Oldbear83 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

"Cheney lost because her constituents saw that she cared more about fighting Trump than fighting Biden...more concerned with waging a civil war within the [GOP]than the inflation that is forcing her voters to choose between...gas and food."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/08/18/what-cheney-misses-about-republicans-trump/


the faulty assumption of neverTrumperism is that they will have a future home in the GOP after Trump is gone.
Could not be more incorrect.

---

Here's the thing:

Major political parties often face schisms as members choose who they want to follow. The Kennedies held sway for a time among Democrats, then Bill Clinton took over. The Democrats are now in a struggle between the Clintons and the Squad.

The Republicans found their brand in Reagan, but Bush hijacked it back for the Establishment. One thing the Never-Trumpers miss when considering the 2016 election, is how easily Trump blew through the field to win the RNC nomination. For better or worse, Trump was the only major candidate who convinced working-class voters he was listening to them.

Trump himself has a limited time. HIs age alone limits how long he can play an important role in politics beyond 2026, 2028 at the latest. For all the hype, none of Trump's family has any real political viability. But Trump is undeniably the biggest player in the 2022 and 2024 elections, whether he runs or not.

Anyone serious about planning for the future needs to understand these basic points.

---

The average Republican voter is ill served by the establishment leadership of the GOP.

Or another way to say it is that the GOP hates it's voters.

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

Montana gets one Rep. in Congress, their Rep. decided to have a national platform, instead of representing the
desires of the state.

Doesn't seem there would be any chance for her to get reelected.

Now she gets to pusue what she was using Montana as a platform for all along. And enrich herself even more.

---

Montana???? LOL. And you got three approvals no less.

---

Because Forest owns a well deserved reputation for moderate views and common sense .

Though he did have me double checking the number of congressmen representing Montana !

I don't know how many representatives Montana has, but I learned from Red October that you can have five wives in Montana.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

the faulty assumption of neverTrumperism is that they will have a future home in the GOP after Trump is gone.
Could not be more incorrect.

---

So much for the big tent

---

It's all about policy! That and crushing the heretics. Policy, and sweet, sweet vengeance against the heretics.

---

Tell us, Sam….have you ever helped defeat anyone other that Republicans you didn't agree with?

He Hate Me said:

---

I don't know how many representatives Montana has, but I learned from Red October that you can have five wives in Montana.

---

Only if you hunt rabbits and drive an RV.

Canada2017 said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

Montana gets one Rep. in Congress, their Rep. decided to have a national platform, instead of representing the
desires of the state.

Doesn't seem there would be any chance for her to get reelected.

Now she gets to pusue what she was using Montana as a platform for all along. And enrich herself even more.

---

Montana???? LOL. And you got three approvals no less.

---

Because Forest owns a well deserved reputation for moderate views and common sense .

Though he did have me double checking the number of congressmen representing Montana !

---

I gave him a blue star because I thought he was making a joke.

Osodecentx said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

the faulty assumption of neverTrumperism is that they will have a future home in the GOP after Trump is gone.
Could not be more incorrect.

---

The will still have a place within the Republican Party ( Where else they going to go ? ) ......but obviously won't carry as much influence as they do currently .

---

Not sure I want to be in the Republican Party. I'll just let you boys grind it into a minority party.

---

If it was a clear minority party, your participation wouldn't matter one way or the other, now, would it? Instead, you have a golden opportunity for virtue posture to……"I am better than them,; their countenance and demeanor offends me, consequences be damned."

By denying support to a competitive coalition (leading in the polls for POTUS and Congress) which is largely in agreement with one's policy aims, one undermines one's policy aims and raises questions about one's value as a teammate.

Trump is a practical man who has positive relationships with people who heavily criticized him in the past. Good politicians do that. I chose to sit at table at Thursday lunch so I could visit with a man I don't particularly like and with whom I have rarely been in the same campaign, on two occasions opposed in very spirited contests. We visited. We caught up. He Introduced me to a couple of people I hadn't met before. I answered some questions he had for me. Why did I do that? I might need his help one day. And we might have to work together on a grand endeavor. If all I did was focus on the things I don't like about him (a couple of which are character things I coach my kids to avoid) and refused to engage with him at all, I don't have any positive impact on anything. I harm him, me, and the party. Does he reciprocate? A little. Not as much. It's the way he is. That's ok. An imbalanced detente is better than a grudge. In fact, I once chose to help him in a campaign that I didn't really care much about just to demonstrate to him that I didn't hold grudges

Don't think there is a reward waiting for you if we lose either of the next two elections. You'll be blamed for it. Including by people who feel almost exactly like you do about the party at the moment but decide that there are bigger issues at stake than the waxing and waning of coalitions and their captains.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

the faulty assumption of neverTrumperism is that they will have a future home in the GOP after Trump is gone.
Could not be more incorrect.

---

So much for the big tent

---

It's all about policy! That and crushing the heretics. Policy, and sweet, sweet vengeance against the heretics.

---

Tell us, Sam….have you ever helped defeat anyone other that Republicans you didn't agree with?

---

Sure.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

the faulty assumption of neverTrumperism is that they will have a future home in the GOP after Trump is gone.
Could not be more incorrect.

---

So much for the big tent

---

It's all about policy! That and crushing the heretics. Policy, and sweet, sweet vengeance against the heretics.

---

Tell us, Sam….have you ever helped defeat anyone other that Republicans you didn't agree with?

---

Sure.

---

Plenty of others running against democrats you can support.

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

the faulty assumption of neverTrumperism is that they will have a future home in the GOP after Trump is gone.
Could not be more incorrect.

---

The will still have a place within the Republican Party ( Where else they going to go ? ) ......but obviously won't carry as much influence as they do currently .

---

Not sure I want to be in the Republican Party. I'll just let you boys grind it into a minority party.

---

If it was a clear minority party, your participation wouldn't matter one way or the other, now, would it? Instead, you have a golden opportunity for virtue posture to……"I am better than them,; their countenance and demeanor offends me, consequences be damned."

By denying support to a competitive coalition (leading in the polls for POTUS and Congress) which is largely in agreement with one's policy aims, one undermines one's policy aims and raises questions about one's value as a teammate.

Trump is a practical man who has positive relationships with people who heavily criticized him in the past. Good politicians do that. I chose to sit at table at Thursday lunch so I could visit with a man I don't particularly like and with whom I have rarely been in the same campaign, on two occasions opposed in very spirited contests. We visited. We caught up. He Introduced me to a couple of people I hadn't met before. I answered some questions he had for me. Why did I do that? I might need his help one day. And we might have to work together on a grand endeavor. If all I did was focus on the things I don't like about him (a couple of which are character things I coach my kids to avoid) and refused to engage with him at all, I don't have any positive impact on anything. I harm him, me, and the party. Does he reciprocate? A little. Not as much. It's the way he is. That's ok. An imbalanced detente is better than a grudge. In fact, I once chose to help him in a campaign that I didn't really care much about just to demonstrate to him that I didn't hold grudges

Don't think there is a reward waiting for you if we lose either of the next two elections. You'll be blamed for it. Including by people who feel almost exactly like you do about the party at the moment but decide that there are bigger issues at stake than the waxing and waning of coalitions and their captains.

---

I have worked with and voted for folks I consider a little dodgy before.

What if the man you don't particularly like committed crimes and asked you to lie for him? Would advancing your policy goals mean he gets away with anything, including things that violate your deeply held principles?

4th and Inches said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

Montana gets one Rep. in Congress, their Rep. decided to have a national platform, instead of representing the
desires of the state.

Doesn't seem there would be any chance for her to get reelected.

Now she gets to pusue what she was using Montana as a platform for all along. And enrich herself even more.

---

why is nobody asking how the nice congressional person whose net worth was 7mil when she got to congress 6 years ago now is worth, checks notes.. 45 million. Took the Pelosi stock investing course..

---

Could be crypto or she is corrupt.

I am quit sure LC has some good qualities - but she was born a Swamp Creature and her entire adult has been in the Swamp.

Doing Swamp things to stay alive.

- KKM

We just need a new generation of Non Swampers / Non multi generational grifters.


>>
Cheney is the elder daughter of former vice president Dick Cheney and Second Lady Lynne Cheney. She held several positions in the U.S. State Department during the George W. Bush administration, notably as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs and Coordinator for Broader Middle East and North Africa Initiatives. She promoted regime change in Iran while chairing the Iran Syria Policy and Operations Group with Elliott Abrams.

In 2009 Cheney and Bill Kristol founded Keep America Safe, a nonprofit organization concerned with national security issues, which advocated the BushCheney administration's positions. She was a candidate for the 2014 election to the U.S. Senate in Wyoming, challenging three-term incumbent Mike Enzi, before withdrawing from the race. In the House of Representatives, she holds the seat her father held from 1979 to 1989.[3]

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

Montana gets one Rep. in Congress, their Rep. decided to have a national platform, instead of representing the
desires of the state.

Doesn't seem there would be any chance for her to get reelected.

Now she gets to pusue what she was using Montana as a platform for all along. And enrich herself even more.

---

Montana???? LOL. And you got three approvals no less.

---

Hahaaaahaaa! Good grief I was looking to make sure Wyoming only had one Rep. in Congress and copied Montana instead, I suppose they have one as well.

Point is still valid, Wyoming was simply her stepping stone for a national platform. Since I'm now in my 60s and every once in a while make a dumbass mental error, doesn't make me a dumbass in general.

The overall point still stands. Sorry about the mistake.

Forest Bueller said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

Montana gets one Rep. in Congress, their Rep. decided to have a national platform, instead of representing the
desires of the state.

Doesn't seem there would be any chance for her to get reelected.

Now she gets to pusue what she was using Montana as a platform for all along. And enrich herself even more.

---

Montana???? LOL. And you got three approvals no less.

---

Since I'm now in my 60s and every once in a while make a dumbass mental error, doesn't make me a dumbass in general.

---

Thankfully, my wife has the same attitude about me .

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

the faulty assumption of neverTrumperism is that they will have a future home in the GOP after Trump is gone.
Could not be more incorrect.

---

The will still have a place within the Republican Party ( Where else they going to go ? ) ......but obviously won't carry as much influence as they do currently .

---

Not sure I want to be in the Republican Party. I'll just let you boys grind it into a minority party.

---

If it was a clear minority party, your participation wouldn't matter one way or the other, now, would it? Instead, you have a golden opportunity for virtue posture to……"I am better than them,; their countenance and demeanor offends me, consequences be damned."

By denying support to a competitive coalition (leading in the polls for POTUS and Congress) which is largely in agreement with one's policy aims, one undermines one's policy aims and raises questions about one's value as a teammate.

Trump is a practical man who has positive relationships with people who heavily criticized him in the past. Good politicians do that. I chose to sit at table at Thursday lunch so I could visit with a man I don't particularly like and with whom I have rarely been in the same campaign, on two occasions opposed in very spirited contests. We visited. We caught up. He Introduced me to a couple of people I hadn't met before. I answered some questions he had for me. Why did I do that? I might need his help one day. And we might have to work together on a grand endeavor. If all I did was focus on the things I don't like about him (a couple of which are character things I coach my kids to avoid) and refused to engage with him at all, I don't have any positive impact on anything. I harm him, me, and the party. Does he reciprocate? A little. Not as much. It's the way he is. That's ok. An imbalanced detente is better than a grudge. In fact, I once chose to help him in a campaign that I didn't really care much about just to demonstrate to him that I didn't hold grudges

Don't think there is a reward waiting for you if we lose either of the next two elections. You'll be blamed for it. Including by people who feel almost exactly like you do about the party at the moment but decide that there are bigger issues at stake than the waxing and waning of coalitions and their captains.

---

I have worked with and voted for folks I consider a little dodgy before.

What if the man you don't particularly like committed crimes and asked you to lie for him? Would advancing your policy goals mean he gets away with anything, including things that violate your deeply held principles?

---

What crimes has he been convicted of after 7 years of non-stop accusations and investigations? He's a crook but when NY investigates his books with a fine-toothed comb the only indictment is the bookkeeper for not properly expensing his own benefits? Legendary Bob Mueller and 16 angry Democrats (one of them crying on stage at HRC's election night party) could not find anything?

at what point is it put up or shut up for his accusers? At what point does the lack of ANYTHING illegal on the man begin to cast more questions about the nature of his accusers rather than the man himself? You are quite far out on the limb here….

The public at large has reached the proper conclusion on these questions. They are correct.

https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/public_surveys/biden_s_gestapo_trump_raid_hurts_voter_trust_in_fbi

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

the faulty assumption of neverTrumperism is that they will have a future home in the GOP after Trump is gone.
Could not be more incorrect.

---

The will still have a place within the Republican Party ( Where else they going to go ? ) ......but obviously won't carry as much influence as they do currently .

---

Not sure I want to be in the Republican Party. I'll just let you boys grind it into a minority party.

---

If it was a clear minority party, your participation wouldn't matter one way or the other, now, would it? Instead, you have a golden opportunity for virtue posture to……"I am better than them,; their countenance and demeanor offends me, consequences be damned."

By denying support to a competitive coalition (leading in the polls for POTUS and Congress) which is largely in agreement with one's policy aims, one undermines one's policy aims and raises questions about one's value as a teammate.

Trump is a practical man who has positive relationships with people who heavily criticized him in the past. Good politicians do that. I chose to sit at table at Thursday lunch so I could visit with a man I don't particularly like and with whom I have rarely been in the same campaign, on two occasions opposed in very spirited contests. We visited. We caught up. He Introduced me to a couple of people I hadn't met before. I answered some questions he had for me. Why did I do that? I might need his help one day. And we might have to work together on a grand endeavor. If all I did was focus on the things I don't like about him (a couple of which are character things I coach my kids to avoid) and refused to engage with him at all, I don't have any positive impact on anything. I harm him, me, and the party. Does he reciprocate? A little. Not as much. It's the way he is. That's ok. An imbalanced detente is better than a grudge. In fact, I once chose to help him in a campaign that I didn't really care much about just to demonstrate to him that I didn't hold grudges

Don't think there is a reward waiting for you if we lose either of the next two elections. You'll be blamed for it. Including by people who feel almost exactly like you do about the party at the moment but decide that there are bigger issues at stake than the waxing and waning of coalitions and their captains.

---

I have worked with and voted for folks I consider a little dodgy before.

What if the man you don't particularly like committed crimes and asked you to lie for him? Would advancing your policy goals mean he gets away with anything, including things that violate your deeply held principles?

---

What crimes has he been convicted of after 7 years of non-stop accusations and investigations? He's a crook but when NY investigates his books with a fine-toothed comb the only indictment is the bookkeeper for not properly expensing his own benefits? Legendary Bob Mueller and 16 angry Democrats (one of them crying on stage at HRC's election night party) could not find anything?

---

We're getting along right now. I've said what I think and will leave it there

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

the faulty assumption of neverTrumperism is that they will have a future home in the GOP after Trump is gone.
Could not be more incorrect.

---

The will still have a place within the Republican Party ( Where else they going to go ? ) ......but obviously won't carry as much influence as they do currently .

---

Not sure I want to be in the Republican Party. I'll just let you boys grind it into a minority party.

---

If it was a clear minority party, your participation wouldn't matter one way or the other, now, would it? Instead, you have a golden opportunity for virtue posture to……"I am better than them,; their countenance and demeanor offends me, consequences be damned."

By denying support to a competitive coalition (leading in the polls for POTUS and Congress) which is largely in agreement with one's policy aims, one undermines one's policy aims and raises questions about one's value as a teammate.

Trump is a practical man who has positive relationships with people who heavily criticized him in the past. Good politicians do that. I chose to sit at table at Thursday lunch so I could visit with a man I don't particularly like and with whom I have rarely been in the same campaign, on two occasions opposed in very spirited contests. We visited. We caught up. He Introduced me to a couple of people I hadn't met before. I answered some questions he had for me. Why did I do that? I might need his help one day. And we might have to work together on a grand endeavor. If all I did was focus on the things I don't like about him (a couple of which are character things I coach my kids to avoid) and refused to engage with him at all, I don't have any positive impact on anything. I harm him, me, and the party. Does he reciprocate? A little. Not as much. It's the way he is. That's ok. An imbalanced detente is better than a grudge. In fact, I once chose to help him in a campaign that I didn't really care much about just to demonstrate to him that I didn't hold grudges

Don't think there is a reward waiting for you if we lose either of the next two elections. You'll be blamed for it. Including by people who feel almost exactly like you do about the party at the moment but decide that there are bigger issues at stake than the waxing and waning of coalitions and their captains.

---

I have worked with and voted for folks I consider a little dodgy before.

What if the man you don't particularly like committed crimes and asked you to lie for him? Would advancing your policy goals mean he gets away with anything, including things that violate your deeply held principles?

---

What crimes has he been convicted of after 7 years of non-stop accusations and investigations? He's a crook but when NY investigates his books with a fine-toothed comb the only indictment is the bookkeeper for not properly expensing his own benefits? Legendary Bob Mueller and 16 angry Democrats (one of them crying on stage at HRC's election night party) could not find anything?

at what point is it put up or shut up for his accusers? At what point does the lack of ANYTHING illegal on the man begin to cast more questions about the nature of his accusers rather than the man himself? You are quite far out on the limb here….

The public at large has reached the proper conclusion on these questions. They are correct.

https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/public_surveys/biden_s_gestapo_trump_raid_hurts_voter_trust_in_fbi

---

Okay, but what about Oso's question? Does advancing your policy goals mean your guy gets away with anything?

I'll answer for him. Yes.

The irony of authoritarians gnashing their teeth over a "flyover" Congressional race is rich when they run the the biggest slate of grifters. The Democrat Congress seat has made more poor people rich than any Democrat program not to mention brother-****ets, Chinese spy affairs, etc.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

the faulty assumption of neverTrumperism is that they will have a future home in the GOP after Trump is gone.
Could not be more incorrect.

---

The will still have a place within the Republican Party ( Where else they going to go ? ) ......but obviously won't carry as much influence as they do currently .

---

Not sure I want to be in the Republican Party. I'll just let you boys grind it into a minority party.

---

If it was a clear minority party, your participation wouldn't matter one way or the other, now, would it? Instead, you have a golden opportunity for virtue posture to……"I am better than them,; their countenance and demeanor offends me, consequences be damned."

By denying support to a competitive coalition (leading in the polls for POTUS and Congress) which is largely in agreement with one's policy aims, one undermines one's policy aims and raises questions about one's value as a teammate.

Trump is a practical man who has positive relationships with people who heavily criticized him in the past. Good politicians do that. I chose to sit at table at Thursday lunch so I could visit with a man I don't particularly like and with whom I have rarely been in the same campaign, on two occasions opposed in very spirited contests. We visited. We caught up. He Introduced me to a couple of people I hadn't met before. I answered some questions he had for me. Why did I do that? I might need his help one day. And we might have to work together on a grand endeavor. If all I did was focus on the things I don't like about him (a couple of which are character things I coach my kids to avoid) and refused to engage with him at all, I don't have any positive impact on anything. I harm him, me, and the party. Does he reciprocate? A little. Not as much. It's the way he is. That's ok. An imbalanced detente is better than a grudge. In fact, I once chose to help him in a campaign that I didn't really care much about just to demonstrate to him that I didn't hold grudges

Don't think there is a reward waiting for you if we lose either of the next two elections. You'll be blamed for it. Including by people who feel almost exactly like you do about the party at the moment but decide that there are bigger issues at stake than the waxing and waning of coalitions and their captains.

---

I have worked with and voted for folks I consider a little dodgy before.

What if the man you don't particularly like committed crimes and asked you to lie for him? Would advancing your policy goals mean he gets away with anything, including things that violate your deeply held principles?

---

What crimes has he been convicted of after 7 years of non-stop accusations and investigations? He's a crook but when NY investigates his books with a fine-toothed comb the only indictment is the bookkeeper for not properly expensing his own benefits? Legendary Bob Mueller and 16 angry Democrats (one of them crying on stage at HRC's election night party) could not find anything?

at what point is it put up or shut up for his accusers? At what point does the lack of ANYTHING illegal on the man begin to cast more questions about the nature of his accusers rather than the man himself? You are quite far out on the limb here….

The public at large has reached the proper conclusion on these questions. They are correct.

https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/public_surveys/biden_s_gestapo_trump_raid_hurts_voter_trust_in_fbi

---

Okay, but what about Oso's question? Does advancing your policy goals mean your guy gets away with anything?

---

First joke we learned at Langley: "Admit nothing, deny everything, and make counter-accusations."

Until you're comfortable playing a game governed by those rules, do not get involved in politics.

But take heart! You show good dexterity with those rules, combined with rare gifts of indefatigability.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

the faulty assumption of neverTrumperism is that they will have a future home in the GOP after Trump is gone.
Could not be more incorrect.

---

The will still have a place within the Republican Party ( Where else they going to go ? ) ......but obviously won't carry as much influence as they do currently .

---

Not sure I want to be in the Republican Party. I'll just let you boys grind it into a minority party.

---

If it was a clear minority party, your participation wouldn't matter one way or the other, now, would it? Instead, you have a golden opportunity for virtue posture to……"I am better than them,; their countenance and demeanor offends me, consequences be damned."

By denying support to a competitive coalition (leading in the polls for POTUS and Congress) which is largely in agreement with one's policy aims, one undermines one's policy aims and raises questions about one's value as a teammate.

Trump is a practical man who has positive relationships with people who heavily criticized him in the past. Good politicians do that. I chose to sit at table at Thursday lunch so I could visit with a man I don't particularly like and with whom I have rarely been in the same campaign, on two occasions opposed in very spirited contests. We visited. We caught up. He Introduced me to a couple of people I hadn't met before. I answered some questions he had for me. Why did I do that? I might need his help one day. And we might have to work together on a grand endeavor. If all I did was focus on the things I don't like about him (a couple of which are character things I coach my kids to avoid) and refused to engage with him at all, I don't have any positive impact on anything. I harm him, me, and the party. Does he reciprocate? A little. Not as much. It's the way he is. That's ok. An imbalanced detente is better than a grudge. In fact, I once chose to help him in a campaign that I didn't really care much about just to demonstrate to him that I didn't hold grudges

Don't think there is a reward waiting for you if we lose either of the next two elections. You'll be blamed for it. Including by people who feel almost exactly like you do about the party at the moment but decide that there are bigger issues at stake than the waxing and waning of coalitions and their captains.

---

I have worked with and voted for folks I consider a little dodgy before.

What if the man you don't particularly like committed crimes and asked you to lie for him? Would advancing your policy goals mean he gets away with anything, including things that violate your deeply held principles?

---

What crimes has he been convicted of after 7 years of non-stop accusations and investigations? He's a crook but when NY investigates his books with a fine-toothed comb the only indictment is the bookkeeper for not properly expensing his own benefits? Legendary Bob Mueller and 16 angry Democrats (one of them crying on stage at HRC's election night party) could not find anything?

at what point is it put up or shut up for his accusers? At what point does the lack of ANYTHING illegal on the man begin to cast more questions about the nature of his accusers rather than the man himself? You are quite far out on the limb here….

The public at large has reached the proper conclusion on these questions. They are correct.

https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/public_surveys/biden_s_gestapo_trump_raid_hurts_voter_trust_in_fbi

---

Okay, but what about Oso's question? Does advancing your policy goals mean your guy gets away with anything?

---

First joke we learned at Langley: "Admit nothing, deny everything, and make counter-accusations."

Until you're comfortable playing a game governed by those rules, do not get involved in politics.

But take heart! You show good dexterity with those rules, combined with rare gifts of indefatigability.

---

You are putting on a clinic using those tactics

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

the faulty assumption of neverTrumperism is that they will have a future home in the GOP after Trump is gone.
Could not be more incorrect.

---

The will still have a place within the Republican Party ( Where else they going to go ? ) ......but obviously won't carry as much influence as they do currently .

---

Not sure I want to be in the Republican Party. I'll just let you boys grind it into a minority party.

---

If it was a clear minority party, your participation wouldn't matter one way or the other, now, would it? Instead, you have a golden opportunity for virtue posture to……"I am better than them,; their countenance and demeanor offends me, consequences be damned."

By denying support to a competitive coalition (leading in the polls for POTUS and Congress) which is largely in agreement with one's policy aims, one undermines one's policy aims and raises questions about one's value as a teammate.

Trump is a practical man who has positive relationships with people who heavily criticized him in the past. Good politicians do that. I chose to sit at table at Thursday lunch so I could visit with a man I don't particularly like and with whom I have rarely been in the same campaign, on two occasions opposed in very spirited contests. We visited. We caught up. He Introduced me to a couple of people I hadn't met before. I answered some questions he had for me. Why did I do that? I might need his help one day. And we might have to work together on a grand endeavor. If all I did was focus on the things I don't like about him (a couple of which are character things I coach my kids to avoid) and refused to engage with him at all, I don't have any positive impact on anything. I harm him, me, and the party. Does he reciprocate? A little. Not as much. It's the way he is. That's ok. An imbalanced detente is better than a grudge. In fact, I once chose to help him in a campaign that I didn't really care much about just to demonstrate to him that I didn't hold grudges

Don't think there is a reward waiting for you if we lose either of the next two elections. You'll be blamed for it. Including by people who feel almost exactly like you do about the party at the moment but decide that there are bigger issues at stake than the waxing and waning of coalitions and their captains.

---

I have worked with and voted for folks I consider a little dodgy before.

What if the man you don't particularly like committed crimes and asked you to lie for him? Would advancing your policy goals mean he gets away with anything, including things that violate your deeply held principles?

---

What crimes has he been convicted of after 7 years of non-stop accusations and investigations? He's a crook but when NY investigates his books with a fine-toothed comb the only indictment is the bookkeeper for not properly expensing his own benefits? Legendary Bob Mueller and 16 angry Democrats (one of them crying on stage at HRC's election night party) could not find anything?

at what point is it put up or shut up for his accusers? At what point does the lack of ANYTHING illegal on the man begin to cast more questions about the nature of his accusers rather than the man himself? You are quite far out on the limb here….

The public at large has reached the proper conclusion on these questions. They are correct.

https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/public_surveys/biden_s_gestapo_trump_raid_hurts_voter_trust_in_fbi

---

Okay, but what about Oso's question? Does advancing your policy goals mean your guy gets away with anything?

---

First joke we learned at Langley: "Admit nothing, deny everything, and make counter-accusations."

Until you're comfortable playing a game governed by those rules, do not get involved in politics.

But take heart! You show good dexterity with those rules, combined with rare gifts of indefatigability.

---

You are putting on a clinic using those tactics

---

not nearly so much as the neverTrumpers.

*(Trump's) fiercest critics really accuse him of breaking norms, but what we're seeing here, and what we've seen constantly over time, is that they do that exact thing,"

Only worse, as they are abusing state power and societal institutions to to it.


https://www.foxnews.com/media/trumps-fiercest-critics-guilty-very-violation-norms-accuse-jared-kushner?intcmp=tw_fnc

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

the faulty assumption of neverTrumperism is that they will have a future home in the GOP after Trump is gone.
Could not be more incorrect.

---

The will still have a place within the Republican Party ( Where else they going to go ? ) ......but obviously won't carry as much influence as they do currently .

---

Not sure I want to be in the Republican Party. I'll just let you boys grind it into a minority party.

---

If it was a clear minority party, your participation wouldn't matter one way or the other, now, would it? Instead, you have a golden opportunity for virtue posture to……"I am better than them,; their countenance and demeanor offends me, consequences be damned."

By denying support to a competitive coalition (leading in the polls for POTUS and Congress) which is largely in agreement with one's policy aims, one undermines one's policy aims and raises questions about one's value as a teammate.

Trump is a practical man who has positive relationships with people who heavily criticized him in the past. Good politicians do that. I chose to sit at table at Thursday lunch so I could visit with a man I don't particularly like and with whom I have rarely been in the same campaign, on two occasions opposed in very spirited contests. We visited. We caught up. He Introduced me to a couple of people I hadn't met before. I answered some questions he had for me. Why did I do that? I might need his help one day. And we might have to work together on a grand endeavor. If all I did was focus on the things I don't like about him (a couple of which are character things I coach my kids to avoid) and refused to engage with him at all, I don't have any positive impact on anything. I harm him, me, and the party. Does he reciprocate? A little. Not as much. It's the way he is. That's ok. An imbalanced detente is better than a grudge. In fact, I once chose to help him in a campaign that I didn't really care much about just to demonstrate to him that I didn't hold grudges

Don't think there is a reward waiting for you if we lose either of the next two elections. You'll be blamed for it. Including by people who feel almost exactly like you do about the party at the moment but decide that there are bigger issues at stake than the waxing and waning of coalitions and their captains.

---

I have worked with and voted for folks I consider a little dodgy before.

What if the man you don't particularly like committed crimes and asked you to lie for him? Would advancing your policy goals mean he gets away with anything, including things that violate your deeply held principles?

---

What crimes has he been convicted of after 7 years of non-stop accusations and investigations? He's a crook but when NY investigates his books with a fine-toothed comb the only indictment is the bookkeeper for not properly expensing his own benefits? Legendary Bob Mueller and 16 angry Democrats (one of them crying on stage at HRC's election night party) could not find anything?

at what point is it put up or shut up for his accusers? At what point does the lack of ANYTHING illegal on the man begin to cast more questions about the nature of his accusers rather than the man himself? You are quite far out on the limb here….

The public at large has reached the proper conclusion on these questions. They are correct.

https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/public_surveys/biden_s_gestapo_trump_raid_hurts_voter_trust_in_fbi

---

Okay, but what about Oso's question? Does advancing your policy goals mean your guy gets away with anything?

---

First joke we learned at Langley: "Admit nothing, deny everything, and make counter-accusations."

Until you're comfortable playing a game governed by those rules, do not get involved in politics.

But take heart! You show good dexterity with those rules, combined with rare gifts of indefatigability.

---

You are putting on a clinic using those tactics

---

not nearly so much as the neverTrumpers.

*(Trump's) fiercest critics really accuse him of breaking norms, but what we're seeing here, and what we've seen constantly over time, is that they do that exact thing,"

Only worse, as they are abusing state power and societal institutions to to it.


https://www.foxnews.com/media/trumps-fiercest-critics-guilty-very-violation-norms-accuse-jared-kushner?intcmp=tw_fnc

---

Dem 101: accuse others of what you do..

4th and Inches said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

the faulty assumption of neverTrumperism is that they will have a future home in the GOP after Trump is gone.
Could not be more incorrect.

---

The will still have a place within the Republican Party ( Where else they going to go ? ) ......but obviously won't carry as much influence as they do currently .

---

Not sure I want to be in the Republican Party. I'll just let you boys grind it into a minority party.

---

If it was a clear minority party, your participation wouldn't matter one way or the other, now, would it? Instead, you have a golden opportunity for virtue posture to……"I am better than them,; their countenance and demeanor offends me, consequences be damned."

By denying support to a competitive coalition (leading in the polls for POTUS and Congress) which is largely in agreement with one's policy aims, one undermines one's policy aims and raises questions about one's value as a teammate.

Trump is a practical man who has positive relationships with people who heavily criticized him in the past. Good politicians do that. I chose to sit at table at Thursday lunch so I could visit with a man I don't particularly like and with whom I have rarely been in the same campaign, on two occasions opposed in very spirited contests. We visited. We caught up. He Introduced me to a couple of people I hadn't met before. I answered some questions he had for me. Why did I do that? I might need his help one day. And we might have to work together on a grand endeavor. If all I did was focus on the things I don't like about him (a couple of which are character things I coach my kids to avoid) and refused to engage with him at all, I don't have any positive impact on anything. I harm him, me, and the party. Does he reciprocate? A little. Not as much. It's the way he is. That's ok. An imbalanced detente is better than a grudge. In fact, I once chose to help him in a campaign that I didn't really care much about just to demonstrate to him that I didn't hold grudges

Don't think there is a reward waiting for you if we lose either of the next two elections. You'll be blamed for it. Including by people who feel almost exactly like you do about the party at the moment but decide that there are bigger issues at stake than the waxing and waning of coalitions and their captains.

---

I have worked with and voted for folks I consider a little dodgy before.

What if the man you don't particularly like committed crimes and asked you to lie for him? Would advancing your policy goals mean he gets away with anything, including things that violate your deeply held principles?

---

What crimes has he been convicted of after 7 years of non-stop accusations and investigations? He's a crook but when NY investigates his books with a fine-toothed comb the only indictment is the bookkeeper for not properly expensing his own benefits? Legendary Bob Mueller and 16 angry Democrats (one of them crying on stage at HRC's election night party) could not find anything?

at what point is it put up or shut up for his accusers? At what point does the lack of ANYTHING illegal on the man begin to cast more questions about the nature of his accusers rather than the man himself? You are quite far out on the limb here….

The public at large has reached the proper conclusion on these questions. They are correct.

https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/public_surveys/biden_s_gestapo_trump_raid_hurts_voter_trust_in_fbi

---

Okay, but what about Oso's question? Does advancing your policy goals mean your guy gets away with anything?

---

First joke we learned at Langley: "Admit nothing, deny everything, and make counter-accusations."

Until you're comfortable playing a game governed by those rules, do not get involved in politics.

But take heart! You show good dexterity with those rules, combined with rare gifts of indefatigability.

---

You are putting on a clinic using those tactics

---

not nearly so much as the neverTrumpers.

*(Trump's) fiercest critics really accuse him of breaking norms, but what we're seeing here, and what we've seen constantly over time, is that they do that exact thing,"

Only worse, as they are abusing state power and societal institutions to to it.


https://www.foxnews.com/media/trumps-fiercest-critics-guilty-very-violation-norms-accuse-jared-kushner?intcmp=tw_fnc

---

Dem 101: accuse others of what you do..

---

Iron Law of Woke Projection

Sam Lowry said:

---

Forrest is a man of the people. He's deeply in tune with the needs of...whichever backwater state it was that we were talking about.

---

Backwater state, is that like ****hole country lite? You two are more alike than you want to admit-especially on the arrogance side.

whiterock: "Admit nothing, deny everything, and make counter-accusations."

Actually, back when I was a sports official, most of the Katy ISD coaches followed that maxim.

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

I'll answer for him. Yes.

---

Nailed it.

whiterock said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

the faulty assumption of neverTrumperism is that they will have a future home in the GOP after Trump is gone.
Could not be more incorrect.

---

The will still have a place within the Republican Party ( Where else they going to go ? ) ......but obviously won't carry as much influence as they do currently .

---

Not sure I want to be in the Republican Party. I'll just let you boys grind it into a minority party.

---

If it was a clear minority party, your participation wouldn't matter one way or the other, now, would it? Instead, you have a golden opportunity for virtue posture to……"I am better than them,; their countenance and demeanor offends me, consequences be damned."

By denying support to a competitive coalition (leading in the polls for POTUS and Congress) which is largely in agreement with one's policy aims, one undermines one's policy aims and raises questions about one's value as a teammate.

Trump is a practical man who has positive relationships with people who heavily criticized him in the past. Good politicians do that. I chose to sit at table at Thursday lunch so I could visit with a man I don't particularly like and with whom I have rarely been in the same campaign, on two occasions opposed in very spirited contests. We visited. We caught up. He Introduced me to a couple of people I hadn't met before. I answered some questions he had for me. Why did I do that? I might need his help one day. And we might have to work together on a grand endeavor. If all I did was focus on the things I don't like about him (a couple of which are character things I coach my kids to avoid) and refused to engage with him at all, I don't have any positive impact on anything. I harm him, me, and the party. Does he reciprocate? A little. Not as much. It's the way he is. That's ok. An imbalanced detente is better than a grudge. In fact, I once chose to help him in a campaign that I didn't really care much about just to demonstrate to him that I didn't hold grudges

Don't think there is a reward waiting for you if we lose either of the next two elections. You'll be blamed for it. Including by people who feel almost exactly like you do about the party at the moment but decide that there are bigger issues at stake than the waxing and waning of coalitions and their captains.

---

I have worked with and voted for folks I consider a little dodgy before.

What if the man you don't particularly like committed crimes and asked you to lie for him? Would advancing your policy goals mean he gets away with anything, including things that violate your deeply held principles?

---

What crimes has he been convicted of after 7 years of non-stop accusations and investigations? He's a crook but when NY investigates his books with a fine-toothed comb the only indictment is the bookkeeper for not properly expensing his own benefits? Legendary Bob Mueller and 16 angry Democrats (one of them crying on stage at HRC's election night party) could not find anything?

at what point is it put up or shut up for his accusers? At what point does the lack of ANYTHING illegal on the man begin to cast more questions about the nature of his accusers rather than the man himself? You are quite far out on the limb here….

The public at large has reached the proper conclusion on these questions. They are correct.

https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/public_surveys/biden_s_gestapo_trump_raid_hurts_voter_trust_in_fbi

---

Okay, but what about Oso's question? Does advancing your policy goals mean your guy gets away with anything?

---

First joke we learned at Langley: "Admit nothing, deny everything, and make counter-accusations."

Until you're comfortable playing a game governed by those rules, do not get involved in politics.

But take heart! You show good dexterity with those rules, combined with rare gifts of indefatigability.

---

You are putting on a clinic using those tactics

---

not nearly so much as the neverTrumpers.

*(Trump's) fiercest critics really accuse him of breaking norms, but what we're seeing here, and what we've seen constantly over time, is that they do that exact thing,"

Only worse, as they are abusing state power and societal institutions to to it.


https://www.foxnews.com/media/trumps-fiercest-critics-guilty-very-violation-norms-accuse-jared-kushner?intcmp=tw_fnc

---

Dem 101: accuse others of what you do..

---

Iron Law of Woke Projection

---

You adopt the Langley tactics

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

the faulty assumption of neverTrumperism is that they will have a future home in the GOP after Trump is gone.
Could not be more incorrect.

---

The will still have a place within the Republican Party ( Where else they going to go ? ) ......but obviously won't carry as much influence as they do currently .

---

Not sure I want to be in the Republican Party. I'll just let you boys grind it into a minority party.

---

If it was a clear minority party, your participation wouldn't matter one way or the other, now, would it? Instead, you have a golden opportunity for virtue posture to……"I am better than them,; their countenance and demeanor offends me, consequences be damned."

By denying support to a competitive coalition (leading in the polls for POTUS and Congress) which is largely in agreement with one's policy aims, one undermines one's policy aims and raises questions about one's value as a teammate.

Trump is a practical man who has positive relationships with people who heavily criticized him in the past. Good politicians do that. I chose to sit at table at Thursday lunch so I could visit with a man I don't particularly like and with whom I have rarely been in the same campaign, on two occasions opposed in very spirited contests. We visited. We caught up. He Introduced me to a couple of people I hadn't met before. I answered some questions he had for me. Why did I do that? I might need his help one day. And we might have to work together on a grand endeavor. If all I did was focus on the things I don't like about him (a couple of which are character things I coach my kids to avoid) and refused to engage with him at all, I don't have any positive impact on anything. I harm him, me, and the party. Does he reciprocate? A little. Not as much. It's the way he is. That's ok. An imbalanced detente is better than a grudge. In fact, I once chose to help him in a campaign that I didn't really care much about just to demonstrate to him that I didn't hold grudges

Don't think there is a reward waiting for you if we lose either of the next two elections. You'll be blamed for it. Including by people who feel almost exactly like you do about the party at the moment but decide that there are bigger issues at stake than the waxing and waning of coalitions and their captains.

---

I have worked with and voted for folks I consider a little dodgy before.

What if the man you don't particularly like committed crimes and asked you to lie for him? Would advancing your policy goals mean he gets away with anything, including things that violate your deeply held principles?

---

What crimes has he been convicted of after 7 years of non-stop accusations and investigations? He's a crook but when NY investigates his books with a fine-toothed comb the only indictment is the bookkeeper for not properly expensing his own benefits? Legendary Bob Mueller and 16 angry Democrats (one of them crying on stage at HRC's election night party) could not find anything?

at what point is it put up or shut up for his accusers? At what point does the lack of ANYTHING illegal on the man begin to cast more questions about the nature of his accusers rather than the man himself? You are quite far out on the limb here….

The public at large has reached the proper conclusion on these questions. They are correct.

https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/public_surveys/biden_s_gestapo_trump_raid_hurts_voter_trust_in_fbi

---

Okay, but what about Oso's question? Does advancing your policy goals mean your guy gets away with anything?

---

First joke we learned at Langley: "Admit nothing, deny everything, and make counter-accusations."

Until you're comfortable playing a game governed by those rules, do not get involved in politics.

But take heart! You show good dexterity with those rules, combined with rare gifts of indefatigability.

---

You are putting on a clinic using those tactics

---

not nearly so much as the neverTrumpers.

*(Trump's) fiercest critics really accuse him of breaking norms, but what we're seeing here, and what we've seen constantly over time, is that they do that exact thing,"

Only worse, as they are abusing state power and societal institutions to to it.


https://www.foxnews.com/media/trumps-fiercest-critics-guilty-very-violation-norms-accuse-jared-kushner?intcmp=tw_fnc

---

Dem 101: accuse others of what you do..

---

Iron Law of Woke Projection

---

You I adopted the Langley tactics

---

Corrected again

I supported Liz 100% during the Congressional Hearings. If I lived in Wyoming I would have voted for her over the nincompoop opponent. But enough is enough.

It's time for Liz to stop the vendetta. Like him or hate him Cruz didn't storm Congress. This is becoming a revenge campaign for Daddy that should stop while she is above the crap.

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

I supported Liz 100% during the Congressional Hearings. If I lived in Wyoming I would have voted for her over the nincompoop opponent. But enough is enough.

It's time for Liz to stop the vendetta. Like him or hate him Cruz didn't storm Congress. This is becoming a revenge campaign for Daddy that should stop while she is above the crap.

---

it was always about revenge, it was better hidden

4th and Inches said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

I supported Liz 100% during the Congressional Hearings. If I lived in Wyoming I would have voted for her over the nincompoop opponent. But enough is enough.

It's time for Liz to stop the vendetta. Like him or hate him Cruz didn't storm Congress. This is becoming a revenge campaign for Daddy that should stop while she is above the crap.

---

it was always about revenge, it was better hidden

---

She's the queen of TDSistan. Tanked her political career by ignoring her constituents and the needs of her state (which she's elected to represent) so she could sink all focus on her hatred of someone who was president once.

At the very least, she should've been voted out for being an idiot. If she had a brain at all, she would've worked quietly to screw the Donald, all the while keeping her congressional seat.

She went scorched earth full on metldown over that orange dude. It was delicious to watch.

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

the faulty assumption of neverTrumperism is that they will have a future home in the GOP after Trump is gone.
Could not be more incorrect.

---

The will still have a place within the Republican Party ( Where else they going to go ? ) ......but obviously won't carry as much influence as they do currently .

---

Not sure I want to be in the Republican Party. I'll just let you boys grind it into a minority party.

---

If it was a clear minority party, your participation wouldn't matter one way or the other, now, would it? Instead, you have a golden opportunity for virtue posture to……"I am better than them,; their countenance and demeanor offends me, consequences be damned."

By denying support to a competitive coalition (leading in the polls for POTUS and Congress) which is largely in agreement with one's policy aims, one undermines one's policy aims and raises questions about one's value as a teammate.

Trump is a practical man who has positive relationships with people who heavily criticized him in the past. Good politicians do that. I chose to sit at table at Thursday lunch so I could visit with a man I don't particularly like and with whom I have rarely been in the same campaign, on two occasions opposed in very spirited contests. We visited. We caught up. He Introduced me to a couple of people I hadn't met before. I answered some questions he had for me. Why did I do that? I might need his help one day. And we might have to work together on a grand endeavor. If all I did was focus on the things I don't like about him (a couple of which are character things I coach my kids to avoid) and refused to engage with him at all, I don't have any positive impact on anything. I harm him, me, and the party. Does he reciprocate? A little. Not as much. It's the way he is. That's ok. An imbalanced detente is better than a grudge. In fact, I once chose to help him in a campaign that I didn't really care much about just to demonstrate to him that I didn't hold grudges

Don't think there is a reward waiting for you if we lose either of the next two elections. You'll be blamed for it. Including by people who feel almost exactly like you do about the party at the moment but decide that there are bigger issues at stake than the waxing and waning of coalitions and their captains.

---

I have worked with and voted for folks I consider a little dodgy before.

What if the man you don't particularly like committed crimes and asked you to lie for him? Would advancing your policy goals mean he gets away with anything, including things that violate your deeply held principles?

---

What crimes has he been convicted of after 7 years of non-stop accusations and investigations? He's a crook but when NY investigates his books with a fine-toothed comb the only indictment is the bookkeeper for not properly expensing his own benefits? Legendary Bob Mueller and 16 angry Democrats (one of them crying on stage at HRC's election night party) could not find anything?

at what point is it put up or shut up for his accusers? At what point does the lack of ANYTHING illegal on the man begin to cast more questions about the nature of his accusers rather than the man himself? You are quite far out on the limb here….

The public at large has reached the proper conclusion on these questions. They are correct.

https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/public_surveys/biden_s_gestapo_trump_raid_hurts_voter_trust_in_fbi

---

Okay, but what about Oso's question? Does advancing your policy goals mean your guy gets away with anything?

---

First joke we learned at Langley: "Admit nothing, deny everything, and make counter-accusations."

Until you're comfortable playing a game governed by those rules, do not get involved in politics.

But take heart! You show good dexterity with those rules, combined with rare gifts of indefatigability.

---

You are putting on a clinic using those tactics

---

not nearly so much as the neverTrumpers.

*(Trump's) fiercest critics really accuse him of breaking norms, but what we're seeing here, and what we've seen constantly over time, is that they do that exact thing,"

Only worse, as they are abusing state power and societal institutions to to it.


https://www.foxnews.com/media/trumps-fiercest-critics-guilty-very-violation-norms-accuse-jared-kushner?intcmp=tw_fnc

---

Dem 101: accuse others of what you do..

---

Iron Law of Woke Projection

---

You adopt the Langley tactics

---

Not really. Nothing clandestine going on. Completely above board. Just pointing out the the people who say "Trump lies" have an unerringly consistent record of lying about him. And also usurping state power to harass and defeat him.

The left literally does what they accuse him of, and some purportedly principled people pretend that such is virtuous. Simply amazing thing to watch.

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

the faulty assumption of neverTrumperism is that they will have a future home in the GOP after Trump is gone. %A0
Could not be more incorrect.

---

The will still have a place within the Republican Party ( Where else they going to go ? ) ......but obviously won't carry as much influence as they do currently .

---

Not sure I want to be in the Republican Party. %A0I'll just let you boys grind it into a minority party.

---

If it was a clear minority party, your participation wouldn't matter one way or the other, now, would it? %A0Instead, you have a golden opportunity for virtue posture to%85%85"I am better than them,; their countenance and demeanor offends me, consequences be damned."

By denying support to a competitive coalition (leading in the polls for POTUS and Congress) which is largely in agreement with one's policy aims, one undermines one's policy aims and raises questions about one's value as a teammate.

Trump is a practical man who has positive relationships with people who heavily criticized him in the past. %A0 %A0Good politicians do that. %A0 I chose to sit at table at Thursday lunch so I could visit with a man I don't particularly like and with whom I have rarely been in the same campaign, on two occasions opposed in very spirited contests. %A0 We visited. %A0We caught up. %A0He Introduced me to a couple of people I hadn't met before. %A0I answered some questions he had for me. %A0Why did I do that? %A0I might need his help one day. %A0And we might have to work together on a grand endeavor. %A0 If all I did was focus on the things I don't like about him (a couple of which are character things I coach my kids to avoid) and refused to engage with him at all, I don't have any positive impact on anything. %A0 I harm him, me, and the party. %A0Does he reciprocate? A little. %A0Not as much. %A0It's the way he is. %A0That's ok. %A0An imbalanced detente is better than a grudge. %A0In fact, I once chose to help him in a campaign that I didn't really care much about just to demonstrate to him that I didn't hold grudges

Don't think there is a reward waiting for you if we lose either of the next two elections. %A0 You'll be blamed for it. Including by people who feel almost exactly like you do about the party at the moment but decide that there are bigger issues at stake than the waxing and waning of coalitions and their captains.

---

I have worked with and voted for folks I consider a little dodgy before.

What if the man you don't particularly like committed crimes and asked you to lie for him? %A0Would advancing your policy goals mean he gets away with anything, including things that violate your deeply held principles?

---

What crimes has he been convicted of after 7 years of non-stop accusations and investigations? %A0He's a crook but when NY investigates his books with a fine-toothed comb the only indictment is the bookkeeper for not properly expensing his own benefits? %A0Legendary Bob Mueller and 16 angry Democrats (one of them crying on stage at HRC's election night party) could not find anything? %A0

at what point is it put up or shut up for his accusers? %A0 At what point does the lack of ANYTHING illegal on the man begin to cast more questions about the nature of his accusers rather than the man himself? %A0You are quite far out on the limb here%85.

The public at large has reached the proper conclusion on these questions. %A0 They are correct. %A0

https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/public_surveys/biden_s_gestapo_trump_raid_hurts_voter_trust_in_fbi

---

Okay, but what about Oso's question? Does advancing your policy goals mean your guy gets away with anything?

---

First joke we learned at Langley: "Admit nothing, deny everything, and make counter-accusations."

Until you're comfortable playing a game governed by those rules, do not get involved in politics. %A0

But take heart! %A0You show good dexterity with those rules, combined with rare gifts of indefatigability.

---

You are putting on a clinic using those tactics

---

not nearly so much as the neverTrumpers.

*(Trump's) fiercest critics really accuse him of breaking norms, but what we're seeing here, and what we've seen constantly over time, is that they do that exact thing,"

Only worse, as they are abusing state power and societal institutions to to it.


https://www.foxnews.com/media/trumps-fiercest-critics-guilty-very-violation-norms-accuse-jared-kushner?intcmp=tw_fnc

---

Dem 101: accuse others of what you do..

---

Iron Law of Woke Projection

---

You adopt the Langley tactics

---

Not really.

---

Really.

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

the faulty assumption of neverTrumperism is that they will have a future home in the GOP after Trump is gone.
Could not be more incorrect.

---

The will still have a place within the Republican Party ( Where else they going to go ? ) ......but obviously won't carry as much influence as they do currently .

---

Not sure I want to be in the Republican Party. I'll just let you boys grind it into a minority party.

---

If it was a clear minority party, your participation wouldn't matter one way or the other, now, would it? Instead, you have a golden opportunity for virtue posture to……"I am better than them,; their countenance and demeanor offends me, consequences be damned."

By denying support to a competitive coalition (leading in the polls for POTUS and Congress) which is largely in agreement with one's policy aims, one undermines one's policy aims and raises questions about one's value as a teammate.

Trump is a practical man who has positive relationships with people who heavily criticized him in the past. Good politicians do that. I chose to sit at table at Thursday lunch so I could visit with a man I don't particularly like and with whom I have rarely been in the same campaign, on two occasions opposed in very spirited contests. We visited. We caught up. He Introduced me to a couple of people I hadn't met before. I answered some questions he had for me. Why did I do that? I might need his help one day. And we might have to work together on a grand endeavor. If all I did was focus on the things I don't like about him (a couple of which are character things I coach my kids to avoid) and refused to engage with him at all, I don't have any positive impact on anything. I harm him, me, and the party. Does he reciprocate? A little. Not as much. It's the way he is. That's ok. An imbalanced detente is better than a grudge. In fact, I once chose to help him in a campaign that I didn't really care much about just to demonstrate to him that I didn't hold grudges

Don't think there is a reward waiting for you if we lose either of the next two elections. You'll be blamed for it. Including by people who feel almost exactly like you do about the party at the moment but decide that there are bigger issues at stake than the waxing and waning of coalitions and their captains.

---

I have worked with and voted for folks I consider a little dodgy before.

What if the man you don't particularly like committed crimes and asked you to lie for him? Would advancing your policy goals mean he gets away with anything, including things that violate your deeply held principles?

---

What crimes has he been convicted of after 7 years of non-stop accusations and investigations? He's a crook but when NY investigates his books with a fine-toothed comb the only indictment is the bookkeeper for not properly expensing his own benefits? Legendary Bob Mueller and 16 angry Democrats (one of them crying on stage at HRC's election night party) could not find anything?

at what point is it put up or shut up for his accusers? At what point does the lack of ANYTHING illegal on the man begin to cast more questions about the nature of his accusers rather than the man himself? You are quite far out on the limb here….

The public at large has reached the proper conclusion on these questions. They are correct.

https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/public_surveys/biden_s_gestapo_trump_raid_hurts_voter_trust_in_fbi

---

Okay, but what about Oso's question? Does advancing your policy goals mean your guy gets away with anything?

---

First joke we learned at Langley: "Admit nothing, deny everything, and make counter-accusations."

Until you're comfortable playing a game governed by those rules, do not get involved in politics.

But take heart! You show good dexterity with those rules, combined with rare gifts of indefatigability.

---

You are putting on a clinic using those tactics

---

not nearly so much as the neverTrumpers.

*(Trump's) fiercest critics really accuse him of breaking norms, but what we're seeing here, and what we've seen constantly over time, is that they do that exact thing,"

Only worse, as they are abusing state power and societal institutions to to it.


https://www.foxnews.com/media/trumps-fiercest-critics-guilty-very-violation-norms-accuse-jared-kushner?intcmp=tw_fnc

---

Dem 101: accuse others of what you do..

---

Iron Law of Woke Projection

---

You adopt the Langley tactics

---

Not really. Nothing clandestine going on. Completely above board. Just pointing out the the people who say "Trump lies" have an unerringly consistent record of lying about him. And also usurping state power to harass and defeat him.

The left literally does what they accuse him of, and some purportedly principled people pretend that such is virtuous. Simply amazing thing to watch.

---

What if a candidate you don't particularly like committed crimes and asked you to lie for him? Would advancing your policy goals mean he gets away with anything, including things that violate your deeply held principles?