Some "Never Trump" losers are suggesting that the GOP not fund its own nominee because they can't handle the fact that their first choice didn't win. Is this a reasonable approach?
He's the nominee and they should back the nominee.
The arguments for not financially supporting Trump have become more comprehensive than that. Yes, it's true, Trump was not the first choice of the majority of the Republican Party and that's why he won the lowest percentage of the vote of any nominee in modern history. However, the main argument for stopping RNC funding of Trump is that he is a lost cause. It's not that the RNC doesn't want Trump to win, it's that the Trump campaign is increasingly incapable of winning and no longer worth the investment. At a certain point with Trump sliding in the polls and saying outrageous things every week, the RNC has an obligation to move on and to redirect funding to vulnerable GOP candidates in the Senate. This is especially pressing, because Trump's historically weak candidacy is threatening to make the already difficult campaigns of GOP senate candidates even harder. They need all the money they can get, and Trump's failed candidacy doesn't. If Trump wants the White House; he can self-finance
Um, Trump received more votes than anyone in history, and only had a slightly lower % because there were 16 people running. Saying he had the lowest percentage is an incredibly misleading comment.
No, saying Donald Trump had the lowest percentage of the vote of any GOP nominee isn't misleading; it's a fact.
Trump did receive more votes than anyone in history, but more people also voted against the nominee than any time in history, and the number of people who voted for other candidates is far higher than the number that voted for Trump. Trump received 45% of the vote this primary, less than Mitt Romney, John McCain, George W. Bush, Bob Dole, George HW Bush, Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, and any Republican candidate since the GOP adopted a nationwide primary system. Reagan, Romney, and McCain all emerged out of large fields of primary candidates with a higher percentage of the vote than Trump. In a poll taken before the GOP convention and all the chaos that followed, 48% of Republicans did not want Trump as the nominee. The only reason he is the nominee is because he seized momentum early with a small group of supporters in a crowded field with no clear anti-Trump.
Yes I am not even a republican but trump isn't even a conservative or close too that if you want too fund a fiscally conservative candidate fund Gary Johnson
No of course not. GOP will bicker and argue but really they are just desperate for something to happen, something to bring America back to the top instead of the world's b!tch.
They don't know when to quit! They need to respect the voices of the voters! Haven't had to deal with sore losers since Kindergarten!
You have no idea or desire to know what people who don't like Trump actually think or why they think it do you?
For me it doesn't matter. The people voted and he was elected. The GOP should respect the people's voice even if they disagree.
The people's choice of less than half of the party.
If there's a problem with the system, the system should be changed. Until it is however, the way it is should be respected. He's our nominee.
Who cares? He doesn't represent me, or quite frankly the principles of the party. You think I should just shut up and go with it?
Not if you don't wish to. You can vote for whoever you like. I'm talking about the GOP.
Okay but why is the party beholden to the nominee?
I think they should simply to increase the chances of a win in November. But, deeper than that, even if they feel they can't win, is because the party is beholden to us, the people. We chose him as our nominee. They should respect that and help our nominee win. Again, I understand and respect that you specifically and many others didn't vote for him, but he got the nomination so the GOP elites should back him.
Majority of us did not vote for him. Why is it that we (the party) must conform to him? Why can't we demand he be for our principles and the constitution? Also, he has a horrible chance of winning in November, backing by GOP dollars or not. It's most important to keep Congress.
The people should demand more from him, and he should do more to listen and deliver. He shares much of the blame for this, actually, as the nominee he's responsible for making this work out (unity, respect, tighter policies, etc). Don't get me wrong, I fault him more than the GOP. But, he is the nominee and because of that, they should fund him. I agree with much of what you and others are saying. I wish Trump wasn't....as Trump....as he is. But good or bad, he's who ended up on top. The GOP elites with respect to funding, should respect that.
I understand where you're coming from, but I disagree. He shows no sign of even having the desire to change. The party doesn't and shouldn't exist for the sake of the party. It's for the sake of the principles. If funding him puts the preservation of those principles at stake, then forget it.
I don't think it does jeopardize the principles. Trump is more conservative than Hillary and has shown us that with his Supreme Court justice picks. I fear who she may appoint to those positions which will hurt our principles for decades. I understand the argument of damage control, but personally I'd rather go all in and fight like hell to preserve the Supreme Court. Her justices will cause far more damage. Our priorities are different on which front we should fight I think.
Being more conservative than Hillary isn't hard. Trump is more of a Union Democrat and will govern as such. He's backed off a lot of his previous policy statements so I'm not really too trusting with his SCOTUS nominee list. I totally understand voting for him because Hillary is so bad, but as of right now, my conscience will not allow me to do so.
As for the party, Trump's chances of winning are literally next to zero, AND he's abandoning the Constitutional base that the party is supposed to stand for. Keeping the Congress could negate the horrible impact of Hillary. Definitely can't lose Congress.
Would a Rep congress help minimize the damage by liberal justices?
Its a serious question as I really don't know. It's hard to convey tone over the app, so I just wanted to clarify that.
A Constitutional Senate can stop unconstitutional justices from even being on the court
Well...shit. You have a really good point Dom. I'll have to think about this then, you may be right however that the funding would be better off with them.
If Congress operates how it's supposed to, it's always more important than the presidency
Trump lost already. Deal with it. He would've been as awful as Hillary anyhow.
They're proposing that party funds be redirected to vulnerable Republicans in the Senate and House in order to maintain the GOP majority in Congress. The party can't afford to fund a nominee who breaks from their platform frequently and makes multiple serious gaffes every single week. This is about the future of the party. Trump has lost already (and we're all doomed if he hasn't), so why not get a head start on damage control and save the elections that can be saved?
First off, it's not because their first choice didn't win. It's because of how bad Trump is.
Second, I believe you're mischaracterizing some of us "never Trump" people. I'm not *Never* Trump. I'll be opposed to him for as long as he fails to represent the conservative movement with integrity and sound policy. His candidacy is a cult of personality, not one focused on issues. If Trump becomes the face of conservatism, we will lose a generation or more of potential voters.
Finally, Trump has no interest in courting the votes of Republicans and conservatives that don't like him. He cares more about veering left and targeting Bernie voters.
"Never Trump" is a phrase used by cucks who don't support him in the Republican Party, which is why I used that term.
He makes a significant policy speech almost every week, including his last week where he laid out his economic plan in Detroit. His speech included his plan to lower taxes, lessen regulations and simplify the tax code. He consistently provides sufficient conservative policy discussions, and a conservative who doesn't support him is doing absolutely nothing other than allowing Hillary Clinton to win and have a liberal-controlled SCOTUS for several decades.
You think calling us cucks will help the problem?
Do you think totally ignored by main point about Trump's policy speeches will solve the problem?
Trump's policy speeches mean nothing because he makes them mean nothing. He constantly reverses positions and backs away from previous policies that he advocated for in the primary. So no, listening to his speeches will not solve the problem for me. He's even said he can say whatever he needs to.
So just stubbornly ignore the conservative-oriented, presidential policy speeches he makes and have a closed mind then.
I'm not stubbornly ignoring them. I don't trust him. Just like I don't trust the GOP establishment.
You didn't answer my question. Calling us cucks will automatically solve the problem?
...... I told you how to solve the problem. Listen to his conservative policy speeches.
CA- it's in your interest to inspire unity, you need republicans to vote Trump in order to win the Presidency. The Never Trump faction has the opposite incentives. Unity means Trump winning. Now do you think calling Republicans who aren't on board with Trump "cucks", is a good way to accomplish your goal?
What am I trying to do here if I'm not trying to promote unity? I'm creating an argument for Trump by showing how he is a reliable conservative. And I will also call you a cuck if you're a Republican against Trump.
You can't show how he's a reliable conservative. He's anything but. He's been a liberal his whole life, and only recently started saying quasi-conservative things, while even admitting that what he advocates for is completely negotiable.
By calling us cucks, you make my point perfectly. Trump and his supporters are a cult of personality.
Is Building the wall conservative? Is low taxes conservative? Is less regulation conservative? He has given many policy speeches, a point you have ignored this whole time. Cuck.
You don't care about the issues. If you did, then you would be troubled by the fact that Trump told the NY Times that the wall is just a bargaining position. You would be concerned that he's completely backed away from the tax plan he ran on. You would be concerned that he has no idea about any of the policies he gives speeches on. He just tells you what you want to hear, and he's a master at it.
And while he's good at telling Republicans what they want to hear, he's terrible at staying focused on his campaign. He can't even go a week without saying something stupid that alienates more than half of the country. Just admit he's a terrible candidate. If there's any reason to vote for Trump, it's that he's not Hillary. That should be your argument. To defend Trump on his record is political suicide. He will destroy both the GOP and the conservative movement.
"Building unity through insults and name calling."
Haha good luck with that!
Are you kidding? When have I insulted anyone? You're literally ignored every point I've made about Trump and his use of policy speeches. Me calling you a cuck is not "insulting name calling" I'm just pointing out the fact that you're a cuck.
And how do you define the term "cuck"?
A cuck is a person who claims to be/ thinks they are a conservative, yet does not support conservatism and consequently advances liberal causes, which is the only achieved by a cuckservative opposing Trump.
CA, cuck is an insult and not the best way to promote unity. With that said, I fully support Trump for a number of reasons and feel all republicans should to increase his chances of winning. I don't fear a Trump presidency nearly as much as I fear a corrupt Clinton. I trust his advisors and I trust he'll keep his promises for no other reason than wishing to be re-elected. The biggest factor for me is the Supreme Court. Again, I'm not looking to cause division or have an argument with anyone, but you guys should focus on the real "enemy" here, not each other.
Lol I'm no cuck, I'm a dyed in the wool democrat. I just think it's fascinating that so many Trump supporters think insulting their fellow republics with diminutive insults is the way to promote unity.
ceo, I appreciate your input. I draw a clear distinction between you and CA, as you can make a solid argument in defense of voting for Trump. You have focused on unifying in the past, and can criticize Trump when he acts ridiculously. CA and those like him are detrimental to your cause, but nevertheless, I will respond to him one more time. If he can’t see my perspective after the depth of what I’m about to explain, then he is a lost cause.
“A cuck is a person who claims to be/ thinks they are a conservative, yet does not support conservatism and consequently advances liberal causes, which is the only achieved by a cuckservative opposing Trump.”
CA- No. A cuck is a person who enjoys watching his wife have an affair with another man. It has a racial connotation, because over time it came almost exclusively to be used by white supremacist groups to criticize men whose wives had affairs with black men. It’s a racially charged insult, and the alt right has adopted it as an insult to those who don’t support Trump- as if that is somehow supporting liberalism.
I support conservatism and attack liberal policies very strongly. Especially in my state and local elections. Calling me a cuck puts both your ignorance and your arrogance on full display. I don’t support Trump because I don’t support candidates, I support their ideas. Specifically, how they view the Constitution. Trump has no record on policy, so all we have to vet him by is what he says. Trump has been all over the place, not just throughout his life, but in the past year during his campaign.
Instead of assuring us that he is a conservative, Trump criticizes everybody, veers left, and runs the worst campaign in modern American history. To top it off, his supporters by and large follow suit by downplaying our concerns and calling us a derogatory term that plays into the Democrat’s narrative that Republicans are racists.
I am greatly concerned about the future of the country, so much so that I fear Trump redefining conservatism to be some form of European populism will have lasting negative consequences that could take decades to recover from. I agree that Hillary would be bad for the country, but I’m also not convinced that Trump will better. It is his job to convince me, not mine to fall in line, especially after the low level to which he took the primary.
By calling me a cuck, you are only discrediting yourself and widening the divide. If Trump loses in November, there will be nobody to blame but Trump himself and his rabid supporters for failing to transition out of the primary and beat the most beatable Democrat in a very long time.
Actually, as much as I dislike Republicans, I think it is the best plan for them. A Trump presidency would be devastating for the party and they would lose a lot of seats as a results. To instead focus their energy on keeping the house and senate, seems like the best strategic option.
What they will have to do is guarantee the White House to Hillary. They'll actually have to undermine themselves in order to protect the party.
Don't need them.
No, it's very bad strategy.
Once a nominee is nominated, if you don't flock behind him, you give a picture of divisiveness and indecision.
These GOP leaders that are doing so are in fear of their own cushy jobs. This country doesn't need leadership like that and we should welcome the new wave of leadership from outside the party into a new GOP. I say bug-bye establishment.