More than 200 Republicans who previously worked for either former President Bush, Sen. McCain, or Sen. Romney, endorse VP Harris

[RoBo1988]

According to ethical journalist Dan Rather, George W Bush lied about his service in the National guard, and lied about wmd's

Not so sure I'd believe his staffer's endorsement, either.

 

[Bradskii]

Considering that your analysis is in error and that the policies of the Trump presidency are demonstrably better than the last 3 1/2 years of what the progressive far left has done to the USA and the world, then I have zero problems at all with voting for Donald Trump.

So the guy is applying for a job at your company and it's discovered that he has raped a woman and defamed her after it, and that he cheated on his pregnant wife with a porn star (there's pages more, but we'll just do those two for now). All the women in your office are thinking it's lucky that you found out before he was hired. Most of the guys are thinking that you all dodged a bullet there. Your clients are thankfull they don't have to look for a new company' as they surely wouldn't want to work with him.

And then you say that he did some good work at his last place so he starts on Monday.

Really? How come this doesn't work when you take the politics out of it? How come nobody in their right mind would even consider the man as someone they should employ? How come his abilities wouldn't even come into it? How come you might be in danger of losing your own job if you we're the one that employed him knowing his background?

People get sacked for saying sexist things. For making unwanted approaches to women. This guy was found to have digitally raped a woman. How come he's even a candidate? What world have we found ourselves in where people are talking about his policies and his tarrifs and his wall and him deporting immigrants and NATO and windmills?

I find it frustrating because he shouldn't have been considered for any position in the first place. His very character excludes him from being considered.

 

[stevil]

In my opinion, we should be placing our votes based upon a candidate's Policies instead of personality.

For many people, and for those cited in the OP here, it's not about policies vs personality. It's about constitution, democracy and rule of law vs what D Trump and his enablers are offering.

It is seen as so bad, so much of a risk to USA's continued future as a democratic republic, that many Republicans and Republican supporters are willing to vote Democratic Party rather than to let D Trump ruin USA's democracy. These people are no longer worried about policy or personality, they are worried about Democracy and the Constitution.
No doubt these people would vote Republican if D Trump weren't at the top of the ticket.
But it appears that if D Trump were removed by the Republican party, then he would run as an independant, and would significantly split the Right wing vote. The honerable and respectable thing for him to do would be to stand down, rather than run against the Republican party, but his loyalty is to himself, not to the party, and many of his MAGA fans are loyal to him and not to the Republican party, If push came to shove.

 

[Bradskii]

So you're going to take the advice of someone who hasn't paid his taxes for ten years?

Is that really an argument that you want to use?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I'll take "damage the country due to his policies" for $50.

Actually, my position is that the guy should not be considered for office at all. His policies don't come into that decision. His character excludes him.

Well, if it's his policies, then any of the other republicans throwing stones would be in no place to talk...which means that the "well even George Bush and John McCain said..." would be an irrelevant talking point.

Trump's actual policies aren't any more far right than the republicans like Bush, McCain, and Romney...he's even to the left of them on certain issues.... in fact, the policies on some of the hot button issues aren't really any further right of where your mainstream democrats were at in the late 90's through early 2000's.

Only difference is that he says mean, unprofessional things.

Trump's certainly to the left of Romney, Bush, or McCain ("was" for McCain) on gay marriage, abortion, marijuana legalization.


So the "we don't like his character" argument is really the only valid one in that regard. I realize this next part doesn't apply to you since you're not American... The audacity of the US left to pretend "Bush is one of the good ones" just because he doesn't like Trump is laughable. The very same kinds of people were marching around at anti-Bush rallies with signs depicting him with a Hitler mustache and claiming he was a full blown theocrat (and nearly half of which bought into nonsensical conspiracy theories about him being responsible for 9/11).

 

[RoBo1988]

Is that really an argument that you want to use?

Just going by what the honorable Senator Harry Reid said on the hallowed, sacred floor of the US Senate.

 

[Larniavc]

I'm sure that you recall how many foreign wars we were involved in and how much nations such as China were taking advantage of the USA.

During the Reagan years?

 

[Vambram]

So the guy is applying for a job at your company and it's discovered that he has raped a woman and defamed her after it, and that he cheated on his pregnant wife with a porn star (there's pages more, but we'll just do those two for now). All the women in your office are thinking it's lucky that you found out before he was hired. Most of the guys are thinking that you all dodged a bullet there. Your clients are thankfull they don't have to look for a new company' as they surely wouldn't want to work with him.

And then you say that he did some good work at his last place so he starts on Monday.

Really? How come this doesn't work when you take the politics out of it? How come nobody in their right mind would even consider the man as someone they should employ? How come his abilities wouldn't even come into it? How come you might be in danger of losing your own job if you we're the one that employed him knowing his background?

People get sacked for saying sexist things. For making unwanted approaches to women. This guy was found to have digitally raped a woman. How come he's even a candidate? What world have we found ourselves in where people are talking about his policies and his tarrifs and his wall and him deporting immigrants and NATO and windmills?

I find it frustrating because he shouldn't have been considered for any position in the first place. His very character excludes him from being considered.

There is very little, if any, actual and factual real evidence to back up those accusations against Trump. If there was real provable factual evidence about those sex crimes, then Trump's popularity in the polls would NOT have increased after those civil lawsuits were decided.

 

[Vambram]

During the Reagan years?

No.

 

[stevil]

Trump's certainly to the left of Romney, Bush, or McCain ("was" for McCain) on gay marriage, abortion, marijuana legalization.

These are just about social control. none of them are about left vs right.
Left vs Right things are social safety nets and support vs idealistic capital market forces without govt intervention (e.g. social welfare, healthcare, schools, unions, employee protections, tenant protections, state housing, progressive taxes vs flat taxes etc)

So the "we don't like his character" argument is really the only valid one in that regard.

This completely misses the mark and shows that the statement by the Reblicans for Harris has not been read or understood.

I realize this next part doesn't apply to you since you're not American... The audacity of the US left to pretend "Bush is one of the good ones" just because he doesn't like Trump is laughable.

This isn't anyone's position. I'm not sure why you are trying to generalise the "left" and not sure why you are misconstruding the actual situation at hand.

The problem is that Trump and his enablers have tried to overturn a free and fair election, have tried to circumvent the democratic process. Their fake electors scheme was an attempt to have Pence see multiple Elector certificates for a state and then to just throw them both out (the legitimate one and the illegal one) and just declare Trump the winner, failing this Trump wanted the electoral count to be delayed or discounted so that they could then move on to the USA alternative of having the state delegations in the House of Representatives vote on the winner of the election rather than using the votes of the people of USA.

This and other schemes that D Trump and his enablers have tried and are trying, in order to create a presidential win for D Trump that doesn't rely on the election count of votes from the USA citizens.

The Republicans for Harris are trying to protect USA's Democratic Republic. It has nothing to do with Trump's character or personality.

 

[Bradskii]

Just going by what the honorable Senator Harry Reid said on the hallowed, sacred floor of the US Senate.

Then is it an argument that you want to repeat?

 

[Bradskii]

There is very little, if any, actual and factual real evidence to back up those accusations against Trump.

So that would be your excuse to your boss for hiring him. That in your opinion the evidence wasn't sufficient. Despite his numerous other problems with women.

 

[Vambram]

So that would be your excuse to your boss for hiring him. That in your opinion the evidence wasn't sufficient. Despite his numerous other problems with women.

No factually real actual proof of sex crimes.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

These are just about social control. none of them are about left vs right.
Left vs Right things are social safety nets and support vs idealistic capital market forces without govt intervention (e.g. social welfare, healthcare, schools, unions, employee protections, tenant protections, state housing, progressive taxes vs flat taxes etc)

So you're suggesting that Romney, McCain, or Bush were more Union friendly or advocated for a more progressive taxation model?

If the theme of the article/thread is "Trump is bad...look, even McCain and Bush said so", then someone would need to explain how those two are better than Trump in terms of progressive ideals. (Apart from the fact that they don't like Trump)

Without some sort of substance, it's merely the inverse of the "look!, even Tulsi Gabbard prefers Trump over Harris" thing conservatives have been touting.

So if it's it not about the "social/cultural" issues (which is what I suspect it's actually about), then what substantive reasons should Bush's opinion matter to voters?

 

[RoBo1988]

Then is it an argument that you want to repeat?

It was good enough for the Democratic party back then, it should be good enough now.

When these people stood in the way of the Democrats, they were lower than a snake's belly; now that they've joined the establishment, everything they say is gospel.

It's like the George Carlin routine where everyone who's dead ( in this case, some are politically dead) is a great guy.

 

[Bradskii]

No factually real actual proof of sex crimes.

I guess if the jury had cleared him it would have been 'justice served!' That they didn't prompts 'The evidence was lacking!'

 

[Bradskii]

It was good enough for the Democratic party back then, it should be good enough now.

If you are right, then do I really need to point to someone else for whom taxes seem not to apply?

In passing, he made over $6.5 million in dealings with China in his first year in office. Odd that he should then complain about Hunter Biden and his earnings from China. Which were less and were earned when his father was not in office.

Trump’s tax returns released by House committee show he paid little in taxes

The House Ways and Means Committee released six years of Trump's personal and business returns, ending years of legal wrangling and speculation.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[stevil]

So you're suggesting that Romney, McCain, or Bush were more Union friendly or advocated for a more progressive taxation model?

I didn't suggest that at all. Why don't we try to talk civilly rather than this nonsense?

If the theme of the article/thread is "Trump is bad...look, even McCain and Bush said so", then someone would need to explain how those two are better than Trump in terms of progressive ideals. (Apart from the fact that they don't like Trump)

Dude, the title of the thread is "More than 200 Republicans who previously worked for either former President Bush, Sen. McCain, or Sen. Romney, endorse VP Harris"

So if it's it not about the "social/cultural" issues (which is what I suspect it's actually about), then what substantive reasons should Bush's opinion matter to voters?

Don't know. Perhaps Republican supporters who respect Bush could consider that the idea of Trump trying to illegally steal the election and hence a threat to USA democracy is real and not just left wing propoganda.

 

[HARK!]

MOD HAT ON

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

It is interesting how restrained the Democrats are.

They rigged the vote! - But only to defeat Donald Trump

The weaponized the Justice system! - To only go after Trump

Apparently the Democrats are the most ruthlessly efficient conspirators in the world, but are completely and utterly restrained in their use of power to only go after Trump.

He is a big threat to them...they hate him. The swamp can't control him, he does not play nice and they don't like that.