Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

If you ever took Evan McMullin seriously, you can stop now

If you ever took Evan McMullin seriously, you can stop now

Using the same, tired, progressive trope of labeling everyone aligned with Trump a racist

Evan McMullin ran for president in 2016. He failed, of course. But in running, he gave Never Trump conservatives who couldn’t stomach pulling the lever (or pushing the button, these days) for Donald Trump an out; someone they could feel good about voting for, without forfeiting their vote entirely.

While most of the Never Trump movement has gone on with their lives (myself included), a few hardcore holdouts remain, one of who is McMullen. So great is their disdain for Trump, that it’s increasingly difficult to distinguish these folks from progressives suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome. Like their leftist counterparts (if you can call them that) they’re all spewing the same crazy garbage:

The McMullins of the political realm have turned their hatred of Trump into a quasi-religion and for what? What does any of this accomplish? What does it advance? And what the hell is the point? These games were well and good during campaign season, but now they read as childish spoiled sportedness.

As I’ve blogged several times over, healthy skepticism of electoral power and elected officials is a necessity for any republic. They are, after all, public servants, elected not to wield power, but to represent. But hurling the ridiculous charge of “white nationalist” at anyone and everyone aligned with Trump is not only stupid, but in incredibly poor taste.

This crew, the one that professes principled purity, are the first to slander the opposition with the same, stinky political mud thrown by leftists. The self-awareness fail here is strong. And as Trump would say, Sad!

Follow Kemberlee on Twitter @kemberleekaye

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

What is wrong with his head. Every time I see a picture of him I think of Ernie from Sesame Street or the Cone heads. James Clapper has that same looking cone head. They are a messed up bunch IMO.

Who? Seriously, who?

See? Many people who run for president then go crazy.

Have another Nutter butter peanut butter sandwich cookie!

I did a search on him and discovered he has a facebook page. Not sure it is his, but I could not stop laughing. I think the Russians are having a heyday with him.

Wasn’t the Jacobin Rags push this guy? Oops, that might be a troll comment. Sorry.

    Ragspierre in reply to MarkSmith. | November 7, 2017 at 3:43 pm

    Well, that’s at least four lies, right there.

    You don’t know what a “Jacobin” is.

    I’m not one. (You’ve never been able to cite anything a “Jacobin” and I have in common.)

    I gave McMullin the same once-over I gave T-rump.

    I NEVER supported him. (No more than I supported Mr. Establishment.)

    And you’re not sorry for being a lying SOS troll. That’s just who you are.

    Ragspierre in reply to MarkSmith. | November 7, 2017 at 4:48 pm

    Really, down-thumbing morons…???

    Maybe you can help out the Alt-right butt-boi, MarkSmith.

    What’s a Jacobin?

    How can any of you morons fit me up with that bullshit?

      IN modern parlance you would usually define a ‘Jacobin’ as a party extremist demanding ideological purity – a definition much of the ‘never trump’ crowd would indeed fit. Rand Paul could probably under these terms be called ‘jacobin’ for example.

        Ragspierre in reply to rdm. | November 7, 2017 at 5:09 pm

        No. Not even close. But nice try as naked name-calling.

        Jacobin HAS a historical meaning. I HAS current meanings. Look. Them. Up.

        They’re the OPPOSITE of what I am.

          That’s why I defined modern parlance rags. Quit the disingenousness. You know Very well that word change common useage over time – for example those describing themselves as “liberal” now are in fact the exact opposite of liberal ,in the old sense.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | November 7, 2017 at 5:17 pm

          “Jacobin HAS a historical meaning. I HAS current meanings. Look. Them. Up.”

          Try reading before you call me “disingenuous”. I know WTF I’m talking about. You don’t.

          civil truth in reply to Ragspierre. | November 7, 2017 at 5:28 pm

          Whatever else you may post, I would expect someone with your screen name to know the definition of Jacobin.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | November 7, 2017 at 5:31 pm

          Oh, I DO, stupid.

          It’s the OPPOSITE of what I am, and what ROBESpierre was.

          How stupid are you people…?!?!?!?

          Edward in reply to Ragspierre. | November 8, 2017 at 9:36 am

          It does indeed have a historic meaning. And I’m sure you have current meanings, or was that an proof reading fail and should have been “It” and not “I”? So you allege your are the opposite of the modern definitions:

          OK, you aren’t a Dominican Friar. And you aren’t a type of fancy domestic pigeon. In your opinion you apparently believe you are not an extreme political radical, but others apparently disagree.

          In any event it seems you are disturbed by down voting. Good. Those who disagree with your content, or simply object to your offensive persona (most often I fall into this group), can feel free to down vote you every time you comment.

          Edward in reply to Ragspierre. | November 8, 2017 at 9:40 am

          “…an proof reading fail…” should be “…a proof reading fail…”. “Your” should have been “you are”. Shouldn’t have changed my mind without triple checking on a site with no edit function. Mea culpa.

        “IN modern parlance you would usually define a ‘Jacobin’ as a party extremist demanding ideological purity – a definition much of the ‘never trump’ crowd would indeed fit. Rand Paul could probably under these terms be called ‘jacobin’ for example.”

        Rags is right, this is not even close to a valid means of identifying a Jacobin.

        The problem is fundamental and a common logical fallacy.

        “A party extremist demanding ideological purity” can be anything: Nazi, communist, socialist, American Democrat, even American Republican. As such, it is definitional of nothing and plays like “Hitler liked dogs, and Rags likes dogs, so Rags is a genocidal monster just like Hitler.” It’s ludicrous and nonsensical; in fact, it’s laughably, patently false.

        A “party extremist who demands ideological purity” is everyone from antifa to the KKK and from granola-crunching tree-huggers who demand government-mandated population controls to Constitutionalists who want 7/10 of the federal government dismantled. Such a party extremist demanding ideological purity might declare “war” on the GOPe, no? Being a party extremist and being a Jacobin are not the same things, not rooted in the same ideologies, not the same anything except that they each reflect extremist views of their party. “Let’s blow up the GOP and / or establishment” is the rallying cry of a party extremist who demands ideological purity. No two ways about it. Does that make every Trump supporter a Jacobin? Of course not . . . because the definition is faulty.

        See where this goes when you hone in on one sentence of a wikipedia description? “Jacobin” does not mean what you think it means because if it does everyone Trump supporter who demands ideological purity is also a Jacobin. And my vegan neighbor who disdains we meat-eaters is also a Jacobin. In fact, it’s not long before we have Jacobins hiding in every bush, which is interesting since the bushes are already, according to the hysterical left, full of white supremacists, Nazis, and white nationalists.

    Mark, what do you mean by “Jacobin Rags”? I ask only because you do seem to misuse the term (the “Jacobin” part) every time you invoke it, and I want to understand what you mean by it.

Bill Kristol is not too far behind Evan “Egg McMuffin” McMullin. They both need to be sent to NeverTrump Island.

Looks like he’s just embracing the highest neo-con ideal of losing with “honor.”

“If you ever took Evan McMullin seriously”

You weren’t paying attention.

MARK: Funny, I had almost instantaneously the identical
recollection….wanna bet we’ll hear now from the King of the Trump-Derangement-Syndrome?

Bucky Barkingham | November 7, 2017 at 3:21 pm

It’s clear that NeverTrumps like McMuffin (and his ilk at NRO and WS) adhere to an agenda which is not Conservative.

    Ragspierre in reply to Bucky Barkingham. | November 7, 2017 at 3:32 pm

    Name his “ilk” at…well, anywhere…

    Let’s have it out, shall we?

      Tom Servo in reply to Ragspierre. | November 7, 2017 at 5:08 pm

      Max Boot, John Ziegler, Bill Kristol, and the rest of the “Meeting of the Concerned”, for starters.

      Bill Kristol is out on twitter again today, begging Virginia voters to go for Northram.

      Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | November 7, 2017 at 5:16 pm

      Well, we’ll disagree on some of those, but where is any NR author?

      WTF is WS?

      Explain how any of those you just named (excluding Kristol) are “just like” McMullin. I don’t think you can.

          Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | November 7, 2017 at 8:04 pm

          Oh. OK. So anyone who did not suck T-rump is part of the McMullin “ilk”.

          You’re out of your flucking mind.

          BTW, how big is your “ilk”. Four people…maybe…???

          C’mon, nutter, LAY it allllllllllll out. Tell people here what you REALLY believe…!!!

          Barry in reply to Barry. | November 7, 2017 at 9:52 pm

          People here know what I believe, I’ve never hid it.

          I said Trump would win the Republican nomination. You called me out of my mind then as well. You were wrong.

          I said Trump would win the presidency by June or so of the election year. You called me out of my mind then as well. You were wrong.

          I said the true enemy was the GOPe, represented by the “NRO”, and Trump was “our” weapon to defeat them. That is proceeding. When that is complete then we can defeat the communist left otherwise known as the democrat party.

          You are of no help in working for a conservative agenda. For you, it’s just defeat Trump, at any cost, just like the NRO crowd you so adore.

          Trump has been, and will continue to be, a much more conservative president than your hero GWB ever was. A much more conservative president than Romney or McCain, candidates you voted for…

          You are just deranged.

          Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | November 8, 2017 at 5:56 am

          But, Butt-hurt Barri, you ARE out of your mind. And you won’t tell people here what your real ideas are.

          You’re completely irrational, and you’re without integrity. You might be a rightist, but you are not a conservative.

          MarkSmith in reply to Barry. | November 8, 2017 at 8:52 am

          Jacobin Bonehead “But, Butt-hurt Barri, you ARE out of your mind. And you won’t tell people here what your real ideas are.

          I think that you just proved Barry’s point that you are deranged.

          Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | November 8, 2017 at 9:12 am

          No. You don’t “think”. You simply smear. You can’t deal with reality, which is demonstrated by the links I provided. So you just lie.

          And you STILL don’t know what a “Jacobin” is, but you learned a new term on one of your Alt-right nutter blogs, and you think you are now “clever”. You aren’t.

          MarkSmith in reply to Barry. | November 8, 2017 at 9:26 am

          Again, Goldberg distorts the facts. From the NRO link:

          These facts probably help explain why the NRA has taken a dark turn of late, releasing ads that have virtually nothing to do with gun laws and everything to do with fueling cultural resentment. It’s hard for a public-policy lobbying outfit to keep membership dues flowing when they’ve already won.

          I don’t think his facts support this. Additionally, the 4 million + NRA membership I don’t think are in jeopardy.

          I don’t see it as a cultural resentment issue either. I think that is a DNC talking point (“cling to Bible and guns”)! Goldbern is pushing DNC talking points. That does not sound like a conservative to me.

          Just like the WSJ, NRO is now fundamentally dishonest about the issues. I think this started around the 2008 election caused by the GW golden boy failures.

          Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | November 8, 2017 at 10:20 am

          “Additionally, the 4 million + NRA membership I don’t think are in jeopardy.”

          Which was Jonah’s point, ya moron.

          “I don’t see it as a cultural resentment issue either. I think that is a DNC talking point (“cling to Bible and guns”)! Goldbern is pushing DNC talking points. That does not sound like a conservative to me.”

          But you’re an idiot, as we’ve just demonstrated.

          The gist of Goldberg’s piece is ABOUT WHY anti-gun legislation can’t work in the U.S.

          “More broadly, President Trump and a GOP-controlled Congress will not do anything significant to restrict gun rights in America. And the experience under President Obama, particularly in the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting, demonstrates that even some Democrats don’t want to move against their electoral self-interest. Indeed, the main reason for inaction isn’t the “stranglehold” of the National Rifle Association — a relative piker when it comes to political spending — but the fact that millions of gun owners are likely to vote on the gun issue, while millions of gun-control supporters are not. Also, a supermajority of Americans (76 percent to 23 percent, according to Gallup) do not want a ban on private gun ownership.”
          http://www.nationalreview.com/article/453514/sutherland-church-shooting-why-inaction-gun-laws

          Poor lil’ liar.

          MarkSmith in reply to Barry. | November 8, 2017 at 10:36 am

          I see the Bone Head Jacobin claimed I did not response to his link, but I did before I even saw his post. Sorry, I would have responded sooner, but I have more important things to do. After reviewing his post, they offered zero value to advance his cause.

          In regards to the definition of a Jacobin, I don’t think you made the case you are not a Jacobinist. You post lack sobriety of moral realism. Your posts, when they are not calling someone a liar (which are like 90% of) or some other non-issue tend to be pernicious idealism.

          My view of Jacobinism comes from Edmund Burke and the foolish views of Jefferson which are founded in Hamilton writings and Jefferson writings (who called reports on French revolution atrocities as rank propaganda).

          Not sure if there is a connection between Robspierre and Ragspirre, but Robsspierre said “the most beautiful revolution that has ever honored humanity”. Such stupid thinking was shared by Jefferson and my take is Jefferson’s view is a universal goal excused the bloodthirsty means used in the French Revolution.

          Your claims seem to be in line with justifying your position of “universal goals” with the cloak of Conservatism. It is a dishonest position that you can only defend by calling everyone a liar. I think all versions of Jacobin apply to you. It your case to provide otherwise.

          As for learning about Jacobism,

          MarkSmith in reply to Barry. | November 8, 2017 at 10:54 am

          The Bonehead Jacobin again distorts with

          “Which was Jonah’s point, ya moron”

          My point:

          “I don’t think his facts support this. Additionally, the 4 million + NRA membership I don’t think are in jeopardy.”

          Is not the point I bolded:

          “It’s hard for a public-policy lobbying outfit to keep membership dues flowing when they’ve already won.

          First, the NRA has not won just because Goldberg says so. Second the other 60+ million gun owners that are not part of the NRA are dismissed by his article. Even though I don’t own are gun and I am not a member of NRA, I am a 2nd amendment support. That requires a constant vigil to protect.

          Goldberg has taken a DNC talking point – the powerful NRA lobby influence” to mean more than it really is.

          As for calling me a moron, great! I love it. It is just another word like Jacobin, Trump and liar rattling around in that bonehead of yours.

          Barry in reply to Barry. | November 8, 2017 at 1:54 pm

          “Suck it, nutter!”

          Thanks, no. Sucking is your provenance.

          You’ll suck anything the cons at NRO put out.

          The only reason we continue to have a partly functioning 2nd is not due to the cons at NRO. They would sell that out in a heartbeat, like the R’s they support sale out the base frequently.

      MarkSmith in reply to Ragspierre. | November 8, 2017 at 8:06 am

      I think the key to the challenge is “…adhere to an agenda which is not Conservative.”

      I like the “Lets have it out.” The second post by the Bonehead Jacobin is already admitting losing the fight and changing the challenge. Way to go Tom Servo.

      Here in a nice quote from Jonah Goldberg:

      “But first I should explain something. As I’ve said before, I do not consider myself a “Never Trumper” any more for the simple reason that the label is inadequate to the times.”

      That is BS and we know it. It is classic, just like the WSJ editorial section is a cloaked NeverTrump except for the stupid Karl Rove posts which are blatant.

      It is time to pull the BS meter out. Just like The Jacobin changes his position when he can’t support it, NRO Goldberg pulls the same trick “As I’ve said before, I do not consider myself a “Never Trumper” any more”

      I still consider myself a Neo-Con, but Kristol has ruined it. NRO has been politically hijack and I only selectively read it instead of daily. Bush (a fake Neo-con) proved that he was not behind the Neo-con policies by his comments about Rumsfeld and Cheney yesterday. NRO is fake Neo-con. now.

        Ragspierre in reply to MarkSmith. | November 8, 2017 at 8:37 am

        “But first I should explain something. As I’ve said before, I do not consider myself a “Never Trumper” any more for the simple reason that the label is inadequate to the times.”

        You can’t even deal honestly with what Goldberg says, and you still don’t even know what a “Jacobin” is, you poor lil’ Alt-right butt-boi.

        And you just lie, and lie and lie. It’s how you try to say anything effective.

          MarkSmith in reply to Ragspierre. | November 8, 2017 at 10:57 am

          Alt-Right, that is a big word for you. Another DNC talking point word. Your Jacobin true colors are showing.

          MarkSmith in reply to Ragspierre. | November 8, 2017 at 11:24 am

          Bonehead Jacobin:

          “You can’t even deal honestly with what Goldberg says, ”

          Yipe, I can see how you might think that, but what Goldberg says is just backing off from his NeverTrump position to claim the high ground. Smart move if he want to keep some of his creditably, but it fails. Even you are forced to backoff your NeverTrump position claiming some EO and the Gorsuch pick are right.

          I think most of us care more about what Trump is doing than supporting Trump. The fact that the Uni-party is a mess, we have Gorsuch, Hollywood is being exposed, Big Money is being exposed and the Russian thing is blowing up is exactly what we want.

          I recently watched the Good American and read the Snowden books. I find myself more in line with Buckley than I did in 2006 when he said ““One can’t doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed.” The Dark side has been in control since George Bush Sr. and his CIA cronies. Look up Ross Perot Daughter.

          I agree with Buckley on “Look for the narcissist. The most obvious target in today’s lineup is, of course, Donald Trump” in the 2000 election, but I disagree on the Trump impact on the establishment. I don’t expect Trump to “lead us”. I expect him to blow up the dam that is preventing progress so others can. The establishment has fail and McMullen is just one of the pawns, just like the fake Neo-cons at NRO.

          Goldberg’s a liar. And you are a useful idiot.

The farce is strong with this one (spelling intentional).

I understand people having had reservations about Trump, or still having reservations about Trump. But calling him and his supporters “white supremacists” is stupid.

    Ragspierre in reply to tarheelkate. | November 7, 2017 at 4:51 pm

    Some of them ARE. That’s not a blanket accusation. It’s just a fact. Just as it’s a fact that some of Barracula’s supporters were/are black supremacists.

No. Not seriously or any other way. I said exactly what I meant, and it would be wrong to take it beyond that.

Here’s what I don’t understand. When obama was prez the things he was doing to this country were horrible and totally unConstitutional yet the left looked the other way. obama was a daily liar and most of the time EVERYONE knew it the minute he uttered his latest lie. Yet, for eight years no one was offended by this treason of the office. Not one of the “Pure” leftists who now blast Trump for his supposed failings saw fit to call obama out for the exact same things. McMuffin is a deranged individual who has idealistic motives but there are no ideal candidates. Just like Exlax, you have to take some bad things to get rid of even more bad things. Trump is our Exlax and he is doing his job.

The point here is that McMullin claims that Gillespie is “peddling fear and white nationalism.” That’s nuts.

    Ragspierre in reply to tarheelkate. | November 7, 2017 at 7:34 pm

    Agreed.

      kenoshamarge in reply to Ragspierre. | November 8, 2017 at 9:33 am

      WTH? Even when he agrees with you 4 of your down arrow him?

      I don’t agree with him much of the time and I hate, hate, hate the back and forth name-calling and it’s not just him.

      But down arrowing someone just because you don’t like him is adolescent.

      Come on people, I thought those at LI were better than common garden variety commenters.

Oh and for the record, I was #NeverTrump and voted for nutter McMullin and have regretted it ever since.

I am no longer #NeverTrump because that was about voting and that was a year ago.

Trump has in the meantime done a few things I actually like and I know the Hill thing would not.

In fact the insanity on the left and the continuing nonsense from the #NeverTrump people has forced me to do something I would never have believed – defend Trump. That’s what happens when people lose their minds and accuse a man I don’t like of being guilty of things he is not.

    Ragspierre in reply to kenoshamarge. | November 8, 2017 at 10:02 am

    While we’re clearing the record here, let me remind everyone that I’ve supported some T-rumpian moves.

    Gorsuch was a win. Of course, you have to credit McConnell, too, as but for him we’d have no Gorsuch. I loath McConnell, as I loath T-rump.

    SOME of T-rump’s appointments are good. Many are NOT good.

    I’ve supported several of T-rump’s EOs. I also deplore his amnesty plans and conduct.

    I have absolutely no support for the Collectivist crap that’s thrown at T-rump. I also find it ironic, since he IS a Collectivist (Progressive) with Bernie trade policy and Keynesian economics policy.

    Just #realism.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend