RINOS and NEVER TRUMPERS

  • Thread starter Thread starter JanR
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I guess I may be more sensitive to RINO, as I would have been considered one for a while. While I did not change, the Tea party movement left me a RINO in the opinion of the Tea party. I have since discontinued all support as a result except voting and supporting some local politicians.

So if the OP does not like this type of person, one who has priorities greater than party loyalty, then I she gets her wish and more will leave, diminishing a party that is not even tolerant of its moderate supporters.
 
Believe it or not, there are mind exercises for that.

I forget what they are now. 🙂
This reminds me of Don Hertzfeldt’s film “Such a Beautiful Day” in which the main character is supposed to take his memory test, but he can’t remember where he put it.
 
There are a record number of PLINO’s (Pro Life in Name Only’s) altering the heart of the prolife moverment now. That is that they are not really motivated by the universal dignity of the human person by virtue of their God given humaness but by a different agenda.
 
So, I’ve donated to the Lincoln Project. I look forward to the day when we have a normal person as President.
Here’s an example of why those Republicans leading the Lincoln Project aren’t supporting Trump. It’s from a recent article in the Washington Post coauthored by George Conway:
If there’s one thing you can say about President Trump and his administration, it’s that nothing is regular except the irregular, which has had myriad damaging consequences for the nation. And it’s had particularly adverse consequences for the federal government’s ability to defend itself in court.

The latest example comes in the criminal case against Trump’s first, short-tenured national security adviser, Michael Flynn. He pleaded guilty — not once but twice — to charges that he had lied to FBI agents during an interview about his conversations with senior Russian officials during the presidential transition. Despite Flynn’s admissions of guilt, Attorney General William P. Barr filed a motion asking that the case be dismissed — and supporting Flynn’s effort to have that done without even a hearing before the district judge.

Flynn won before an appeals court panel. But when the full court of appeals heard arguments on Flynn’s petition, the judges couldn’t have seemed more bewildered at the Trump administration’s position. The government argued that the district judge couldn’t inquire into the government’s reasons for seeking dismissal even if he’d seen the prosecutor take a bribe, in open court, in exchange for dismissing the case.

The Trump administration has been saying things like that a lot lately — trying to stretch the law in ways that undermine its remaining credibility. It argued that a sitting president’s accountants and bankers can’t be subpoenaed for his personal records during his term in office by either a state grand jury or, without meeting an impossibly high burden, by Congress. It argued that the president’s close aides can’t be called to testify before a congressional committee investigating presidential misconduct. The least trustworthy administration in decades, if not ever, keeps arguing: “You’ve just got to trust us.”
 
Last edited:
You don’t think Joe Biden is a decent man?
No. He has promised he is going to reinstate the HHS Mandate against the Little Sisters of the Poor, reverse the Mexico City Policy, repeal the Hyde Amendment. And he claims to be Catholic.
No, he didn’t claim to have “assaulted” women, because that word is seemingly absent from Trump’s vocabulary. He boasted of kissing women without their consent and grabbing their genitals.
He didn’t claim to have assaulted women because he didn’t do it. He did not say he grabbed any woman by her genitals. He just plain did not.
Are you suggesting that I have invented this person? Are Catholics supposed to go around insinuating that somebody has committed a sin against the 8th commandment with no evidence?
I do not doubt that Dr. Meinheimer exists, and I never said he didn’t. Frankly, I’m not sure what the sentence says, but Dr. Meinheimer is one of the more courteous people on here.
 
Last edited:
These are dug-in folks who aren’t interested in uniting behind our President
There’s no such thing as a nation “uniting behind” a President. People don’t think in unison. Disagreement is part of the fabric of a democratic republic. What did you do to “unite behind” Obama?
are as much entrenched in the Deep State as the Democrats are
Can you elaborate with some examples? Preferably ones that can’t be applied to Republicans?
Just whose side are these folks on? As far as I’m concerned, they might as well switch their affiliations to Democrat, because they seem to be more in their camp.
Are you aware that there are more than two ways to think about this?
President Trump was duly and legitimately elected, and these turncoats in his own party are thumbing their noses at the voters just the same as the Democrats have been doing.
Of course they are. They disagree with Trump, as they have every right to do. They certainly aren’t unique that way.

If it’s any consolation, the Democratic party is pretty schismatic these days in its own way, so Trump does have a good shot at winning.
 
Even if that is true, the expression has been so overused that nobody gives it second thought.
That Kamala Harris is a far leftist? I think a lot of people give it a lot of thought, and they should.
All police everywhere do not use those kinds of profiles to stop otherwise perfectly law-abiding citizens to the extent Apriao did.
Actually they all have profiles. Whether that includes Hispanics of a particular sort depends on where one is and what one’s duties are. I know a Mexican-American retired Border Patrol agent who can tell who is legal and who isn’t by their clothing and grooming. Clothing made in Mexico doesn’t look like clothing made here and grooming practices in Mexico are different.
The right to go about one’s business is a fundamental personal right. When that right is abrogated on the basis of ethnic appearance, it is contrary to CCC 1935.
A misconstruction. You’re telling me the Catechism of the Catholic Church prohibits me from opening the door for a woman or requiring a translator to do business with one who cannot speak English.
I knew this claim was going to come up. I guess that is the problem with labels like “liberal” which is why I did not use it. There are plenty of reasons I do not kare for Kamala, but I do not consider her the worst choice, though I have no doubt the political narrative is she is further to the left than Che Guevara, now that she is on the ticket.
I didn’t say she’s Che Guevara, only that her voting record is what everybody acknowledges that it is.
 
He did not say he grabbed any woman by her genitals. He just plain did not.
Playing word games, aren’t we? He did NOT say that grabbed women by their private parts… he “merely” DID it. And he DID say that he CAN do it… just like any other celeb can do it.
 
Playing word games, aren’t we? He did NOT say that grabbed women by their private parts… he “merely” DID it. And he DID say that he CAN do it… just like any other celeb can do it.
He said one could do it. he never said he did. That’s just you saying it.
 
And you think it’s acceptable for a grown man to speak about women this way?
 
Then, would you prefer the alternative that’s currently available? Biden, who barely knows the time of day sometimes, and Kamala Harris, who is an outright socialist who will tax us through the wazoo and regulate businesses out of business?
Jan, unless you think both houses of Congress are gong to be Democrat-majority also, then your fears are unfounded. You have to get a legislative agenda passed through Congress, first.
What kind of a country do we want?
I want a country that is the preeminent superpower in the world and a moral leader.

I want a country where the rule of law is respected by our leaders.

I want a country where we are united by our leaders, not divided.

I want a country where qualified people run for public office and are elected.
 
He said one could do it. he never said he did. That’s just you saying it.
Typical Trump like evasion. Not actually “untrue”, merely misleading. But this is not a “plausible” denial.

If you wish to defend the “very stable genius”, do it better. He is scared of strong women, so he keeps on inventing denigrating adjectives, something that not even a semi-civilized person would do. Only such an uncouth and nekulturny excuse for a “man”. I suspect that most of his supporters wish that they could do what Trump did. A typical “alpha” male reaction.
 
If Mr. Trump is so “scared of strong women”, why does he retain Kelly Anne Conway as his counselor? She has to be a very strong woman to put up with such a disrespectful husband. I don’t mean just a husband with a different opinion, I mean a husband who tries to undercut her and, in my opinion, wishes she would be fired.

Fortunately, Mr. Trump sees through that.
 
Weird post. I doubt Trump would, in his worst imaginable mood, spew invective this toxic.
 
an, unless you think both houses of Congress are gong to be Democrat-majority also, then your fears are unfounded. You have to get a legislative agenda passed through Congress, first.
Obama didn’t need an act of congress to impose the HHS Mandate on the Little Sisters of the Poor and others. Nor did he need one to reverse the Mexico City Policy.
 
Can someone not support Trump and be considered an authentic Republican?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top