Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Evan McMullin, the Latest Independent Trump Challenger

Evan McMullin, the Latest Independent Trump Challenger

The latest Trump alternative

Earlier this morning, Mark blogged about rumors of yet another Republican-backed Trump challenger.

Multiple outlets are reporting an obscure former CIA officer will launch an independent run against Republican nominee, Donald Trump.

Buzzfeed reported:

Key players in GOP’s anti-Trump movement are preparing to launch an independent presidential campaign for Evan McMullin — a CIA veteran and the chief policy director of the House Republican conference — sources close to the effort told BuzzFeed News.

Veteran Republican strategist Rick Wilson, a Florida-based media consultant and outspoken Trump critic, is expected to be involved in McMullin’s campaign. Sources said Wilson was in Washington on Sunday meeting with members of McMullin’s prospective campaign — which includes some who were involved in a group called Better for America, which has been pushing an independent presidential bid.

McMullin did not immediately respond to requests for comment from BuzzFeed News. He would make for an unlikely presidential candidate. He has never held elective office before and has spent most of his career as a CIA officer, according to his LinkedIn page. Young and unmarried, McMullin received an MBA at Wharton in 2011, and after a stint at Goldman Sachs, went to work as a policy wonk on Capitol Hill.

Unlike National Review writer David French, another conservative courted by anti-Trump Republicans to launch a long-shot third-party bid, McMullin has virtually no public profile. He doesn’t appear regularly on television, and has just 135 followers on Twitter. His most high-profile recent appearance seems to have been a TEDx talk about genocide he gave at London Business School in April.

ABC News confirmed reports and provided a more comprehensive resume for McMullin:

McMullin was born in Provo, Utah, and earned a bachelor’s degree in international law and diplomacy from Brigham Young University and a master’s of business administration from The Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania.

McMullin served as a Mormon missionary in Brazil and volunteer refugee resettlement officer in Amman, Jordan, on behalf of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. On Sept. 11, 2001, he was in training at CIA Headquarters in Langley, Virginia. He completed his training and volunteered for overseas service in the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia, spearheading counterterrorism and intelligence operations in some of the most dangerous nations, according to the group.

Once he left the CIA in 2011, McMullin went to work for Goldman Sachs in the San Francisco Bay Area and in 2013 became a senior adviser on national security issues for the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and later the chief policy director of the House Republican Conference.

McMullin, who’s not near as active on social media as his soon-to-be competitors, has been a vocal opponent of Trump and seems to be (if tweets are an indicator), of the Sen. Sasse, Speaker Ryan brand of Republicanism:

The more, the merrier, I say.

Follow Kemberlee on Twitter @kemberleekaye

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Looks like a guy with an MBA co-opted the media to get an anti-Trump news cycle.

No matter how silly anything may be … it can always get sillier.

legacyrepublican | August 8, 2016 at 11:29 am

Yawn! #boring

Major Garrett: “As inane talk of a conservative run against @realDonaldTrump returns @stevechaggaris reminds: ballot access gone in 27 states, 35 by Friday

https://twitter.com/majorcbs/status/762624474688720896

“Quixotic” isn’t the word for it.

    Valerie in reply to Amy in FL. | August 8, 2016 at 11:43 am

    Thank you for an answer to the first question I had, when this story started to be leaked.

    Estragon in reply to Amy in FL. | August 8, 2016 at 4:57 pm

    Ballot access is easy & with late deadlines in UT, ND, WY, & MT. The strategy will be to compete in those states. If the election is very close, one or two of those could be enough to throw it into the House, where state delegates would choose from among the top three Electoral College vote-getters.

    It won’t make any difference if it’s Hillary or Trump by a landslide and, by competing in only deep red states, can’t possibly “throw the election to Hillary,” since it won’t affect the vote in blue & purple states.

    – –

    It also gives conservatives a candidate of good moral character to vote for or write in, and a rallying point to separate ourselves from the trash for Trump.

John Kerry has better hair.

Good luck with that, McMullin.

I guess the lesson here is that there are still many Republicans looking for a way to throw away their vote rather than use it for Trump.

    Or many in the GOP “consultant class” who have been squeezed out of all the lucrative campaign advisory positions and are looking for a new candidate and a new campaign to exploit.

    I wonder how much “veteran Republican strategist Rick Wilson” is pocketing for this one.

    Do you define “throw[ing] the vote away” as voting for somebody other than Trump?

      Yes. Only two candidates have a chance at the Presidency: Clinton and Trump. Voting for anyone else is a throw away vote. Voting as a protest? Who cares. Neither the GOP nor the DNC really give a good [email protected] about the third party vote. Barely registers with them.

      KirbySalad55 in reply to edgeofthesandbox. | August 8, 2016 at 1:07 pm

      Hillary supporters like yourself, Rags and Fuzzy of course think its not throwing ones vote away because you all want Hillary to win, and it is what ALL of you constantly argue for at every opportunity. Tear down Trump and build up the candidate you all want to win. HILLARY. I could have more sympathy for you three if you were honest with yourselves and others about what you want – A HILLARY WIN.

        Ask yourself: why are we not for Trump?

          tom swift in reply to edgeofthesandbox. | August 8, 2016 at 1:57 pm

          At this point what anybody thinks of Trump is of no consequence whatever.

          A voter can use his vote to help keep Hillary out of the White House, or not.

          And the only way to keep her out is to vote Trump in.

          There are no other possibilities. All other scenarios end in Madam President.

          All the angst is entertaining, but irrelevant.

          Ragspierre in reply to edgeofthesandbox. | August 8, 2016 at 2:01 pm

          That’s that some old lie you and other T-rump suckers have been trying to sell here for months, tom.

          Stop it. It’s a stupid lie. Not even a clever lie.

          KirbySalad55 in reply to edgeofthesandbox. | August 8, 2016 at 3:06 pm

          All three of you are not for Trump because you ARE FOR HILLARY. That answer is simple. I believe you, Edge, are for Hillary because you are a liberal democrat at heart.

          On the other hand, Rags and Fuzzy and those like them, are for Hillary because they believe the USA must be punished for failing to vote for their beloved Cruz. For them punishing the USA for not voting for Cruz is more important than the unbelievable harm that Hillary as president would bring on the country. They believe that if the USA is punished severely enough than an outsider america first conservative will never again be able to beat their beloved insider globalist conservative Cruz.

          Of course they overlook that if Hillary is elected no person other than a democrat or socialist will ever be elected president ever again. After Hillary leaves the borders open for 4 more years and turns millions of illegals into voters, and stacks the supreme court with non-constitutional left wing judges no republican and no conservative will ever be able to win the presidency ever again.

          But logic doesn’t persuade them because theirs is a purely emotional and infantile response to not getting what they wanted.

          jack burns in reply to edgeofthesandbox. | August 8, 2016 at 4:53 pm

          Simple, because you are for you. You’ll hold your ‘principles’ under you turn blue.

        Zachary in reply to KirbySalad55. | August 8, 2016 at 1:59 pm

        This bleating on and on about non trump supporters being De facto Hillary supporters is not getting old so please keep it up. I’m pretty sure you’ll convince a chump or two.

        Ragspierre in reply to KirbySalad55. | August 8, 2016 at 1:59 pm

        Gary, you’re a lying liar who lies, and you know it, like it, and work at it.

        Nobody here at LI wants EITHER stinking, lying, pathological Collectivist puke thug to win.

        In my own case, I will use my vote to send a message to the entire party system; you failed. You won’t be supported. You will be the target of an insurrection.

        You’ve been a T-rump sucking cultist from the git. Keep a’ suckin’. But keep your lying off me.

          KirbySalad55 in reply to Ragspierre. | August 8, 2016 at 3:09 pm

          My name isn’t Gary. Your highly emotional response indicates you don’t like having a mirror placed in front of you, because you don’t like what you see.

          healthguyfsu in reply to Ragspierre. | August 8, 2016 at 3:34 pm

          Rags, you’ve become such a sad, delusional loser over the course of the election year.

          Pity, because you used to have some common sense, even if you were always preachy and egocentric.

        KirbySalad55
        I don’t know who you are but keep up the good work!
        You’ve got all the right lunatics foaming at the mouth.

        Just don’t let the foam get on you. That’s why ol’ yeller had to be put down.

          KirbySalad55 in reply to secondwind. | August 8, 2016 at 3:16 pm

          Its a difficult task trying to keep the foam off oneself. It appears that when others have tried to fight back against the attacks from the rabid butt hurt Cruz brigade they get purged/banned.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Same Same. | August 9, 2016 at 1:24 am

    #NEVERTRUMP
    #NEVERHILLARY
    #NEVERJOHNSON
    #NEVERSTEIN

OMG! The #neverTrump idiots have gone off the rails!

Evan McMullin all Americans would thank you for your service to our nation. As a CIA employee you would use reason and logic to solve problems. What happened to that thinking?

This nonsense is DOA!

Russia has a former KGB officer, is the GOPe trying to copy them?

And all of this hysteria because Donald Trump gave a press conference where he looked presidential.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGHWou0h1kk
Trump starts at 30:30

Pat Paulsen was at least a little funny, sometimes.

A Mormon with a Goldman and CIA pedigree, what’s not to like? I’m surprised that they give Mormons drivers licenses.

I’ve never heard of Evan McMillan. I have heard of Rick Wilson. That I wouldn’t give him the time of day should encourage you #never T-rumpers to send him boatloads of $$. I encourage you in that endeavor.
I’m talking to you Rags.

theduchessofkitty | August 8, 2016 at 12:29 pm

Yawn… Did someone sneak me a sleeping pill into my drink?

He was policy director for the House, meaning Cathy McMorris Rodgers asked him advice. The House Conference is staying out of it, of course but you can bet leadership knew this was in the works.
I’m thinking he likely drew up the plan Trump recited yesterday.

    MarlaHughes in reply to MarlaHughes. | August 8, 2016 at 1:09 pm

    You can also bet he and Speaker Ryan have a lot in common and a likely friendship as well. Both of them are policy wonks in the House.

buckeyeminuteman | August 8, 2016 at 1:12 pm

Vermin Supreme has a much better chance of getting elected than this guy. And he only runs in the NH primaries! Free ponies for all Americans? Yes, please!

“Our nation has experienced a state of moral and oral decay. Both in spirit and incisors.”

The Friendly Grizzly | August 8, 2016 at 1:16 pm

I read at another site that after leaving the CIA he was at Goldman Sachs. Just what we need.

He Looks Like A Weaselly Thug. Do Not Like.

KirbySalad55 | August 8, 2016 at 3:22 pm

Somebody said this guy is a mormon. If true maybe the real plan is to try and siphon off enough mormon/beck/romney votes in Utah, Wyoming to flip those states to Hillary and maybe the election with it.

Maybe in their wildest dreams he wins Utah and causes the election to be thrown into the house of representatives where the republican congress will (in their minds) magically give the presidency to Cruz er I mean McMullin.

I’m sure this man is an honorable patriot. He has nearly zero chance of winning a national election. These are easy statements. This will be a real hold my nose and vote election. If Hillary wins, our country may not recover in my lifetime. I just hope it can recover.

    Barry in reply to Romey. | August 8, 2016 at 9:05 pm

    “I’m sure this man is an honorable patriot.”

    Why?

    His plan is to elect Hillary. Period.

    OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to Romey. | August 8, 2016 at 10:43 pm

    Just what kind of country are we going to have if Trump tries to renege on the debt and refuses to support our NATO allies. Do you really thing he and Putin are buddies or that Putin will roll right over him to the Atlantic Ocean?

    The last time actually built something or used his own money was in Chicago in 2008. When the market collapsed, he tried to renege on that debt by claiming ‘force majeure’. That is particularly instructive (pun intended) because Trump was still selling seats at Trump University in 2010. If an act of god destroyed the real estate market in 2008, what was he teaching his students in 2010?

    He is a grifter – first, last, always.

Super Pac, oh my, Rags get out your checkbook.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/08/08/new-super-pac-launching-to-support-evan-mcmullins-independent-white-house-bid/#comments

This is getting better by the minute. I can only see this helping my cause of purging the GOP of elite idiots. Yea!

So now we know who leaked Hillary’s emails.

This only helps Trump and kills the Tea Party. Sadly, these losers hijacked the Tea Party. I wonder if Ryan has any connection to this guy?

    Ragspierre in reply to MarkSmith. | August 8, 2016 at 3:57 pm

    You mean the entire field of GOPe incumbents that Der Donald endorsed over the lase week?

    As I’ve said for over a year, he’s Mr. Establishment.

    Sucker…!!!

      MarkSmith in reply to Ragspierre. | August 8, 2016 at 4:07 pm

      Oh no, its the sore loser club – Bush, Rubio, Rags, Mitt and McCain. This just show how much of a traitor these guys are. Too bad they really don’t understand principles. Trump work the votes. If they have got off their asses and really did their job instead of expecting it to be handed to them because they have an R next to their name, they I could understand. Atrue Democracy is actually is actually in play here.

      http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/290753-five-things-to-know-about-evan-mcmullin

      Florida-based GOP strategist Rick Wilson, a vocal Trump critic who previously backed Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)…

      And multiple media reports have tied McMullin to a group of mostly Republican operatives….

      ….Better for America Chairman John Kingston is a conservative donor with ties to President George W. Bush, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and 2012 GOP nominee Mitt Romney.

This really bothers me. I think Kirbysalad55 is on to something. I’m LDS (Mormon) and have been surprised by the antipathy many of my fellow members have against Trump. Normally Mormons support the conservative candidate – often the more conservative the better. Not this election, not since Cruz has been knocked out. All I can figure is that Mitt Romney’s strong critique of Trump last spring has heavily influenced many Mormons, especially in Utah. Romney is well respected in LDS circles, even if people don’t agree with him politically. Funny, now that I think about it – just last week highlights of Romney’s talk were re-circulating among some of my Mormon friends on social media. That couldn’t have been deliberate, could it? Media manipulation???
Nah …

Get Mormons to vote NotTrump and you affect Utah, Arizona, Idaho, Wyoming and possibly Nevada.

    MarkSmith in reply to B Buchanan. | August 8, 2016 at 4:19 pm

    “Get Mormons to vote NotTrump and you affect Utah, Arizona, Idaho, Wyoming and possibly Nevada.”

    Yea, that will the most conservative candidate elected…HIllary.

    Ragspierre in reply to B Buchanan. | August 8, 2016 at 4:22 pm

    T-rump is NOT a “conservative”. He’s the opposite. And all the LDS people I know think that character is a big factor. Maybe you aren’ one?

      MarkSmith in reply to Ragspierre. | August 8, 2016 at 4:46 pm

      Ouch, I am an idiot and not a conservative. Your powers amaze me to be so insightful.

      At least I have principles. My vote for a candidate to protect my ideals from being destroyed by Hillary is character. McMullin will not stop that. The McMullin candidate is a trader to conservatives, the republican party and Democracy.

      As for LDS character good for them, glad someone has some character except for those associated with the sell out of the GOP.

      As for your skill of identifying character, you strips are showing. I think they might be racing strips.

    B Buchanan :
    Rags favorite Mormon Mike Lee is a rabid #never T-rumper. He largely opposes Trump for Mormon religious reasons, something about religious freedom & Trumps support for a Muslim ban while things get straightened out.

    Lee is for open borders for those reasons. I think Glen Beck uses similar reasoning in his #never T-rump stand.

    Sounds to me like Utah may be open to Muslim immigration. I wonder how long Muslims would be tolerant of Mormons after they take over?

      Of FUCK OFF, Secondwind.

      Mike Lee is NOT for “open borders.” Repeat 1,000,000 times. End of Line.

      There’s a CORRECT way and there’s a WRONG way to do immigration control. Mr. Trump’s way (a ban on Muslims) is the WRONG way to do it and is CONSTITUTIONALLY impermissible. What part of “Congress shall make no law….” don’t you understand? Hmmmm?

      The CORRECT way to do it would be for EVERY immigrant seeking to enter the United States to have a proper background check PRIOR to that immigrant being allowed entry, or for those immigrants fleeing under asylum claim to be kept in separate facilities UNTIL they could be properly vetted.

        Ever hear of the McCurran Walter Act of 1952? It’s still part of our immigration law.

        Carter sent a bunch of Iranians packing after the events of 1979, over there in Tehran; was that illegal in your universe?

        Immigrants may be asked what religion they are and that might well be factored into whether they are admitted in the US.

        So, what’s your point about 1st Amendment Rights for Immigrants? It really doesn’t compute in reality!

          Perhaps you should actually, you know, READ a law before you cite it.

          Under Title 1, Section 101(27)(F) it specifically defines MINISTERS of a religious denomination needed by a religious organization in the United States as a “nonquota immigrant.” It does not and cannot limit based on which “religion” those individuals are.

          No where else does it mention religion, and there’s a reason WHY. It would be an impermissible intrusion on free exercise of an individual seeking immigration status by infringing on free exercise.

          A country of ORIGIN or a political PHILOSOPHY is different.

          Congress has “broad” powers to dictate immigration policy. They’re not “unlimited” when they conflict with a section of the Constitution.

          What part of “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” do you not understand?

          C.S.: A person claiming religious persecution will be asked to state what his religion is. A reasonable, and allowed question, based on the basis for his reason for coming here.

          In your mind, how else might a person otherwise claim, or show, that his coming is to escape religious persecution?

          Or, are you of the view that anyone who wants to may freely immigrate to the US? It certainly sounds like that’s the case!

          C.S.: A person claiming religious persecution will be asked to state what his religion is. A reasonable, and allowed question, based on the basis for his reason for coming here.

          And IF they’re making a claim of ESCAPING religious persecution as a basis of their request for admission, that is entirely REASONABLE, because it can then be looked at OBJECTIVELY as to the circumstances of the emigration nation.

          Religious PERSECUTION is a REASON to be ALLOWED IN, because of the acts of ANOTHER COUNTRY or LOCALITY. Religious PRACTICE is not a reason to be EXCLUDED from entry. The two are NOT equal. One is a circumstance of the NATION from which the potential immigrant is fleeing. The OTHER is an attempt to impermissible use a characteristic OF THE INDIVIDUAL HIM/HERSELF.

          In your mind, how else might a person otherwise claim, or show, that his coming is to escape religious persecution?

          A VERY poor straw-man argument. One easily destuffed. Read the above paragraph.

          Or, are you of the view that anyone who wants to may freely immigrate to the US? It certainly sounds like that’s the case!

          Either you have NEVER read anything that I have written on this site or my separate blog FLEEING FROM UTOPIA OR you’re a flaming troll. Which is it? Are you ignorant, or simply stoking the flame-wars?

          A blanket ban on the entry of a religious practice will not withstand Constitutional scrutiny. Period. That’s why even Mr. Trump ABANDONED it. He tried to replace it with a geographic ban, but that is problematic for different reasons, most importantly being that there is so much porousness of OTHER international borders that determining the original country of origin of an individual might be impossible.

          Nothing (and I really mean nothing) beats individual scrutiny and background checking of an entry candidate to determine if that individual should be allowed to immigrate.

        “and is CONSTITUTIONALLY impermissible”

        Gee Chuck, perhaps you should actually read the constitution.

        There you will find that we can, and do, and have, as ruled upon by none other than SCOTUS, decide entirely who we allow in for any damn reason we choose.

        Religious freedom has zero to do with immigration.

          Bzzzzz!!!! WRONG!

          What part of “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” do you not understand?

          Any immigration restriction based solely on a religious test would FAIL Constitutional muster under strict scrutiny.

          If you want to talk about Sale v. Haitian Centers Council, it doesn’t really apply, as the individuals in question were alleged refugees, intercepted at sea and were returned to Haiti. It says nothing about the APPLICATION process which was enacted by CONGRESS (or by grant to he Executive via delegation).

          Barry in reply to Barry. | August 9, 2016 at 7:16 pm

          “Bzzzzz!!!! WRONG!”

          Sorry, you don’t know what you’re talking about, nor can you read the constitution, nor have you read the court rulings.

          You are as ignorant as the entire left.

          OK jackass: Prove me wrong:

          Show me ONE case, just ONE, where the SCOTUS has upheld denying a person citizenship based on a religious test or upheld a religious test for a public benefit. Just ONE. One LITTLE TEENY CASE. I’ll politely wait.

          Or, show me ONE statue, just ONE, where the CONGRESS has stated that a class of individuals can be banned based on Religious practice from a otherwise neutral public benefit. Just ONE TEENY LITTLE CASE.

          Let’s see how long it takes you.

          Barry in reply to Barry. | August 11, 2016 at 7:05 pm

          Here you go, smart guy,if you can read:

          “To date there have been no successful challenges to federal legislation that refuses admission to classes of non-citizens or removes resident aliens. Federal immigration power thus appears limitless. Indeed, the Supreme Court has stated: “[O]ver no conceivable subject is the legislative power of Congress more complete.” Fiallo v. Bell (Sup.Ct.1977), Kleindienst v. Mandel, (Sup.Ct.1972), and Oceanic Steam Nav. Co. v. Stranahan (Sup.Ct.1909). Extreme judicial deference bears witness to the truth of this statement.”

          http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/immigrationlaw/chapter2.html

          ” Although the Equal Protection Clause generally requires strict scrutiny of racial classifications in the laws, the Supreme Court long ago–in a decision undisturbed to this day–upheld discrimination on the basis of race and national origin in the admission of noncitizens into the country. Similarly, even though discrimination on the basis of alienage status in modern times may mask an intent to discriminate against racial minorities, the Supreme Court ordinarily defers to alienage classifications made by Congress. Because the substantive provisions of the immigration laws historically have been immune from legal constraint, the political process allows the majority to have its way with noncitizens. ”

          https://academic.udayton.edu/race/02rights/immigr09.htm

          Read VERY CLOSELY what you wrote, and how it does not address AT ALL my point about RELIGION being a category that would not survive SCOTUS review.

          You’re trying (and failing, btw) to obfuscate the fact that you CANNOT find a SINGLE CASE where RELIGION was upheld (by ANY Court) as a reason to deny citizenship or access to the United States. You’re pointing at RACE and NATIONAL ORIGIN and trying to draw a parallel. They are not the same BECAUSE Religion is specially protected by a SEPARATE Amendment to the Constitution outside of the “Equal Protection” language of the 14th Amendment.

          You can PONTIFICATE all you like that the SCOTUS has never before declared a immigration law too broad, but you CANNOT point to a time when any legislature has been foolish enough to TRY to explicitly violate the First Amendment protections regarding RELIGION.

          I WILL point you at THIS, from that same University of Minnesota Human Rights Library that you linked to:

          Courts continue to review the practices, procedures, and policies of immigration authorities even though Congress has attempted to restrict judicial review. For example, INA § 242(g) provides that no court shall have jurisdiction to hear a claim “arising from the decision or action by the Attorney General to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders ….” The Supreme Court followed this directive in Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (Sup.Ct.1999), but in 2001, the Court warned that a “strong presumption in favor of judicial review of administrative action” exists and the INS must overcome “the longstanding rule requiring a clear and unambiguous statement of congressional intent to repeal habeas jurisdiction.” INS v. St. Cyr (Sup.Ct.2001). See § § 2-3.2, 9-4.3 infra.

          So, Congress’ authority over immigration isn’t QUITE as complete as you’re attempting to proffer.

          Want to try again? Perhaps with some actual case-law this time?

          Barry in reply to Barry. | August 12, 2016 at 2:46 pm

          You are the one making the claim that the 1st applies in some way to who we decide to allow to emigrate to this country.

          You cannot support it. I said the following:

          “There you will find that we can, and do, and have, as ruled upon by none other than SCOTUS, decide entirely who we allow in for any damn reason we choose.”

          I have supported that statement. Period.

          You are unable to refute it. Period.

          If you can’t see why this would be blocked as an impermissible religious test that would infringe on free exercise by denying a granted federal status after I’ve explained it to you in this many different ways, then you’re just not going to get it. Maybe someone with more patience can try.

          Take my word for it as someone who has a degree from the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Policy at Syracuse University, spent years studying Constitutional law and application before going to law school and has that nice piece of paper that says I’m eligible to practice law. Or don’t. It’s up to you.

        Chuckie thin skin.
        “Lee is for open borders for those reasons.”. You should use the whole passage when citing a quote.
        Such language! Tsk, tsk.
        “Polly want a cracker?” See Q. P., Aka ParrotMaster.

          Awww… Schoolyard taunts. [Sarcasm] How cute. You’re such a darling.[/Sarcasm]

          How about you address substance? Or is Ragspierre right, and you’re just a vapid, thoughtless collectivist moron who can’t back up your half-baked claims?

Hey Tea Party! Time to ditch your friends. They are not who they appear to be. You been hijacked by the established RINO’s.

“McMullin’s Facebook page is full of photos of him with influential GOP figures, including Speaker Paul Ryan (Wis.) and former Speaker John Boehner (Ohio).”

According to The Hill.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/290753-five-things-to-know-about-evan-mcmullin

Hmmm, so based on an observation about fellow Mormons (about which I know a lot), MY character is called into question?

My GOSH, you’re right!! All those kids on missions, the trips to and from BYU, Temple marriages and a lifetime of volunteer service … what would I know about being LDS?

My primary concern is who will load the Supreme Court. A vote for anyone other than Trump gives us Hillary.

It’s political masturbation. A short term, feel good exercise that gives instant pleasure to the doer without regard to the long term result. At the end they alone will be happy and will claim they are great lovers. Narcissistic and selfish, but a great example of how they ensured their candidate’s loss with their incompetence and intransigence.

    VaGentleman: Your above description could easily be used to describe Mr. Trump’s entire campaign to date.

      VaGentleman in reply to Chuck Skinner. | August 8, 2016 at 8:45 pm

      If ‘easily be used to describe’ means easy as in a lie is easier than the truth, as in a fantasy is easier to accept than reality, as in hatred is easier than love… If that’s what makes it easy for you, go ahead. Just know that you are wrong when you do it.

      I don’t see any way you can draw a moral equivalence between a candidate (and his supporters) who stood before the American voters in a primary and one who was appointed by a cabal of political failures. I don’t see how you can draw an equivalence between a candidate who is out there every day trying to win the presidency and one whose admitted purpose is to simply be ‘None of the Above’ on the ballot to ensure the defeat of one of the 2 presumptive winners. And, as I argued in my post, supporting the spoiler when he has no possibility of winning is merely an attempt to make yourselves feel good, not any kind of high moral crusade (or is it a CRUZade?).

      I don’t see how anyone with any integrity could do that. But if you want to try, be my guest.

        MarkSmith in reply to VaGentleman. | August 8, 2016 at 9:32 pm

        Be nice to Chucky. He likes to use bad words…..usually a sign of ignorance and lost of an argument. I agree with VaGentleman. Suck it up and stop crying. Cruz, Bush, Rommeny lost any respect I have for them, but then again, Thanks! I think the needle more in favor of Trump. Yea for another anti Hillary and demorat vote coming my way.

        Your answer presupposes that there are ONLY two candidates, and that one candidate should be chosen because of the consequences of the other. That is an incorrect statement of the situation.

        I don’t see any way you can draw a moral equivalence between a candidate (and his supporters) who stood before the American voters in a primary and one who was appointed by a cabal of political failures.

        There are LOTS of other candidates that have stood in front of their OWN primary voters, and others that have simply completed the application process in the appropriate way REGARDLESS of a primary. Were THEY appointed by “political failures”? Or are you now simply denigrating the supporters of any Party but your own? If so, that is particularly unenlightened.

        There are not only two candidates. In fact, there are, in addition to the Republican and Democrat PARTY lines candidates for the (in no particular order):
        – Constitution Party
        – Green Party
        – Libertarian Party
        – America’s Party
        – American Freedom Party
        – Constitution Party of Idaho
        – Party of Socialism and Liberation (PSL)
        – Peace & Freedom Party
        – Prohibition Party
        – Reform Party USA
        – Socialist Party USA
        – Socialist Equality Party
        – Socialist Workers Party
        – Veterans Party of America
        – Workers World Party

        And THEN there are Independent Candidates with Ballot Status in at least one state:

        *Frank Atwood (Approval Voting Party – Colorado)
        *Rocky de la Fuente (Independent – Florida)
        *Michael Deeks (USA76 Party – Florida)
        *Kyle Kopitke (Independent American Party – Michigan)
        *Prof. Laurence Koltikoff (Independent – Massachuetts)
        *Joseph Maldonado (Independent – Oklahoma)
        **Evan McMullin (Independent – Utah) (whom we are now discussing)
        *Ryan Alan Scott (Independent – Colorado)
        *Rod Silva (Nutrition Party – New Jersey)

        That is the philosophical argument which the supporters of Mr. Trump don’t seem to understand: Mr. Trump has NOT proposed reasons for most Conservatives to vote FOR him. Mr. Trump’s supporters have just said we should vote AGAINST Sec. Clinton.

        Well, guess what? Any OTHER candidate allows the #NeverTRUMP movement to do that. McMullen is not running on the Republican line. So any voters that follow and vote for McMullen are, by definition, voting AGAINST Sec. Clinton.

        If Mr. Trump wants to receive votes, he has to do more than simply say “well vote AGAINST Sec. Clinton, because she shouldn’t be President.” There ARE other options. McMullen is just another choice in the pile. The law of unintended consequences is a bitch, isn’t it.

        Why should OTHERS betray their own principles by the action to put their support (because that is what a Vote is) toward an individual that they don’t believe in or who is actively hostile to their opinion, on the off-chance that if ENOUGH other individuals ALSO do so, that the offending person will defeat another, in their opinion, equally bad candidate?

        In a succinct form, the Conservatives who won’t vote for Mr. Trump see it as this:

        “Mr. Trump = Sec. Clinton.”

        What the SUPPORTERS of Mr. Trump have promulgated is:

        “Mr. Trump > Sec. Clinton”

        The PROBLEM for Mr. Trump’s supporters is that YOU ACTUALLY HAVE TO CONVINCE THE CONSERVATIVES OF YOUR PROPOSITION, AND YOU HAVEN’T DONE THAT YET.

        Until you Mr. Trump supporters do, you have no “moral high-ground” to lecture ANYBODY else about their vote or it’s effects.

          Standing ovation! Well said, Chuck.

          VaGentleman in reply to Chuck Skinner. | August 10, 2016 at 2:43 pm

          Well Chuck let’s see how long it takes to deconstruct your argument.

          Your opening sentence says that I presuppose there are only 2 candidates. That is false. My opening post commented on McMullin’s candidacy. You replied that my remarks were applicable to Trump also. I then replied precisely to your post. Since your post compared Trump v McMullin, my PRECISE reply did the same. If anyone limited the argument it was you, not me. Additionally, I did not comment on McMullin, but rather his supporters.

          Since the rest of your ‘arguments’ are based on your falsehoods and the strawmen you erected from them, they are equally worthless. I hope you enjoyed wasting the time.

          You close your ‘analysis’ with the disingenous argument that it’s Trump’s job to try to give you reasons to vote for him. This cannot happen. I’ve read your posts (and the others in the LI #NeverTrump cabal) and it’s obvious that you reject, as a lie, everything he says or does. So how does he prove it to you?? He gave a list of court nominees – he won’t do it was your reply. Ditto everything else he does. Since there is no way he can change your mind, asking him to try is just another falsehood you use to try to make yourself look reasonable when you are nothing of the kind.

          Lastly, if there is anyone on LI claiming the moral high ground in this political debate, it’s you and the #NeverTrump contingent who constantly tell us that you are backing truth, justice and conservative values while those who disagree with you are selling out to the devil. That’s been a constant refrain since the day Trump whipped your boy’s butt. To be clear, that’s you claiming the moral high ground. Don’t shout at me.

          In closing, let me say sincerely, STUFF IT CHUCKY!

          VaGentleman: YOU ARE A MORON.

          I have said repeatedly that I WILL VOTE FOR MR. TRUMP. I WAS a Sen. Cruz supporter in the primary. FOR BETTER OR FOR WORSE, MR. TRUMP IS THE REPUBLICAN PARTY CANDIDATE (I think it is for WORSE, but that is my OPINION, and I AM entitled to it).

          Closing with a schoolyard taunt? Poor form AND weak. Deal with the issues.

          You apparently have NOT been paying attention to my posts, nor my positions on this matter. It is the supporters of Mr. Trump like you who make me question my stance that I will vote for Mr. Trump. However, just because I will vote for Mr. Trump does NOT mean that I am blind to his flaws, not the least of which is a RADICAL change in his political philosophy in a VERY short period of time, and which seems quite coincidentally convenient to his Republican conversion. We will return to this topic.

          Your opening post commented on McMullen’s candidacy as stating this:

          It’s political masturbation. A short term, feel good exercise that gives instant pleasure to the doer without regard to the long term result. At the end they alone will be happy and will claim they are great lovers. Narcissistic and selfish, but a great example of how they ensured their candidate’s loss with their incompetence and intransigence.

          I commented that could apply to Mr. Trump’s candidacy as well. LET ME SHOW YOU HOW:

          – How often does Mr. Trump come out and state “he’s going to be the best” that “we’ll hire the best.” How often does he comment on HIS OWN greatness as a candidate? Due to Mr. Trump’s inability to focus his campaign and through A LOT of unforced errors, he IS well on his way to insuring HIS OWN LOSS through incompetence and intransigence. Mr. Trump IS a narcissist and he IS particularly selfish.

          He is consistently Trolling the media and getting a LOT of free press for it, but he is letting THEM define the narrative, and leaving openings for the press to paint him as unhinged, advocating violence or advocating armed insurrection.

          Mr. TRUMP IS NOT RECOGNIZING HIS OWN MISTAKES AND IS NOT CORRECTING MID-STREAM AS A CANDIDATE WITH MORE EXPERIENCE WOULD DO. He needs to get with the program. His SURROGATES are not keeping up, and often are off-message because they are having to fire-fight the “crisis-du-jour” from what came out of Mr. Trump’s mouth during the last news-cycle. Sen. Clinton is such a weak candidate with so much baggage and so many scandals to exploit that Mr. Trump SHOULD be up by 10 points MINIMUM and the Democrat Party should be in disarray and routed.

          From Mr. Trump’s perspective, this quite possibly could be a short term, feel good exercise that gives instant pleasure to the doer (Mr. Trump) without regard to the long term result. I don’t know that he cares about Conservative principles or the Republican Party. He gets to stand in front of cheering, adoring crowds day in and day out. SOME (not all) Mr. Trump supporters claim this is a show that he is broadly supported. HOWEVER this MAY simply be a function of his “celebrity” status (I don’t know, we’ll ALL find out together in November on the night of the Election when the votes are tabulated).

          Now with that THOROUGHLY explained, PRAY TELL, what “falsehoods” did I engage in in my later arguments?

          I said this: That is the philosophical argument which the supporters of Mr. Trump don’t seem to understand: Mr. Trump has NOT proposed reasons for most Conservatives to vote FOR him. Mr. Trump’s supporters have just said we should vote AGAINST Sec. Clinton.

          Is that FALSE? Pray tell: HOW?

          I said this:
          In a succinct form, the Conservatives who won’t vote for Mr. Trump see it as this:

          “Mr. Trump = Sec. Clinton.”

          What the SUPPORTERS of Mr. Trump have promulgated is:

          “Mr. Trump > Sec. Clinton”

          Is that FALSE? Pray tell: HOW? Because THAT is the argument that the supporters of Mr. Trump ARE making (necessarily so).

          The Conservatives don’t believe it because so far throughout this campaign, Mr. Trump’s positions have changed more often than the direction of the WIND.

          Now ~I~ was rather pleased with the list of SCOTUS nominees that Mr. Trump put forward (some were better than others). If he ACTS on it, I will be pleasantly surprised, because I DO NOT expect him to stay with that list, given his being all over the map on other issues as well as his past statements on WHOM would make good SCOTUS nominees (his SISTER would NOT).

          You close your ‘analysis’ with the disingenuous argument that it’s Trump’s job to try to give you reasons to vote for him.

          [Shouting at the top of my lungs]:EVERY CANDIDATE’S JOB IS TO TRY TO GIVE VOTERS REASONS TO VOTE FOR HIM OR HER. THAT IS THE NATURE OF AN ELECTION.[end shouting]

          No candidate is entitled to ANY voter’s vote. Each and every candidate must EARN the vote of supporters. Simply extolling a voter to vote AGAINST someone (Sec. Clinton) leaves the voter open to voting for someone who fits their principles the best, and for MANY Conservatives, that is NOT Mr. Trump. That is where the law of unintended consequences comes into play, either driving MORE candidates into the race to take up the peeled-off voters (like McMullen) or driving voters into smaller 3rd parties which were already separately present, but had lesser draw (Gary Johnson gave a FANTASTIC answer on Tax policy on the FAIR-TAX today during a NPR interview).

          For some, that is harder than others. The Conservative movement has very real, valid concerns that Mr. Trump’s CURRENT statements conflict with his PAST statements on the matter, and he has given VERY SHORT SHRIFT to how he got from those PAST statements to the statements he’s making NOW.

          SOME individuals are content simply to take what Mr. Trump is saying NOW at face value (btw: that’s you). SOME OTHERS are asking the “well, HOW did you come to these revelations and HOW do you square them with the statements you made just a few short years ago?

          I would like to see more detailed POLICY proposals from Mr. Trump. His recent tax proposal was modestly acceptable. A much BETTER acceptable proposal would be to see Trump come out and proposed ABOLISHING the Corporate tax entirely, ABOLISHING the Gift & Estate Taxes entirely, modifying FICA to 7.65% on ALL earned income (individual tax, no corporate match) and flattening the Income tax to 20%, 22.5% and 25%. No deductions. My PREFERENCE would have been for Mr. Trump to come out and support the FAIR-TAX Proposal, which would ELIMINATE the market distortion of taxing “income” which may never be consumed. THEN I would have stood up and CHEERED.

          I’ve read your posts (and the others in the LI #NeverTrump cabal) and it’s obvious that you reject, as a lie, everything he says or does.

          Obviously you haven’t been reading MY posts closely enough, otherwise you would KNOW I am not a #NeverTrump individual. I DON’T reject everything Mr. Trump says as a lie. But I do seek PROOF.

          I want to understand Mr. Trump’s THOUGHT PROCESS. I, as a voter, value CONSISTENCY. When a candidate makes a radical change in their VALUES, THEIR ACTIONS and THE OUTCOMES they claim are acceptable, my FIRST question is: “WHAT CHANGED?” My SECOND question is: “What is the likelihood that it is going to CHANGE BACK?”

          So, are you going to deal with the issues, or are you going to mischaracterize my stance yet again because it suits your poorly made argument?

        VaGentleman in reply to VaGentleman. | August 10, 2016 at 11:45 pm

        You’re voting for Trump? Great! My work here is done. Have a nice day.

          You would have KNOWN that if you weren’t a MORON.

          THAT “my work here is done” type of attitude and running off into the sunset is the slip-shod, flippant type of outcome-based reasoning that doesn’t care about the PROCESS, only the RESULT. Once again, you IGNORE the substantive underlying issues. That in and of itself, is likely more dangerous than even a Sec. Clinton Presidency, because it means that there is no predictability or repeatability.

          Those underlying issues are why the #NeverTrump movement exists. Mr. Trump and his campaign staff ignore them at his peril.

          If the Trump-Pence Campaign doesn’t deal with those issues expressly and holistically in the very near future, the election is at BEST a toss-up, or odds-on a LOSS for Mr. Trump.

          VaGentleman in reply to VaGentleman. | August 11, 2016 at 11:16 am

          Chuck,
          You still haven’t addressed the point I raised in my original post. It was not about McMullin. It was about McMullin’s supporters and how their support of a candidate whose only purpose is to be the spoiler, and who has no chance of winning, is an exercise in political masturbation.

          Ok, let me try again to address your ORIGINAL CONCEPT about McMullen’s supporters and this being “political masturbation.”

          Your question (or comment) presupposes that those voters who will vote for McMullen would otherwise be voters for Mr. Trump.

          Why EXACTLY would that be? ~~(really think about it for a moment)~~

          Those voters who would vote for Mr. McMullen are one of several categories:

          1.) Voters who otherwise refuse to vote for Mr. Trump, and therefore would otherwise stay home and NOT VOTE, and thus represent ADDITIONAL voters being added to the voting pool.

          2.) Voters who would otherwise vote FOR Mr. Trump, but after analyzing the issues determine that Mr. McMullen is a better fit and/or more worthy of their vote than Mr. Trump, and thus represent a shift AWAY from Mr. Trump.

          3.) (least likely) Voters who have been displaced from other 3rd party candidates or from Sec. Clinton, and are looking for a non-Trump alternative.

          Possibility number two is what Mr. Trump supporters fear, and with GOOD REASON: Mr. Trump has NOT given Conservatives a solid reason to support him, and MANY are voting for him out of despair or as the lesser of two evils, because they see Mr. Trump as a nearly equally bad outcome, but feel they have no other options.

          Mr. Trump’s pronouncements on policy have been weak on Conservative content. The fact that he has denigrated the Conservative Movement so often, and has backed/supported so many Establishment or Anti-Conservative lawmakers has encouraged those IN the Conservative movement to think “well, if you are not going to respect us as voters, we’re NOT going to vote for you.”

          Mr. Trump’s response has largely been “Nynha… (thumbing nose) well, I’M BETTER, AND GREATER, AND I DON’T NEED THE CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT.”

          Those individuals have every right to vote FOR whomever they want; whomever they think has EARNED their vote. The alternative is that they DON’T VOTE AT ALL.

          A Candidate is not ~entitled~ to a vote simply because the person casting it identifies as having a “R” or a “D” on their voter registration card (where the law allows such things). A Candidate must EARN that vote by appealing to the voter’s wants, needs, desires and stated preferred outcomes.

          So far, largely Mr. Trump has said: It’s my way, or get out of my way because I don’t need you. That has worked out reasonably well for him in BUSINESS. However this is ELECTIONEERING, and telling potential voters that you don’t need them is a SURE route to disaster.

          VaGentleman in reply to VaGentleman. | August 12, 2016 at 8:12 am

          From the OP.
          “Key players in GOP’s anti-Trump movement are preparing to launch an independent presidential campaign for Evan McMullin …”
          “He would make for an unlikely presidential candidate. He has never held elective office before and has spent most of his career as a CIA officer,”
          This is followed by a longer list of his (lack of) qualifications.
          The sole qualification he seems to bring to the table is conservative purity. He says as much in his tweet (quoted in the OP):
          “Opposing @realDonaldTrump is about putting principle over power, a virtue some in Washington are too quick to abandon. #NeverTrump”

          To paraphrase:
          A group of GOP #NeverTrumpers have created a properly conservative candidate with no political experience, no name recognition, and no chance of winning for the sole purpose of insuring Trump’s defeat.

          The obvious question is, why do it? It won’t get us any supreme court nominees. It won’t close the borders. It won’t advance any conservative causes. What do they hope to achieve?

          That’s what my first post answers. What they are doing is a narcissistic attempt at self justification by a cabal of political losers who were so incompetent that they couldn’t get a primary candidate chosen in the best climate for their cause since Reagan. Since their candidate can’t win, voting for him serves no purpose other than to let them feel good after the act is over by claiming they voted for principle. It’s political masturbation. That’s all I said.

          You said Trump was the same.
          I rejected that since Trump has a chance of winning. Voting for him offers something beyond just feeling good.

          Since then you have been accusing me of presupposing things. I presupposed nothing. I read the OP and commented on the facts as stated in it. Your charges of presupposition on my part are your attempt to redefine my statement to fit your argument. That’s not how logic works.

          I explained this to you here:
          “Your opening sentence says that I presuppose there are only 2 candidates. That is false. My opening post commented on McMullin’s candidacy. You replied that my remarks were applicable to Trump also. I then replied precisely to your post. Since your post compared Trump v McMullin, my PRECISE reply did the same. If anyone limited the argument it was you, not me. Additionally, I did not comment on McMullin, but rather his supporters. ”

          You continue to try to change the argument to what Trump should be doing, or his thought processes, or his suitability. None of that is pertinent to my first post which, again, is about why McMullin was offered as a candidate.

          You said Trump was the same. I rejected that since Trump has a chance of winning. Voting for him offers something beyond just feeling good.

          You failed to divine the MEANING behind my statement that the same description could be applied to the campaign of Mr. Trump. This might just be a feel-good exercise to him to justify his own sense of importance. I don’t know. I’m not inside his brain. But he HAS been making mistakes which display a sense of narcissism and entitlement which makes me nervous.

          The obvious question is, why do it? It won’t get us any supreme court nominees. It won’t close the borders. It won’t advance any conservative causes. What do they hope to achieve?

          See reference equation: “Sec. Clinton = Mr. Trump.” Belief by Conservative voters (after being denigrated by Mr. Trump and his campaign) that they are neither wanted nor respected. See further statements by Mr. Trump himself (some retracted) regarding proper role of government, (prior to the list) whom would make good SCOTUS justices, Mr. Trump use of political, civil and governmental process to personally enrich himself, his allies and punish (or at least inconvenience) his competitors.

          In short, it achieves a place for those Conservative voters to go OTHER than simply staying home, and leaves a position open to say to the current party leadership (and somewhat to the party membership in general) X% of the Republican voters are willing to support a candidate who believes in X,Y, and Z, rather than Mr. Trump’s positions, which are NOT Conservative in nature and which (at least some) Conservative Voters believe will do lasting damage to the country.

          Again, in short, see reference equation “Sec. Clinton = Mr. Trump.”

BWAHAHAHAHA, . . . heh.’

Yep, Good Ol Boy Rags a,nd his Ever Lovin Good Ol Boy Cruz The Wannabe, will vote for this staunch conservative McMullin, then complain mightily when Hilldabeast wins by a narrow margin.

Thanks you, Rags! You’ve shown your true colors, Yellow, with tinges of Pink!

Rags says it’s more important to be true to his make believe world than to reality! Hooray for your make-believe!

Ta ta!

The last time I checked, over 80% of Legal Insurrection people polled picked Trump. I am thinking this choice is not going to change their minds.

LOL, the #nevertrump crowd does love being laughed at.

At least it has entertainment value. I just love watching the so called conservatives twisting like pretzels to justify there new sure winner.

The nevertrump everhillary crowd. A joke every week.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend