Lincoln Project is producing good propaganda again

[digger]

The Lincoln Project is a conservative anti trump political organization. They produce some of the best anti trump videos, posting them on YouTube.

They are particularly good at skewering trump and the rest of the republican party because they understand him better than liberals do. They attack the extremists from the center right, pointing out all of the conservative principles that the gop has abandoned.

Over the past week, they have released a whole season's worth of videos. The mark Meadows video is particularly good.

The Lincoln project has been noted in conflict and dysfunction of its own. The quality of its YouTube channel declined, but I still check in every once in a while. I was pleasantly surprised to find these videos.

[The Great Zaganza]

It's pretty clear that the Lincoln Project is mostly a grift to get Centrist/Democrat money and prestige for those running it.
Yes, it has produced some good and some bad vids, but mostly, it has just cashed in.

[dirtywick]

why do you call it a grift? i think they produce what they claim to produce

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by dirtywick

why do you call it a grift? i think they produce what they claim to produce

But most of their budget goes into paying themselves.

[digger]

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/0...scandal-468984

[Donal]

Originally Posted by dirtywick

why do you call it a grift? i think they produce what they claim to produce

They produce the content they claimed, but not the results. Their videos were shared amongst centrists who want to high-five each other and say "got him!" The Lincoln Project not only bilked these smug idiots out of money, but they also forced their way at the table to push out more left-wing groups, who actually were bringing in more voters.

The fact is, Trump had more support among self-identified conservatives and republicans in 2020 than he did in 2016.

[Craig4]

If they wanted to do something useful, they'd be recruiting spoiler candidates for 2022 and 2024.

[Suddenly]

Originally Posted by Donal

They produce the content they claimed, but not the results. Their videos were shared amongst centrists who want to high-five each other and say "got him!" The Lincoln Project not only bilked these smug idiots out of money, but they also forced their way at the table to push out more left-wing groups, who actually were bringing in more voters.

The fact is, Trump had more support among self-identified conservatives and republicans in 2020 than he did in 2016.

Adding to this is that the Lincoln Project was chasing a ghost. Too many Democrats labor under the delusion that Trump is an aberration rather than a correction to the mean. The "principled conservatives" that Biden pines for and the Lincoln Project was trying to sway is a tiny niche group that already lost one party to Trump and is apparently working on a second.

That and using Lincoln as a mascot for economic conservatives is the slightly less toxic version of "Democrats were the real racists." Lincoln was way closer to AOC than Bill Kristol and it's irritating when the modern GOP claims him.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by digger

The Lincoln Project is a conservative anti trump political organization.

Bwahahahahahaha!

No. They are an organization that claims they are conservative. They are not. They are grifters, and their current grift is to pretend to be anti-Trump conservatives, because they ran out of money with their old grift of pretending to be normal conservatives.

Quote:

The Lincoln project has been noted in conflict and dysfunction of its own.

That's an understatement.

[Donal]

I guess there is only room for one grifter pretending to be a conservative to run the GOP.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Donal

They produce the content they claimed, but not the results. Their videos were shared amongst centrists who want to high-five each other and say "got him!"

I guess the main question is...

Do negative campaign ads work?

Although people do like to imagine "Just take the high road and we will win!", we have seen cases where negative ads have had a significant impact in the course of an election. Studies have shown that negative ads are influential. (Although admittedly they are less effective when they come from PACs.)

See: Science Daily

Quote:

The Lincoln Project not only bilked these smug idiots out of money, but they also forced their way at the table to push out more left-wing groups, who actually were bringing in more voters.

Did they "push out" left-wing groups? Election campaigns are big/complex things. The fact that there was a group like the Lincoln project running anti-Trump ads did not stop the more left-wing groups from doing their own campaigning.

Could the money spent by the Lincoln project have been better used? Maybe, but there is no guarantee that if people were not donating to the Lincoln project, that they would turn around and donate to groups that were further to the political left.

[Donal]

Originally Posted by Suddenly

Adding to this is that the Lincoln Project was chasing a ghost. Too many Democrats labor under the delusion that Trump is an aberration rather than a correction to the mean. The "principled conservatives" that Biden pines for and the Lincoln Project was trying to sway is a tiny niche group that already lost one party to Trump and is apparently working on a second.

That and using Lincoln as a mascot for economic conservatives is the slightly less toxic version of "Democrats were the real racists." Lincoln was way closer to AOC than Bill Kristol and it's irritating when the modern GOP claims him.

Every time I hear someone talk about "old principled conservatives" from before Trump came along and "highjacked the party", I ask them if they mean the ones who
1) stood by while Scalia's seat went unfilled
2) fear mongered about Obamacare death panels
3) pushed the birth certificate lie
4) propped up Rush Limbaugh while he was screaming disgusting things about "others"
5) used Newt Gingrich's "contrasting words"
6) swift boated John Kerry
7) lied to get us into Iraq

and countless other offenses that show Trump isn't some anomoly. He's not even the mask off. He's just the culmination into a single point

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Quote:

The Lincoln Project is a conservative anti trump political organization.

Bwahahahahahaha!

No. They are an organization that claims they are conservative. They are not.

This sound quite a bit like Trump and the MAGAchud suggesting various politicians are "RINOs" (republicans in name only) if they aren't 100% behind Trump.

"I know you've been a member of the republican party for decades, voted for every tax cut bill that was possible, and want to make sure women stay barefoot and pregnant, but because you aren't kissing up to Trump enough, we are going to claim that you aren't REALLY a republican."

There is no "gatekeeper" who determines who is a conservative and who is not. And many of the people involved in the lincoln project do have long histories in republican politics and have pushed for conservative polices. If you have spent a significant amount of your political career pushing for tax cuts, greater defense spending, etc. then yes, you are a conservative.

Quote:

They are grifters, and their current grift is to pretend to be anti-Trump conservatives, because they ran out of money with their old grift of pretending to be normal conservatives.

There are people in the organization that have engaged in activities that were... questionable. But that does not necessarily make them "not conservative". Nor does that mean that all people involved in the Lincoln project should be painted by the same brush.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

There is no "gatekeeper" who determines who is a conservative and who is not.

In a sense, yes. There's no credentialing process, no official membership. And yet, one can still evaluate whether or not someone is actually conservative. One does not need to simply take someone's word for it.

Quote:

And many of the people involved in the lincoln project do have long histories in republican politics and have pushed for conservative polices.

But they don't push for conservative policies now. Because they changed their grift. That's the whole point.

Quote:

There are people in the organization that have engaged in activities that were... questionable. But that does not necessarily make them "not conservative".

True. But it's funny, and they should have it rubbed in their face at every opportunity.

What makes them not conservative (or if you insist, not conservative anymore) is that, again, they aren't actually pushing conservative policies.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

But they don't push for conservative policies now. Because they changed their grift. That's the whole point.

Please tell me these "left wing" policies that you think the Lincoln project is actually pushing for.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Please tell me these "left wing" policies that you think the Lincoln project is actually pushing for.

You are confused. I said they weren't conservative, I didn't say they were liberal. Grift is their true ideology.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Quote:

Please tell me these "left wing" policies that you think the Lincoln project is actually pushing for.

You are confused. I said they weren't conservative, I didn't say they were liberal. Grift is their true ideology.

So in other words, you are using a variation of the "no true scotsman" fallacy.

In other words, you are defining whether they are "conservative" based not on what policies they might have actually champion, but on some criteria that is not relevant to the definition.

Got it.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

What makes them not conservative (or if you insist, not conservative anymore) is that, again, they aren't actually pushing conservative policies.

This is disturbing because it suggests opposition to a Trump-like figure cannot stem from conservative principles.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Grift is their true ideology.

It's perfectly possible for someone to push for conservative policies (or liberal policies) and still be a grifter. Here's a simple question for you: Who is a more opportunistic grifter, anyone in the Lincoln Project (take your pick) or Donald Trump?

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Bwahahahahahaha!

No. They are an organization that claims they are conservative. They are not. They are grifters, and their current grift is to pretend to be anti-Trump conservatives, because they ran out of money with their old grift of pretending to be normal conservatives.

That's an understatement.

Out of curiosity, are Trump, Giuliani, Flynn, Bannon etc Conservatives or Grifters?

And if Trump is a conservative, so am I.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Cain

This is disturbing because it suggests opposition to a Trump-like figure cannot stem from conservative principles.

In principle it could. But in the case of the Lincoln project, it doesn't.

They're just grifters, and this is their new grift.

Quote:

It's perfectly possible for someone to push for conservative policies (or liberal policies) and still be a grifter.

Sure. And that's what they used to do before Trump. But they don't even do that now.

Quote:

Here's a simple question for you: Who is a more opportunistic grifter, anyone in the Lincoln Project (take your pick) or Donald Trump?

Lincoln project. No question.

That isn't an endorsement of Trump either, nor is it even a claim of principle on his part. But it's not a grift. He was making plenty of money before his presidency. He didn't need to become President to be rich, and becoming President didn't make him significantly richer, if at all. In terms of the effort required for the payoff, it doesn't make sense. There are all sorts of other cynical reasons you could attribute to Trump for why he ran for office (megalomania, for example), but grift really isn't near the top of the list.

But the Lincoln Project folks basically don't have any other marketable skill. This is what they have learned to do for a living.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

Out of curiosity, are Trump, Giuliani, Flynn, Bannon etc Conservatives or Grifters?

And if Trump is a conservative, so am I.

False dichotomy, but Trump is a populist, not a conservative. Bannon is probably a grifter, though I haven't paid much attention to him.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

False dichotomy, but Trump is a populist, not a conservative. Bannon is probably a grifter, though I haven't paid much attention to him.

Trump is not a populist. He peddles his personality. And for the life of me I can't fathom why anyone buys it.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

So in other words, you are using a variation of the "no true scotsman" fallacy.

In other words, you are defining whether they are "conservative" based not on what policies they might have actually champion, but on some criteria that is not relevant to the definition.

Got it.

No. God damn it, pay attention.

The people in the Lincoln project used to champion conservative policies. The whole point is that now they don't. It is PRECISELY which policies they champion or fail to which is what I'm basing that on. They are not conservative, because they do not champion conservative policies.

[Donal]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

I guess the main question is...

Do negative campaign ads work?

Although people do like to imagine "Just take the high road and we will win!", we have seen cases where negative ads have had a significant impact in the course of an election. Studies have shown that negative ads are influential. (Although admittedly they are less effective when they come from PACs.)

See: Science Daily

I'm sure they have some effect, but I imagine it also depends on a lot of factors. How do attack ads work on someone who has no shame and even revels in some of the attacks? How can they influence people seemingly in a cult?

I think it is very evident that "the old rules" have long been proven irrelevent.

Quote:

Did they "push out" left-wing groups? Election campaigns are big/complex things. The fact that there was a group like the Lincoln project running anti-Trump ads did not stop the more left-wing groups from doing their own campaigning.

Could the money spent by the Lincoln project have been better used? Maybe, but there is no guarantee that if people were not donating to the Lincoln project, that they would turn around and donate to groups that were further to the political left.

Oh, they were happily embraced by centrists within the party that want to push out the progressives. Look how many candidates, including Biden, were talking about them in glowing terms. How many times was the desiccated husk of James Carville propped up on TV to slam progressives and kiss the butt of "anti-Trump Republicans"?

So, no, the money wouldn't have gone to progressive causes. It just shows where a lot of folks within party leadership stand

[Cain]

Who is a more opportunistic grifter, anyone in the Lincoln Project (take your pick) or Donald Trump?

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Lincoln project. No question.

This is a bit of a surprise because you're generalizing rather than naming someone. The Lincoln Project has more than a half-dozen co-founders. The only founders I know by name are Conway, Schmidt, and Wilson (I also know of at least one pedophile by reputation). Conway and Schmidt have since left the group.

According to conservatives plugged into these social circles, as far as I have been able to discern, Conway is probably a real movement conservative. Some have said Schmidt is probably an opportunist. I haven't heard much on the personal side for Wilson, but I'd assume he's like Schmidt except a little more opportunistic and a lot more vulgar.

Quote:

That isn't an endorsement of Trump either, nor is it even a claim of principle on his part. But it's not a grift. He was making plenty of money before his presidency. He didn't need to become President to be rich, and becoming President didn't make him significantly richer, if at all. In terms of the effort required for the payoff, it doesn't make sense. There are all sorts of other cynical reasons you could attribute to Trump for why he ran for office (megalomania, for example), but grift really isn't near the top of the list.

I do believe that Trump is primarily motivated by a need for attention, and a key part of that is being perceived as rich, powerful, and beyond great. But his incessant need for attention goes hand-in-hand with grifting: Trump Vitamins, Trump University, Trump Water, Trump Vodka, Trump Steaks, Trump Airlines. Donald Trump and the Trump brand are almost inseparable.

Someone can still be a grifter/huckster without being motivated by the promise of riches.

Quote:

But the Lincoln Project folks basically don't have any other marketable skill. This is what they have learned to do for a living.

I'm sure most of these Lincoln Project guys have made plenty of money working within Republican politics. What would jeopardize them from continuing to rake in the cash? Typically, the argument is that they made a calculated jump to grab MORE money. It's also important for aggrieved conservatives to charge apostates with seeking "respectability" and -- always -- admittance to fancy cocktail parties. And that could certainly be part of it, in which case the grifting is not purely about money.

These guys were Republicans back when Trump was a Democrat. These guys were Republicans when Trump was in the Reform Party. These guys were Republicans when Trump was an Independent.

Money is a reasonably good proxy for self-interest, but humans care about other things. I think Trump is a person who obviously -- obviously -- cares more about himself than any political cause (and it's not even close). The trick has been to make Trumpism into a political cause.

[SuburbanTurkey]

The Lincoln Project is just a laundering operation for "mainstream" conservatism.

Trumpism is only novel in the sense that it is willing to be overt about all the nastiness of the right that normal conservatives would normally only dogwhistle for.

The right wing has been planting these seeds for decades, their complaints about the harvest ring hollow.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

No. God damn it, pay attention.

The people in the Lincoln project used to champion conservative policies. The whole point is that now they don't. It is PRECISELY which policies they champion or fail to which is what I'm basing that on. They are not conservative, because they do not champion conservative policies.

Nonsense.

Every member of the Lincoln Project from what I can see have been champions of conservative positions. Being anti-immigration, or anti-choice are not conservative positions.

I'm sorry conservative is not synonymous with Republican. Especially with Trump. True conservatism traditionally has been associated with fiscal responsibility, free market economics, rule of law and limited government.
Trump has never ever actually championed conservative positions. Nor did he act like a conservative when he was POTUS. He was against the rule of law. He promoted crony capitalism. He ignored free market economics. He bailed out farmers and made stimulus payments. Hardly conservative.

There seems to be some kind of absurdist cult today in the GOP. You either step in line and support everything that Trump says regardless of how stupid it is. It also doesn't matter if it goes against a century of established principles. Now I grant you that many members of the Lincoln Project have wavered on those principles during their careers, but the insanity of Trump is a bridge too far.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

Being anti-immigration, or anti-choice are not conservative positions.

...

True conservatism traditionally has been associated with fiscal responsibility, free market economics, rule of law and limited government.

That's been the rhetoric, which does not compare favorably with the reality (Reagan debt, military expansion). I know people on this board basically called me naive for being surprised at the willingness of Republicans to drop the free-market, but it's always been a little complicated. Oedipus believes one shouldn't 't **** their mother, yet here he is ******* his mother. He didn't know. With the Trumpism and the naked opportunism, they gotta know what you're doing.

In 2016, Trump was considered the least conservative candidate, but what it means to be conservative is rapidly changing. Similar things are happening on the left with cultural issues in ascent.

I'd certainly say opposing immigration is generally a conservative view, but one can arrive at it by different means. A leftish way of opposing immigration is that it undermines the welfare state. One could also oppose immigration as a sneaky way of redistributing/pre-distributing wealth (by restricting the supply of labor).

When it comes to "Conservative Inc," the dominant libertarian strand of conservative fusionism has always been about helping business. They never gave much anything to the "traditional social conservatives," except wins on guns (but secular conservative elites are often fond of guns).

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Cain

That's been the rhetoric, which does not compare favorably with the reality (Reagan debt, military expansion). I know people on this board basically called me naive for being surprised at the willingness of Republicans to drop the free-market, but it's always been a little complicated. Oedipus believes one shouldn't 't **** their mother, yet here he is ******* his mother. He didn't know. With the Trumpism and the naked opportunism, they gotta know what you're doing.

In 2016, Trump was considered the least conservative candidate, but what it means to be conservative is rapidly changing. Similar things are happening on the left with cultural issues in ascent.

I'd certainly say opposing immigration is generally a conservative view, but one can arrive at it by different means. A leftish way of opposing immigration is that it undermines the welfare state. One could also oppose immigration as a sneaky way of redistributing/pre-distributing wealth (by restricting the supply of labor).

When it comes to "Conservative Inc," the dominant libertarian strand of conservative fusionism has always been about helping business. They never gave much anything to the "traditional social conservatives," except wins on guns (but secular conservative elites are often fond of guns).

Changing conservatism as the wind blows really makes principles a screwed up mess. What I'm pointing out is the ridiculousness of suggesting that the long time Republicans who oppose Trump aren't conservative.

Trump was anti-gun, pro-choice and supported liberal policies until he ran for POTUS. Pretty much every Trump proposal except tax reductions for the wealthy was ignored by the Republican Senate. Not that Trump ever really tried to do anything as President except tear everything down and brag about himself.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

Trump is not a populist. He peddles his personality. And for the life of me I can't fathom why anyone buys it.

Of course you can't. That's the same reason the idiot Dem party is setting themselves up to lose in 2024. Amazingly.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Of course you can't. That's the same reason the idiot Dem party is setting themselves up to lose in 2024. Amazingly.

Really? It's not the anti-democratic measures the states have been implementing to prevent people to vote?

Facts for you Warp.
1.Trump lost the 2016 election by 3 million votes.
2. Trump lost the 2020 election by 7 million votes.

Tell me again why Trump after staging a violent coup attempt on January 6th he's going to win in 2024?

Not saying the Republicans might not find a way to end democracy in 2024. But it won't be because the country loves Trump.

Again, for my education, why do you like this lying, self centered, whore chasing racist grifter? I really want to know. Is it because of his compassion for humanity?

His integrity where he tells creditors his properties are worth hundreds of millions of dollars and the government they are worth 2?

Seriously, I wasn't making a funny. Why do people like Trump? He isn't or has ever been a Christian. Every other word out of his mouth is either him bragging or attacking others. And he doesn't hesitate to make **** up to support what he says.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

Really? It's not the anti-democratic measures the states have been implementing to prevent people to vote?

Facts for you Warp.
1.Trump lost the 2016 election by 3 million votes.
2. Trump lost the 2020 election by 7 million votes.

Tell me again why Trump after staging a violent coup attempt on January 6th he's going to win in 2024?

Not saying the Republicans might not find a way to end democracy in 2024. But it won't be because the country loves Trump.

Again, for my education, why do you like this lying, self centered, whore chasing racist grifter? I really want to know. Is it because of his compassion for humanity?

His integrity where he tells creditors his properties are worth hundreds of millions of dollars and the government they are worth 2?

Seriously, I wasn't making a funny. Why do people like Trump? He isn't or has ever been a Christian. Every other word out of his mouth is either him bragging or attacking others. And he doesn't hesitate to make **** up to support what he says.

Did you ever think that maybe it isn't that they like Trump so much, but rather that they loathe the Dems? Just food for thought.

Personally, I don't care for Trump beyond the entertainment value, which is pretty stale by now. And I sure hope he doesn't return to the White House. I also don't care whether he is a Christian, or not. I'm not one.

The only possible way for Trump to win again, is for the Dems to totally screw the pooch. And they seem hellbent on doing just that, based on the popularity polls. Of course, we are already hearing the excuses for why it won't be their fault.

I have to admit, if he does somehow win in 2024 (which I still consider to be a real long-shot), I will enjoy the laughter that it brings. Especially here.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Did you ever think that maybe it isn't that they like Trump so much, but rather that they loathe the Dems? Just food for thought.

Personally, I don't care for Trump beyond the entertainment value, which is pretty stale by now. And I sure hope he doesn't return to the White House. I also don't care whether he is a Christian, or not. I'm not one.

The only possible way for Trump to win again, is for the Dems to totally screw the pooch. And they seem hellbent on doing just that, based on the popularity polls. Of course, we are already hearing the excuses for why it won't be their fault.

I have to admit, if he does somehow win in 2024 (which I still consider to be a real long-shot), I will enjoy the laughter that it brings. Especially here.

That's really ******* stupid. It's all entertainment to you?

I don't pay any attention to polls at this stage. They only really start to matter in the 6 months heading into the election.

By the way, I'll bet you a thousand dollars right now that Trump is not going to be POTUS in 2025.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

By the way, I'll bet you a thousand dollars right now that Trump is not going to be POTUS in 2025.

I hope you are right. I hope that his chances to successfully run get derailed soon, tbh. Four more years Trump fatigue is not what I am hoping for.

But, as I say, I am going to at least enjoy the laughs if it does happen.

[Brainster]

The "sudden respect" thing works for both sides; there's a lot of it for Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema in the GOP right now. The Lincoln Project should have lost its raison d'etre with Trump's defeat, except that they were really good at raising money from liberals. They did the hard-hitting ads that excited the anti-Trump folks. But if their ads worked well with liberals, how well do you think they work with Republicans who were cool on Trump? And isn't that who their ads are supposed to be aimed at?

Did they succeed in suppressing the Republican vote? Not at all. In fact Trump got a lot more votes (over 11 million more than in 2016). You can argue that their impact was felt among Democrats (Biden got about 15 million more votes than Hillary had in 2016), but it's an odd argument to make that a bunch of former GOP operatives were better at getting the libs out to vote than the Democrat operatives that have been doing it for years.

I would expect them to do very poorly for the next few years and disappear into the sunset with a fair chunk of change. Hard to blame them for plucking chickens who want to be plucked.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

Nonsense.

Every member of the Lincoln Project from what I can see have been champions of conservative positions.

In the past. But not now. Now it’s just anti Trump, and nothing more.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

In the past. But not now. Now it’s just anti Trump, and nothing more.

Well Trump is a turd.

He's the most unprincipled, anti-democratic, anti-American fascist leader we have ever had. As POTUS, he praised dictators and treated long time American allies like crap.

Trump encouraged Republicans to fix elections in Wisconsin, Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. He pressured his own cybersecurity leader, his own AG, Republican Governors in Arizona, and Georgia to refuse to certify electors for no other reason than their states voted for the other guy.

At what point do you flush that large orange mass of fecal matter down the toilet? Or do you favor the Brown Shirts turning the US into 1933 Germany? Because once you allow elections to be fixed, you will never be able to have the people resume control again without bloodshed.

The GOP is playing with fire with their support of unaccountability and anti-democratic legislation.

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Bwahahahahahaha!

No. They are an organization that claims they are conservative. They are not. They are grifters, and their current grift is to pretend to be anti-Trump conservatives, because they ran out of money with their old grift of pretending to be normal conservatives.



That's an understatement.

yes, by every measure they are.
they have all the conservative Ideals and policies except the only one that counts nowadays:
bow to Trump, your Godking.

you would have a much harder time showing that Trump is a conservative (he is not, but like the Lincoln Project he is a grifter)

[Venom]

Condemning Trump for (insert public conduct, policy, action) should be a goddamn layup.

If most of the Republican base won't budge an inch to condemn him for fear of looking like "Democrats", it's refreshing to see a small group of them do it openly and loudly, even if that's the whole point of their existence. Only politically illiterate knuckleheads think that being anti-Trump means being a progressive. We could probably split the Democratic party right now into two fairly competitive parties resembling the Ds and Rs of past decades. No need for the Radical Right.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

Well Trump is a turd.

He's the most unprincipled, anti-democratic, anti-American fascist leader we have ever had. As POTUS, he praised dictators and treated long time American allies like crap.

A problem with conservatism, whatever that means, is that there has not been an emphasis on popular elections. David Frum: "When conservatives come to believe they can't win democratically they won't abandon conservatism, they'll reject democracy."

We've seen the groundwork for years starting with that trope, "We're not a democracy; we're a republic!" Gerrymandering, the Senate, the filibuster, the Electoral College. Meanwhile, Democrats in Blue states (voters, not politicians and party flaks) have supported independent commissions for drawing district lines. Unilaterally disarming shows a commitment to these basic principles. Conservative activists have responded by welcoming barriers to voting, and now there's the threat of state legislators refusing to certify delegates in a presidential election. Great. Maybe we have someone as president who loses the popular vote and the Electoral College. Make America Great Again.

All for what? This wannabe Tangerine Tyrant? Talk about grift. He's gonna build a wall and get Mexico to pay for it. Because this is "a Flight 93 Election" and he "knows" how to win. That's another thing that triggers me. Republicans claiming they're terrible at playing politics, envious of Dems who "know how to fight dirty." What?? Whose side is Mcconnell on? (According to Tucker, he's "an instrument of the left"). Can't have a cuck like Romney. The guy accepted his loss. What an ass.

Conservatives need to locate and prioritize a philosophical principle that enshrines popular elections.