Donald Trump

Republican Senator Says He Absolutely Will NOT Vote Trump for President

Ben Sasse from Nebraska will NOT vote Clinton either - looks for third party candidate

|

NotTrump
saboteur

First term Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) has published an open letter to his constituents explaining why he will not support the political horror show that is Donald Trump, should the real estate one-percenter become the presidential standard-bearer for the GOP. From his letter:

I'm as frustrated and saddened as you are about what's happening to our country. But I cannot support Donald Trump.

Please understand: I'm not an establishment Republican, and I will never support Hillary Clinton. I'm a movement conservative who was elected over the objections of the GOP establishment. My current answer for who I would support in a hypothetical matchup between Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton is: Neither of them. I sincerely hope we select one of the other GOP candidates, but if Donald Trump ends up as the GOP nominee, conservatives will need to find a third option.

Sen. Sasse then goes on to decry Trump's unconstitutional authoritarianism, listing some of the more damning statements made by the reality-TV star himself. What to do?

Given what we know about him today, here's where I'm at: If Donald Trump becomes the Republican nominee, my expectation is that I will look for some third candidate – a conservative option, a Constitutionalist.

Sasse nicely summarized the sorry situation we're in on CNN:

"If the nation that put a man on the moon can't do any better than nominating two fundamentally dishonest New York liberals, I think the American people deserve better choice than that and I think they'll get a better choice," Sasse said of Trump and Clinton.

Good for the Senator. He has far more integrity than the sniveling political careerist who is the current governor of the Garden State.

Super Tuesday voters consider casting strategic anti-Trump ballots tomorrow.

NEXT: Police Shoot and Kill Fleeing Suspect in Raleigh, North Carolina, on Day City Council Was to Discuss Body Cams for Cops

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Hey Senator… Ever hear of a third party called Libertarians? They actually SUPPORT small government, ya know…

    1. Good idea. That’ll give the LP a 100% increase in voters 😉

      1. Are you sure Gary Johnson votes for himself?

        1. Who knows? Trump might have bought him off with a free weekend at the Trump Taj Mahal (off-season, senior buffet only).

      2. Maybe we’ll crack Ed Clark’s 1.06% record of the popular vote this time.

        1. Who knows? Maybe we’ll get a faithless electoral vote also!

        2. Johnson actually wasn’t that far off last time around. I think it will surely be broken if its Trump v. Hillary.

          1. .99% in 2012

    2. Libertarian = drugs, whoring, and ass-sex to many people. That don’t go over so well in NB and many other places.

  2. Someone put on their sassy pants today.

    1. ::Narrows gaze violently::

    2. NO NO FUCK YOU IT’S MINE

  3. Where does he keep his horcruxes?

    And who did he kill to make them?

  4. Nick’s cosmo sense is tingling: Obviously Sasse isn’t a real conservative.

    1. What’s his position on the War On Drugs? He’s a solid squish.

  5. What happens when a candidate can only bring out the base?

    1. The problem is that we don’t know who is in Trump’s base; it doesn’t align perfectly with the GOP’s base.

      1. Are you telling me Kanye West isn’t GOP base?

        1. I find it hard to believe many actual Republicans will refuse to vote for him if he is the nominee. If there were, Trump wouldn’t be winning.

          1. The majority will, but it’ll be interesting to see the final exit polling. He pulls an odd demographic. Are there enough former Bernie supporters and blacks to make up for losses in the blue collar ranks? We live in depressing times.

            1. It won’t be the blue collar republicans who won’t vote for him.

              1. I was talking about on the Democratic side.

            2. How do you know the Bernie supporters won’t support Trump?

            3. No way in hell Bernie supporters vote for him. They’ll line up behind Hillary like good little Team Blue-ers or stay home. He might get a decent percentage of the black vote–better than Romney, anyway–but his real path to winning lies in getting the white vote to push the participation/Republican envelope by about 3-5%. Given the increased numbers showing up in the Republican cauceses/primaries so far, that’s not entirely unreasonable. If Dem voter turnout is low (it’s pretty bad compared to 2012 but that could just be Hillary’s aura of inevitability), he might actually have a shot at winning the whole damn thing.

          2. “If there were, Trump wouldn’t be winning.”

            I’d ask why not but I’m sure basic math mystifies you.

            1. I do t write the polls I just read them and every single one of them has the majority of Cruz and Rubio voters voting Trump when their guy drops out
              You actually are so stupid that you think because Trump isn’t a first choice means he isn’t a second choice or they wouldn’t ever got for him

              You are so stupid and so fanatical I should feel sorry for you.

              1. The polls are clear that Trump has the highest negatives for GOP voters. Even if a majority of Rubio supporters are rubes who’ll vote for T and Cruzers cruise to T, that’s not enough. It has to be pretty much all, and a sizable chunk appear to quite pissed.

                1. The polls are clear that Trump has the highest negatives for GOP voters

                  Won’t matter if he’s taking 40-50% of the vote, where it ultimately matters. And it’s getting pretty late for Cruz or Rubio to drop out and put their support behind the other guy.

                  Trump has to win a majority in eight states to be eligible for the nomination. If he does well on Super Tuesday, either Rubio or Cruz is going to have to fall on the grenade, or he’s going to start picking those states up as people become resigned to him becoming the nominee. I don’t suspect either of them will do that, and that helps Trump in the long run, not them. Their only purpose for staying in to the convention, really, is to try and deny anyone from picking up the eight states and force a brokered convention.

                  If Trump’s overall support is still above 30% by then, and he’s denied the nomination, all hell’s going to break loose because there is record turnout in the prelims right now and Trump’s not weakening at all.

                  1. “Won’t matter if he’s taking 40-50% of the vote”

                    Uh….he’s definitely on the lower end of that scale, but we’ll see.

                    In any event that’s kind of besides John’s (unfounded) point.

                    The brokered convention should hopefully deny Trump the nom. All hell will break loose and that will still be better than a Trump run ruining the GOP for a long time. McConnel knows this. Just yesterday there was a link to a story in which apparently McConnel said they’d drop Trump like a ‘hot rock’ and let Congressmen run ads against him. Smart man that McConnel.

                    1. All hell will break loose and that will still be better than a Trump run ruining the GOP for a long time. McConnel knows this. Just yesterday there was a link to a story in which apparently McConnel said they’d drop Trump like a ‘hot rock’ and let Congressmen run ads against him. Smart man that McConnel.

                      Not really. You don’t piss off 40-50% of your voting base, in a massively high turnout election, and not expect consequences. McConnell’s banking that Trump supporters will hate Hillary more than they’ll hate Rubio or Cruz. If he and the GOP play reindeer games at the convention, it will throw the entire nomination process to hell and the non-Trump candidate will get his ass kicked in the general.

                  2. Cruz drops after Super Tuesday, where he only wins proportionally the most delegates from Texas, not all of them, and he maybe wins Oklahoma. He can’t win after doing that badly, and it’s too late to have Carson drop out and endorse him.

                    He drops out, endorses Trump in exchange for a SCOTUS nomination. He’s got more of a future there than sitting in the Senate, pissing everyone off who might’ve thought about giving Texas a break.

                    Bummer, as I’d really like to see Cruz get the nom. But it ain’t happening. Neat thing is that Cruz endorsing Trump might give Trump those eight states at some point.

                    Be interesting to see how the GOPe tries to screw Trump then.

            2. Does Cyto really not understand that everyone else here realizes he’s mentally retarded?

          3. If Trump were winning 60%+ of the primary vote that argument would be all but undeniable.

            But he is not, he’s at best getting near half. And that includes a lot of people who are only coming out for Trump. If Trump is not on the general ballot there is a good chance a lot of those people don’t show up at all.

            Conversely, we have no real way of knowing what the 40%+ who are going for Cruz/Rubio/et.al. will do with Trump as the nominee. Even if 25% of those people stay home it will be, well, yuuge.

            Yuuge for Hillary, that is.

            1. That, and blacks despise Trump. As does anyone with an education. Independents too.

              Oops, guess I’m socially signalling again.

              1. you are signaling, that’s true.

                where do you get your information on black people hating trump?

                1. Especially since the polls I’ve seen have African-Americans breaking for Trump in greater numbers than any other GOP candidate including Carson.

                  Aside, why didn’t A/As go for Paul more than they did? The guy had the stones to discuss the CRA with A/As at Howard University—an act at the time I thought was our generation’s Nixon to China moment. Yet no one really flocked to his banner.

                2. Especially since the polls I’ve seen have African-Americans breaking for Trump in greater numbers than any other GOP candidate including Carson.

                  Aside, why didn’t A/As go for Paul more than they did? The guy had the stones to discuss the CRA with A/As at Howard University—an act at the time I thought was our generation’s Nixon to China moment. Yet no one really flocked to his banner.

                  1. WTF squirrels?

                3. The polls.

                  “in our data, blacks rated Trump a dismal 22, significantly below each of the other GOP contenders we asked about, including both Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, who were each rated quite negatively but less so than Trump.”

                  link text

            2. Doubtful they will. Also Trump is attracting a ton of people who didn’t vote Republican in the last few election. And if it were 25% Hilary would be ahead by double digits and she is not.

              1. Ron Paul also attracted a bunch of people who never participated before. When’s he going to be president?

                1. Ron Paul also attracted a bunch of people who never participated before. When’s he going to be president?

                  The irony of your statement is that the GOP changed the delegate rules to fuck over Paul in 2012. Now those same rules are benefiting Trump.

                  Oops.

                  1. 1) Those rules aren’t benefiting Trump.

                    https://reason.com/blog/2016/02…..rules-migh

                    With proportional delegates, the guy in the lead can’t sweep the floor. If it were winner takes all, then the Rubio-Cruz divide would guarantee him a lot more delegates.

                    2) This is silly because Ron Paul still would have won the presidency, regardless of rule changes.

                    1. With proportional delegates, the guy in the lead can’t sweep the floor. If it were winner takes all, then the Rubio-Cruz divide would guarantee him a lot more delegates.

                      States voting after March 15th are winner take all. That’s 24 states. And if Trump keeps winning pluralities, he’s going to have an insurmountable lead in delegates unless Cruz or Rubio drop out quick. The threshold for nomination is 1,237.

                      The whole damn reason for the rule change was to prevent a drawn-out nomination process, not have non-Trump candidates fight over Trump’s table scraps all the way up until the last primary.

                      This is silly because Ron Paul still would have won the presidency, regardless of rule changes.

                      Assertion without evidence. The point is that the GOP set up their primaries for 2016 to specifically get a candidate determined fast and get a jump on running against Hillary. Trump blew this to bits by gaining the level of support that he did and sustaining it for as long has he has.

          4. #NeverTrump – I suggest you check out the site.

            NRO – Against Trump – I suggest you read that publication

            Tom NIcholas – I suggest you read his article in the Federalist

            Randy Barnett – I suggest you read his article in USA Today

            Megan McArdle – I suggest you read her article in Bloomberg.

            Unlike you, John, there are a veritable plethora of Republicans who put principles over party.

      2. Trump’s base is the moron base … it runs wide and deep.

  6. Meh. There are right wing 3rd parties representing just about any position you could consider right wing. Virtually no right winger actually votes for them, all they want to do is whine about the Republicans… and then they vote for them anyway. I seriously doubt that trend will change any time soon.

    1. I don’t know. There is something about Trump that disgusts even the “lesser of two evil” crowd.

      1. He disgusts the bi partisan fusion party.

        1. Why not both/and?

          Some oppose him because they’re establishment poopyheads.

          Others oppose him because he’s a New York liberal.

          1. I suppose but many of those people were happy to support a Massachusetts liberal in 2012 so color me skeptical.

            1. You’re usually smarter than this. In addition to the position of a person’s ideology on the political spectrum, most people recognize the intensity of that person’s position. Romney and Trump might both be, by GOP standards, Northeastern liberals. However, Romney was very clearly low-intensity in that view, where Trump is high intensity. With Romney, GOP voters had a reasonable expectation that he might have views they disagree with, but probably wouldn’t push any goofy initiatives, rather than focusing on an administrative role. With Trump, GOP voters have a reasonable expectation that he’s going to push for a lot of stupid shit.

            2. Right . . . . and Pat Buchanan did so well back in 1992 and 1996.

        2. I really disagree with that. He’s basically the epitome of the two parties. He could easily have run as a Democrat.

          The only thing the Republican establishment doesn’t like about him is his rhetoric about a wall, and given Trumps history of employing illegals over Americans, it’s pretty dubious that it will ever get built.

  7. The Republican Party deserves Trump. The GOP “elite” only need to look in the mirror to find whom to blame for his rise. He’s a direct result of their rhetoric, action and inaction over the past three decades.

    1. He looks like another Bill Clinton to me. Not the best but hardly something to panic over. Watching these people lose their minds over him is highly revealing.

      1. At best he’s a do nothing buffoon who slips us closer to bankruptcy. At worst, well, let’s just say we might have a use for that gator navy finally.

        1. Yes but we are talking about Trump not Obama.

          1. More Ventura or Schwarzenegger to me than Bill, but w/e. I think he’s going to “try great things”, get shut down by both Congress and the bureaucracy, and then play pigeon boss—fly around, beg for attention, shit all over everything, then leave—for the rest of his first term.

            He ain’t Huey Long. Yet.

            1. Not a bad comparison actually.

              1. It was only an assassin’s bullet that kept Huey Long from running for the presidency. He might have won and turned the US into a Louisiana style kleptocracy.

                Actually, I think Trump could turn out to be like president Hammond in “Gabriel Over the White House”. That was a 1932 Progressive propaganda film that stumped for a president who would suspend the Constitution, disband Congress, take complete control of the economy and terrify the world into submission.

                The movie was actually shown to FDR who approved it before its release.

        2. The difference between Trump and establishment politicians is that he knows how to manage bankruptcy and how to screw creditors and other plaintiffs.

      2. “He looks like another Bill Clinton to me.”

        In a fascist mirror universe, perhaps.

        1. Do your parents know you are up this late?

          1. No, he isn’t a child, only mentally ill. It is his nurses and doctors who don’t know that he has gotten into the paste again.

            1. No, John is mentally ill.

              1. Not mutually exclusive.

    2. The GOP elite are not scared of Trump winning, they’re scared of Trump not winning. They don’t give a damn who wins as long as they win. That’s why they were happy to go with both McCain and then Romney, they thought they had a shot at winning and conservative principles be damned. Donald Trump is out to prove the GOP establishment are worthless for standing up for conservative values and will support anybody they think can win. He’s going to prove it by showing the worthless bastards will even support as horrible a candidate as Donald Trump.

      1. Wouldn’t the GOPe prefer Rubio to Trump? Though I think, and what I think you’re saying, is that they realize they can deal with Trump. And I agree: they’ll eventually support him too.

        1. They can ‘deal’ with Trump because he has no shot of winning and his defeat might silence all dissent in the GOP ranks. No more upstarts. Wouldn’t want another Trump!

        2. Oh, the GOP establishment certainly supports Rubio at the moment, but not because they’re worried Trump is out to destroy them but because they think Rubio has a better chance of winning the general than Trump. (My own sense is that there ain’t much difference between Rubio and Clinton, they’re both ambitious professional politicians with no real principles, just a desire for power. Rubio I don’t trust a bit to do what he says he’ll do.) The GOP establishment is afraid of Cruz, those nasty nasty TEA Partiers are the ones who *gasp* will actually primary out a Republican – and they’ve got the clout to take out even somebody like Cantor so nobody’s safe and they obviously would rather see the GOP crash and burn than to see it betray its own supposed principles. If it comes down to Trump v Cruz, the establishment will back Trump because Cruz actually has some principles higher than winning and that’s unacceptable.

          Note, I’ve said I think Cruz is the least worst of the candidates left, but his flip-flop on Snowden and the NSA puts him beyond the pale. I don’t care what else they may offer, there’s no way in hell I’d ever consider voting for anybody that supports the War on Terror or the War on Drugs or whatever the latest war on Americans is.

  8. “… the real estate one-percenter…”

    It is easy enough to discredit Trump without discrediting yourself.

    1. That seems to be something that is beyond the reason staff. Is one percenter now an insult?

      1. S & J: Trying (lamely) to make fun of the notion that a billionaire real estate mogul is looking out for the little guys.

        1. You know who else claimed to be looking out for the little guy?

          1. Marlin and Dory?

        2. Not saying Trump is but why does being a billionaire necessarily mean you can’t? Does being rich preclude you from being selfless.

          1. No, for anyone who’s followed the dubious career of Donald Trump, being Donald Trump precludes you from being selfless.

  9. Ahem. Clinton is not a “New York liberal”.

    1. Liberal is a slur, and Clinton is from New York. Case closed.

      1. No, she’s from Chicago.

        If you’re gonna go region war, do it right.

      2. Uhh, dude, she was a fucking carpetbagger who had her political machine do a massive data analysis on which region would be dumb enough to vote for her (sorry Rhywun) and New York came out on top, so she moved to NY, established residency and then ran for Senate.

        1. Heh, no skin off my back.

          Plus, I bet Westchester County is a lot nicer than the Chicago burbs.

          1. I think most of the North Shore Chicago suburbs are virtually indistinguishable from Westchester County.

    2. Chicago, New York…just different breeds of the Yankee race

      1. To anyone outside of the USA, “yankee” refers to any American of the norteamericano variety.
        To anyone in the South, “yankee” refers to an American residing north of the Mason-Dixon Line.
        To those unfortunate northerners, “yankee” refers to Northeasterners.
        To Northeasterners, “yankee” refers to New Englanders.
        To New Englanders, “yankee” refers to Vermonters.
        To Vermonters, “yankee” refers to rural farmers who still use an outhouse.

        1. Yankee Doddle went to town, riding on a pony

  10. “If the nation that put a man on the moon can’t do any better than nominating two fundamentally dishonest New York [progressives], I think the American people deserve better choice than that and I think they’ll get a better choice.”

    There we go.

  11. Trump is not electable, actually dont think Rubio or Cruz is either.

    So, barring indictments, its Obama III plus maybe two new SCJs before she can be booted out at the earliest.

    Doomed.

    1. Trump is more electable than Rubio or Cruz. I can’t think of a single difference between a Rubio administration and the last Bush one. No way is the country voting for that Cruz would be a lot better but the country is not nearby as conservative as Cruz.

      1. Cruz is definitely the lesser of the three evils, but that’s not saying much. It’s SCOTUS appointments under Obama III that could really do some damage. Damn you Scalia for not taking better care of yourself.

      2. Maybe one day the polls will agree with you.

        1. You are such an enlightened tolerant progressive guy. It is always good to see someone like you who makes sure everyone knows you are not one of the wrong kind of people.

            1. You know how liberals bust out racism when they are losing an argument? John busts out ‘social signalling’ whenever he’s about to lose an argument. I don’t know why the fuck he comes other than to make a complete and utter fool of himself.

              1. No one thinks you signal cytoxic. You would have to have any friends to do that. You don’t signal. You are just retarded.

                1. So retarded that you can’t land a single hit on me in here. Uh-huh.

                  1. You’re the biggest punching bag in the comments. You fill the void left by MNG.

                    1. A punching bag with no scuffs or hit marks of any kind.

                      I’m just glad you managed to make a comment without any vague qualifiers.

                2. Think of this – with Trump as president, Cytotoxic would never be allowed in the US, ever. Trump might even build two walls!

                  1. Couldn’t we get a moat in the north?

      3. “Trump is more electable than Rubio or Cruz.”

        AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

        “Maybe one day the polls will agree with you.”

        Unlikely, and it’s not like John cares about reality anyways.

        1. What an enlightened comment. It is almost like you are not a retarded 12 year old who stole a copy of Atlas Shrugged from his dad’s dresser. Almost

          Couldn’t you have just stolen your dad’s porn like a normal person?

          1. Uh-huh. Again, why are you are? Other to be a giant idiot at every opportunity?

        2. seriously I’m an objectivist and you’re just embarrassing. please shut up.

    2. Too early to make a prediction, I think.

      We might be doomed either way, though.

      1. If you choose not to predict, you still ? Wait. What was the question?

        1. Clinton … doomed
          Trump … doomed
          Cruz … highly unlikely, but doomed
          Rubio … highly unlikely, but doomed
          Sanders … highly unlikely, but doomed
          Gary Johnson … snowballs chance in hell

          Doomed has it.

          1. SMOD 2016.

            The master of doom.

    3. As I said in a previous thread this weekend, I’ll be retired before the Clintons leave the white house. What started out as a snark when I was posting “Hillary 2016!” three fucking years ago is now rocketing towards unvarnished truth.

      1. Are you including Chelsea?

        1. If I were including Chelsea, I’ll be dead before the Clintons leave the white house.

      2. What if you are wrong? And even if you are right about this election and I don’t think you are Clinton given her health issues will be dead before the end of her first term.

        1. I don’t know anything about Hillary’s health issues. But I believe that like Lo Pan in Big Trouble in Little China, acquiring more power extends her life. She must take the presidency, or she’ll wither away. If Hillary wins in 2016, she’ll get eight years.

          1. If she doesn’t win, what is the healthcare like in federal prison?

            I think it is more likely she get indicted and the give the nomination to Biden who then beats Trump.

            1. She will never go to prison John. Even if indicted. Because if she goes, she talks. And if she talks, Obama + a bunch of others get to go to the hole too.

              She will be pardoned the second she gets indicted. Whether that does a thing to her electoral chances, I couldn’t say. It should kill them, but we’re in some interesting times.

              1. Probably so. I do however think she is going to be indicted. I don’t think the FBI is going to back off and Obama doesn’t care. It will break cytotoxic’s heart but I think his girl is going down.

            2. She will never go to prison John. Even if indicted. Because if she goes, she talks. And if she talks, Obama + a bunch of others get to go to the hole too.

              She will be pardoned the second she gets indicted. Whether that does a thing to her electoral chances, I couldn’t say. It should kill them, but we’re in some interesting times.

              1. The squirrels are ready for Hillary, I guess.

          2. Does Huma have green eyes?

  12. Wait a minute…he’s not going to vote for Trump? So he’s going to vote for Hillary? Everyone knows there’s only two parties.

  13. Sasse sounds like a Ted Cruz kinda guy – supports the kind of smaller government conservatism Jesus would want if He were alive today. And if that swarthy Jew bastard could climb over the wall we’re gonna build to keep people like Him out.

  14. All I know we’re watching KTLA. My Lord the action that goes on in LA.

    Cops chasing Taco trucks, following cars with kids in them, anti-KKK beatings…

    1. It is because they all wear flip-flops, Rufus.

      1. Ewww!

    2. I never watch the local news in Boston, but in LA there’s always some crazy, entertaining stuff on TV.

      1. Tell me about it.

        My wife and I were watching and she blurted, ‘what the heck?’ and ‘I love L.A.’ in the same sentence.

        Hilarious.

    3. Technically the KKK thing was in Orange County

      1. WELL IT WAS ON KTLA.

      2. And broadcast signals can’t cross county lines.

        1. I was just making a sarcastic comment just in reference to his part about “what goes on in LA.” It wasn’t a serious retort.

    4. How in the fuck do you get KTLA in Montreal?

      Also, you missed the 3 hour car chase that ended in Newport.

  15. So, as far as I can tell, the Libertarian Party is not caucusing in Colorado. I guess there’s not enough candidates/registered members?

    1. I was looking at that today. Seems like that’s what it was

  16. Remember back in 2008 when Ron Bailey proudly voted for Obama to “punish the Republicans”? Now he wants to give TEAM RED a blowjob.

    1. How so? I don’t see that at all

      1. Read Bailey’s linked post on strategically voting for Rubio.

    1. Where do you find this stuff, HM?

      It’s brilliant, and it’s one of the things that keeps me coming back to the comments.

      1. I think he has control of the “machine” from Person of Interest.

    2. Gay Trump/Oprah 2016
      Because that Hillary is a Dusty Bitch

    3. Hugely fabulous, or fabulously huge? Why not *both*?

    4. That’s fantastic. Watched it three times in a row.

      1. @:30 “You just…you just don’t add them together!” *effeminate dismissive hand wave*

        1. what is notable is really how *little* is changed from what he actually says, and how he actually acts.

          he IS flamboyant. he’s just a slight vocal inflection away from being Queen Trump.

    5. Who was the blonde standing to Trump’s right there? I’m pretty sure she’s the one I saw on one of CNN’s group campaign analysis discussion things who just flat said that Rubio and Cruz’s attacks on Trump were shameful and unseemly and divisive and disappointing because Republicans really shouldn’t be attacking other Republicans like that. Of the other three analysts, one of them just started laughing out loud and the other two, their jaws literally dropped open. Just incredible, but she said exactly the sort of mind-boggling outrageous insane shit Donald himself would have said. Just make up whatever sort of wild shit you want to, it all gets put out there on TV and some people are ignorant enough to believe it.

      1. Who was the blonde standing to Trump’s right there?

        That’s his daughter Ivanka.

        1. Is it me, or is she knocked up again?

          1. from his link

            “On September 24, 2015, Trump announced she and her husband are expecting their third child, due in early 2016.[48]

            She is a close friend of Chelsea Clinton, who says of her: “There’s nothing skin-deep about Ivanka. And I think that’s a real tribute to her because certainly anyone as gorgeous as she is could have probably gone quite far being skin-deep.”[40]’

            1. So, jeez, about 8 months or so along. She hides it well.

              Lucky bastard.

              1. He’s got a pervy father in law who makes hints about an incestuous interest in the guy’s wife – that’s not luck. It’s a fucking nightmare.

    6. These things are amazing. And scary. They show what monkeys we are. Every word is exactly the same, but it is an entirely different experience.

      British Trump
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxrA_NU-jE4

      1. Donald Trump attacking Hillary. I hear lots of people saying Trump is just going to destroy Hillary in any debates, but they’re both tar babies. Hillary has as much to gain by being attacked by Trump as Trump has to gain by being attacked by Hillary. It’s not going to change anybody’s mind about whether to vote for Trump or Hillary. I think once the general is set, they should do a national poll to identify the likely voters who say they’re undecided and beat them to death with a sockful of nickels. If you honestly don’t already know at that point whether you’re going to vote for or against Hillary (or whoever the GOP puts up) there’s something seriously wrong with you. I can see staying at home on election day and praying they both drop dead in an extremely painful and/or horribly embarrassing manner, but not watching the two debate in order to determine which of them you think might be the better candidate.

      2. These mashups are making me like trump. Stop it,

        1. It’s not so much his words, it’s his egomaniacal delivery, that is causing a lot of pants shitting.

  17. So the LP breaks the record?

  18. You might say he sounds kind of…sassy.

    YEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

    WE WON’T BE FOOLED AGAIN

  19. Kudos to Sasse. If Sanford won’t step up to be the third option, then maybe he will.

  20. Excellent alt-text.

  21. So 9 months in advance of the election, we have a R who claims he won’t vote for another R?
    Do we presume to have an honest politico here, or just another politico?

    1. If he were honest, would he be in politics?

  22. At least 2079 Clinton emails contained classified information says State Department after final email dump

    I’m sure she’ll be treated just like anyone else would in a similar set of circumstances.

    1. Clinton’s campaign has refuted the “top secret” designation and demanded that all of Clinton’s emails be released to the public.

      With all due respect, why doesn’t *she* release them?

      1. Well, she erased a bunch of them….

    2. The scandal isn’t the classification laws that she shredded, nor the open government/transparency laws. It’s why she had the server in the first place; it’s the question: what influence did she sell and what did she receive?

      Same question Ken Starr was trying to ultimately ask of Bill, but never seemed to put the pieces together. What did China promise you Bill for the W-88 plans and schematics? What other influence did you give, in exchange for campaign/super PAC/charitable donations?

      She needs to be in jail, or at least indicted, friggin’ yesterday. Won’t happen, of course.

      1. GG, you’re presuming some grand design to this fuck up. Not seeing it.
        Yeah, I’m sure she hinted at quid pro quo for the contributions, and I’m sure some found their way to campaign pots, but she’s not dumb enough to put that in an email.
        These are low-level grafters from Little Rock for pete’s sake; they shook down the dog catcher, got a crooked deal on ag-futures and rode into the WH on Bubba’s smile and shoe shine. 9-D chess ain’t in the cards here.

        1. She was dumb enough to put “Take the classified markings off and send it unsecured” in an email. For you or me, that’s 10 years in federal prison.

        2. Dude, the Clinton Global Whatever grifted hundreds of millions.

          And it doesn’t do anything, other that “partner”, whatever the fuck that means.

          It’s a money laundering operation.

    3. Has the State Department yet commented on the fact that Hillary worked at the State Department at the time and that maybe somebody at the State Department should have brought it to the State Department’s attention that one of their employees was using a private server for all her e-mail? Or has the State Department commented on the speculation that perhaps the State Department did know one of their employees was using a private server and didn’t do or say anything about it for some reason? Is the State Department investigating the State Department to get to the bottom of that particular can of worms?

      1. Has the State Department yet commented on the fact that Hillary worked at the State Department at the time

        “It’s a big organization. No one knows everyone who works here.”

      2. That’s an interesting set of questions, Jerryskids. Imagine, what if you were the hypothetical GS-15 seeing this email stream from a non-State server, with a non-.Gov address. What would you do? If you were the typical risk-adverse Govt’ employee, wouldn’t you demand a memo from someone higher stating that this state of affairs was kosher for the SecState? I thought career Govt’ employees, like Russians, didn’t take a crap without guidance from above (or a plan.)?

      3. That’s an interesting set of questions, Jerryskids. Imagine, what if you were the hypothetical GS-15 seeing this email stream from a non-State server, with a non-.Gov address. What would you do? If you were the typical risk-adverse Govt’ employee, wouldn’t you demand a memo from someone higher stating that this state of affairs was kosher for the SecState? I thought career Govt’ employees, like Russians, didn’t take a crap without guidance from above (or a plan.)?

        1. I’m out: the squirrels have spoken.

      4. That’s just crazy talk

        “”A spokesman for the State Department insisted during a press conference on Wednesday that Patrick Kennedy, the Under Secretary of Management at the department, was not aware Hillary Clinton maintained a private server in her home while she was secretary of state.

        But that claim ? made by spokesman Mark Toner ? is a curious one given that emails published by The Daily Caller last month show that Kennedy was involved in an August 2011 email exchange with two of Clinton’s top aides and another State Department official in which Clinton’s private email server was discussed”

        1. Why would she even do this? What is in it for her? How could she fuck up so badly that she got busted?

          1. C’mon. You know why. Grift.

        2. And Kennedy, who sent emails to her, never looked at the auto-address and therefore never noticed it wasn’t a .gov addy?
          Which one is going to call it quits, decide s/he isn’t going to put up with that harpie one more minute and start singing to avoid jail?
          And will any of the major news outlets cover it, since that’s the ONLY way Obo would be forced to do something.

    4. Zzz. Fake scandal, politically motivated. Racist, sexist. You just hate strong women.

    1. What the hell does that last paragraph mean?

      1. It means journalists aren’t always good writers.

    2. It is university prep in Bernie Sanders world.

  23. Republican Senator Says He Absolutely Will NOT Vote Trump for President

    Maybe the Repubs should have had Mr. Sasse Pants sign a pledge that he would support the nominee of the party.

  24. Longer book review:
    “Conquering Tide”, Toll.
    Middle part of a trilogy; landing on Guadalcanal to capture of the Marianas. Have yet to read the bookends.
    Still NEVER misses N/S/E/W; a WONDER among military histories! And still not enough maps; we get Saipan, but no Guam?
    Read it as a second or third book on the Pacific theater. Lacking detail on the Solomons campaign, good on the US and Allied political issues. Gives an unwarranted pass to the Navy command for Tarawa. Badly mis-managed; who should bother listening to those natives?
    Read it for the epilogue; anyone who claims the Japanese were ‘ready to surrender’ needs to read this along with “Downfall” (Frank) and “Japan’s Longest Day” (Kazutoshi Hando and Pacific War Research Society) to understand that the Japanese power structure was dominated by the military. In this book, the ‘peace’ faction finally got a place at the table and their concept of “surrender” included keeping most all that remained of their conquests, while keeping the allied navies hobbled by treaty.
    A non-starter.

    1. The Japanese were so ready to surrender that when the emperor recorded his surrender speech, there was an attempted coup by the top general staff to intercept the recording and keep the war going.

  25. The NYT has decided to do a longform piece on the US/NATO decision to dismantle Libya, and H.Clinton’s role in it.

    I haven’t read it yet. My expectations are for a head-fake in the direction of ‘intense criticism’ of the intent of the project, but move inevitably towards a complete exoneration of Clinton’s role and whitewash of the whole thing. Which is what they did re: benghazi, rather badly.

    but who knows. they might actually figure that doing a critical piece NOW will be forgotten by the summer. Besides, after SC, and with voters set to sweep her in all the rest of the South tomorrow, she’s a shoo-in for the nomination. Drop it on the night of her biggest win, and it will be drowned in the accolades at her success.

    even if/when they’re being honest, the NY times will find a way to be scummy about it.

    1. Get it out of the way now, so that come election time it’s “old news.”

      1. its not just old news, its old old-news.

        “its in the past, Marge! stop living in the past”

        as i said – haven’t read it yet. But i can only believe the point of it is to de-fang the subject.

        which probably means that the reality is that there’s some seriously fucking horrible shit there they’ve known about for the last few years.

        My lawyer dad said that good-lawyers should always lead with all the bad-facts. Because then no one has anything to drop on you. It also means the fight is over quick and people will have forgotten by the end.

        that’s what i’m assuming this is.

        1. What’s to stop the times from concluding her role was historic… Smart power at its best?

          1. nothing. i think its been done elsewhere. i’ve seen references to pieces that say she was the greatest SecState of all time.

    2. “I haven’t read it yet. My expectations are for a head-fake in the direction of ‘intense criticism’ of the intent of the project, but move inevitably towards a complete exoneration of Clinton’s role and whitewash of the whole thing. Which is what they did re: benghazi, rather badly.”

      Taking one for the team? Gracias!
      “head-fake in the direction of ‘intense criticism'”
      Can we presume this is ‘obstructionist rethuglicans’ at issue here?

    3. I read that NYT piece casually. There are some very odd salutations involved.

      For example:

      Having decided to act, Mr. Obama questioned military leaders about the effectiveness of a no-fly zone, the Europeans’ favored military response. When they told him that it could not prevent a massacre, Mr. Obama directed his staff to draft a new, tougher United Nations resolution.

      Mr. Obama? Not President Obama. SOS Clinton is almost always called Mrs. Clinton. Not Clinton, after defining her title once or twice. But Mr. Qaddafi is always called Colonel Qaddafi.

      The USG employs well-intentioned, modest working people to vex the plots of grandiose foreign strongmen.

      1. strategic characterization. why emphasize the “president Obama” when the point of the piece is to cast Hillary in the role of Key Figure.

        i promise you, those editorial decisions arent accidental

        1. No, GILMORE. It that were the case the piece would have called her Secretary Clinton or just Clinton. The editing of calling her Mrs. Clinton has the purpose of making her out to be a regular working gal, just doing her job as best she can. And who hates a gal like that?

  26. I, for one, look forward to a future when all political parties serve merely as platforms for ugly celebrities to get into politics.

  27. Want to earn over internet from your couch at home by working easy jobs with your desktop or laptop for 3-5 h a day, get 55 dollars hourly and qp get a paycheck at the end of each week and choose yourself the time when you work and for how long. its original site…..Visit that………

    ——- http://www.workprospects.com

  28. I’m making over ?5k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. AA Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. For further details

    Check this link http://www.workprospects.com

  29. Not NEW YORK liberals!

    *eyeroll*

  30. “…more integrity than the sniveling political careerist who is the current governor of the Garden State.”

    Comparing Christie to a “sniveling political careerist” is a smear on sniveling political careerists. Christie needs a classification all his own something combining ass kissing toady with concentration camp sadist.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.