There is a full court press to help push Rubio past Trump by the establishment with the complicit media. In 72 hours Trump has been labeled a racist, fascist, and a Nazi all in the mainstream press.
Inexperienced Rubio is the establishments last hope .
Trump has been labeled those things often over the last 72 weeks, not just hours. Although I'm sure the lies he's been telling this week about not knowing who David Duke is has ratcheted that up a bit...
Trump in 1991 (talking about Duke's failed gubanatorial bid and possible white house run):
Larry King: "If he runs and Pat Buchanan runs [for president in 1992], might you see a really divided vote?"Trump: "Well, I think if they run, or even if David Duke — I mean, George Bush was very, very strong against David Duke. I think if he had it to do again, he might not have gotten involved in that campaign because I think David Duke now, if he runs, takes away almost exclusively Bush votes and then a guy like Cuomo runs — I think Cuomo can win the election."
King: "But Bush morally had to come out against him."
Trump: "I think Bush had to come out against him. I think Bush — if David Duke runs, David Duke is going to get a lot of votes. Whether that be good or bad, David Duke is going to get a lot of votes. Pat Buchanan — who really has many of the same theories, except it’s in a better package — Pat Buchanan is going to take a lot of votes away from George Bush. So if you have these two guys running, or even one of them running, I think George Bush could be in big trouble."
Trump in 2000:
"Well, you’ve got David Duke just joined — a bigot, a racist, a problem. I mean, this is not exactly the people you want in your party. Buchanan’s a disaster as we’ve, you know, covered. Jesse’s a terrific guy who just left the party. And he, you know, it’s unfortunate, but he just left the party. He’s going to be doing his Independence Party from Minnesota.""The Reform Party now includes a Klansman, Mr. Duke, a neo-Nazi, Mr. Buchanan, and a communist, Ms. Fulani. This not company I wish to keep."
Trump 2 days ago:
"Well, just so you understand, I don’t know anything about David Duke. OK? I don’t know anything about what you’re even talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists. So, I don’t know."
________________________________________________________________________You conveniently did not mention that Donald Trump clearly and succinctly disavowed David Duke in a televised press conference from Ft. Worth last Friday.
Not surprisingly we don’t hear from the left anyone calling for Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders to publically reject Black Lives Matter, the militant organization openly calling for the killing of police officers.
Both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have pandered to Black Lives Matter whereas Donald Trump openly rejects The Klan.
You seem all upset about "white supremacists", who Donald Trump has disavowed and "black militants", supported by Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, are fine with you.
Of course it is silly to compare Byrd and Duke in the first place, but if you think they are "in the same category" then I don't really expect you to understand that.
From the all knowing Wikipedia:
In the early 1940s, Byrd recruited 150 of his friends and associates to create a new chapter of the Ku Klux Klan in Sophia, West Virginia.[12][13]
According to Byrd, a Klan official told him, "You have a talent for leadership, Bob ... The country needs young men like you in the leadership of the nation." Byrd later recalled, "Suddenly lights flashed in my mind! Someone important had recognized my abilities! I was only 23 or 24 years old, and the thought of a political career had never really hit me. But strike me that night, it did."[13] Byrd became a recruiter and leader of his chapter.[13] When it came time to elect the top officer (Exalted Cyclops) in the local Klan unit, Byrd won unanimously.[13]
In December 1944, Byrd wrote to segregationist Mississippi Senator Theodore G. Bilbo:
I shall never fight in the armed forces with a negro by my side ... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.
—?Robert C. Byrd, in a letter to Sen. Theodore Bilbo (D-MS), 1944[13][20]
In 1946, Byrd wrote a letter to a Grand Wizard stating, "The Klan is needed today as never before, and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia and in every state in the nation."[21] However, when running for the United States House of Representatives in 1952, he announced "After about a year, I became disinterested, quit paying my dues, and dropped my membership in the organization. During the nine years that have followed, I have never been interested in the Klan." He said he had joined the Klan because he felt it offered excitement and was anti-communist.[13]In 1997, Byrd told an interviewer he would encourage young people to become involved in politics but also warned, "Be sure you avoid the Ku Klux Klan. Don't get that albatross around your neck. Once you've made that mistake, you inhibit your operations in the political arena."[22] In his last autobiography, Byrd explained that he was a KKK member because he "was sorely afflicted with tunnel vision — a jejune and immature outlook — seeing only what I wanted to see because I thought the Klan could provide an outlet for my talents and ambitions."[23] Byrd also said, in 2005, "I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times ... and I don't mind apologizing over and over again. I can't erase what happened."[13]
Thanks. Like I said, very silly to compare Byrd to Duke as being "in the same category."
Thanks. Like I said, very silly to compare Byrd to Duke as being "in the same category."
Right, being the exhalted cyclops leader of a local unit back when they actually killed blacks vs being the leader of the dumb group today, where it is largely ignored is totally pointless and not in the same category.
Thanks. Like I said, very silly to compare Byrd to Duke as being "in the same category."
Right, being the exhalted cyclops leader of a local unit back when they actually killed blacks vs being the leader of the dumb group today, where it is largely ignored is totally pointless and not in the same category.
It seems to be important to some folks...
"We cannot be a party that nominates someone who refuses to condemn white supremacists and the Ku Klux Klan. Not only is that wrong, it makes him unelectable." -Marco Rubio, 2/29/16
On Tuesday morning, Trump tried to be slightly more forceful in his comments on Duke. In a phone interview on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” he was asked whether he categorically rejects the support of all white supremacists. “Of course I am,” he responded. “Of course I am.”
Thanks. Like I said, very silly to compare Byrd to Duke as being "in the same category."
Right, being the exhalted cyclops leader of a local unit back when they actually killed blacks vs being the leader of the dumb group today, where it is largely ignored is totally pointless and not in the same category.
You need to do some more reading. Byrd and Duke were/are not in the same category at all. It is a silly comparison.
[Edited on 3/1/2016 by gondicar]
On Tuesday morning, Trump tried to be slightly more forceful in his comments on Duke. In a phone interview on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” he was asked whether he categorically rejects the support of all white supremacists. “Of course I am,” he responded. “Of course I am.”
Just like the governor of Maine Paul LePage, Trump intentionally says outrageous things on the stump to appeal to his base, then tries to walk it back later blaming it all on "the media." I've seen it over and over again (and over and over and over...) from LePage for the last 6 years, and Trump follows the same playbook.
[Edited on 3/1/2016 by gondicar]
There is a full court press to help push Rubio past Trump by the establishment with the complicit media. In 72 hours Trump has been labeled a racist, fascist, and a Nazi all in the mainstream press.
Inexperienced Rubio is the establishments last hope .
Trump has been labeled those things often over the last 72 weeks, not just hours. Although I'm sure the lies he's been telling this week about not knowing who David Duke is has ratcheted that up a bit...
Trump in 1991 (talking about Duke's failed gubanatorial bid and possible white house run):
Larry King: "If he runs and Pat Buchanan runs [for president in 1992], might you see a really divided vote?"Trump: "Well, I think if they run, or even if David Duke — I mean, George Bush was very, very strong against David Duke. I think if he had it to do again, he might not have gotten involved in that campaign because I think David Duke now, if he runs, takes away almost exclusively Bush votes and then a guy like Cuomo runs — I think Cuomo can win the election."
King: "But Bush morally had to come out against him."
Trump: "I think Bush had to come out against him. I think Bush — if David Duke runs, David Duke is going to get a lot of votes. Whether that be good or bad, David Duke is going to get a lot of votes. Pat Buchanan — who really has many of the same theories, except it’s in a better package — Pat Buchanan is going to take a lot of votes away from George Bush. So if you have these two guys running, or even one of them running, I think George Bush could be in big trouble."
Trump in 2000:
"Well, you’ve got David Duke just joined — a bigot, a racist, a problem. I mean, this is not exactly the people you want in your party. Buchanan’s a disaster as we’ve, you know, covered. Jesse’s a terrific guy who just left the party. And he, you know, it’s unfortunate, but he just left the party. He’s going to be doing his Independence Party from Minnesota.""The Reform Party now includes a Klansman, Mr. Duke, a neo-Nazi, Mr. Buchanan, and a communist, Ms. Fulani. This not company I wish to keep."
Trump 2 days ago:
"Well, just so you understand, I don’t know anything about David Duke. OK? I don’t know anything about what you’re even talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists. So, I don’t know."
________________________________________________________________________You conveniently did not mention that Donald Trump clearly and succinctly disavowed David Duke in a televised press conference from Ft. Worth last Friday.
Not surprisingly we don’t hear from the left anyone calling for Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders to publically reject Black Lives Matter, the militant organization openly calling for the killing of police officers.
Both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have pandered to Black Lives Matter whereas Donald Trump openly rejects The Klan.
You seem all upset about "white supremacists", who Donald Trump has disavowed and "black militants", supported by Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, are fine with you.
________________________________________________________________________
Okay, I get it. You support the killing of police officers.
Exactly what criteria do you use when picking which hate group to reject and which you support?
Whether you believe it or not, Trump stated he had a malfunctioning ear piece and had trouble hearing.
Trump has allowed access to himself by the media and if Nate Silver would do the statistics, I would not be surprised if Trump media coverage ( by his own choice, btw) is at a 100:1 ratio or words spoken to the press would be 10,000 :1 ratio as compared to Hillary or Bernie.
Now the focus is on a few sentences about a guy he denounced in 2000 and again denounced shortly after the interview.
Like I said , its a full court press to bring him down. I have never seen anything like this.
You really think Trump's media coverage is 1000:1 more than their coverage of Hillary? Really?
Benghazi? Emails? White Water? How many scandals has Hillary been accused of? How many have been true?
As far as I can tell millions of dollars have spent to bring her down and nothing has stuck.
There is a full court press to help push Rubio past Trump by the establishment with the complicit media. In 72 hours Trump has been labeled a racist, fascist, and a Nazi all in the mainstream press.
Inexperienced Rubio is the establishments last hope .
Trump has been labeled those things often over the last 72 weeks, not just hours. Although I'm sure the lies he's been telling this week about not knowing who David Duke is has ratcheted that up a bit...
Trump in 1991 (talking about Duke's failed gubanatorial bid and possible white house run):
Larry King: "If he runs and Pat Buchanan runs [for president in 1992], might you see a really divided vote?"Trump: "Well, I think if they run, or even if David Duke — I mean, George Bush was very, very strong against David Duke. I think if he had it to do again, he might not have gotten involved in that campaign because I think David Duke now, if he runs, takes away almost exclusively Bush votes and then a guy like Cuomo runs — I think Cuomo can win the election."
King: "But Bush morally had to come out against him."
Trump: "I think Bush had to come out against him. I think Bush — if David Duke runs, David Duke is going to get a lot of votes. Whether that be good or bad, David Duke is going to get a lot of votes. Pat Buchanan — who really has many of the same theories, except it’s in a better package — Pat Buchanan is going to take a lot of votes away from George Bush. So if you have these two guys running, or even one of them running, I think George Bush could be in big trouble."
Trump in 2000:
"Well, you’ve got David Duke just joined — a bigot, a racist, a problem. I mean, this is not exactly the people you want in your party. Buchanan’s a disaster as we’ve, you know, covered. Jesse’s a terrific guy who just left the party. And he, you know, it’s unfortunate, but he just left the party. He’s going to be doing his Independence Party from Minnesota.""The Reform Party now includes a Klansman, Mr. Duke, a neo-Nazi, Mr. Buchanan, and a communist, Ms. Fulani. This not company I wish to keep."
Trump 2 days ago:
"Well, just so you understand, I don’t know anything about David Duke. OK? I don’t know anything about what you’re even talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists. So, I don’t know."
________________________________________________________________________You conveniently did not mention that Donald Trump clearly and succinctly disavowed David Duke in a televised press conference from Ft. Worth last Friday.
Not surprisingly we don’t hear from the left anyone calling for Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders to publically reject Black Lives Matter, the militant organization openly calling for the killing of police officers.
Both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have pandered to Black Lives Matter whereas Donald Trump openly rejects The Klan.
You seem all upset about "white supremacists", who Donald Trump has disavowed and "black militants", supported by Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, are fine with you.
________________________________________________________________________
Okay, I get it. You support the killing of police officers.
Exactly what criteria do you use when picking which hate group to reject and which you support?
Actually no, you don't get it. At all.
Have you seen the photo of Hillary kissing Robert Byrd. This is not in the news at all but wasn't he in the same category as Duke . The media is sure focusing on one and not the other.
So then you are admitting that you oppose her relationship with Byrd because of his racist past? I do too. She should've known better, and because of these flubs among the others, she will not get my vote. Will you acknowledge the same about Trump's flubs and cast your vote elsewhere? Probably not. Why make excuses for either?
I'll admit that after hearing Hillary debate, she is incredibly disappointing. Not a sincere word yet if you ask me. Just sounds phony 100% of the time, which only makes her sound like she is hiding something. I want Bernie, but I don't see how he has any chance at all, so I'm hoping Rubio gets it.
[Edited on 3/1/2016 by BoytonBrother]
You've pretty much labeled most politicians in your first three sentences. Bernie & possibly Kasich to a smaller degree may be exceptions. Carson not worth mentioning because he's not a politician and adds zero to the discussion and is a non factor. The rest are pretty much in the same boat of lack of sincerity. We pick the best poison.
BB, I don't how you can make the leap from Bernie to Rubio. Who they are, and what they stand for are miles apart.
Against Donald Trump: Why Evangelicals Must Not Support Trump -
http://mereorthodoxy.com/against-donald-trump-evangelicals/#sthash.xqA4xC1W.dpuf
The rise of Donald Trump among some evangelicals is an understandable, even if unsettling phenomenon. The alienation and despair that he has both fostered and exploited is a pervasive feature of some corners of American life. But no one is more susceptible to such hopelessness about our political class than working-class, rural, white evangelicals, who have been tutored more by the grievance and resentment theater of both conservative and evangelical talk radio than by the good news of the Gospel. As Ben Domenech has astutely explained, having lost every culture war such evangelicals are now fighting on the only terrain they have left: political correctness. And Donald Trump is their gift to the world.
I have relatively deep roots in the conservative evangelical world. In 2007, Justin Taylor and Joe Carter let me join with them in endorsing Mike Huckabee. (I have since grown to regret this.) Unlike many of my more moderate peers, I have publicly defended traditional marriage. I have spoken at the Values Voter Summit. When progressive Christian Rachel Held Evans wanted to find a Christian to explain why they are drawn to political conservatism, she kindly invited me. I have written a cover story and a number of other pieces for Christianity Today. I am unswervingly pro-life and will unflinchingly describe the abortion regime as an American genocide. I think Values and Capitalism is among the best programs in the conservative world.
I have also never written about immigration, but my own views are somewhere between Rubio and Cruz. (This must be said, as it has become a litmus test for evangelical conservatives in this campaign.) I am skeptical of the relaxed immigration policies that many countries in Europe have practiced, but also recognize that America isn’t Europe and that we may be able to sustain and assimilate higher percentages of immigrants than countries with tiny land-masses. Ross Douthat’s ten theses on immigration seem enormously sensible to me. Like many Americans, I think blanket amnesty is a bad idea—and I see no way to deport 12 million people. I have friends and neighbors who are both members of the white underclass and are undocumented immigrants, and see regularly firsthand the challenges both sets face in trying to sustain their way of life.
Born of the tribe of Dobson and inducted into the party of Reagan on the eighth day, I have supported every Republican presidential candidate in my lifetime. And never before have I been more ready to dissolve that union.
If Donald Trump is the Republican nominee, I will not hesitate in abstaining or voting for a third party in November. And neither should you.
——
In January, I compared Donald Trump to Sir John Falstaff, whose debauched and degenerate jollity has long intoxicated audiences with the strange brew of repulsion and mirth. Falstaff is larger than life itself: He somehow stands outside morality, even as he stands outside the political order. But Henry, having deliberately shrouded his character in the stench of vice through his close friendship with Falstaff, knows that the friendship cannot endure in the same way when he assumes the throne: “I will banish thee,” he promises Falstaff in the midst of their revelry. They both know it must be true: The legitimacy of Henry’s rule would be imperiled by his close friendship with the lecher.
Trump is a not simply a charlatan, a huckster, a con-man, though he is all of that. He is also shameless. The more outlandish he is, the more he is rewarded with the only currency he cares about: attention. He has none of the checks or balances that make the rest of us mortals weak and irrelevant. He is T.S. Eliot’s ‘Hollow Man’ come to life: He blows wherever the loves of money, fame, and his indulgent fantasies of being a ‘winner’ will take him. As Joe Carter said recently, his penchants for insults betrays an incredibly insecure mentality, the sort that breeds a harsh authoritarianism at the first whiff of power. Nothing else will matter except maintaining the delusion that Trump is a Winner, Baby: the common good be damned.
Such shamelessness is his greatest asset: It is also one of our political order’s most deadly foes. As Eliot Cohen recently argued, Trump’s debased approach to political life signals a “larger moral and cultural collapse.” While ‘political correctness’ may slowly suffocate meaningful debate and dissent, the festering of an environment where outlandish and disgusting ‘rhetoric’ are rewarded with a party’s nomination will only embolden imitators. (Twitter is full of them, and they are terrible.) And we will be the worse for it: The shame that prompts our politicians to try to wiggle out of being called a ‘liar’ is what, in some instances, will actually prevent them from lying.
The lack of trust between the people and our government is a pernicious social disease that has been growing for a long time. But Trump is not so much a cure for our malaise as a more potent dose of the same venom. A political environment in which the truth is openly mocked, spit upon, and dragged through the streets before the cheering crowds places itself in serious jeopardy, as it reduces political relationships to who wields the instruments of power. If Trump, God and heaven forbid it, were actually to win the office, he would have his reward while the rest of us face la guillotine.
While evangelicals have gravitated to Trump precisely because of his repudiation of the ‘political correctness’ of our day, the brutal irony is that he is its final triumph, its consummation and perfection, its heroic champion…even down to his followers’ technique of shaming and silencing dissenters on Twitter. The reduction of politics to power and the assertion that argument is a cover for bigotry finds its completion in the devil-may-care spectacle that is the Trump campaign. He has persuaded even those who claim for themselves the name of the Gospel that nothing matters besides being told the warm and comforting truth that We Can Be Winners, that the truth is dispensable provided our needs are satisfactorily met. The irrelevancy of truth for the sake of power-relations in Trump’s campaign has transposed ‘political correctness’ into a new, contrarian key: Trump has not left it behind so much as co-opted it for his ends–at least until its purpose is served.
And those who support Trump will be most likely to lose out if he eventually wins. So it has often been for those who have bought into his lies. From Trump’s casinos to Trump University, like the prosperity preachers he emulates Trump has preyed upon the very people he claims to love and support. And why would a President Trump be any different? We have been given no reason why the Newly Converted Conservative Trump will be any better for America than the liberal Hillary Clinton. And no reason can be given because none exists outside of Trump’s most solemn word, a word that his history suggests is as valuable as the degrees from his University. For those drawn to Trump’s policies, on what reasonable basis would you expect him to not sell you out? Because the fearsome power of the Republican Establishment will hold him to account? The same Republican establishment that is now bending to kiss the ring?
T.S. Eliot was not wrong about much, but he was about this: The world may end, but it will not be with a whimper, except from the conservative Republicans who have decided Trump is their only hope for the relevance and influence they crave.
——
There is no conservative argument for Trump. Conservatives once held that virtue and character are essential requirements for a just society, and that a stable marriage and family is among the best way to nurture those virtues. Those virtues, we contended, were essential for ensuring that the market not only operated efficiently, but stayed within its appropriate boundaries. The conservative movement once believed that religion was central to our social fabric, that not everyone had to be religious but that it needed to be afforded due respect and even reverence. Turning religion into a political prop would only cheapen it, and eventually corrode it. The political virtues that conservatives once cared about—temperance and restraint—are now treated (by ‘conservatives’) as the stuff of compromisers and weaklings: “Damn your concern for principles and prudence: We shall have our riots in the streets!”
My depiction of ‘conservatism’ is, admittedly, both nostalgic and not policy-specific. But it gestures at a set of intuitions which have helped me maintain my ties to a party that I have frequently found myself in disagreement with. I have always been happy to be an idealist: Chesterton taught me that it is the only path toward reform. Still, if the Republican party has become so detached from the conservatism that I depicted that it is willing to allow Trump to bear its mantle, it deserves the violent death that it currently faces.
It would be easy to look upon Trump and see him as an outlier in American life. But the Trumpian disregard for the truth and virtue is a cancer that has beset us all: Trump is a candidate for our time, a fitting judgment upon us who magnifies our sins and our vices. He may be a caricature; but he is a parody of us, a morality tale whose meaning we should heed.
But there is a difference between acknowledging the degraded political character of our age and joining with the Visigoths while they tear down the Roman monuments. That the Babylonians were God’s instrument for judgment does not mean the Israelites should have cleaned their swords. If the gods have released the Kraken upon us, shall we join him for tea and crumpets?
The Republican Party Establishment—may they rest in peace—has been leaning toward doing just that. Having failed to even try to stop him, they will now tell us that we are obligated to support him in November. At the moment when Falstaff must be banished, Chris Christie pledged his fealty—and was rewarded most handsomely for it. Hugh Hewitt has begun banging the unity drum. I have long admired him, though he has oft been tempted to prioritize the party over principle.
More will unquestionably come, with cries of “The Court, The Court, The Court!” So the wholesale repudiation of conservative principles by the party pledged to defend them will proceed, washed down by the smooth pragmatic consequentialism that has placed its principles on the altar of urgency. That the party of Lincoln would demand that we support Donald Trump suggests there is no one who might rise the ranks to whom such individuals would say ‘no.’ One might think that such unprincipled weakness is partly what has undermined our country’s respect for the party and given us….Donald Trump. The party leadership has not learned its lesson, but they will have their reward in full: a weekend stay at Mar-a-Lago, which should keep them warm and cozy in their infamy.
I do not despair at the prospects of President Trump: If that is the judgment upon us, then I will meet it with as much good cheer and confidence as I can muster. What tempts me to despair is the number of otherwise sensible people who will capitulate to the shameless huckster to preserve the shreds of their power. Yes, the Supreme Court is important. But if the Republic is in such dire shape that we have to vote for a chronic liar who has knows how to distance himself just enough from the racist underbelly of American life to hold it together, then we should just honestly acknowledge that she is already mortally wounded. This election is about “saving the country,” Hewitt cries, as though all it will take is three Supreme Court justices and a much stronger navy. If the country is imperiled, it is so because of the rot within–the rot that Trump’s overtly race-baiting politics has brought to the surface, and which the Vichy Republicans are currently planning to make terms with.
Besides, Trump’s promises to appoint conservative justices are worth what, exactly? More or less than the Trump University degree? That the next President may appoint three Supreme Court justices is not an argument for voting for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton. Given Trump’s penchant for telling people what they want to hear for the sake of his own advancement, we need some argument independent of his own words that he will suddenly become trustworthy when he is in office. The entire history of his character bears witness against it.
But I am not convinced it has come to that, because I think there are enough decent, clear-headed men and women left in this country that Donald Trump will never be President. Would that there were more of them within the Party’s leadership.
Trump is the candidate Republicans deserve. But I will not be complicit in their folly. With Erick Erickson, I will never vote for Donald J. Trump. He has neither the character nor the principles to commend him to the office. That this even has to be said is indictment of the world enough. It is an age of high folly when banally obvious truths have to be uttered by ordinary men and women.
The right response now to Donald Trump by any conservative is Erickson’s and Ben Sasse’s: We shall fight on Super Tuesday, we shall fight on the plains of Ohio, we shall fight in Florida, we shall fight with the cheer of knowing we are in the right, we shall fight on the floor of the convention, we shall never join with him. The Republican party may die, but conservatism and its principles will go on and be renewed without it. #NeverTrump. Not now, not ever.
But to that I would add that I may never support a candidate who endorses him, either. Offering support to Trump is such a gross error in judgment that I will be highly skeptical of any politician who lends their aid to place him in the White House. The party simply isn’t worth it. It never was, and as long as it continues to embrace the myth that the Party Matters Above All, it never will be. The only meaningful way to defeat Trumpism permanently is to offer a better politics, a politics rooted in integrity and character and concern for our neighbor, a politics that takes seriously the concerns of Trump’s followers without capitulating to their leader. Such a politics can win the respect of a majority of the country only if it breaks with Trump himself, and ignores the browbeating about the Court that the Vichy Republicans (like Hewitt) will offer until November 11th.
For evangelicals, the decision should be easy. Sadly, for many who are already supporting Trump, it is not. We have Bible verses clearly indicting Trump’s behavior, and in the strongest possible terms. I mean, look at the list from Proverbs about what the Lord hates: “haughty eyes, a lying tongue… a false witness that pours out lies…” Accepting Trump because he announces that we can be warm and filled completely divorces our political commitments from our interest in the Gospel. This is the time to recognize what you have wrought, and repent: The hour draws nigh, but it is not too late. Shamelessness is not courage. Defeating political correctness through wickedness is not a victory for the truth. The enemy of our enemy is not always our friend. If we feed the beast, he will someday grow strong enough to turn on us. And that day will come: Trump’s history of being blown by every wind and wave of sentiment virtually guarantees it.
For those evangelicals who are seized by despair at our political order and interested in burning it to the ground, consider instead voting for someone with the firmness of principles and character that will guarantee that when he arrives, he will not lose sight of his mission. C.S. Lewis once said he would rather play cards with an atheist who never cheated over a Christian who didn’t care. In the same way, disaffected evangelicals should prefer someone with a moral center over the hollow core of a B-grade celebrity. In other words, lend your support to Bernie Sanders: You’ll have as much of a chance of overturning our political order, having your interests represented, and passing pro-life policies as you will with Donald Trump. And he at least has the advantage of being a decent human being.
There is no world in which I would vote for Bernie Sanders. But I would consider it before I would ever consider voting for Donald Trump. And Republicans who expect us to fall in line come November should know that among evangelicals who have voted with them in the past, I am not alone.
Billy, I was high when I wrote that so let me clarify. I want Bernie to win it all - he represents what I stand for. I hope he gets the nod but I see Hillary getting it. I will certainly vote for Hillary if Trump is the nom, but if it comes to Rubio and Hillary, I'd have to go with Rubio, as of now. Depends on the future debates I guess. I need to see Hillary get much more passionate.
Bernie socialist label has killed his chances in the south
As we speak, watching Trump give his winner's speech with his lacky, the esteemed Governor of NJ standing behind him on the podium. Just a few weeks ago Christie (bully #1) was trash talking Trump (bully #2). Now Governor "time for some traffic" is carrying the water for Trump.
VP offer down the road for CC? Just what we need - a tag team of those two.
Trump just reinforced that Mexico will pay for the wall. Yep...bound to happen.
Billy, I was high...
Is what all of America will say one week into a Trump Presidency. 
Really enjoyed Super Tuesday last night. This is a really fun election! We had a contest of picking 1st-3rd for the Republicans and 1-2 for Dems in every state with a correct 1st pick = 3 pts, 2nd = 2 pts, 3rd = 1 and for any combination of the right names 1-3 you got an extra 1 pt. I came in first with 115 pts over my wife who had 90 something and my stepson was last with 80 pts. Now hopefully the delegates respect my victory at the convention 
Doesn't anyone think that Trump's answer of "I don't know about David Duke" or "what groups, who are they", doesn't it seem like he was saying something like I am not aware of anything they have said about me or for my candidacy.
There are lots of things he could've or should've said to put some more distance between himself and Duke and groups like that, so in that respect he left himself open for criticism.
I've heard people say that he did what he did to not alienate any potential voters who share the view of a person like Duke or white supremecy group. That I find very very hard to believe. Right off the bat the guy thinks he is going to beat every candidate anyway and tells us all the time how big his leads are in the polls. I don't think he cared about trying to not offend that small part of who may be voting for him because really, when has he ever cared about offending people? Now all of a sudden he is tip toeing around to get those kind of people to vote for him? I don't buy it.
[Edited on 3/2/2016 by nebish]
http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/benghazi-heroes-support-trump/
"We get harassed by every single freaking government that we deal with," he said. "A lot of guys are fed up with it. And our government doesn’t do anything to back us up."
That bothered me. I am worried about the moral of our military.
I only have one friend who was deployed and did 2 tours in Iraq. My opinion is largely through what he tells me, but people he has stayed in touch with since being out of the Army feel the same way, they see the way our government has been handling military involvement in foreign conflicts as a big pile of shit (both Bush and Obama).
I found interviews with Tulsi Gabbard since leaving the DNC pretty informative on her views of how the government should or shouldn't use our military. It reaches a breaking point at some level, which we've already gone past probably.
Bernie Sanders is done:
Hillary Clinton – 1034
Bernie Sanders – 408
Martin O'Malley – 0
2383 needed to win nomination • 4765 available
I only have one friend who was deployed and did 2 tours in Iraq. My opinion is largely through what he tells me, but people he has stayed in touch with since being out of the Army feel the same way, they see the way our government has been handling military involvement in foreign conflicts as a big pile of **** (both Bush and Obama).
My neighbor is a high ranking Commander in the Air Force. He is of the opinion that we need a Commander in Chief who will define our end game in Afghanistan. You can't win a war if you don't know what you are fighting for.
I only have one friend who was deployed and did 2 tours in Iraq. My opinion is largely through what he tells me, but people he has stayed in touch with since being out of the Army feel the same way, they see the way our government has been handling military involvement in foreign conflicts as a big pile of **** (both Bush and Obama).
My neighbor is a high ranking Commander in the Air Force. He is of the opinion that we need a Commander in Chief who will define our end game in Afghanistan. You can't win a war if you don't know what you are fighting for.
________________________________________________________________________
Tell your neighbor to tell his commander in chief.
" I know nothing"...
As far as Tulsi goes, who could play second fiddle to Wasserman-Schultz ? good god
" I know nothing"...
As far as Tulsi goes, who could play second fiddle to Wasserman-Schultz ? good god
__________________________________________________________________________
Gloria Steinem or Whoopi Goldberg
Ha ha ha!!
“Searches for ‘how can I move to Canada’ on Google have spiked +350% in the past hours #SuperTuesday,” tweeted Google’s search engine data editor Simon Rogers.
http://www.wcsh6.com/news/google-searches-for-move-to-canada-spike-on-super-tuesday/64536954
Ha ha ha!!
“Searches for ‘how can I move to Canada’ on Google have spiked +350% in the past hours #SuperTuesday,” tweeted Google’s search engine data editor Simon Rogers.
http://www.wcsh6.com/news/google-searches-for-move-to-canada-spike-on-super-tuesday/64536954/blockquote >
__________________________________________________________________________Every presidential election cycle the Hollywood and far-left political mouthpieces say the same crap.
None of them ever do.This year Whoopi Goldberg leads the list of liberals claiming they will "leave the country if so and so gets elected."
I've never seen either party trying to hard to torpedo their POTUS frontrunner, especially this far into primary season, like the GOP is trying to do to Trump. Will be very interesting to see if they all flip as throroughly and completely as Chris Christie has if Trump does secure the nomination...
Mitt Romney thoroughly blasts Donald Trump as ‘phony,’ ‘fraud’
“He’s playing the American public for suckers,” Romney said.
Mitt Romney delivered the most comprehensive denunciation of Donald Trump to date on Thursday, thoroughly rejecting the billionaire’s temperament, his proposed policies, and his ability to tell the truth.
“Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud,” Romney said at the University of Utah. “His promises are as worthless as a degree from Trump University. He’s playing the American public for suckers: He gets a free ride to the White House and all we get is a lousy hat.”
Coming from the former Republican nominee, Thursday’s speech marked the most notable anti-Trump statements from any GOP leader not running for president.
Romney warned that Trump’s plan would send the economy into a prolonged recession, raise the deficit and debt, and start a trade war that would hurt consumers. He said Trump was “very very not smart” on foreign policy and doubted his claims of business success.
“But wait, you say, wait wait wait, isn’t he a huge business success? Doesn’t he know what he’s talking about? No he isn’t. And no he doesn’t,” Romney said. “A business genius he is not.”
He detailed a series of failed companies started and shuttered by the billionaire, including Trump Airlines, Trump University, Trump Magazine, Trump Vodka, Trump Steaks, and Trump Mortgage.
In addition, he contrasted Trump’s temperament with America’s history of “men of character.”
“Dishonesty is Trump’s hallmark,” Romney said, noting his widely discredited claim that he had seen thousands of Muslims celebrating on 9/11. “His is not the temperament of a stable, thoughtful leader. His imagination must not be married to real power.”
Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, has become more vocal in his criticisms of Trump in recent weeks. He has accused Trump of hiding a “bombshell” in his tax returns and rejected his “disgusting” response to receiving a former Ku Klux Klan leader’s support. He repeated those criticisms in his remarks Thursday.
Despite his forceful anti-Trump rhetoric, Romney declined to endorse another candidate. He said he would vote for the contender in each state who would best keep Trump from acquiring enough delegates to secure the nomination.
Romney’s speech included a wide vocabulary, using words like “improvident,” “bombast,” and “enmity.” The word choice was a marked contrast from Trump’s emphasis on simple, easy-to-understand language.
Finally, Romney challenged listeners to follow how Trump responds to Romney’s criticisms.
“Will he talk about our policy differences or will he attack me with every imaginable low road insult?” he asked.
Earlier on Thursday, Trump laid into Romney—“who doesn’t know how to win”—in a series of tweets and by calling into morning news programs.
[Edited on 3/3/2016 by gondicar]