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

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

The next president is likely to be a 1 term president regardless, because we are almost certain to enter a recession in the next year or so.

I think Hillary would do less to upend the status quo, and I think she's be better with foreign policy than Obama, in the sense that I see Obama has a failure when it comes to his middle east policies.

With Trump, you just have no idea what you are getting, and Pence is much too right winged for my tastes, all things considered.

The Supreme Court isn't a major issue for me. As we have seen in the past, conservative presidents don't always pick conservative justices.

[ProudModerate2]

..... The Supreme Court isn't a major issue for me. As we have seen in the past, conservative presidents don't always pick conservative justices.

And if trump were to become president, he is absolutely NOT a "conservative president."
So what does that tell you about his "real" choice(s) he will make to the Court.
And I don't mean from this phony list he has so many deceived with.

[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.

[Ljube]

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.

Republicans are never going to win another presidential election. Ever.

[Inmate Trump]

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.

Republicans are never going to win another presidential election. Ever.

If they continue with people like Trump, I think you're right.

[ProudModerate2]

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.

Republicans are never going to win another presidential election. Ever.

Hillary has quite-a-bit of baggage (to be honest).
The Pubs had a better-than-normal chance this year, with Clinton on the Dem ticket.
But the Pubs chose racism instead .... so now, they lose (again) !

[Mister Mets]

I doubt the Never Trumpers will make a difference in the General Election outcome.

Many of the things that piss off conservative Republicans also scare independents.

[Ljube]

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.

Republicans are never going to win another presidential election. Ever.

Hillary has quite-a-bit of baggage (to be honest).
The Pubs had a better-than-normal chance this year, with Clinton on the Dem ticket.
But the Pubs chose racism instead .... so now, they lose (again) !

The Pubs had no chance with any of those other candidates running.

There simply are more Democrats in the country than there are Republicans. It doesn't help that the Republicans are also more divided.

Trump was the last chance for a Pub win, by keeping all Romney voters (including NeverTrumpers) and winning the working class voters in key swing states. If that doesn't work because the educateds vote against their interests (which I still think won't happen), Pubs are back to nominating another weak candidate in 2020 who is not going to get any of the Dem working class votes and will lose in Romney's fashion.

There simply is no hope for a Republican win any time soon. The nation is only going to become more Democratic and the Republicans have not won the popular vote since 1988 (not counting war time election in 2004 which was close too).

[IceSpear]

#NeverTrump Republicans should just become Democrats. The reason Trump won the nomination is because most Republican voters agree with the things he says.

Even when Trump loses in November, it's not like those Trump voters are going back into the closet. They're empowered now. They'll nominate Trump again in 2020, or someone like him. The days of McCain/Romney-type nominees are over.

Believe me, I've considered it.  But I'm not quite sure if I'm willing to permanently surrender half of the national discourse to Trumpism.

Though in the end, if I can't be certain whether I'm in the resistance or actually a collaborator, perhaps it is time to go.

Have you thought of just becoming Independent?

Yeah, seriously. If so many of you guys are so opposed to Trump, and seem to hate carrying water for the GOP on so many other issues as well, why not just identify as an independent?

[Inmate Trump]

The Pubs had no chance with any of those other candidates running.

You must be joking.

Did you see ANY of the matchup polls between Hillary and the others vs Hillary vs Donald?

Rubio and Kasich had a clear advantage. Even Cruz.

Trump always performed the worst against Clinton.

[Indy Texas]

Why do you assume Trump's SCOTUS nominees will satisfy you?

Other than Scalia and Thomas, conservatives have been disappointed with pretty much every justice Republicans have nominated in recent years - O'Connor, Souter, Kennedy, Roberts...

And what is "Republican friendly legislation?" The Republican Party doesn't vote for legislation - it only votes against it.

I would think conservatives are happy with Alito.  Other than the Obamacare decision, I have trouble seeing why conservatives would be bent out of shape about Roberts.  And Kennedy ALWAYS comes down on the "Republican side" of "political questions" (something the Court once shied away from).  Citizens United.  Bush v. Gore.  Obamacare.  When it's a GOP Flagship issue, Kennedy is right there; it's only on SOCIAL issues that Kennedy is "moderate" or "liberal". 

Ginsburg's comments on Trump last week only confirmed that the SCOTUS Justices are just as political as Congress now, and just as partisan, and this is not good.  This is a direct result of the politicization of the Judicial Nomination process, a gift to America from Richard Nixon that has kept on giving and giving.  The idea that the Supreme Court would be a deciding factor in anyone's decision as to how to vote for President is a relatively new phenomenon in our politics.

The Republican grassroots don't care about decisions on "political questions." They care about things like abortion, SSM and Obamacare. That's why so many of them now hate Roberts - they'd prefer he have ruled their way regarding Obamacare and Obergefell in exchange for voting with the liberals on everything else. Some cases are more important than others in that regard.

I cringed at Ginsburg's comments, but unfortunately, SCOTUS justices are people just like the rest of us. Clarence Thomas has admitted that he gets most of his news from talk radio and, of course, his wife is basically a political hack for conservative activist groups, so I'm sure the "pillow talk" they have at night makes a difference.

And ultimately, I blame the abortion rights people for bringing the Roe case and turning the Supreme Court into something that "ordinary" people cared about. In terms of what they accomplished, I don't think it really mattered. Most states were passing laws making abortion more available. Without Roe, you would probably have ended up with an equilibrium situation where most of the country had abortion with basically no restrictions, and the rest of the country (the South, Utah, perhaps a temperamentally conservative Catholic state like Rhode Island) had it in very limited circumstances. Abortion rights organizations could then have simply focused on providing funding for poor women who couldn't get an abortion where they lived to travel to a state where they could get one.

Instead, it's become an issue everywhere and is now such a "cultural signal" that you've got white Protestants, a group that never had any issue with birth control, aping the pre-Vatican II Catholic views on contraception simply so that they can differentiate themselves from those "baby-killing liberals."

Roe v. Wade is the only SCOTUS decision most people who can name a SCOTUS case can name. (It was the only one Sarah Palin could name in her dumpster fire Katie Couric interview that one time.)

[Roemerista]

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.

[Ljube]

The Pubs had no chance with any of those other candidates running.

You must be joking.

Did you see ANY of the matchup polls between Hillary and the others vs Hillary vs Donald?

Rubio and Kasich had a clear advantage. Even Cruz.

Trump always performed the worst against Clinton.

I don't know how to respond to something like this. I hope you are just venting/provoking me.

It has been proven time and time again that these polls simply signal that the parties are divided during the primaries and that the frontrunners receive more negative votes than the outsiders.

In other words, those polls do not indicate the actual performance of those candidates pitted against Hillary Clinton.

Consider this fact too: Both Hillary and the Donald have 100% name recognition and are very well defined. Those other candidates were not widely known and are not defined and naturally opinion of them is going to be higher.

[Ljube]

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.

Consider, carefully, what Clinton will do if given the chance, before dismissing Trump's crass demeanor from your elitist high position up there, somewhere in the clouds.

Think what harm Clinton's rule will do to you, personally.

[Wells]

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.

Consider, carefully, what Clinton will do if given the chance, before dismissing Trump's crass demeanor from your elitist high position up there, somewhere in the clouds.

Think what harm Clinton's rule will do to you, personally.

A lot less harm than Trump's.

[Indy Texas]

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.

[Erc]

#NeverTrump Republicans should just become Democrats. The reason Trump won the nomination is because most Republican voters agree with the things he says.

Even when Trump loses in November, it's not like those Trump voters are going back into the closet. They're empowered now. They'll nominate Trump again in 2020, or someone like him. The days of McCain/Romney-type nominees are over.

Believe me, I've considered it.  But I'm not quite sure if I'm willing to permanently surrender half of the national discourse to Trumpism.

Though in the end, if I can't be certain whether I'm in the resistance or actually a collaborator, perhaps it is time to go.

Have you thought of just becoming Independent?

Eh, no reason to disenfranchise myself unnecessarily.  (Although obviously not literally, as VA has no party registration).  Definitely would rather self-identify as a Democrat than as an Independent.

[hopper]

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.

Free Trade and the Democratic Party-Thats hilarious since Congressional Dems ever since NAFTA Passed in 1994 have been hesitant to support Free Trade Agreements even with Obama as President. Its like the Republicans barely supporting any tax increases ever since Bush H.W. broke his pledge of "Read My Lips, No New Taxes" in 1990 by raising taxes. Its the same thing.

Economic Policies that make voters worse off-Democrats have done that well the past 8 years.

Immigration Policy-55% of Republicans per Pew Research favor immigration reform. Yes the GOP voters probably want immigration decreased though.

[hopper]

#NeverTrump Republicans should just become Democrats. The reason Trump won the nomination is because most Republican voters agree with the things he says.

Even when Trump loses in November, it's not like those Trump voters are going back into the closet. They're empowered now. They'll nominate Trump again in 2020, or someone like him. The days of McCain/Romney-type nominees are over.

No way. The Democrats support too many government programs. I was just thinking about this today on that there used to be Democrats(mainly Southern Dems(Charles Melancon(D-LA) that supported both government and free market as answers to economic problems. Today those Democrats don't exist as they think government is the solution to every problem.

I like some of Trump's ideas or thoughts like 1.) Getting Tough on China, 2.) Super Pacs are stupid, and 3.) stop making horrible trade deals. I could vote for a guy like that but his statement about Mexicans is insulting. Its like Goldwater in 1964 in that Trump's packaging of himself as a candiate is horrible but in 1980 with Reagan the packaging is right on running basically on Goldwater's platform.

[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?

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

I'm not a Republican, but I side with them more often than Democrats.

I'm voting Hillary this November.

Trump is far more dangerous, and anyone who cannot see this is incredibly blind and ignorant.

Or, perhaps, you are blinded by your hatred of his style and not thinking straight about substance.

Trump's campaign has no substance.

What does the highlighted sentence really mean?  Does it mean that there's an absence of wonkishness on the part of the candidate?

Trump's campaign has LOTS of substance; substance that scares the excrement out of GOP Establishment types.  He has proposed (A) a more critical approach to Free Trade agreements, (B) a retreat from the Neocon interventionism and Nation Building in foreign policy, (C) actual enforcement of our immigration laws, (D) refocusing immigration policy to where its primary focus is the interests of the American citizenry, and (E) a reassessment of our foreign entanglements to determine if they are in the best interests of America (beginning with NATO).  These are issue positions that are not only what differentiate Trump from the Democrats; they are issues that differentiate Trump from a large bloc of Republicans as well.

Trump's campaign has the look and feel of a hostile takeover of the GOP's Presidential Nominating apparatus, and it is, but it came about through free, fair elections, and it happened because the rest of the GOP candidates had serious disagreements on some, or all, of the issues mentioned above with the other GOP candidates.  These voters didn't want a party where the name of the game was "Who's the REAL conservative?".  They wanted a party that used government to address THEIR issues and problems, not "less government, less regulation, more freedom".  The GOP had a deaf ear to all of this for years, and they got caught flat-footed by Trump.  Too bad for them.  But to say that Trump's campaign "lacks substance" is ridiculous.  Trump's campaign has more substance than any campaign in recent memory, and it has had (and will continue to have) profound policy implications for the National GOP in the future.

[ProudModerate2]

The Pubs had no chance with any of those other candidates running.

You must be joking.
Did you see ANY of the matchup polls between Hillary and the others vs Hillary vs Donald?
Rubio and Kasich had a clear advantage. Even Cruz.
Trump always performed the worst against Clinton.

I don't know how to respond to something like this. I hope you are just venting/provoking me.
It has been proven time and time again that these polls simply signal that the parties are divided during the primaries and that the frontrunners receive more negative votes than the outsiders.
In other words, those polls do not indicate the actual performance of those candidates pitted against Hillary Clinton.
Consider this fact too: Both Hillary and the Donald have 100% name recognition and are very well defined. Those other candidates were not widely known and are not defined and naturally opinion of them is going to be higher.

I don't agree with you Ljube.
Others like Kasich and Rubio would have had a better chance than trump .... no doubt about it.
You can just see the posts here on Atlas from a good number of Pubs, who are saying that they will not vote for trump. trump is too toxic, too clownish, racist & sexist remarks, no political experience, dangerous unknown character to handle the military/nukes, temperament, narcissism, etc etc.

There would NOT have been this type of and large exodus of Pubs with a candidate like Kasich or Rubio.
There would not have been an unusually higher exodus from women and white women, with a candidate like Kasich or Rubio.
There would not have been an unusually high exodus of Hispanics with a candidate like Kasich or Rubio.
Etc, etc.

[hopper]

I'm not a Republican, but I side with them more often than Democrats.

I'm voting Hillary this November.

Trump is far more dangerous, and anyone who cannot see this is incredibly blind and ignorant.

Or, perhaps, you are blinded by your hatred of his style and not thinking straight about substance.

Trump's campaign has no substance.

What does the highlighted sentence really mean?  Does it mean that there's an absence of wonkishness on the part of the candidate?

Trump's campaign has LOTS of substance; substance that scares the excrement out of GOP Establishment types.  He has proposed (A) a more critical approach to Free Trade agreements, (B) a retreat from the Neocon interventionism and Nation Building in foreign policy, (C) actual enforcement of our immigration laws, (D) refocusing immigration policy to where its primary focus is the interests of the American citizenry, and (E) a reassessment of our foreign entanglements to determine if they are in the best interests of America (beginning with NATO).  These are issue positions that are not only what differentiate Trump from the Democrats; they are issues that differentiate Trump from a large bloc of Republicans as well.

Trump's campaign has the look and feel of a hostile takeover of the GOP's Presidential Nominating apparatus, and it is, but it came about through free, fair elections, and it happened because the rest of the GOP candidates had serious disagreements on some, or all, of the issues mentioned above with the other GOP candidates.  These voters didn't want a party where the name of the game was "Who's the REAL conservative?".  They wanted a party that used government to address THEIR issues and problems, not "less government, less regulation, more freedom".  The GOP had a deaf ear to all of this for years, and they got caught flat-footed by Trump.  Too bad for them.  But to say that Trump's campaign "lacks substance" is ridiculous.  Trump's campaign has more substance than any campaign in recent memory, and it has had (and will continue to have) profound policy implications for the National GOP in the future.

Ok let me break the post in bold down.

1.) Yeah too often the GOP always wanted to nominate the most conservative candidate and not "The Most Electable Conservative". Thats mostly happened imfamously during "The Tea Party Phenomenon" from 2010-2012.

2.) I think you are overrating "The Trump Campaign" since I have haven't heard a vision from him like Reagan did in 1980 and Obama did in 2008 with their respective campaigns. I do agree with you that he wants to do smart free-trade agreements. I haven't heard an immigration proposal from him other than he wants to "build a wall" which and deport all illegal Mexicans back to Mexico but some good illegal mexicans can come back to the US. Thats all I have heard from him on immigration policy. Foreign Policy-I didn't hear a vison there from him in the past year since he has been in the Presidential Race. Yes the GOP got caught completely flatfooted by "The Trump Campaign"I agree there. I don't agree that "The Trump Campaign" has much substance. It seems like Trump is good for an interview like tonight on "60 Minutes" he was very nonchulant and actually sounded like a serious candidate for the Presidency. It seems like he doesn't go bombastic in an interview setting like he does when he is campaigning.

[hopper]

The next president is likely to be a 1 term president regardless, because we are almost certain to enter a recession in the next year or so.

I think Hillary would do less to upend the status quo, and I think she's be better with foreign policy than Obama, in the sense that I see Obama has a failure when it comes to his middle east policies.

With Trump, you just have no idea what you are getting, and Pence is much too right winged for my tastes, all things considered.

The Supreme Court isn't a major issue for me. As we have seen in the past, conservative presidents don't always pick conservative justices.

I agree with your foreign policy assertion that Hillary will be better than Obama in that department.

Pence-I was a fan of his until tonight on "60 Minutes" when he agreed with "A Muslim Ban". A Muslim Ban is too rigid idealogically for my tastes. I have had disagreements with Pence in the past like on tax cuts as I do with the Republican Party as a whole.

Conservative Justice Picks-Roberts is a conservative except for his decesions on "ObamaCare" as was Scalia and Thomas is a Conservative. Kennedy sometimes can be a Social Moderate. I think Sandra Day O' Connor was a Moderate even though she was a Reagan pick. Bush H.W. picked Souter which was a dud pick by him.

[Indy Texas]

#NeverTrump Republicans should just become Democrats. The reason Trump won the nomination is because most Republican voters agree with the things he says.

Even when Trump loses in November, it's not like those Trump voters are going back into the closet. They're empowered now. They'll nominate Trump again in 2020, or someone like him. The days of McCain/Romney-type nominees are over.

No way. The Democrats support too many government programs. I was just thinking about this today on that there used to be Democrats(mainly Southern Dems(Charles Melancon(D-LA) that supported both government and free market as answers to economic problems. Today those Democrats don't exist as they think government is the solution to every problem.

I like some of Trump's ideas or thoughts like 1.) Getting Tough on China, 2.) Super Pacs are stupid, and 3.) stop making horrible trade deals. I could vote for a guy like that but his statement about Mexicans is insulting. Its like Goldwater in 1964 in that Trump's packaging of himself as a candiate is horrible but in 1980 with Reagan the packaging is right on running basically on Goldwater's platform.

Oh for Christ's sake, are you really that stupid?

What are the "too many government programs" that you are referring to?

You're probably one of those people who thinks half the country is literally just sitting at home getting the government to pay all their bills.