Conservative National Review: Don't Vote for Trump

[Uncle J]

For those who don't know, The National Review is a long-running US conservative magazine, founded in 1955 by William Buckley. So I was a bit shocked to see them turn so dramatically against Donald. Some excerpts....

Republican Voters Can — and Should — Rethink Nominating Trump

[Republicans] would be well advised to opt for one of the alternatives who are far and away better on the merits, more likely to win in November, and, if elected, more likely to deliver — free from the wild drama of a second Trump term — conservative results.

Trump’s defenders tend to dismiss the conservative criticisms of him as concerns about his “mean tweets,” or now, to be more accurate, his mean Truth Social posts. It’s true that his fulminations on social media are crude and ridiculous, but this isn’t the fundamental problem. Because he couldn’t bear to admit that he’d lost to Joe Biden in 2020 (after trailing him in every national poll), Trump insisted he’d won and did everything he could to overturn the result, including trying to bully his vice president into violating his oath and preventing and delaying the counting of the electoral vote. When a mob, fervently believing Trump’s lies, fought its way into the U.S. Capitol to try to end the count, Trump did little or nothing to try to stop it.

These were infamous presidential acts and represented serious offenses against our constitutional order. Nothing can justify them, and it’s wrong to simply pretend that they didn’t happen. It’s impossible to imagine Ron DeSantis or Nikki Haley, whatever their other flaws, engaging in such grotesquely selfish behavior injurious to our republic. On this basis alone, both are vastly preferable to Trump...
...As Biden demonstrated in his Valley Forge speech last week, Democrats plan to make the race all about Trump if he wins the nomination, in a repeat of their winning formula from 2020 and 2022. Nominating someone else would instantly deny the Democrats their most powerful weapon in the cause of winning an otherwise unthinkable Biden second term — Trump’s radioactive persona...
...His bad instincts on trade and NATO, tendency to personalize everything including foreign relations, contempt for rules that get in his way, and erratic nature would risk real harm to the country. He’d be an easily distracted 78-year-old one-termer sure to get wiped out in the midterms, once again...

..But Republicans have better friends available to them, who haven’t disgraced themselves by trying to deny the results of an election, who would be quite likely to vanquish Biden, and who would be capable presidents.

It’s not too late to choose one of them, and forge a better path for the party and for the country.

 

[Uncle J]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1750881278361276927

 

[Riven]

 

[hawkman]

 

[Uncle J]

 

[Uncle J]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1751391825573642578

 

[Uncle J]

Sen Romney: "[Donald] has indicated to us that he doesn't want us to solve the problem at the border.....the idea that someone running for President would say 'Please hurt the country so I can blame my opponent and help my politics is a shocking development".

 

[Uncle J]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1751643312652534064

 

[Riven]

Sen Romney: "[Donald] has indicated to us that he doesn't want us to solve the problem at the border.....the idea that someone running for President would say 'Please hurt the country so I can blame my opponent and help my politics is a shocking development".

You and the rest of your globalist buddies have had decades to solve it, Mitt. But alas, no dice. He's such a coward. If it were up to me, Mitt would be forced to give up one of his many homes as shelter for all of these illegals. Throw him out on the street.

 

[Uncle J]

You and the rest of your globalist buddies have had decades to solve it, Mitt. But alas, no dice.

Um.....that's pretty much the point. He and other Senators came up with bipartisan immigration reform (which according to reports is pretty conservative and includes a lot of concessions from Dems), but Donald is ordering House Republicans to kill it so it will still be an issue during the campaign.

So it's a bit weird to see you say he should take care of the issue, when that's exactly what he did.

 

[Consecrated Life]

For those who don't know, The National Review is a long-running US conservative magazine, founded in 1955 by William Buckley. So I was a bit shocked to see them turn so dramatically against Donald. Some excerpts....

Republican Voters Can — and Should — Rethink Nominating Trump

[Republicans] would be well advised to opt for one of the alternatives who are far and away better on the merits, more likely to win in November, and, if elected, more likely to deliver — free from the wild drama of a second Trump term — conservative results.

Trump’s defenders tend to dismiss the conservative criticisms of him as concerns about his “mean tweets,” or now, to be more accurate, his mean Truth Social posts. It’s true that his fulminations on social media are crude and ridiculous, but this isn’t the fundamental problem. Because he couldn’t bear to admit that he’d lost to Joe Biden in 2020 (after trailing him in every national poll), Trump insisted he’d won and did everything he could to overturn the result, including trying to bully his vice president into violating his oath and preventing and delaying the counting of the electoral vote. When a mob, fervently believing Trump’s lies, fought its way into the U.S. Capitol to try to end the count, Trump did little or nothing to try to stop it.

These were infamous presidential acts and represented serious offenses against our constitutional order. Nothing can justify them, and it’s wrong to simply pretend that they didn’t happen. It’s impossible to imagine Ron DeSantis or Nikki Haley, whatever their other flaws, engaging in such grotesquely selfish behavior injurious to our republic. On this basis alone, both are vastly preferable to Trump...
...As Biden demonstrated in his Valley Forge speech last week, Democrats plan to make the race all about Trump if he wins the nomination, in a repeat of their winning formula from 2020 and 2022. Nominating someone else would instantly deny the Democrats their most powerful weapon in the cause of winning an otherwise unthinkable Biden second term — Trump’s radioactive persona...
...His bad instincts on trade and NATO, tendency to personalize everything including foreign relations, contempt for rules that get in his way, and erratic nature would risk real harm to the country. He’d be an easily distracted 78-year-old one-termer sure to get wiped out in the midterms, once again...

..But Republicans have better friends available to them, who haven’t disgraced themselves by trying to deny the results of an election, who would be quite likely to vanquish Biden, and who would be capable presidents.

It’s not too late to choose one of them, and forge a better path for the party and for the country.

Maybe a Black man would be better .
But even Biden knows it is hard to find a clean one.
Let alone one who is articulate as well .
A Clean & articulate African American ?
Are kidding me ?
If only we good be as storybook lucky as Joe in finding an acceptable black person .

" Finally we have an African American who is good looking , is clean , who speaks well. and is articulate , who can speaks well,,,,thats storybook man ! "
( President Biden)

 

[Uncle J]

This pretty much captures what Donald is doing....

https://twitter.com/x/status/1752034799835849035

 

[Riven]

Um.....that's pretty much the point. He and other Senators came up with bipartisan immigration reform (which according to reports is pretty conservative and includes a lot of concessions from Dems), but Donald is ordering House Republicans to kill it so it will still be an issue during the campaign.

So it's a bit weird to see you say he should take care of the issue, when that's exactly what he did.

Will this bill result in a secure border? If it were this easy, why did it take over the decades to get it done? I don't buy it.

 

[Uncle J]

Will this bill result in a secure border? If it were this easy, why did it take over the decades to get it done? I don't buy it.

What do you mean by "secure border"?

 

[Riven]

What do you mean by "secure border"?

A border that isn't wide open. Bringing us back to the sort of numbers we saw under Trump would be a good start. Things weren't even this bad under Obama.

This bill includes funding for Ukraine, does it not? I think that explains Biden's anger at Congress for not passing it. He doesnt give a damn about the border. Prior to Texas taking things into their own hands, his response to border crisis questions was "What border crisis?".

 

[Uncle J]

A border that isn't wide open.

We have that now.

Bringing us back to the sort of numbers we saw under Trump would be a good start. Things weren't even this bad under Obama.

We've covered this, remember? The US can't really control how many people choose to migrate.

This bill includes funding for Ukraine, does it not?

Republicans refused to consider funding for Ukraine and Israel unless Biden agreed to immigration reform. So Senate Dems and Repubs reached a deal on immigration reform that Biden says he'll sign, but House Republicans are refusing to even look at any of it under orders from Donald.

So because of Donald's need for campaign issues, we get no immigration reform, no funding for Ukraine, and no funding for Israel.

I think that explains Biden's anger at Congress for not passing it. He doesnt give a damn about the border. Prior to Texas taking things into their own hands, his response to border crisis questions was "What border crisis?".

Do you have memory issues or something? Have you completely forgotten our discussions of Biden's supplemental funding requests for additional border agents, increased surveillance equipment, and more staff for immigration courts?

 

[Riven]

We have that now.

I disagree, and so does Eric Adams.

We've covered this, remember? The US can't really control how many people choose to migrate.

True. But we can control how we respond.

Republicans refused to consider funding for Ukraine and Israel unless Biden agreed to immigration reform. So Senate Dems and Repubs reached a deal on immigration reform that Biden says he'll sign, but House Republicans are refusing to even look at any of it under orders from Donald.

They know where their bread. Like it or not, Trump is the most popular political figure in the Republican party. That makes him the boss.

So because of Donald's need for campaign issues, we get no immigration reform, no funding for Ukraine, and no funding for Israel.

Pretty much. But I can wait one more year. It's not like the federal government has had decades to fix it, right?

Do you have memory issues or something? Have you completely forgotten our discussions of Biden's supplemental funding requests for additional border agents, increased surveillance equipment, and more staff for immigration courts?

Which obviously wasn't enough. Why do you think this bill will solve the problem?

 

[Uncle J]

I disagree, and so does Eric Adams.

That's not a meaningful reply. You could have just said "Nuh uh" and it wouldn't have been any different.

True. But we can control how we respond.

That's what the immigration deal is about.

They know where their bread. Like it or not, Trump is the most popular political figure in the Republican party. That makes him the boss.

And he's deliberately trying to make problems worse, so he can campaign on "look how bad this is". IOW, he's putting himself over the good of the country, and you're just fine with it.

Is your loyalty and devotion to Donald stronger than for America?

Pretty much. But I can wait one more year. It's not like the federal government has had decades to fix it, right?

Looks like I have my answer.

Which obviously wasn't enough. Why do you think this bill will solve the problem?

Geez dude, again....do you have memory issues? House Republicans refused to even consider President Biden's funding requests.

If you're asking if the deal will 100% solve every issue related to immigration, of course not. Nothing can do that. But from what I've read about it, it's pretty Republican-friendly, such as dramatically rolling back the asylum system and allowing a President to shut down the border when the number of migrants reaches a threshold (at which point no request for asylum will be considered until the numbers go back down).

 

[Riven]

That's not a meaningful reply. You could have just said "Nuh uh" and it wouldn't have been any different.

It's about as meaningful as saying the border isn't wide open when it clearly is. At the very least it's far more relaxed than under prior presidents.

And he's deliberately trying to make problems worse, so he can campaign on "look how bad this is". IOW, he's putting himself over the good of the country, and you're just fine with it.

Is your loyalty and devotion to Donald stronger than for America?

I don't have loyalty to Trump. Buy at the same time, I think he's the best shot we, have at actually solving the problem. Immigration reform bills help, but we need that wall, and we need a president in office that's willing to work with Texas.

Looks like I have my answer.

Am I wrong? Has it not been an issue for over 30 years? What's one more year?

Geez dude, again....do you have memory issues? House Republicans refused to even consider President Biden's funding requests.

If you're asking if the deal will 100% solve every issue related to immigration, of course not. Nothing can do that. But from what I've read about it, it's pretty Republican-friendly, such as dramatically rolling back the asylum system and allowing a President to shut down the border when the number of migrants reaches a threshold (at which point no request for asylum will be considered until the numbers go back down).

It sounds good on paper. It allay sounds like Trump-era policies. But for years, he denied that there was ever a problem. When Eric Adams spoke out and pleaded with Biden to do something, Biden turned around and had him raided by the FBI. He doesnt deserve a victory lap if this bill passes. Which I'm sure it will at some point, if only so the wars can continue.

 

[Uncle J]

It's about as meaningful as saying the border isn't wide open when it clearly is. At the very least it's far more relaxed than under prior presidents.

That's just empty rhetoric and campaign talking points. I mean, how exactly is the border "wide open"? Have you been to it? Have you tried crossing it? What do you think those thousands of border patrol agents do all day? Just sit there and watch migrants cross while they do nothing? Do you think ports of entry are just free for alls, where trucks and people cross back and forth as they wish, with no one checking them in any way at all?

I don't have loyalty to Trump.

Sorry, but the rest of your post says otherwise.

Am I wrong? Has it not been an issue for over 30 years? What's one more year?

It sounds good on paper. It allay sounds like Trump-era policies. But for years, he denied that there was ever a problem. When Eric Adams spoke out and pleaded with Biden to do something, Biden turned around and had him raided by the FBI. He doesnt deserve a victory lap if this bill passes. Which I'm sure it will at some point, if only so the wars can continue.

There ya' go....you're right there with Donald. Even as you cry that this is a "crisis" and an "invasion", you're perfectly willing to let it go on or even get worse for an entire year, just so President Biden doesn't get credit.

I guess it can't really be much of a crisis or invasion then, can it?

And just like Donald, you put him and his campaign over the good of the country. Oh, but you're not loyal to him at all, are you?