Top Republican National Security Officials Say They Will Vote for Biden

[cpwill]

Trump is not even marginally conservative.

Not even in the same ballpark. He's just a populist nerd.

This, though, as a nerd, I might object to that word's inclusion .

 

[jmotivator]

Trump is not even marginally conservative.

Not even in the same ballpark. He's just a populist nerd.

I never said he was, but his policies, and his judge nominations most certainly are.

I don't vote for a president based on his personal attributes, I vote on their policies. I voted Trump holding my nose in 2016 because there was no way I would be complicit in Hillary Clinton taking office. I'll vote for Trump without reservation in 2020 because he has proven to be dedicated to putting conservatives in the judiciary and slashing Federal regulation... and also because Joe Biden is a disaster and needs to lose, and the Democrat Party has proven in 4 years of despicable behavior and disastrous conspiracy theory, that they can't be trusted with the reins of power.

 

[pamak]

I never said he was, but his policies, and his judge nominations most certainly are.

I don't vote for a president based on his personal attributes, I vote on their policies. I voted Trump holding my nose in 2016 because there was no way I would be complicit in Hillary Clinton taking office. I'll vote for Trump without reservation in 2020 because he has proven to be dedicated to putting conservatives in the judiciary and slashing Federal regulation... and also because Joe Biden is a disaster and needs to lose, and the Democrat Party has proven in 4 years of despicable behavior and disastrous conspiracy theory, that they can't be trusted with the reins of power.

His policies like the 1 trillion deficit he created annually during the good times?

Anyway, you see the carrot partisan picture and you miss the biggest picture of Trump establishing norms that challenge the American system of checks and balances. If this goes down because people refuse to hold him accountable and offer him a second term, Trump will set the scheme for a new generation of American politicians, conservative and liberals who will be willing to show the outmost contempt against the Congress, use the administrative branch for partisan reasons, try to set deals with foreign presidents based on what "goodies" these foreigners produce against the president's political opponent and in short undermine the safety valves of the American republic.

 

[jmotivator]

I'll make this blatant for you, and your response can demonstrate whether or not you are interested in being honest.

I am not supporting Democrats. I left the GOP because they abandoned conservative principles. I maintained my conservative principles over tribal team politics, and am now, as a result, fairly politically homeless as far as parties are concerned.

Now. Do you understand that?

What conservative principles have they abandoned under Trump? Whatever they abandoned they did so long before Trump took office. What I see in Trump is a president that nominates and gets conservative judges on the bench, slashes federal regulation, and does more than just give lip service to US jobs and the US economy. Do you understand that?

What principles did the Republicans abandon with Trump, and please tell me how former Republican administrations displayed those principles?

Because this kind of stuff right here, when I laid out and linked for you an entire host of policy (domestic and foreign) failures that I actually have problems with suggests you aren't interested in being honest.

You are the one that tried to claim that "Loudly Twittering" was what we view as a success for Trump. You want to fall back on your cheap shots you borrow from The DailyKos and then pretend, when they are thrown back in your face that I'm the one cheapening the discussion? Save that delusion for your Anti-Trumper buddies.

On your foreign policy arguments, take your insistence that Trump somehow screwed up Syria policy combined with your other assertion that Trump is weakening NATO...

I mean, you used to be a smart guy, so maybe you can see what those two arguments can't exist sanely in the same head space? Let's walk through it, shall we?

1) The US involvement in Syria was always to combat and destroy ISIS. The Trump administration did that.

2) The Republicans, until Trump took office, didn't want the US involved in the Syrian civil war... now that Trump is in office every ****ing Never Trumper wants us trading blows with Russia, Syria, Iran and Turkey....

3) The biggest objection to Trump's Syria policy was that he did not join Kurdish border militias in their fight with Turkey? But.. Turkey is a NATO member.

The Trump administration defeated ISIS and has been largely withdrawing from a regional land war there since then. Where is the flaw in that?

I am all for pushing Turkey out of NATO, but you don't do that without sparking a larger war in the region and weakening NATO in the process. But Turkey has been a thorn in NATO's side since 1952... but Never-Trumpers seem to have just figured this out.

Furthermore, under Trump we have seen a Saudi embassy in Israel, normalized relations between Sudan and Israel, and UAE and Israel, and a staggering blow to Iran's force projection across the Middle East with the death of Soleimani.

And if reports are true, Trump's no-compromise policy with North Korea shut that little fat bastard up for the last year of his miserable life. That's a win.

... but Trump made deadbeat NATO countries mad because he told the truth about their deadbeat status? Sorry, no. That needed to be said. If NATO states won't hold up their end of the agreement, and haven't for decades, then NATO is dead already.

Which would be unfortunate - because you've always been a pretty well informed poster who was always worth reading.

As you have been. The issue here is what you Never Trumpers are ready to lose for a "principled victory". What you are willing to lose on is, well... everything, which leaves me still asking without a clear answer from you: What principles do you think you are protecting?

If you think anyone can build a coalition with a DNC willing to foment riots and destroy opponents lives for power then good luck with that. You and the never Trumpers have built an alliance with people who will stab you in the back the moment you are no longer needed.

 

[cpwill]

What conservative principles have they abandoned under Trump?

I'm happy to go down the list (and address the rest of this post as well), but, first:
I made it clear to you where I did and didn't stand, and you continued to mischaracterize my position, and, frankly, it was more than a little frustrating to feel lied about by someone I had respected. Do you understand and accept now that I do not support Trump and that I do not support Biden or the Democratic party's platform.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[cpwill]

What conservative principles have they abandoned under Trump?

I'm happy to go down the list (and address the rest of this post as well), but, first:
I made it clear to you where I did and didn't stand, and you continued to mischaracterize my position, and, frankly, it was more than a little frustrating to feel lied about by someone I had always respected. Do you understand and accept now that I do not support Trump and that I do not support Biden or the Democratic party's platform.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[Puigb]

I never said he was, but his policies, and his judge nominations most certainly are.

I don't vote for a president based on his personal attributes, I vote on their policies. I voted Trump holding my nose in 2016 because there was no way I would be complicit in Hillary Clinton taking office. I'll vote for Trump without reservation in 2020 because he has proven to be dedicated to putting conservatives in the judiciary and slashing Federal regulation... and also because Joe Biden is a disaster and needs to lose, and the Democrat Party has proven in 4 years of despicable behavior and disastrous conspiracy theory, that they can't be trusted with the reins of power.

Oh the massive irony of this comment...

 

[cpwill]

What conservative principles have they abandoned under Trump?

I'm happy to go down the list of positions and beliefs that republicans have abandoned in order to follow along behind Trump, but, first, the post you were responding to here said this:

I'll make this blatant for you, and your response can demonstrate whether or not you are interested in being honest.

I am not supporting Democrats. I left the GOP because they abandoned conservative principles. I maintained my conservative principles over tribal team politics, and am now, as a result, fairly politically homeless as far as parties are concerned.

Now. Do you understand that?

Do you understand that I do not support Trump and that I do not support either Joe Biden's presidential campaign or the Democratic Party Platform.

Because I made this explicit, and I made it explicit repeatedly, and you continued to claim and imply otherwise, even while quoting me explicitly telling you what my position was and, frankly, it was a bit frustrating to feel lied about by someone who I had always respected.

 

[jmotivator]

I'm happy to go down the list of positions and beliefs that republicans have abandoned in order to follow along behind Trump, but, first, the post you were responding to here said this:

Do you understand that I do not support Trump and that I do not support either Joe Biden's presidential campaign or the Democratic Party Platform.

So, you have decided that your debate technique is to demand I accept your proposed position before I debate you on that position? :roll:

My argument with you and with the Republicans in the OP is that you can't claim to be principled Conservatives and Republicans and not do what it takes to defeat the Democrats. If you have actual principles that you believe you are upholding by not voting Republican then list them, but right now all I see is you doing whatever you can to avoid actually answer my question.

I'm not trying to trap you here, I just want to to actually state what principles are so important to you that you think a Democrat win, and all that flows from that, is acceptable.

My point is that there is nothing you want from your "principled conservatism" that you can compromise with these Democrats, and no policy that would survive challenge in a progressive court. The courts are essential, and you don't seem to think it is worth fighting for if it is Trump doing it... I'm trying to figure out why because so far you haven't made your case.

Because I made this explicit, and I made it explicit repeatedly, and you continued to claim and imply otherwise, even while quoting me explicitly telling you what my position was and, frankly, it was a bit frustrating to feel lied about by someone who I had always respected.

I realize you keep trying to reduce the debate to I must agree with you before we start the debate, but that isn't going to happen. I am challenging whether your conscientious objector stance is principled given what the 2020 Democrats represent... you haven't made that argument.

 

[jmotivator]

Oh the massive irony of this comment...

No irony. You'll need to show your work on that.

 

[cpwill]

So, you have decided that your debate technique is to demand I accept your proposed position before I debate you on that position? :roll:

Nope. I'm willing to take the time to answer your questions and go through my logic for you. We can debate the conservative never Trump position and the "conservative" pro Trump position.

But not if you are going to deliberately misconstrue what I say in order to lie about me or what I've said .

That would be sad, because, again, I've always found you worth reading, and respected your input. But I don't have time to waste on deliberate dishonesty.

So, what I'm asking is: now that you've had the fact that I support neither Trump nor Biden explained repeatedly to you, do you have the ability to understand and accept that, or do you intend to keep implying or stating something about my position that you know to be false.

I'm happy to explain and defend my position. But I'm not going to spend precious time constantly correcting the same lie.

 

[Puigb]

No irony. You'll need to show your work on that.

Personally, I admire you being honest. Most know Republicans don't give a crap about what turd of a leader they have as long as they can shove their agenda down the nation's throat, but very few will admit it outright.

 

[jmotivator]

Personally, I admire you being honest. Most know Republicans don't give a crap about what turd of a leader they have as long as they can shove their agenda down the nation's throat, but very few will admit it outright.

Much like the Democrats who push Zero-accomplishment, dementia-suffering Biden because of desired policies but they pretend like they are pushing because Biden has accomplishments and isn't suffering from dementia? Yeah...

Politics is about -- or should be about -- policy, not personality.

So are you going to tell me what you think was ironic about what I wrote?

 

[Luce]

I never said he was, but his policies, and his judge nominations most certainly are.

I don't vote for a president based on his personal attributes, I vote on their policies. I voted Trump holding my nose in 2016 because there was no way I would be complicit in Hillary Clinton taking office. I'll vote for Trump without reservation in 2020 because he has proven to be dedicated to putting conservatives in the judiciary and slashing Federal regulation... and also because Joe Biden is a disaster and needs to lose, and the Democrat Party has proven in 4 years of despicable behavior and disastrous conspiracy theory, that they can't be trusted with the reins of power.

How is slashing regulation automatically good?

 

[jmotivator]

Nope. I'm willing to take the time to answer your questions and go through my logic for you. We can debate the conservative never Trump position and the "conservative" pro Trump position.

But not if you are going to deliberately misconstrue what I say in order to lie about me or what I've said .

That would be sad, because, again, I've always found you worth reading, and respected your input. But I don't have time to waste on deliberate dishonesty.

So, what I'm asking is: now that you've had the fact that I support neither Trump nor Biden explained repeatedly to you, do you have the ability to understand and accept that, or do you intend to keep implying or stating something about my position that you know to be false.

I'm happy to explain and defend my position. But I'm not going to spend precious time constantly correcting the same lie.

I'm not misconstruing anything, cpwill. All I see is what you post here, I am not privy to what you think but don't write.

What I do see is your unwillingness to actually address what is principled about a conservative sitting out in 2020, and what principles a conservative could possibly hold that are higher than a conservative judiciary, a pro-life agenda, and government deregulation.

Moreover, since these principles are, apparently, uniquely violated by Trump, and not by pre-Trump republicans, I am at a loss for how you see your stand as principled when you are sitting out an election where the pro-Antifa, M4A, pro-late term abortion Democrats are ready to put a dementia-adled puppet in the White House to push a very anti-conservative agenda.

I am arguing with your original assertion that the Republicans in the OP are principled, and that your position is also principled, when you seem incapable of voicing what those principles actually are.

 

[jmotivator]

How is slashing regulation automatically good?

Most regulation is pointless bureaucracy, much of it mired in outdated thinking, or political self interest. The K Street Lobbyists exist to expand the regulatory state to stifle competition, and make startup business prohibitive. Amazon, for instance, can weather a rise in payroll taxes because they are worth $2 trillion while a smaller regional competitor is less likely to be able to compete. Amazon is more interested in hurting competition than it is protecting its bottom line.

When you get monopoly sized businesses they stop caring about the bottom line and focus more on crippling the competition through regulation. I am a firm believer in better products through competition, and the regulatory state, for the most part, hurts startups and protects big business.

 

[Luce]

Most regulation is pointless bureaucracy,

So we should dump palladium in Lake Erie?

I mean, that would be cheaper for the local industry.

 

[jmotivator]

So we should dump palladium in Lake Erie?

I never said that. Are all or even most regulations against dumping palladium into Lake Erie? :roll:

I mean, that would be cheaper for the local industry.

Well, no, it would be cheaper for one industry at the expense of several others. See my objection to monopolies for where I stand on such things.

 

[Luce]

I never said that. Are all or even most regulations against dumping palladium into Lake Erie? :roll:



Well, no, it would be cheaper for one industry at the expense of several others. See my objection to monopolies for where I stand on such things.

So what you're thinking is there's just a lot of regulation that people sat around and dreamed up, to no purpose?

How do you feel about chemical sequestration regulations? Which regulations are the problem?

 

[jmotivator]

So what you're thinking is there's just a lot of regulation that people sat around and dreamed up, to no purpose?

Also no, as I explained, there is a lot of regulation pushed by special interests designed specifically to aid those special interests at the cost of their competitors. There is an entire industry built on influential former politicians pushing special interest regulation.

How do you feel about chemical sequestration regulations?

It depends on the chemical. You suffer the same narrow mindedness of most Washington politicians and think in useless generalities and one size fits all policy.

Which regulations are the problem?

Under Obama alone the US government established 552,882 pages of new regulation.

So that we can part on agreement: If a drug is available for purchase in the US, it is illegal to import that drug from a foreign distributor even if it could be acquired more cheaply from abroad. Do you support that regulation or not? I would guess we both have the same answer.

 

[Luce]

Also no, as I explained, there is a lot of regulation pushed by special interests designed specifically to aid those special interests at the cost of their competitors. There is an entire industry built on influential former politicians pushing special interest regulation.



It depends on the chemical. You suffer the same narrow mindedness of most Washington politicians and think in useless generalities and one size fits all policy.

There are no sequestration regulations that say you can't store water next to oxidizers. The regulations are in fact tailored to the chemicals in question.

Under Obama alone the US government established 552,882 pages of new regulation.

Not really a surprise, given that the tech curve more or less went vertical starting in 1994. I'm gonna flag Hamish into this, because he deals with this all the time.

So that we can part on agreement: If a drug is available for purchase in the US, it is illegal to import that drug from a foreign distributor even if it could be acquired more cheaply from abroad. Do you support that regulation or not? I would guess we both have the same answer.

No, that sounds kind of like anti-market protectionism - at the expense of the consumer - to me.

 

[jmotivator]

There are no sequestration regulations that say you can't store water next to oxidizers. The regulations are in fact tailored to the chemicals in question.

... You've lost the plot.

Not really a surprise, given that the tech curve more or less went vertical starting in 1994. I'm gonna flag Hamish into this, because he deals with this all the time.

You think it was 552,000 pages of tech regulation? :roll:

No, that sounds kind of like anti-market protectionism - at the expense of the consumer - to me.

See? Bad regulation that artificially protects big business.

 

[Rogue Valley]

Under Obama alone the US government established 552,882 pages of new regulation.

You have citations for this claim right?

 

[jmotivator]

You have citations for this claim right?

Per Politifact:

"So far in Obama’s term, the government has published 555,882 pages of new regulations total."

Sorry, my memory of this fact check was low by 3,000 pages and failed to account for the tally being from January 2016, not 2017.

So, it was likely well over 600,000 pages of new regulation during Obama's time in office.

 

[poweRob]

They're listed at the end of the statement. Click on the link.

Well damn... there goes Taylors one trick pony move of complaining about anonymous sources.