Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Glenn Beck Changes His Mind About Trump: “I’ll vote for him in 2020”

Glenn Beck Changes His Mind About Trump: “I’ll vote for him in 2020”

“Media, if you can get me, Glenn Beck, to do this…”

https://youtu.be/b4Ck1CgbrME

Before the 2016 election, the conservative journal National Review published a long piece called “Against Trump” which included thoughts from a variety of conservative figures. Among them was talk host Glenn Beck.

Beck wrote:

When conservatives desperately needed allies in the fight against big government, Donald Trump didn’t stand on the sidelines. He consistently advocated that your money be spent, that your government grow, and that your Constitution be ignored.

Sure, Trump’s potential primary victory would provide Hillary Clinton with the easiest imaginable path to the White House. But it’s far worse than that. If Donald Trump wins the Republican nomination, there will once again be no opposition to an ever-expanding government.

This is a crisis for conservatism. And, once again, this crisis will not go to waste.

Beck has now changed his tune. From his site, The Blaze:

Glenn Beck: Media bias against Trump will fuel 2020 ‘win’

Glenn had quite an announcement on today’s show: It’s time to don a “Make America Great Again” hat and fully support the president. He predicted a 2020 “landslide” and the opposite of a “blue save” in the upcoming midterm elections.

Citing “Trump derangement syndrome,” Glenn called out the media for their bias this week covering President Donald Trump’s remarks in response to a question about MS-13, calling the gang members “animals” for their violent atrocities that include murder and rape.

“Media, if you can get me, Glenn Beck, to do this,” Glenn said as he put on the famous red hat. “If you can drive me to the point to where I say, ‘You know what, I’ve had enough; I’ll vote for him in 2020’ … you’re making a gigantic mistake.”

Watch his declaration in the video below:

Beck went into more detail on Twitter:

Featured image via YouTube.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Glenn Beck flip flops again.
Ratings is the boss.

    Dimsdale in reply to Exiliado. | May 19, 2018 at 10:16 am

    Say what you will about Beck, but I recall that he has the only legitimate debate about Obamacare before it was foisted on us, with real doctors, both young and old, on his TV show. It was revealing and prescient. Ineffective though.

      Exiliado in reply to Dimsdale. | May 19, 2018 at 11:11 am

      I’m not denying any of that, just pointing out that he flip flops.

        DaveGinOly in reply to Exiliado. | May 19, 2018 at 2:01 pm

        Flip-flopping is saying one thing to one audience and saying something else to another audience the next day. The re-evaluation of a situation, taking newly-developed or exposed facts into account, and making a decision to change one’s opinion is not flip-flopping. Any person incapable of re-evaluating a changed (or changing) situation is a hidebound ideologue.

          Exiliado in reply to DaveGinOly. | May 20, 2018 at 1:07 am

          Dictionary dot com:

          flip-flop
          [flip-flop]
          See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
          noun
          Informal. a sudden or unexpected reversal, as of direction, belief, attitude, or policy.

          —————————————–

          Google:

          1.
          move with a flapping sound or motion.
          “she flip-flopped off the porch in battered sneakers”
          2.
          North Americaninformal
          make an abrupt reversal of policy.
          “the candidate flip-flopped on a number of issues”

          —————————————–

          Dictionary dot cambridge dot com:

          flip-flop noun [ C ]
          /ˈflɪpˌflɑp/
          a sudden and complete change of plans or opinion:
          They did a complete flip-flop by deciding to have a large wedding rather than getting married secretly.

          —————————————–

          Merriam-Webster dot com:

          Definition of flip-flop
          1 : the sound or motion of something flapping loosely
          2 a : a backward handspring
          b : a sudden reversal (as of policy or strategy)

          —————————————–


          Thanks for playing.

          JusticeDelivered in reply to DaveGinOly. | May 22, 2018 at 6:31 pm

          What you may see as flip flopping was probably you seeing the last stage of a long process. I was raised a Democrat, by mid life I was an independent, and while I was highly skeptical of Trump’s claims, I knew Hillary was a loser.

          Since then, Trump has impressed me, he has mostly stuck with campaign promises, he keeps changing strategy in his approach to keep those promises. He continues to impress me, and I will vote for him again.

          I have extensive business background, Trump has been applying business like strategy to politics with great success. I used similar tactics in the business segment I worked it. Misdirection to make my adversaries chase their tails, mobilizing other special interest groups to accomplish my goals, strangling adversaries credit lines.

          My 90 year old father hates Trump, I keep pointing out to him that those who crossed swords with me, people whom I often extracted a terrible tool from, would bad mouth me in the same way people bad mouth Trump. This in spite of my having the high ground:)

          In any event, I am sympathetic to Trump and impressed by how effective he has been in the face of truely rabid opposition. He just does not accept defeat.

        Hawk in reply to Exiliado. | May 20, 2018 at 11:32 am

        I too am a flip flopper. But Trump made a believer of me. Just look at what he has achieved and dammit the man is keeping his campaign promises. My life began at the same time FDR started his first term and there has never been a president as open to the people as Trump. Make America Great Again. ……Keep America Great in 2020!

    He kind of lost his mind for a while (genuinely) and left the reservation.

    He’s back.

I was going to say that we shouldn’t warn the mediots, but then I realized who I was talking about, and that their all consuming hatred will once again blind them to their stupidity.

Stand back and let them go at it! MAGA, baby!

Swaying never Trumpers like Beck, then independents, then even minority groups that will eventually see the light as the liberal narrative explodes in their faces.

Trump is a Godsend! Imagine what he could do without all the feckless attacks on him!

    amwick in reply to Dimsdale. | May 19, 2018 at 4:05 pm

    I don’t personally think the attacks have slowed him down too much, which is astounding. He may even be fueled somewhat by righteous indignation. At least I hope so.

While I’d rather have Glenn Beck supporting President Trump than not, he’s pretty much a crazy person.

Sorry, but … so what? This guy doesn’t exactly have his finger on the pulse of the nation.

Beck wrote:

Sure, Trump’s potential primary victory would provide Hillary Clinton with the easiest imaginable path to the White House.

Obviously, clueless then; chances are he’s just as clueless now.

    Tom Servo in reply to tom_swift. | May 19, 2018 at 3:32 pm

    Ol’ Beck finally figured out that going Never Trump was a real bad bet, one that he was going to go broke on.

Freddie Sykes | May 19, 2018 at 10:31 am

Big deal. I changed my mind about voting for Trump as soon as it became a choice between Donald and Hillary. Even if Trump sucked as president – which he really, really doesn’t – he was so much better than Clinton.

Bucky Barkingham | May 19, 2018 at 10:41 am

As Beck’s empire shrinks and goes down the tubes he “suddenly” sees the light about Trump? Just another opportunist wanting to jump on the Trump Train 2 years too late.

Someone needs to tell Mr. Beck that his 15 minutes were up a long time ago.

Henry Hawkins | May 19, 2018 at 10:55 am

The Weepy Prophet needs to sell more gold.

Beck changing his mind regarding Trump does not change my mind regarding Beck.

    He certainly is not my favorite pundit. I suspect that this is a play to rebuild his fan base, to which I say….Good luck with that!

      Beck lost me when he started dropping anvil-sized hints that he wanted his fan base to “force” him to run for president. This was right after he left Fox and was setting up Blaze (or Beck TV or whatever it was at first). He kept babbling about how George Washington didn’t want to be president but demurred in the face of public pressure. Beck really seemed to see himself in that light. /giant eye roll

      By the time Beck was proclaiming himself the voice of God, I was long gone, but wow, he sounded like a world-class nutter. I was super disappointed that Ted Cruz (whom I still love, support, and think would make a fantastic president) got mixed up with Beck during his voice of God phase. Not smart. Not deal-breaker dumb, but not smart.

buckeyeminuteman | May 19, 2018 at 11:28 am

Trump didn’t need his help in 2016 and he certainly won’t need it in 2020 and 4 years of real progress.

Beck was relevant at one time and ahead of curve on Middle East, but fame and fortune blurred and then blinded that focus. If he had remained balanced and focused he would be relevant today. Beck, a recovered alcoholic, got “drunk, and now facing hitting the bottom again has begun to gain clarity.

What could have been….. that it took so much to happen to see this shows how deep he dug himself into his trench .

$$$
$$$
and
$$$

Too late however.

I agree with many of the previous sentiments…..Beck lost his audience and is doing the ole about face to recoup his losses.

His show was pretty good three or four years ago but when he turned into a pseudo-religious character he lost me, didn’t go over so well. All his “I gathered my family, we read the constitution by candelight” shtick made me want to barf.

Not to mention that horrible theme song with the world music slant. blech. Now, “My City Was Gone” is awesome, makes me excited when I hear the bass line and the slap back echo on the snare drum. Knowing it pisses the fruity liberal off that wrote it and sold it makes me ever the more happier

Glen Beck now likes Trump?

Meh.

Now, if Rags puts on the MAGA hat…break out the defibrillator!

    JohnSmith100 in reply to rinardman. | May 19, 2018 at 12:46 pm

    I remember someone characterising Rags as suffering from “The Little Person Syndrome”. I thought that was spot on.

    maxmillion in reply to rinardman. | May 19, 2018 at 2:14 pm

    One by one cuck NeverTrumpers will come back into the fold, whipped, tails between their legs, full of contrition and begging for forgiveness, but home they will come, provided they were truly conservative in the first place; if they don’t they weren’t.

Henry Hawkins | May 19, 2018 at 2:38 pm

When you attack a poster who hasn’t even posted in a given thread, you forfeit the ‘right’ to complain about him/her.

Rinard is excluded in that Rags going MAGA now would be heart-stopping, lol.

And note the new definition for ‘Never Trumper’ – it now refers to anyone who doesn’t openly worship Trump.

    Hey Henry!

    Where’s your post asking ragspee how old he is?
    Where’s your post calling ragspee obsessed?

    You defend ragspee but not Fuzzy.

    Since you have become the board policeman covering for ragspee, how bout a little help when he is attacking an LI contributor.

    Shouldn’t you be obsessed with ragspee’s obsession with Fuzzy?

      Barry in reply to Barry. | May 20, 2018 at 11:34 pm

      “She lost her mind. It may be in the same landfill yours is in…”

      Poor thing. Everyone has seen you for what you are.

      When everyone around you has “lost her mind”, like the mentally unstable in in a sanitorium, maybe you are the one that has lost it.

      You’re an obsessed 13 year old and quite insane.

      I knew Henry would hide.

As Ace said (paraphrasing a little because I can’t remember the exact words).

Hey if Beck wants to jump on board the Trump Train, fine. But don’t think for ONE SECOND you get to drive or we’re going to listen to your suggestions about running the train better. You can get on board and sit all the way in the back with peasants that bring chickens as luggage.

    Fen in reply to Olinser. | May 19, 2018 at 9:32 pm

    Breaking News, Berlin 1945: “Glenn Beck flips support to that Sexist Drunkard Churchill. Claims 6,000,001st murder of Jew was final straw.”

These clowns always throw some bullshit about his personal flaws being so bad as to be inexcusable.

Funny how personal flaws weren’t such an issue for 8 years under the previous President and believe me, that fuckers personal flaws were country destroying.

With this guy I couldn’t give a flying rats fuck about personal flaws. I just want him to get the job of turning your country around done!

Most everyone here is commenting on Beck’s personality, his shrinking Empire or his motives. I can relate to what Beck is saying: the vile and unrelenting hatred of Trump by the lying leftist media is driving many to jump on the Trump Express.

    I think this is demonstrably true; Trump’s approval numbers are going up, and it’s not because of fawning coverage by a propagandistic media (see Obama). What gets lost in this Beck discussion, though, is that Beck didn’t base his change of opinion solely on mediots.

    Instead, Beck provides a whole litany of positive moves Trump has made so far in his presidency. The mediots figure in, and in a big way, but they aren’t the whole picture. Trump has done a lot of things on the conservative wish list, including but not limited to Israel/Jerusalem, getting us out of the Iran deal, illegal immigration and going after the MS-13 animals. I’d add his judicial nominations from Gorsuch on down and his finally signing away the ObamaCare mandate. Let’s not forget his rolling back EPA and Title IV regulations. He’s been a busy bee, and it’s hard to find fault with his actual accomplishments (well, he does need to get something more than his tax cuts signed into law, but he’s undoing so much Obama pen and phone damage that I can’t help but cheer).

      Don’t forget pulling us out of the Paris Climate Accords. That was a huge win.

      I worked for Cruz. I supported Trump only to block Hillary. I knew that Trump was so hated by the Establishment that they would impeach him for the things they would let Hillary get away with.

      But President Trump has performed beyond my wildest expectations. The fact that his manners send the GOPe Surrender Monkeys diving for the fainting couch is just gravy.

Henrt; “note the new definition for ‘Never Trumper’ – it now refers to anyone who doesn’t openly worship Trump.”

Wrong.

1) Glenn Beck already self-identified as a never Trumper.

2) Never Tumper’s are not held in contempt merely for criticizing Trump.

We had a deal – after the primaries we hold our nose and rally around the nominee, providing a unified front.

We held our nose and supported McCain, we held our nose and supported Romney. But we OUR guy won and it was THEIR turn to live up to their end of the bargain, the Never Trumpers bolted.

    And they didn’t just bolt, they are constantly undermining him at every turn. It’s disgusting.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to Fen. | May 19, 2018 at 9:01 pm

    On a daily basis here, one commenter or another who does not meet your crtieria is called a Never Trumper anyway. ‘Never Trumper’ is sort of like ‘libertarianism’ in that you get a different definition with each person you ask.

      Henry: “On a daily basis here, one commenter or another who does not meet your crtieria is called a Never Trumper anyway”

      Bullshit. Name one time.

      You just falsely accused us of unfairly labelling Glenn Beck as a Never Trumper, and when it’s pointed out that Beck already self-identified as as Never Trumper, you double down without so much as a mea culpa.

      I forget whether you support Trump or not, Henry. I don’t even remember if you call yourself a Never Trumper. What I DO remember from reading you here is that you are better than this.

      So please up your game.

        tom_swift in reply to Fen. | May 20, 2018 at 6:25 am

        What I DO remember from reading you here is that you are better than this.

        Your ol’ rascally memory may be playing tricks.

So guess what happens in 2024 when Establishment Rino III wins the GOP nomination? Say hello to President Chelsea Clinton!

There is still time to repair the pact, but Never Trumpers need to act quickly.

I did not! If you posted something and it didn’t publish, it probably had a bunch of links in it (the main reason comments get filtered out). Post it again, Rags, without multiple links. Problem solved.

    Ragspierre in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | May 19, 2018 at 11:46 pm

    …oh, yes. All two links…

    But I’ll take you at your word. Such as it is these days…

      redc1c4 in reply to Ragspierre. | May 20, 2018 at 3:56 am

      i pine for the day, back before The Onset of Endless September, when people knew how to share urls in the clear.

      legal insurrection DOT com for instance.

      willow in reply to Ragspierre. | May 20, 2018 at 3:11 pm

      You have my complete admiration, Fuzzy. The funny part is, you could have been in the censoring business long before now if that is what you were about. There is no Constitutional right to comment on LI in any case.

      Barry in reply to Ragspierre. | May 20, 2018 at 11:42 pm

      Pathetic. Internet and comment board challenged fat old fool gets his comment eaten and blames it on Fuzzy.

      You are truly a pathetic POS.

Typical Rags. You moan to the mods, falsely accuse them of censorship, they insist they didn’t censor and even try to help you repost it, and then you insult them anyway.

With not even an apology for wrongly accusing them, or a thank you for helping you repost.

If you get to the bottom of the bottle and still can’t figure out why you didn’t make partner, revisit this thread.

“Allows emotion to impair judgement. Seesaws between sound analysis and hysterical tantrums. Unstable. Unprofessional. Not recommended’

I’ll even help you out. Try this:

“My bad Fuzzy. Sorry I jumped you. I obviously need to cut down on the coffee. And thanks for helping me even though I was being a jerk. You’re a class act. – Rags”

See how easy it can be?

5 cents please.

Rag; “I didn’t falsely say I was censored. I was censored,”

LoL. You were not censored, you’re just too stupid to understand how this works. I’ve had posts swallowed for the same reason, you paranoid idiot.

And anyone who can read can see fuzzy trying to advise you on how to repost it.

This is why you have zero credibility – you claim your never Trump position is one of principle and integrity, but you don’t have the principle or integrity to admit when you are wrong and apologize for being a jackass about it.

In short, you are a fraud. A poser.

    Ragspierre in reply to Fen. | May 20, 2018 at 9:16 pm

    But you are a demonstrated liar. Over and over and over.

    My post published. I saw it. Then it was not there. Regardless of how that happened, that’s censorship. And you’re still a cowardly bastard who lies like he’s paid for it.

      Barry in reply to Ragspierre. | May 20, 2018 at 11:46 pm

      “My post published. I saw it.”

      Big deal fatso. It happens. I’ve seen the same thing on posts that were innocuous. Just because you are ignorant of how comment boards work, and how the software works, doesn’t mean anyone was censoring you.

      You’re so dumb you don’t know it.

      Rags, you poor thing. Is this kind of like that time you accused me of some sort of magic “trick” because I respond to posts directly rather than from the post/comment thread itself?

      If I were going to “censor” you (and we have the right to do that, by the way, if we are so inclined), don’t you think I’d have done it ages ago? You’ve certainly been hideously out of line in your comments, but I can think of only one that we’ve “censored” and that was a vile, reprehensible sexual comment about one of our female authors (not me, for a change). And the prof made that call, and you’re lucky you didn’t get banned over it.

Can you hear that high pitched whining noise? Oh wait, its Rags! 🙂

When I first discovered Beck on Fox News I loved him! Loved his delivery. Loved his monologues. Loved the fact he didn’t mince his words with the black baby jesus and his followers.

So I was bitterly disappointed he turned out to be a never trumpet and disappointed his show went south pretty quickly.

While Ill not waste my time watching his shows again, it is encouraging that even someone as vehemently against Trump can come around to supporting him. I just hope he isn’t going to be a fair weather supporter (which I suspect he will be BUT Ill give him the benefit of the doubt for now).

Rag: “My post published. I saw it. Then it was not there. Regardless of how that happened, that’s censorship”

No, its not you moron.

Try learning how and why things work before throwing tantrums, moron.

    Ragspierre in reply to Fen. | May 20, 2018 at 10:19 pm

    Try not lying, you SOS. I didn’t throw a tantrum. I reported what I’d experienced.

    You are the moron. And the lying moron.

Rags: “But you are a demonstrated liar. Over and over and over.”

If that were true, you would be able to back up your accusations with proof.

That’s how people of honesty and integrity behave, Rags.

    Ragspierre in reply to Fen. | May 20, 2018 at 10:33 pm

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/never-trumpers-should-not-support-unserious-challengers/

    That’s a GREAT recent demonstration…!!!

    YOU depict that piece as advocating for a Deemocrat take-over of the Congress.

    It was a lie. And you knew it was a lie.

    THEN you played a troll game when I asked for the link so I could ascertain what was said against what you LIED about it saying.

    ADDITIONALLY, you let others LIE about YOUR LIE in sliming NR without making any slight effort to correct them.

    But you lie here constantly. It’s just who you are. A lying, cowardly bastard.

      Rags, this is ridiculous. What does it matter if Fen didn’t read something the way you do? Since the piece is presenting, quite explicitly, common threads of #NeverTrumper thought on the 2018 elections, it’s pretty fair to say that these are key ideas. To me, the piece is rebutting each #NeverTrumper point, but they are, nonetheless #NeverTrumper points (or the piece would be worthless). McLaughlin is not, however, opposed to a Democrat takeover of Congress on ideological grounds. Instead, he posits that it’s too-far fetched to ever happen, the math, he says is not in favor of this #NeverTrump strategy, and wouldn’t lead to Trump’s impeachment, anyway.

      He’s right on both counts, but it’s pretty clear that he’d be okay with this strategy if only the math worked and it would indeed end in Trump’s impeachment and removal from office. His concern is that working to help Democrats win back Congress would lead to more power for Trump, whom he insists would become even more Trumpy, untethered from any stabilizing force from the GOP. He’s not wrong. But he’s also not against a band of leftist commies taking over Congress in November because they’re a band of leftist commies. Fen’s not wrong.

      Even if he is and I am, again, so the heck what? This may be a revelation to you, but reasonable people can read the exact same thing and get something completely different out of it. Have you read much literary criticism? Heck, on a more narrow scale, when I first started blogging, I would get frustrated that readers didn’t “get” my thesis and instead focused on particular points and even on individual sentences. Were they lying cowardly bastards for having their own minds and focusing on what interested them? Ask ten people to read the same article, and they will each come up with a different interpretation or a slanted focus that is all their own. I see this all the time in my literature classes. Are my students who think Romeo and Juliet is a “love story” liars because other students don’t agree with that interpretation?

      Ultimately, people are different and everyone reads, interprets, understands, and analyzes things differently. Conservatives used to know this. You may even have known this at one time.

      _____________________

      I’ll save you the trouble of responding:

      Crazy Sloppers, you are unhinged, evil, deranged, and you’re also a cultist who worships Cheetos and sups with the Devil. Oh, and you’re also crazy and stupid and a moron. You’re crazy, stupid moron, but most of all, you are a LIAR, a LYING LIAR WHO TELLS LIES.

      Waaaah, where’s my binky! I’s so upset at all the LIES and LYING LIARS of LIARDOM. Grrrr, arghhhh, boo hoo. Why can’t everyone see that I am the only principled person on the planet, except the other #NeverTrumpers who are also not cultists and don’t do what the T-rump suckers do which is LIE AND LIE AND LIE SOME MORE. I am all that is good, stalwart, honest, even-tempered, rational, reasonable, and pure in the world, but I am surrounded by crazy unhinged LYING LIARS WHO LIE ALL THE TIME because they are so unhinged and just don’t get that they are the evil that stalks the earth with their LYING LYING LIAR LIES!

        Ah, yes, it’s absolutely unhinged and disgusting to point out that not everyone sees things the same way and that this is okay. What on earth was I thinking? Oh, wait, I was thinking that not everyone sees things the same way and that this is okay. Totally bizarre! What a concept!

        I guess when you think everyone has to agree with you or they are unhinged, disgusting and bizarre moron liars, that makes sense. To the rest of the us, it really is okay that not everyone sees things the same way.

        The “ruin that is” me and the “garbage” that I am? For saying that it’s okay that people don’t all see things the same way? This makes me organically insane? (Whatever that means.)

        So to you, everyone should think as you do, or they are a ruin, garbage, and organically insane? Do you hear yourself?

        Milhouse in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | May 22, 2018 at 12:08 pm

        You’re both deranged. Stop it, both of you. You’re better than this.

I found the same link on my own and posted in the subject thread. I recall the commenter not presenting the article as “advocating” for a takeover but that he expressed disgust over an actual discussion about the legitimacy of such a move. Granted, the commenter did not make clear that the author was against sabotaging Trump, but the writer of the piece was certainly sympathetic to the position.

    Barry in reply to willow. | May 20, 2018 at 11:52 pm

    Yep, his reason for not advocating it is he thinks it would backfire, leaving Trump with more power…

    Ragspierre in reply to willow. | May 21, 2018 at 1:15 am

    Understanding a position is NOT “being sympathetic” to it. In fact, the author was providing a considered critique of the position.

    THAT was the truth. Fen lied.

      willow in reply to Ragspierre. | May 21, 2018 at 5:12 am

      The sympathy is in the first few lines of the article:

      There are those who argue this point from the perspective of anti-Trump conservatism. The first argument in its favor goes like this: (1) Trump is unfit to be commander in chief, head of the executive branch, or leader of the Republican party (so far, no argument); (2) Mike Pence, who would replace him if removed, would be better in all three roles (no argument there, either)

        Ragspierre in reply to willow. | May 21, 2018 at 10:12 am

        Sympathy with the predicates to an argument are NOT “sympathy” with any conclusion drawn.

        You might want to ask your hubby about this…

          Rags: “You might want to ask your hubby about this…”

          Wow, did you really just say that? Channeling Hillary Clinton?

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | May 22, 2018 at 5:05 am

          No, stupid witch. Willow herself posted that whenever she waivers from the T-rumpian faith, her hubby reminds her of the dogma that he is really pretty infallible.

          Don’t you even read? Or are you so weirdly fixated on me that you only have time for writing this disgusting bullshit in your campaign agaist lil’ ol’ me?

          I read that, Rags, and her point in that comment wasn’t that she needs her husband to explain things to her because she’s just an idiot woman who can’t put two thoughts together. Her point was that it’s possible Trump knows what he is doing. Given that it was a response to a question posed by Fen, we can ascertain that she was agreeing there may be more here than meets the eye.

          She definitely didn’t say that she agrees with this assessment, that she defers to her husband in any way, or that she needs his help understanding simple concepts, as you imply when you sneer at her with your sexist comment.

          She was being extremely polite and judicious in her comment, but you just couldn’t respond in kind. Instead, you come back with a disproportionate, condescending jab that she simply doesn’t deserve. But that’s your MO, Rags.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | May 22, 2018 at 5:47 am

          More hyperbolic hand-waving bullshit. Jeez, Crazy…

Not the first few lines but the first part.

Thanks Willow.

From my perspective, the author was running some game theory based on conversations he had been party to with his fellow Never Trumpers, objectively laying out why these Never Trumper tactics would fail.

I agree with you and others that he came off as sympathetic, and that his primary objection was not that it was treasonous, but that thowing the midterm elections to the Left would have bad optics.

My disgust was centered around the fact the Never Trumpers were even entertaining the idea.

Rags: “THEN you played a troll game when I asked for the link so I could ascertain what was said”

I did not troll you. You launched an unprovoked personal attack againt me and demanded the link. I simply said I would only give you the link after you aplogized.

Rags, disagreeing with your flawed analysis does not make one a liar. If this is the only example you can provide to support your false accusations against me, I’m going to continue to hide your meds.

“We cannot rid the Republican party of Donald Trump by burning down conservatism around him or backing frivolous, purely symbolic opponents. That leaves answers that are a lot less glamorous but no less important: engage in Senate, House, and gubernatorial primaries to support mainstream conservatives; criticize Trump for his words and oppose and obstruct his specific misdeeds; build strong institutions (intellectual and grassroots alike) loyal to genuine conservative principles; and remember that no fight worth winning is ever permanently won.”

No, Fen, being a lying liar who lies is being a liar. You’re the traitor…to the truth.

Correction: not bad optics, but that throwing the midterms to the Democrats would still leave Never Trumpers short 8-9 Democrat senators short to remove Trump. And that it would create an “under siege” reaction in the White House that might only radicalize Trump and make him more stubborn.

Rags quoting author: “We cannot rid the Republican party of Donald Trump by burning down conservatism around him”

Rags, is your reading comprehension this poor? How the hell did you get through law school?

No one is saying the author supports the position of his fellow Never Trumpers. He quite clearly states he diagrees with them at the beginning of the article.

Now look at the other reasons he opposes them. It’s for all the wrong reasons. Like saying you oppose assassinating President Trump because you might accidentally hit Pence. That’s not the right answer.

“I did not troll you. You launched an unprovoked personal attack againt me and demanded the link.”

That’s two more lies. You think that lying is great fun…!!!

When did you cease being employed, and under what circumstances?

“Sympathy with the predicates to an argument are NOT “sympathy” with any conclusion drawn.

You might want to ask your hubby about this…”

I post limitedly and never insulted the above-referenced commenter. As for the first sentence, well, I will leave it to the reader to form an opinion as to meaning, which … nevermind. The second comment referenced what I said on an unrelated thread that 1) had nothing to do with the above-referenced commenter; 2) was not in response to him either directly or indirectly; 3) was a gratuitous, backhanded insult, and 4) is quite funny if the commenter even remotely knew my husband or me. Actually, I think I will directly quote sentence one and seek a reaction from my husband after making sure dinner is on the table, I am properly attired, and the wash is done. Oh, and have the drink ready to prepare for the stress reaction when he tries to figure out the sentence. hehe

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend