Blacklisted: Drudge, Coulter, Hannity, Carson, Breitbart, O’Reilly, Christie

Breitbart ^ | March 18, 2016 | by Patrick Howley

[COUNTrecount]

Blacklisted: Drudge, Coulter, Hannity, Carson, Breitbart, O’Reilly, Christie Make GOP Smart Set’s List of ‘Ideological Hustlers’

Conservative movement professionals in Washington, D.C. are plotting to form a “blacklist” of Donald Trump supporters that they can kick out of the movement, never to return.

Several conservative talking heads and Beltway consultant types have been very angry about the rise of businessman Trump, who is pushing for American sovereignty, a reversal of neoconservative foreign policy, and competitive bidding for pharmaceuticals even though the drug companies that fund the Republican Party would take a financial hit.

So far, anti-Trump think pieces referencing William F. Buckley have been ineffective. Memes comparing Trump to Hitler haven’t worked. So these Republicans are getting more Nixon-y. They’re coming out with an Enemies List.

CNN contributor and former Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) spokeswoman Amanda Carpenter volunteered to take the lead in writing the list.

Has anyone compiled the definitive list of conservatives who should be blackballed for supporting Trump? I will if it doesn't exist.

— Amanda Carpenter (@amandacarpenter) March 16, 2016

But Carpenter, who once got called an “idiot” by Donald Trump, did not mention that she formerly defended Trump on numerous occasions. Luckily, savvy Twitter users pointed it out for her in the responses below her tweet.

Carpenter later explained the terms for inclusion on her “blacklist.”

My blacklist is limited to people who have formally endorsed Trump. Not those who simply explain the phenomenon. https://t.co/KrbutWYesO

— Amanda Carpenter (@amandacarpenter) March 17, 2016

Carpenter is not alone in calling for a blacklist. Red State contributing editor Ben Howe said that he has the resources to get a high-tech “blacklist” off the ground, as well as seed money from God knows who in the donor class.

[jaydee770]

"...The primary problem with Cruz is that he has no realistic chance of winning against Hillary or any other Democrat candidate..."

And national polling (RCP *average* of polls) shows trump consistently losing to both Clinton and Sanders by even larger margins. But you would, inexplicably, refuse to say that trump "has no realistic chance of winning against Hillary or any other Democrat candidate" despite his horrible polling head to head against Clinton and Sanders. Am I right?

"...Ted would need to win approximately 90% of the remaining delegates to get to 1237..."

I've never asserted Cruz could get to 1237. Haven't even hinted at it. Kasich either. Again, I can keep explaining it to you trump-pets, but I can’t understand it *FOR* you. Cruz or Kasich are BESIDE the point, which is that trump consistently loses over half the electorate. If you have educated yourself on “contested” vs “brokered” elections, then you are smart enough to understand what that entails for all remaining candidates at the convention. If trump can’t convince over half the electorate to pledge him over half the delegates, then he is not *entitled* to the nomination. If he wants it, he has to earn it. So far, he’s *not* earning it. He’s winning primaries in a crowded field and all that will get him is a contested primary. Righteously contested too.

"...longer that you waste your time and energy chasing moonbeams in this election the more bitter and delusional you are going to become..."

Wrong, regardless of who ultimately gets the nomination, I'll hold my nose and vote for whichever candidate opposes the dem. I don't care which it is, as I've already voted in my primary *for* Cruz. And I won't be anywhere near as bitter and delusional, if not homicidal, that you trump-pets are going to be when the GOPe snatches the nomination away from trump in a brokered convention and hands it, gift-wrapped with a big bow on top, to Kasich because you failed to garner the needed delegates outright. You trump-bots need to get to work on your beloved, recently reformed democrat and start begging him (and your fellow trump-pets) to reconsider your piss-poor "bedside manner". All you rubes voting out of rage are in the minority, evidenced by the majority of voters who are voting for anyone other than trump (back full circle, trump is currently rejected by over half the electorate, #NeverTrump, etc.). If you think he can arrive at a contested/brokered convention and claim entitlement to the nomination, the bastards in the GOPe will horse-laugh you and trump will be left to flail his pudgy little fists in civil court, and the GOPe will make sure he fails there too...

[jaydee770]

“...Trust me on this, JR isn’t messin’, even banhammered a 98’ FReeper, no warning either...”

JR needs to spray for childish cockroaches like kiryandil and other rabid, frothing trump-pets. I’ve made it clear time and time and time again that I’m voting against the dem in the General, regardless of who the GOP nominates, even if that is trump. I’ve already voted for Cruz in the primary.

My point, that the trump-pets keep ignoring and instead choose to wage a full-on flame war (which the message thread *clearly* shows they sling mud first, I merely respond to it), is that Cruz or Kasich are BESIDE the point, which is that trump consistently loses over half the electorate. If you have educated yourself on “contested” vs “brokered” elections, then you are smart enough to understand what that entails for all remaining candidates at the convention. If trump can’t convince over half the electorate to pledge him over half the delegates, then he is not *entitled* to the nomination. If he wants it, he has to earn it. So far, he’s *not* earning it. He’s winning primaries in a crowded field and all that will get him is a contested primary. Righteously contested too.

JR has ample personal integrity and intellectual honesty, unlike all these rabid trump-pets. So here’s the question for you trump-pets — If trump continues to alienate over half the electorate and fails to garner the magic number, arriving at a contested and/or brokered convention, are you rabid trump-pets going to support the GOP nominee if it’s not trump? I will! JR will! Who are you going to ban now?

[ConservingFreedom]

Name a single Republican who has stopped one.

It's likely (though probably not provable) that the Hyde Amendment led to fewer abortions than would have happened in its absence.

[ConservingFreedom]

Trump is Romney with testosterone and honesty!

It's possible that Trump sincerely means whatever he's saying at any given moment and sincerely meant it when he recently said the opposite - but I don't consider that a recommendation for the presidency.

[ConservingFreedom]

At the beginning of Dubya’s term the GOPe controlled the House, the Senate, and the Presidency.

You got to see exactly what is important to them because they could have passed whatever they wanted.

Can't argue with that. In hindsight the "compassionate" qualifier should have tipped us off. (I can say I went Constitution Party in '04.)

[ConservingFreedom]

I can keep explaining it to you trump-pets, but I can’t understand it *FOR* you.

ROTFL! "Experience is a dear teacher but fools will have no other."

[Pelham]

I had a profound dislike for Dubya dating back to his treachery during our Prop 187 campaign in California in 1994, so I voted third party both times he was up.

[Pelham]

“which is that trump consistently loses over half the electorate.”

And you know his how, exactly?

You mean the votes that Cruz and Kasich and Rubio are getting aren’t votes FOR them, but rather they are all anti-Trump votes?

Interesting Magic 8 Ball you’ve got working there.

[Lil Flower]

I think with the medical advances of today and the knowledge we now have the American people are now more than ever against abortion. The problem is the lack of political will from both sides of the isle. That, and the money to be made and the Sanger effect, the elitist idea that it’s the “undesirables” of society that are being aborted, is why it isn’t being stopped.

[MNJohnnie]

The poroblem with the poll watcherd I’d they fail to understand polls are a snap shot in time based on the pollsyers assumptions. Rather thn scream bile at people who know this much better then you, listen for once

[jaydee770]

“...And you know his how, exactly?...”

The primary results from each state. Go look. Don’t take *my* word for it.

“...You mean the votes that Cruz and Kasich and Rubio are getting aren’t votes FOR them, but rather they are all anti-Trump votes?...”

We can safely presume the vast majority are likely *for* them, but we can also safely presume *some* of the votes are against trump ( the same as *some* votes, no matter how few, given to trump are against Cruz, kasich, whatever). Heck, recent news had some folks, still undecided, who are agonizing over whether to vote for Sanders or Trump! Politics makes strange bedfellows...

Regardless, MY POINT, which you all keep conveniently avoiding — likely because you have no valid response to it, is that Cruz and Kasich are *not* going to get 1237 delegates, but they stand more than a fair chance of preventing trump from getting 1237 and forcing a contested or (worse) brokered convention. And if trump can’t sway over half the voters, then delegate counts *before* the convention no longer apply *after* a contested/brokered convention starts. The bastards in the GOPe will make sure the right delegate palms get greased with promises (and I wouldn’t be surprised if cold, hard cash was exchanged on the sly too) to give the election to anyone but trump. And they probabaly prefer Kasich.

Bottom line, if trump arrives at the convention with less than half the electorate, he has no mandate or claim to the nomination because you can also argue that more than half the electorate wanted someone else. Period. That is (and has been) my entire point. Try to rationalize it away at your peril. OR, you can get smart and start trying to *earn* well over half the delegates instead of alienating over half the electorate.

[jaydee770]

“...Rather thn scream bile at people who know this much better then you...”

It’s the trump-pets who are “screaming bile” at anyone who doesn’t lick trump’s boots with the same amount of passion they do. I certainly respond to their attacks, but I don’t throw the first personal punch - the thread illustrates that more than adequately. You making unfounded accusations, don’t make it so. And it goes to my point — why has trump been rejected by over half the electorate in primaries so far? Why do over half the voters prefer someone other than trump? Clearly, it’s his vile, venomous, invective-filled nastiness — just like his rabid trump-pets — that is likely turning those folks off. As far as trump-pets who (ahem) “know this much better than” me? Well, they certainly haven’t demonstrated that capability. One of them is so deficient, he has to tie his shoes with velcro!

[jaydee770]

I can keep explaining it to you trump-pets, but I can’t understand it *FOR* you.

There are none so blind who refuse to see. And as I have found with rabid, foaming at the mouth trump-pets, there is nothing that infuriates them more than a stubborn truth about trump that they can not refute.

[MNJohnnie]

Your error is you treat polling like hard data and then cherry pick the data that validates you emotional opinions about Trump. Polling is merely and educated guess There are 33 glaring errors in that polling you love. It assume blacks will turn out for Hillary like they did Obama that the gop turn out will be the same as 2012 and that Trump is not drawing any 1st time voters. Based on Primary turn out all of those polling assumptions are dubious

[jaydee770]

“...Polling is merely and educated guess...”

To some extent, yes. But you ignore it at your peril.

[Ohioan]

You make the fundamental mistake that dysrons like Karl Rove make, in endlessly chasing after yesterday's sentiments, rather than understanding how to change those sentiments.

The "blacklisting" that this thread discusses, is an example of how to change yesterday's sentiments; only in this case the delusional blacklisters have embarked on something that will only change public perceptions against (certainly not for) their positions.

Trump will utterly confound the blacklisters by reviving the traditional spirit and pride of Americans.

Hillary Clinton has very little chance of being elected in November, even assuming that she somehow stays on the ballot.

[Pelham]

” And if trump can’t sway over half the voters, then delegate counts *before* the convention no longer apply *after* a contested/brokered convention starts. The bastards in the GOPe will make sure the right delegate palms get greased with promises (and I wouldn’t be surprised if cold, hard cash was exchanged on the sly too) to give the election to anyone but trump. And they probabaly prefer Kasich.”

I agree with you here. The GOP Establishment will press the rules as hard as they can to further their own candidate. They don’t give a rat’s ass about what the voters want. If Trump gets 1236 on the first ballot the GOPe will deliver the nomination to their own man.

[Veracious Poet]

So you guys voted for Gore & Kerry, thanks for outing yourselves!

Does that mean you're not gonna support Trump if nominated, and vote for Hitlery too?

[Veracious Poet]

I can keep explaining it to you trump-pets, but I can’t understand it *FOR* you.

There are none so blind who refuse to see. And as I have found with rabid, foaming at the mouth trump-pets, there is nothing that infuriates them more than a stubborn truth about trump that they can not refute.

[ConservingFreedom]

So you guys voted for Gore & Kerry

Which part of "third party" did you not understand?