was astonishing to me tonight. Why are we having these elections if the election has to be based upon what you guys say? Who is voting, you or the People voting?…”

Nelson is set to be a host on the upcoming Veterans TV Network in June.

[Mears]

Could you guys just shake hands and make up?

Yikes !!!!!

.

[GunRunner]

I'm not throwing a fit at all. I just don't take your retort seriously.

You've spent hundreds of words trying to prove an irrelevant point. Not only is it mind-numbingly boring and meaningless, it's wrong.

I was responding to the statement "Funny how the Spineless Elites, who never attacked Obama, have no problem fighting Trump."

The poster never said anything about their criticism being confined ONLY to before he was elected.

It would also be incorrect, since there were at least two cover stories attacking the Obamas in 2008, including one written by Rich Lowry, the EDITOR of the magazine:

Plus, you would have to ignore the numerous 2008 writings of those in the anti-Trump article.

But I needed to make no such distinction since there was no qualifier of criticism before he was elected in the original comment.

Why you've wasted so much time trying to make such a dumb (and incorrect) argument, will show to any impartial observer that the foolish, childish, panty wetting, incogent ramblings are only coming from you.

[GilesB]

Pffffffft! I choose to ignore your mind-numbing stupidity.

[GunRunner]

The only thing you're ignoring is facts. Your assertion is wrong; the evidence is clear. National Review not only had plenty of negative Obama coverage in 2008, there were numerous anti-Obama cover stories 2008.

You can piss and moan all you want, but this silly little bone you've been holding onto is hereby debunked: