Question for Never Trump Republicans..........

[RINO Tom]

No.  And that doesn't make me a RINO or any less of a Republican than anyone else.

I'm not becoming a Democrat, either LOL.  Ever.

[RINO Tom]

Platform wise I think being against Free trade and increased immigration is insane. But that is not the deal breaker with the Donald. Policy is secondary, he himself is not qualified to be commander in chief. He lacks the experience, intelligence, character, and gravitas to be our envoy to the world.

I do not understand how anyone can look past this. A person whose life achievements are: two failed marriages, owning a bunch of hotels and golf courses, and producing a trash TV show is simply not qualified to be president. It wouldn't matter if I agreed with him on every issue.

If you're for free trade and increased immigration, there is already a party out there for you - it's called the Democratic Party.

Whether or not there are merits to it, a sizeable portion of American voters do not like free trade or increased immigration, so it's not shocking that a political party would ultimately give an audience to those people.

I think the Republicans are basically damned either way as far as immigration is concerned. They say they need to champion immigration reform so they can win over Hispanic voters, but the reality is that that's going to do nothing to help them in that department. Hispanics who are already here legally and were probably born here are not going to vote for a party that is so antithetical to their economic interests and personal views. Being a pro-immigration party is just going to piss off a sizeable chunk of the GOP's white voter base. Being an anti-immigration party at least allows them to maintain the coalition they have.

A case could be made that the GOP is now just a depraved perpetual-motion rage machine with an "anti-establishment wing" that stokes the fury of the white working class and an "establishment wing" that pursues economic policies that make those voters worse off and more receptive to the anti-establishment wing.

We're talking about the same Democratic Party whose Congressional caucus literally blocked TPP (against overwhelming GOP support) and just had both of its primary candidates arguing about who was more anti-trade, right?

[RINO Tom]

Platform wise I think being against Free trade and increased immigration is insane. But that is not the deal breaker with the Donald. Policy is secondary, he himself is not qualified to be commander in chief. He lacks the experience, intelligence, character, and gravitas to be our envoy to the world.

I do not understand how anyone can look past this. A person whose life achievements are: two failed marriages, owning a bunch of hotels and golf courses, and producing a trash TV show is simply not qualified to be president. It wouldn't matter if I agreed with him on every issue.

If you're for free trade and increased immigration, there is already a party out there for you - it's called the Democratic Party.

Whether or not there are merits to it, a sizeable portion of American voters do not like free trade or increased immigration, so it's not shocking that a political party would ultimately give an audience to those people.

I think the Republicans are basically damned either way as far as immigration is concerned. They say they need to champion immigration reform so they can win over Hispanic voters, but the reality is that that's going to do nothing to help them in that department. Hispanics who are already here legally and were probably born here are not going to vote for a party that is so antithetical to their economic interests and personal views. Being a pro-immigration party is just going to piss off a sizeable chunk of the GOP's white voter base. Being an anti-immigration party at least allows them to maintain the coalition they have.

A case could be made that the GOP is now just a depraved perpetual-motion rage machine with an "anti-establishment wing" that stokes the fury of the white working class and an "establishment wing" that pursues economic policies that make those voters worse off and more receptive to the anti-establishment wing.

We're talking about the same Democratic Party whose Congressional caucus literally blocked TPP (against overwhelming GOP support) and just had both of its primary candidates arguing about who was more anti-trade, right?

You do realize that supporting free trade does not mean supporting any and all free trade agreements, no?

Sure, but that describes Trump a lot more than the Democratic Congressional caucus, which hasn't supported ANY free trade agreements with majority support in the last two decades...

You said that if you're for free trade, there's already a party for you and that's the Democrats.  That.  Is.  Not.  True.

The GOP is still, by far and by any stretch of the imagination, objectively more in support of free trade in its voting than the Democratic Party.  The GOP caucus has literally gone to comically pathetic lengths to oppose anything Obama says or does, but they still gave a very large majority of their votes in favor of TPP while Obama's own party effectively blocked it.  You're really reaching if you're coming up with a narrative where the GOP is less in favor of free trade than the Democratic Party, even in Trump vs. Hillary.  $100 says Hillary's VP is less supportive of free trade than Mike Pence, and Hillary is AT LEAST (currently) as protectionist as Trump.

[RINO Tom]

#NEVERTRUMP is about following your conscience and standing up to Priebus and Trump and saying this is not what the Republican party is or should be. Telling people to ignore the negatives and think about the positives doesn't stop it because such people have already decided that the negatives outweigh the positives.

It doesn't matter if calling everyone insulting names means nothing, or if the wall or the Muslim ban will never pass congress. That doesn't change the fact that Trump is a hot-tempered, racist, anti-first amendment individual who does not respect the constitution and is radically unqualified to be president. We can either stand up and vote him and his ideas down now, or vote for him and risk several decades worth of Trump like nominees that we're forced to vote for if there is no moderate D or L running.

Haha don't make me laugh bro.  Your entire party has been about those things since about five minutes after Grant left office.  Do not pretend otherwise.

More like 1854.  Both parties have tended to ridicule those who aren't voting for them.

1864 election billboard of Republicans depicting Irish draft protestors as monkeys comes to mind.