#NeverTrump GOP endorsements LATEST: Graham and Lee voted McMullin

[Figueira]

Why is Romney in the title? I don't think he's said that he won't back Trump in the general, has he?

He has. He'd vote third party or write someone in.

Link?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-mPf7hhQ1Q

I stand corrected.

I have a little more respect for Romney now.  I have no respect for the Republicans who will back Trump if he wins the nomination.  If Trump's THAT BAD a HUMAN BEING; if it's not just issue differences, then why would you support him at all if his character is that low?  Think about that.  The GOP (for the most part, is saying, "He's a scumbag, but if he's nominated, he's OUR scumbag."  If Trump's THAT bad, it's time for these folks to fish or cut bait.

Honestly though, I would respect him more if he voted for Clinton. Voting third party accomplishes nothing.

He now lives in highly non-competitive Utah, so voting for anyone accomplishes nothing.

Given the latest Utah poll, perhaps I spoke too soon? 

That would be funny if Mitt Romney decided the entire election for Hillary by voting for her in Utah.

[Kingpoleon]

Why is Romney in the title? I don't think he's said that he won't back Trump in the general, has he?

He has. He'd vote third party or write someone in.

Link?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-mPf7hhQ1Q

I stand corrected.

I have a little more respect for Romney now.  I have no respect for the Republicans who will back Trump if he wins the nomination.  If Trump's THAT BAD a HUMAN BEING; if it's not just issue differences, then why would you support him at all if his character is that low?  Think about that.  The GOP (for the most part, is saying, "He's a scumbag, but if he's nominated, he's OUR scumbag."  If Trump's THAT bad, it's time for these folks to fish or cut bait.

Honestly though, I would respect him more if he voted for Clinton. Voting third party accomplishes nothing.

He now lives in highly non-competitive Utah, so voting for anyone accomplishes nothing.

Uh, I'll have you know that Utah is more likely to vote Democratic than Colorado.

You do have to love it when UT and CO and NV are all three about to be the same status electorally.

[Crumpets]

I was sore for months about Trump, but I'm over it, and the establishment needs to get over it too.

I'm not sore about Trump. Conservatives aren't sore about Trump. We are furious and angry that a man who doesn't represent our values or our party or our ideology dares to claim it, dares to lie about it, and dares to defame all who disagree. I am not over it. I am not establishment. I am a conservative Constitutionalist who is concerned for the future of America and wants true freedom and a true defender of the Constitution. I won't give up until Trump passes 1237 and if he doesn't, then I will carry and defend my values to the convention and pray for a Cruz nomination.

Well said.

So honest question: If Trump held the same viewpoints as he does now and was proposing the same policies, but there was no reason to believe he was being dishonest in supporting them - if you thought he truly supported them as a way to achieve a more responsible, conservative country, would your view of him change? If so, how?

I guess what I'm asking is do you see Trump as supporting true conservative policies, but doing so for dishonest and non-conservative reasons, or do you see his policies as non-conservative. If the latter, then how would you classify them?

[Mr. Morden]

I guess this was a few weeks ago, but I don't see it in the thread.  Rep. Bob Dold (IL) says he won't support Trump in November:

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20160302/BLOGS02/160309958/illinois-gop-begins-to-take-sides-on-the-trump-juggernaut

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Likely Voter]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/03/24/maryland-gov-larry-hogan-a-republican-says-donald-trump-shouldnt-be-nominee/?partner=IFTTT&_r=2

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well said. There's a reason I'm an "I" and not an "R".

[YaBoyNY]

This is all ridiculous because Hillary's victory, while massive, isn't going to in any way be an endorsement for Hillary: it's going to be a resounding defeat for Trump. (Unlike, say, 2008, which was an endorsement for Obama). As such, Hillary's coattails are not going to be particularly significant, which means it's unlikely Democrats take the Senate.

[citation needed]

[Fargobison]

Not a politician but conservative radio host Mark Levin announced today that he is #NeverTrump

[Deblano]

Glorious Freedom-loving True Conservative talk radio host Mark Levin annouced that he is part of #NeverTrump

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-primaries/275722-mark-levin-i-would-never-vote-for-trump

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Funny thing is this is a complete flip-flop, as Levin was singing praises towards Trump months earlier, and having him be interviewed on his show.

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/mark-levin-defend-donald-trump-illegal/2015/07/02/id/653340/

http://www.marklevinshow.com/2015/06/16/listen-donald-trump-joins-mark-to-discuss-his-2016-run/

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/28/mark-levin-gives-thumbs-donald-trump-tax-proposal-hell-plan/

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/09/29/mark_levin_donald_trumps_tax_plan_is_reaganesque.html

Maybe he can join Glenn Beck and attend the Church of Our Holy Savior Ted Cruz. hypocrite

[standwrand]

where is that #neverTrump megathread? this should be there

[ElectionsGuy]

If he was a 'true conservative' he would've never snuggled up to Trump in the first place.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Can only imagine the amount of anti-Semitic remarks that are headed his way from Trump's scumbag base.

[Ronnie]

Tremendously ironic, considering he had stated just prior that people who wouldn't vote for Trump over Clinton are "buffoons":

http://www.mediaite.com/online/mark-levin-rips-nevertrump-buffoons-you-would-passively-help-hillary-win/

[Deblano]

Tremendously ironic, considering he had stated just prior that people who wouldn't vote for Trump over Clinton are "buffoons":

http://www.mediaite.com/online/mark-levin-rips-nevertrump-buffoons-you-would-passively-help-hillary-win/

Cruz probably waved another fat stack of dollars at his face.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I was sore for months about Trump, but I'm over it, and the establishment needs to get over it too.

I'm not sore about Trump. Conservatives aren't sore about Trump. We are furious and angry that a man who doesn't represent our values or our party or our ideology dares to claim it, dares to lie about it, and dares to defame all who disagree. I am not over it. I am not establishment. I am a conservative Constitutionalist who is concerned for the future of America and wants true freedom and a true defender of the Constitution. I won't give up until Trump passes 1237 and if he doesn't, then I will carry and defend my values to the convention and pray for a Cruz nomination.

You, and many like you, have grossly failed to consider who actually makes up your party.  Your party is made up by scads of folks who are not "Constitutional conservatives".  It has large numbers of paleoconservatives, large numbers of non-ideological moderates, a significant group of libertarian-Republicans, and a number of populists who are authoritarian.  Folks like you thought that the GOP nomination was a contest as to who would prove to be the "purest" conservative, but you failed to accurately take into account just exactly who the GOP really is.

Let's understand that Donald Trump is winning fair elections; it's certainly not that he's utilizing Bush Family resources to stuff ballot boxes.  And the votes he's winning are the votes of folks who vote Republican for President; even the independents who voted in GOP primaries in some states are folks who, truly, lean Republican overall, and are likely GOP Presidential voters. 

Trump is giving voice to the viewpoints of a huge swath of the GOP that has always been there.  They've had their spokespersons in the form of Pat Buchanan in 1996 and Tom Tancredo in 2008, but now they have a guy who can self-fund speaking for them.  They may not be "constitutional conservatives", but they are very much part of the Republican base, even if Reince Priebus was too asleep at the switch to figure this out.  Trump's campaign has put to rest the idea that Republicans lose because they don't run as small-government conservatives.  The GOP is NOT a party of "constitutional conservatives".  Indeed, the number of paleoconservatives and populist conservatives in the GOP probably outnumbers the "constitutional conservative" wing by a huge amount.  Socrates advised, "Know thyself."  The GOP would be better off if it had done precisely that.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Graham is still undecided on whether to go #NeverTrump, but he did suggest that his pledge to support the nominee doesn't apply anymore because he's no longer running for president.  (Then I guess he really didn't understand what the pledge was?):

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/face-the-nation-transcripts-march-20-2016-kasich-sanders-graham/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You know, I bet he retires in 2020 or maybe even earlier. Why would he want to run for another term? It really seems to me like he's over it.

I think he should be the one to run 3rd party this year as the #NeverTrump candidate, if no one else wants to do it.  Trump's most significant break from GOP establishment orthodoxy is on foreign policy, and who better to run on the orthodox GOP foreign policy line than Graham?  (Well, McCain, but he's busy with his own reelection.)  What does he have to lose?

I would argue that his most serious break is on economic issues, while his second is on overall policy seriousness (of which foreign policy is a component).

There are a few Republicans who would be better suited to run on that foreign policy line, though. One is Tom Cotton.

Graham needs to honor his pledge for the good of the party, as do all the other candidates who made the pledge. It's vital for any hope of party unity in the future, particularly party unity if establishment candidates are nominated.

I, however, have made no such pledge, and I'll be voting Libertarian if Donald is the nominee.

[Famous Mortimer]

Trump's most serious break with the Republican Party is immigration. This is indisputable.

[Seneca]

Trump's most serious break with the Republican Party is immigration. This is indisputable.

Not being anti-free trade?

[ElectionsGuy]

Trump's most serious break with the Republican Party is immigration. This is indisputable.

By Republican Party do you mean its platform and those in power, or the views of the base? Those are two totally different things that I think we have to distinguish especially after this election.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Trump's most serious break with the Republican Party is immigration. This is indisputable.

Not being anti-free trade?

Anti-free trade is the bigger break; it touches the wallets of the Establishment in a more direct way.

The GOP has long been anti-immigrant.  Trump has just forced them to be honest about trying to have it both ways.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Paleos are constitutional conservatives.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Paleos are constitutional conservatives.

Pat Buchanan is the leading Paleoconservative, and he is Trump's biggest fan. 

Ross Perot and the Reform Party were more Paleoconservative than anything else.

[This account no longer in use.]

Paleos are constitutional conservatives.

Let's dispel with this fiction that the Constitution had a liberal or conservative bias.

[Wisconsin+17]

Strangely immigration and free trade are the issues where I break with Trump. Probably explains why I support Cruz.

[Fargobison]

Per Jon Ralston, Brian Sandoval is now dipping his toes in the #NeverTrump waters...

Breaking: @GovSandoval tells me he is no longer sure he'll support Trump as nominee "considering some of the things he has said lately." 1/2

.@GovSandoval on backing Trump as nominee: "It's a day by day thing." Laying the groundwork? 2/2

https://twitter.com/RalstonReports/status/720063551084240896