Posted on 09/06/2016 4:49:42 PM PDT by maggief
Good night to you too. Don't forget to take your meds. You obviously skipped them the night before.
LOL ! Ain’t it the truth !
GOP says, Vote Trump. But if your principles won’t let you, Hillary is OK.
I am glad to hear this.
But, his drawn-out equivocation and stubborn refusal to oppose Hellery by endorsing the PEOPLE’s CHOICE against her has done a lot of damage to his reputation.
I seem to remember that there was some kind of PLEDGE to support the Republican Nominee...wasn’t there?
Yes. And Trump is RIGHT about trade. We don’t HAVE free trade. We have our trading “partners” overtaxing OUR goods, manipulating the currency, and screwing us in assorted other ways. Sure, we can induce businesses to relocate here by reducing taxes and regulations - which we should do anyway. But as long as we allow pirates like China to fleece our manufacturers, why should business come here? Also, NAFTA and TPP also contain hidden clauses that have NOTHING to do with trade per se, but are infringements on our national sovereignty. They are the camel’s nose of an EU type arrangement here.
Cruz might have been right on the issues, but he has a rancid personality, and offensive demeanor and is a scheming liar. He vastly underperformed Trump in the primaries for that reason. NOBODY in Washington likes him even his most conservative peers. He would NEVER even run neck and neck with Hillary.
I believe in the Constitution and limited government. But running on that issue solely would have appealed only to purists. The average American today, fortunately or not, is only concerned mainly with being safe from Islamist Terrorists, not being overrun by Mexican drug lords and criminals, corruption and abuse of power in Washington, the pitiful economy, job loss, and our erosion of prestige under a professorial idiot in the White House.
Trump addresses all those. He is an unalloyed PATRIOT who LOVES his country. Further, his list of prospective judges for SCOTUS indicates he is a constitutional originalist even though he may not elaborate on the subject, or perhaps even fully understand it.
Mark Levin is finally supporting him and that is good. But if he keeps qualifying that support, he may be relegated to the same political irrelevance as Glenn Beck.
I still listen to Rush when I can. Haven’t heard him bash Trump; most of the time he’s doing that to Hillary. I don’t believe he is a #neverTrumper, especially since the convention. Levin on the other hand has been out and out nasty against Trump. I used to listen to him more frequently than Rush - not now; I switch him off when he comes on.
Too little too late Mark, and here’s why:
You #nevertrumps are intellectually dishonest. You’re hoping nobody will remember your original objections, and nobody will notice your objection changed completely over the course of the year.
At first, the big objection was that Trump wasn’t a conservative. Remember? He had contributed to democrats in the past, he was pro choice in the past, etc. The warning was that we were being sold down the river. He would fold like a cheap tent and reveal himself to be a liberal.
Now a year later he has not budged one iota from his conservative positions, and in fact is proving to be the most stout conservative nominee in modern history.
You were proven wrong Mark, and instead of admitting it, your pride has led you to revise your reasons for objecting to Trump. Now it’s because he uttered the word “tariffs” that you can’t support him.
I call bullsh!t. Get over your pride and admit you were wrong: Trump is a conservative. I guess since you make your living as a political analyst, the idea that you, Mr Smarty Pants, got this whole thing wrong from the beginning - that you completely misread Donald Trump - is very humiliating.
BFD!
I don’t care if he goes to your home,. I alm elated that he is back with us.
Bingo.
You do not survive in business, and particularly in retail and hospitality, unless you prove yourself to be a reliable man.
The fact that Trump has proven such an outstanding success in this fields is good enough for me to think he’s a better choice for President than a Canadian
> I call bullsh!t. Get over your pride and admit you were wrong...
The people who were wrong were the ones who classified Levin as a NeverTrumper. It was clear all along that though he disliked Trump, he disliked Hillary more.
This is what I wrote here on June 23, “Rush isn’t a NeverTrumper. I haven’t listened to Levin in the last week or so, but I’d be surprised if he turns out to be. Anyone who has heard his positions on the issues knows that they are closer to those of Trump than to those of Hillary. I don’t doubt that he’ll criticize Hillary more than he does Trump between now and the election, and be surprised if he doesn’t explicitly recommend voting for Trump.” http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3442760/posts#38
Fine. I guess if Levin reluctantly says he’ll hold his nose and vote for Trump, because he’s not as bad as Clinton, then technically, he is not a #neverTrump.
So, I’ll call him a #neverLikeTrump. Or a #Never Say Anything Good About Trump.
The point remains that these #whatever Trumps who can’t bring themselves to advocate for Trump, except to say that Clinton would be worse, are not the principled ‘conscientious objectors’ that they claim to be.
They are stubborn, emotionally driven crybabies, who would apparently stand by and see the country go down in ruins rather than admit they were wrong about Trump.
The original objection to Trump was that they didn’t believe he was a conservative. That he had no record of being a conservative or of even saying conservative things. They said they could not in good conscience support Trump when there was a real conservative running (Cruz).
If that was a reasonable objection last year, it is certainly not justified any longer. Over the last year, Trump has stuck to his conservative guns better than any nominee in my lifetime, other than RR and although not as eloquent as RR, he has the same resolve. He doesn’t flinch or fold.
Mark Levin refuses to really board the Trump train, that would require admitting he was wrong. His complaint about tariffs is just the recent excuse for not supporting Trump - a way of saving face. If Trump agreed that tariffs are bad, Levin would find something else to justify his lack of support.
The fact that Levin will vote for Trump only reluctantly, and that it took him this long to say it, is clearly aiding and abetting the enemy.
If she hasn’t already, Clinton can and probably will run ads showing all of these conservative republican pillars saying bad things about Trump. I have lost all respect for Levin, and it was considerable.
Well, with respect to harsh things said about other Republicans (and “never”-this-person-or-that), Trump and his supporters have been as bad as anybody, delighting not only in policy attacks but in personal ridicule too. Yes, Democrats can use such remarks against whichever Republican ends up running, and that was one of the drawbacks of the bitter primary fight.
In judging Levin, though, I think it wise to consider where he has most of his influence. After all, the general public and the Republican party establishment aren’t likely to be influenced by him (except very gradually over the years). Where his announcing he’ll vote for Trump can have a positive effect is with anti-Trump persons on the right, persons leaning toward being NeverTrumpers or currently uncomfortably NeverTrumpers.
To keep his credibility with them, though — and keep his credibility in general (even his self-respect) — he can’t abandon overnight the political positions he supported before. That is, he can’t do so unless he finds the other arguments convincing, and can himself argue convincingly for them.
Did anyone really expect that Levin would go all the way in a matter of months from denouncing Trump in the primaries to praising him as a good candidate and good guy? As it is, a percentage of his listeners are going to label him a traitor just for announcing he’ll vote for Trump. That still leaves a large percentage, though, who are open to being persuaded.
To be most effective with the persons he can influence, he’ll need to continue saying negative things about both Trump and Hillary. As the election approaches, though, I expect he’ll tone down the criticism of Trump and emphasize, more and more, the danger posed by Hillary. And, most important, emphasize — as he did in the announcement of his vote — that one or the other will be president. We need to make sure it’s not Hillary.
The talk show host who annoys me most right now is Glenn Beck. I listen to him briefly several times a week, to keep up on his position, and so far he keeps making the argument that not voting for Trump is a matter of personal integrity, and that his “conscience” won’t allow him to do so.
Since when does voting for a candidate signify that you support all their positions? And what kind of “conscience” tells people — supposedly on the right — not to use their vote to prevent Hillary from gaining control of the Supreme Court, undermining the resistance to Islamization, using immigration to increase ethnic Balkanization (exploiting racial and ethnic strife to create a lasting Democrat majority) and, in most likelihood, harming this country in other irreversible ways for a generation to come?
‘Did anyone really expect that Levin would go all the way in a matter of months from denouncing Trump in the primaries to praising him as a good candidate and good guy?’
I expected many months ago when Cruz dropped out that Levin would tell the truth, and say to his listeners that there has never in the history of politics been a clearer choice than the one between Trump and Clinton.
I expected him to say that anyone who cares about the future of the Republic, the constitution, and conservative values, should not only vote for Trump, but get out and work tirelessly for Trump’s election.
I expected him to tell his listeners that over the past year Trump has stuck to his guns admirably, and earned the full throated support of conservative skeptics. That unlike most republican nominees in the past, he has not betrayed conservatives by ‘rushing to the center’ to moderate his positions after the primaries.
I expected him to say that Trump won the nomination decisively, there are no longer other alternatives for conservatives. Cruz is out f the running and has been for many months.
I expected him to say that any conservative still ‘soul searching’ about whether he can in good conscience support Trump at this point, would have to be a complete moron.
That’s what I expected, and he let me down.
“As the election approaches, though, I expect he’ll tone down the criticism of Trump...”
He better hurry, only 62 days left!
Point well taken, there are always criticisms during the primaries which can be used against whoever wins, the famous term “voodoo economics” was coined by RR’s primary rival and future running mate George Bush. This is to be expected, but the fact that they were made during the primary is taken into consideration.
Traditionally, one of the most important purposes of the convention is to heal these wounds. One defeated challenger after another takes the stage to show the public that nomatter how fierce the battle during the primary, the party is united against the democrat. One ex president after another shows they are not thin skinned crybabies. A bunch of these key players couldn’t man up this time around. Pretty pathetic.
I don’t blame anyone for fighting hard for a nominee other than Trump during the primaries, that’s what the primaries are for.
My criticism of Levin, Beck, Romney, etc. is for their behavior after the convention. They have stupidly doubled down on their criticisms, and fueled the false perception that there is something dangerous about Trump that has even conservatives ‘concerned’. It fits right into the Clinton narrative. Thanks a lot Mark.
So yes, the Clinton campaign can use their comments (some recent) to embarrass Trump with “look what these conservative republicans have to say about their own nominee”, and it’s more effective, since the Trump campaign can’t point to other more recent supportive comments to counter the attack.
This is shameful and reckless. I agree with Hannity who says to these people - Shame on you! If Clinton is elected, you own the decades of damage she does to the courts, you own her job killing war on the coal industry, you own the total mess she makes of the Middle East, you own her decimation of the military, propping up of Obamacare,....etc.,etc.
> I expected him to tell his [Levin’s] listeners that over the past year Trump has stuck to his guns admirably...unlike most republican nominees in the past, he has not betrayed conservatives by ‘rushing to the center’...
I don’t see it quite that way. Just a short time ago I was concerned with some of Trump’s recent statements about amnesty itself, one of his key positions. If you wish to see what concerned me, you can look at my posts in the “Rush Limbaugh: ‘I never took Trump seriously’” thread. I’d rather not go into detail again about such things. I agree with you that our main concern now should be defeating Hillary.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.