Donald Trump

Sen. Susan Collins is the Latest GOP Congressperson on the #NeverTrump Bandwagon

The list grows of those rejecting their party's nominee grows.

|

#NeverTrump grows in GOP
Yanito Freminoshi/Flickr

Sen. Susan Collins of Maine penned a Washington Post op-ed earlier this week declaring she "will not be voting for Donald Trump for president." Collins added that she did not make this decision in haste, but because Trump "does not reflect historical Republican values nor the inclusive approach to governing that is critical to healing the divisions in our country," for the first time in her life she could not in good conscience support her party's nominee.

Collins argued that Trump had gone beyond "rejecting the conventions of political correctness" to "showing complete disregard for common decency" and has an "inability to admit error or apologize." The moderate Republican concluded her op-ed with by writing:

Some will say that as a Republican I have an obligation to support my party's nominee. I have thought long and hard about that, for being a Republican is part of what defines me as a person. I revere the history of my party, most particularly the value it has always placed on the worth and dignity of the individual, and I will continue to work across the country for Republican candidates. It is because of Mr. Trump's inability and unwillingness to honor that legacy that I am unable to support his candidacy.

The list of sitting members of the House and Senate to go on record as saying they will not endorse or vote for Trump is not overwhelming, but significant particularly because of the inclusion of a few pols from swing states.

Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina told the New York Times in June that he hoped his Republican colleagues would retract their endorsements of Trump, adding, "There'll come a time when the love of country will trump hatred of Hillary." Sen. Ben Sasse of Nebraska said he'll be looking for a "third option," and in June, Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois tweeted one of his reasons why he won't be supporting Trump:

Trump's toughest critics among Republican senators who haven't yet gone full #NeverTrump in the form of an explicit declaration that they won't vote for him include Sen. Dean Heller of Nevada, Sen. Jeff Flake of Arizona, Sen. Mike Lee of Utah, and of course, the GOP nominee's runner up Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, who was booed off the Republican National Convention (RNC) stage when he urged Americans to vote their consciences and notably did not endorse Trump.

Over in the House, Rep. Scott Rigell of Virginia, who is retiring and has little to lose by bucking the party, has endorsed the Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson. Two other retiring Congressmen, Reid J. Ribble of Wisconsin and Rep. Richard Hanna of New York have also professed they won't vote for Trump. For his part, Hanna said he'd go all the way to the other side and vote for Clinton, in part because he finds the GOP nominee to be "profoundly offensive and narcissistic but as much as anything, a world-class panderer, anything but a leader."

Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) has said he won't vote for Trump but has no plans to publicly endorse anyone, Florida Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen declined to endorse Trump or Hillary Clinton, while her Sunshine State colleague Rep. Carlos Curbelo has said his choice not to support Trump was a "moral decision." CBS Miami reported unnamed sources close to Curbelo as saying he might vote for Clinton.

Rep. Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania also won't vote for Trump, who he says has "crossed a bridge too far," while Rep. Adam Kinzinger of Illinois stated he won't vote for Trump because he sees himself as "an American before I'm a Republican." Another Illinois Republican, Rep. Bob Dold told WLS radio back in May that he would be writing someone in on his ballot, citing Trump's "comments about women, his comments about Muslims, his comments about Latinos" and most personally for Dold, "his comments about POWs."

With about three months to go in this seemingly interminable campaign, and Trump finding new ways to lower the bar of acceptable discourse, it will be interesting to see if more sitting congresspeople heed Lindsey Graham's call to "un-endorse" their party's nominee, or if party loyalty truly trumps all other considerations.

NEXT: Dumped Signatures Push Medical Marijuana Initiative off Missouri's Ballot

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. Trump “does not reflect … the inclusive approach to governing that is critical to healing the divisions in our country”

    Unlike Hillary, who “wants to be President of *all* Americans”.

    It’s bullshit all the way down.

  2. So will these NeverTrumpers back Gary Johnson? No? Then fuck them.

    1. Exactly. They want Clinton to win because then they just continue on with business as usual.

      1. They don’t want Clinton to win. Trump is just that bad.

        1. Then why don’t they back a third party candidate, like GJ? I mean, Christ, I know GJ is on the evil libertarian ticket, but he’s pretty milquetoast and should be quite amenable to “centrists” like Susan Collins.

          1. Because GJ is not going to win and Trump might.

            1. So then they want Clinton to win.

          2. Rational voters don’t go third party, but I can certainly understand the dilemma for Republicans.

            1. Dreams are a great thing, but you know something? They take a lot of energy. But that’s OK. There’s a job waiting for you down the block from your house that doesn’t require a thought in your head or a hope in your heart. So come on down and work for the artificial flower factory. Why fight it? OK? Thank you.

              1. Kind of an ironic thing to copy and paste don’t you think?

            2. And rational people don’t spend large amounts of time and effort internet arguing on behalf of Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders, pretending that they’re affecting the outcome.

              So much for rationality.

              1. She won didn’t she.

                1. And that had exactly what to do with you?

                  1. I was the guy throwing out dumpsters full of Bernie ballots in New York.

                    1. Point being: someone who’s found the time and energy to slum with the libertarians only after their yeoman’s work internet arguing to keep Vernie Sanders off the ticket is complete, really shouldn’t go around explaining rationality to people.

                    2. Arguing politics on the internet is fun to me and presumably to you. I never claimed I was going to affect anything. Voting isn’t an amusement, it’s an action with consequences.

                    3. I get it: your ideas of rationality make sense, from you’re own special fantasy land (which, no one else is allowed to have, BTW).

                    4. Anyway, I find it hard to believe that a person who believes voting is the most important, consequential action of all time, also argues about how to vote purely as a function of amusement, with no consequences.

                      But, that’s ok. People tend to be least honest about themselves.

              2. And rational people don’t spend large amounts of time and effort internet arguing on behalf of Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders

                Rational people also don’t declare their support for Bernie Sanders because of his opposition to corporate welfare and the Wall Street machine and then declare they have come to an intellectual decision to support Hillary based on her policies – as many of my academic friends are doing.

                1. Maybe, being academics, they understand that “corporate welfare” and “Wall Street machine” are terms vague enough to be meaningless in this context, and maybe they even understand that Hillary Clinton has never in her career demonstrated a particular affinity for corporatism. I’ve come to understand that not all Bernie supporters think in empty slogans.

            3. Tony, you’re somewhere where people don’t know their place.

          3. I mean, Christ, I know GJ is on the evil libertarian ticket, but he’s pretty milquetoast and should be quite amenable to “centrists” like Susan Collins.

            Especially if you’re dumping Trump for the reasons they claim to be dumping Trump. He’s too abrasive and bombastic? How is voting for bombastic and abrasive, Now With Vagina?, the rational, reasonable alternative?

    2. Seriously? They want an establishment democrat lite/neocon hack, like McCain or Romney, or Jeb Bush. That’s what this is all about. It has nothing to do with how bad Trump is. It’s that they think he’s unpredictable and he might upset their little shell game and crony merry-go-round.

      1. They prefer Hillary over Trump: Hillary is a known team player who would, as you say, continue the crony merry-go-round. Trump is schizophrenic.

        1. Exactly. They could care less how much Hillary sells out the USA to countries like Saudi Arabia or how many poor brown children she blows up, or how much she shreds the bill of rights, as long as they can keep up their graft and corruption.

        2. Missed opportunity there to be the one to coin the phrase “crony-go-round”.

          1. But it’s ok, because I’m stealing that.

          2. Nice. Stolen.

          3. Witnessed.

  3. Does this prove that we are in fact a single party state? Only one of them could bring themselves to name a candidate other than Hillary?

    1. We have been for a while. All we have is Team Purple.

    2. A “two party state” would lead to this kind of gamesmanship as well, since a libertarian victory might lead to republicans being supplanted from the top two. And they’d rather be the “reigning” opposition party in a increasingly-socialist shithole than the losers with regular jobs in a society that’s supposedly more to their liking.

  4. Given my military experience, Donald Trump does not have the temperament to command our military or our nuclear arsenal.

    So of course it makes sense to try to swing the election to “We came, we saw, he died” Hillary Clinton.

    1. Maybe Republicans shouldn’t have nominated Trump.

      1. Unlike the Democrats, the voters still run the GOP primaries.

        1. In no small part with the help of crossover Democrats.

  5. Susan Collins is a NeverTrumper?

    That makes me rethink my distaste at possibly voting for Trump.

    1. Exactly!

      She, far more than Trump, is the type who destroyed the RNC.

  6. Trump is simply too uncouth to be president. I’m glad people are finally starting to realize it.

    1. At a State Dinner that damn yahoo would probably say “Please pass the jelly.”

      1. When they were clearly serving marmalade.

      2. a cookie is just a cookie, but Newtons are fruit and cake.

    2. Trump is simply too uncouth to be president.

      lol – Given America was partially setup as it was to openly eschew the unnecessary and useless pomp and circumstance of the old ways, being “uncouth” would seem to be a feature, not a bug. Add to that past presidents such as Lincoln, Jefferson, Teddy, Truman, Reagan, Clinton, GWB, and others successfully used the whole “I might be a stupid country boy, but. ..” routine specifically to ensure they’re were viewed as outsider. The kind of outsiders which elitists will despise.

      So yeah, maybe he’s uncouth, but “that candidate is too uncouth for the US Pesidency” ignores the fact that American culture and voting patterns demonstrate that being uncouth is much preferred to being part of the intellectual elite.

      Disclaimer: I’m not saying this is necessarily a good thing, nor am I saying that any president I listed was a particularly good or bad one, only saying that it seems like “being too uncouth to be president” is similar to “being too smart to be a brain surgeon”. It’s wrong.

  7. Let us take the time to remember this wonderful moment from our experienced military Tweeter Mark Kirk:

    Republican U.S. Senate candidate Mark Kirk accepted responsibility Thursday for a series of misstatements about his Navy Reserve career, including that he served in the Gulf War, that he once commanded the Pentagon war room and that he came under fire while flying intelligence missions over Iraq.

    1. Applying Clintonian logic, he could easily spin these, er, misstatements: he didn’t say what he was serving during the Gulf War, “Pentagon war room” is what he calls his mancave, and he certainly came under fire for lying about reconnoitering Iraqi airspace.

    2. Mark Kirk could not more represent the kind of despicable RINO that the GOP at large has come to despise. Given your military experience Mr. Kirk, kindly go fuck yourself.

  8. Given my military experience, Donald Trump does not have the temperament to command our military or our nuclear arsenal.

    You know, that can be read in more than one way.

    1. Agreed.

      Also given the US system was setup, on purpose, with the military being controlled by elected civilians and not soldiers, one might ask this person with their extensive military service: If the founding fathers saw, not just a need to ensure non-military control of the military, but also failed to require prior military service for those running for office, exactly what part of your military service has trained you in anyway to be able to make more informed political decisions than the average voter? And if it doesn’t, then why should we care what you think?

      Side note: I’m also tired of all those who prop up the onerous idea that somehow having prior military service makes your opinion on politics, political office, foreign policy, wars, etc, more informed than others. It’s BS and most vets are as good at extrapolating their military experience to inform political decisions as the standard mail room clerk at an F100 company would be at making executive decisions at their company.

      And it shouldn’t be relevant, but I am a vet (though was in civilian life years prior to 9/11).

  9. You know who else was late jumping onto the bandwagon of hate?

  10. I will continue to support Hillary unless and until Johnson can put in a decent interview or debate performance. Though she terrible, at least she picked dovish Tim Kaine as VP. There is hope at least we’ll stop killing people ‘for their own good’.

    1. There is hope at least we’ll stop killing people ‘for their own good’.

      Of course, there’s *no* hope we’ll stop taxing and restricting people ‘for their own good’.

        1. Indeed. Everyone knows there would be no progress under Trump.

          1. Is that an indictment or an endorsement?

    2. I doubt it. She’ll bomb anyone for the right price.

      1. And the price will always be right.

    3. Though she terrible, at least she picked dovish Tim Kaine as VP. There is hope at least we’ll stop killing people ‘for their own good’.

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

      Troll or truly delusional?

      1. Kaine tried to push Congress to vote on war. That’s actually pretty Libertarian. I haven’t heard Gary say that.

        1. I just don’t think the VP (especially with Hillary) has much influence on the Presidents policies. Going to state funerals and backing up whatever his boss says is what the gig is all about.

          1. Yeah. If, however, Hillary were VP and Kaine were president, Hillary would be calling the foreign-policy shots.

      2. Both, it’s shreek.

        1. He changed his handle to try to avoid shit for welshing on his bet.

          1. Have you tried clicking on AddictionMyth’s link?

            It’s a link to their blog where they complain about a user “threatening” them. If you following the link, it’s Pat (PM) telling dajjal to try breathing underwater.

            1. Well, it’s not wrong. Those handles were outted as being run by the same troll months ago.

    4. You supported Hillary since before she announced, shreek. You’re as predictable of a hack as there is.

      1. True. The only difference is now I don’t get death threats. You are making progress. Keep up the good work!

        1. You’re not anyone who is significant enough to ever receive death threats, shreek. Only in your own demented mind when you’re hiding from the Tealiban in Dogdick.

        2. Way miss point, which was every single post you make in which you use libertarian leaning phrases and ideas to buttress your support for Hillary isn’t fooling anyone here.

          You are a liberal who strongly supports Hillary. You also seem to be afraid if too many independent voters such as libertarians view for Trump, she might lose.

          You gain a lot more respect for your opinions and more people would take your points more seriously if you were more open and honest about your beliefs.

          You were a Hillary supporter, you are a Hillary supporter, and ever if you knew beyond all certainty that Hillary will win your state and the presidency, you will be voting for Hillary.

          As an example, if you were honest about this, people might believe you had death threats, but as you are actively hiding your beliefs behind what you think is a veneer which will blind others to your motives, combined with the small percentage of people who ever receive death threats, everyone with at least two synapses firing will call bullshit.

    5. The same Tim Kaine who fancies himself an anti-gun warrior?

      1. Yes, that Tim Kaine.

    6. “We came, we saw, he died”

      Dipshit.

      1. I was on a plane when Saddam Hussein was captured. The pilot came over the intercom and said “Ladies and gentlemen, we got him!” You are fortunate you weren’t there, or you might have been upset over such an expression of glee over the fall of a murderous dictator.

        1. Hmm, so excitement over the capture of an enemy is the same as mocking the extra-judicial death of a pseudo-ally?

          Sheesh, Tony, I rarely agree with you but at least you’re usually robust in your statements.

          1. Saddam’s death wasn’t exactly a dignified affair either.

            It’s just that I’ve rarely seen such genu-wine concern over the death of, well, anybody really, from rightwingers. So I’m going to assume they really loved Qaddafi for some reason.

            I mean, Trump just told the trigger-happy cousinfuckers of the nation to assassinate Hillary Clinton, so I can’t get behind an interpretation of this outrage that incorporates the candidate’s temperament. Maybe they’ll explain one day just what they so loved about Qaddafi.

            1. I was on a plane when Saddam Hussein was captured.

              l–l –>

              Saddam’s death wasn’t exactly a dignified affair either.

            2. Yeah, Tony, people just don’t appreciate Hillary’s cavalier advocacy for an unauthorized-by-congress illegal war against a country which had taken no actions against the US or US interests and the resulting shitshow left in the aftermath. Yeah, no reason to think a person capable of such things might be a problem sitting in the actual Presidency.

            3. I mean, Trump just told the trigger-happy cousinfuckers of the nation to assassinate Hillary Clinton

              Gosh, if Newt realized it that easy to set them off, the nation’s college campuses might have been cleared out 20 years ago.

            4. Since you’re retarded, it’s probably not possible for you to understand the ramifications of selling out one of the few shitbags who was making concessions to the US. “Compromise with the US, get stabbed in the back and raped to death”. Well, I guess now we have to fight everybody, so at least the neocons are happy.

              1. I don’t think anybody’s happy about the chaos in Libya, but the United States didn’t really start it. At least not the State Department. (Hillary Clinton, as you should know, was not over the CIA.)

            5. Trump just told the trigger-happy cousinfuckers of the nation to assassinate Hillary Clinton

              He said no such thing. Don’t make shit up.

            6. When did New Tony show up? Not even close to the stinky old sock.

        2. I was in the desert when Bin Laden was killed. I distinctly recall the vice commander walking into the office and sarcastically saying, “Wooo hooo, can we go home now?”

  11. I could troll the reason commentariat and hyperbolically drop people feet first into woodchippers and I wouldn’t lose any support.

    1. That’s because zero minus zero equals zero.

  12. Yes, but are there any Republican senators pledging #NeverTrump? ZING!

  13. Not Susan Collins! *falls to fainting couch*

    1. Hey guys, what should we do Lord Humingus while he is passed out?

      1. Sharpie dicks on his face of course.

      2. What can we do to him that he already doesn’t already do to himself?

      3. Something teabag related?

    2. I saw her mug on CNN yesterday as they were lapping up her whining. I bet it’s helping Trump.

  14. “Senator Susan Collins”

    Can we have a vote on permanently changing the term ‘Senator’ to ‘Shit Weasel’? I

    1. Well, like Boxer, she’s worked hard to earn it.

      1. If you mean ‘Shit Weasel’, I agree.

  15. Republican politicians are the group of people that libertarians consider experts and look to for guidance.

    1. /Gary Johnson

  16. Lick them cankles, Trumpkins!

  17. “Collins argued that Trump had gone beyond “rejecting the conventions of political correctness” to “showing complete disregard for common decency”

    I said the exact same thing only it was about Hillary Clinton taking money from foreign governments while she was the Secretary of State.

    Trump says obnoxious things sometimes.; it’s Hillary Clinton that shows a complete disregard for common decency.

    1. it’s Hillary Clinton that shows a complete disregard for common decency.

      Like with a cloth or something?

    2. You still lying about Hillary Clinton taking money from foreign governments?

      1. Welcome to Retardation: A Celebration. Now, hopefully, I’m gonna dispel a few myths, a few rumors. First off, the retarded don’t rule the night. They don’t rule it. Nobody does. And they don’t run in packs. And while they may not be as strong as apes, don’t lock eyes with ’em, don’t do it. Puts ’em on edge. They might go into berzerker mode; come at you like a whirling dervish, all fists and elbows. You might be screaming “No, no, no” and all they hear is “Who wants cake?” Let me tell you something: They all do. They all want cake.

        1. Ha, you support Trump for president of the US. What a fucking moron.

          1. Let the strong wind of mushroom country blow across the annihilated enemy fairyland!!

            1. Are you also a fan of that mentally ill fascist?

              1. I can already envision them descending upon some future Portlandia metropolis. In some glassy corporate high rise, xir is giving a presentation to xir’s gender fluid co-workers regarding a new line of artisanal shirazz for otherkin and organic kale enemas when the desks begin to shake. They look out upon the horizon?they’re coming? After a good long group cuddle cry they assemble a ten thousand strong twitter army for a candle light vigil protest / slut walk. There are no survivors.

      2. Funny coming from a guy who supports a liar.

        1. Not under oath (unlike Trump).

      3. “In all, governments and corporations involved in the arms deals approved by Clinton’s State Department have delivered between $54 million and $141 million to the Clinton Foundation as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments to the Clinton family, according to foundation and State Department records.”

        —-“Hillary Clinton Oversaw US Arms Deals to Clinton Foundation Donors”, Mother Jones

        http://tinyurl.com/o6x639e

        I guess Tony thinks the State Department, the Clinton Foundation, and Clinton herself are all lying?

        Only Tony seems to think this never happened.

        It’s indefensible.

        1. Tony thinks feels Mother Jones is a right-wing rag out to get innocent Hillary.

        2. The US sells arms to other countries. The Clinton Foundation takes money from many sources including governments. You don’t have to like one or both of these, but neither is illegal or improper, and everyone knew about both at the time they were happening.

          Now get off Mother Jones and feign some outrage over some of Trump’s past deals.

          1. “You don’t have to like one or both of these, but neither is illegal or improper”

            You don’t seem to know the meaning of the word “improper”.

            As to whether it’s illegal, the Clinton family’s standard tactic has always been to respond to questions about whether something they did was unethical with answers about whether it was illegal.

            Right now, I don’t care whether it’s illegal for Hillary Clinton to accept money from foreign governments. The question before us isn’t whether Hillary should be sent to jail. The question is whether she should be put into the White House.

            And the answer is no.

            1. Unfortunately the only alternative is Trump, who is absolutely unacceptable to anyone who is serious about anything.

              There are many entanglements with Saudi Arabia that I’m not happy about. Them giving money to a charity that funds treatment for AIDS and malaria isn’t one of them.

              1. Less than 10% of the Clinton Foundation money funds anything that could actually be considered charity. The rest goes to vague administration and other categories which have never been exposed to the light of day. Everyone knows it’s just a slush fund for the Clintons, but nobody cares enough to do any serious investigation. But I’m sure Hillary will open up all the books any day now.

              2. “Unfortunately the only alternative is Trump, who is absolutely unacceptable to anyone who is serious about anything.

                He’s wrong on a list of issues.

                Hillary’s stance on the issues doesn’t really matter because she’s ineligible and illegitimate, which is different.

                Hillary’s impropriety is so bad, if she wins, I won’t even support her when I agree with her on the issues. I supported Obama when I thought he was right, but, like I keep saying, Hillary is illegitimate. Opposing Hillary despite her being right on the issues is like opposing Al Capone as head of the FBI–even if he’s right on some issue.

                “Legitimacy is the right and acceptance of an authority, usually a governing law or a r?gime.”

                http://tinyurl.com/j6kzjyx

                Trump is legitimate even when he’s wrong.

                Hillary is illegitimate even when she’s right.

                In other countries, they have leaders without legitimacy for long periods of time. Gaddafi was like that.

                Hugo Chavez, who was terrible and wrong, actually enjoyed real legitimacy.

                It’s possible to be both unpopular and legitimate. Carter was like that. He had an approval rating in the 20% range–barely above where Nixon bottomed out. They were both legitimate.

                But America hasn’t had truly illegitimate leadership since the Civil War. If Hillary wins, it will be interesting to see what that’s like.

                Sort of like having teeth pulled without anesthetic is “interesting”.

                1. Why is it my business that you’re having some sort of mental break? I realize it must be difficult for people who don’t understand how to distinguish real sources of information from right-wing propaganda, but all you’ve offered is conjecture dreamed up by the purveyors of such and the absurd conclusion that she’s therefore “illegitimate” even if she wins a landslide election run according to constitutional rules. And in comparison to Trump, a person so unacceptable to so many people that his own party is abandoning him by the dozens per day.

                  1. I realize it must be difficult for people who don’t understand how to distinguish real sources of information from right-wing propaganda

                    Mother Jones is right-wing propaganda?

                    1. The source for that piece is David Sirota, and the question should be why you are relying on him for information when you clearly would dismiss anything he says about anything in another context. And there’s surprisingly little difference between a Bernie shill and a right-wing shill.

                    2. “The source for that piece is David Sirota, and the question should be why you are relying on him for information when you clearly would dismiss anything he says about anything in another context. “

                      Intellectual honesty means facts are facts regardless of where we find them.

                      It doesn’t surprise me that you don’t know much about intellectual honesty.

                      It also doesn’t surprise me that like a con mean who assumes everyone else is trying to rip him off, you think the rest of us dismiss anything certain people say because we disagree with them.

                      Did you know that Christopher Hitchens gets a lot of respect around here–both in the commentariat and he was a friend of Resaon.com, too! He was also a fucking communist.

                      You know why we have/had a lot of respect for Hitchens?

                      Because he was intellectually honest. I learned more from disagreeing with Hitchens than I’d ever learn from an intellectually dishonest jackhole like you, Tony.

                      People here don’t despise you because you’re wrong, Tony, and if Hitchens were here, he’d despise you for your intellectual dishonesty (not to mention your ignorance), too.

                    3. Hitchens at the Reason Christmas party!

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZJ0mo0r3zs

                    4. The source for that piece is David Sirota, and the question should be why you are relying on him for information when you clearly would dismiss anything he says about anything in another context.

                      Was what he wrote inaccurate?

                  2. You know who else won in a landslide?

                    I’ve pointed out that people can be both unpopular and legitimate. I even gave examples!

                    Hillary Clinton isn’t popular.

                    Hillary’s negative approval ratings have remained steady since January.

                    She comes in consistently in all the Gallup polls as having around a 39% favorable opinion rating and a 55% unfavorable rating.

                    In the latest full poll at Gallup, she came in at 38% favorable and 57% unfavorable.

                    You can see all the Gallup polls on Hillary Clinton going back to 1992 here:

                    http://tinyurl.com/7hazzde

                    I repeat. Hillary Clinton is not popular. She is wildly unpopular and has been for a long time.

                    The last time Hillary Clinton scored more than a 50% favorable rating was in July of 2014.

                    I’d also like to point out two things:

                    Point 1) You’re such a disgraceful, uninformed liar, that every time you call me a liar makes you look dumber.

                    Point 2) You say I don’t back up my statements with facts, and yet I’ve provided links to every single statement I’ve made. I give you the ammunition to prove me wrong–and you still got nothing better to say than to 1) call me a liar and 2) claim I don’t support my statements with facts.

                    That’s why everyone thinks you’re pathetic. That isn’t a personal attack, really. It’s a two premises = a conclusion.

                    Point 1 + Point 2 = Tony is Pathetic.

                    Calling someone who fucks rats a “rat fucker” isn’t inappropriate.

                    1. You’re a liar because you keep saying Hillary Clinton took money, when she didn’t. Then you smash a bunch of rhetoric together to claim that the lie you keep telling isn’t actually a lie. You’re not lying about her current unpopularity, but I’m not sure how that’s germane to anything. I said somewhere else I think any other Republican but Trump, who I guess by default you’re defending, could beat her. I’m not asking you to like her, I’m just asking you to stop feeding me warmed-over rightwing bullshit. If she were guilty of what you claim she’s guilty of, you’d have to also posit a vast protection network in the US government–the same one that raked her over coals for months despite finding that she did nothing illegal.

          2. Tony is stupid enough/dishonest enough to think that the Russians “donating” $25 million to the Clinton Foundation slush fund just before Hillary’s State Department approved the Russian uranium deal is just a coincidence and nothing to see here. He really is that stupid and dishonest.

            1. It doesn’t matter to me, really, whether a quid pro quo can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

              It is enough that she took money from foreign governments.

              Like I said, the question isn’t whether she committed a crime.

              Imagine if during the first Gulf War, an extremely important general was found to have taken money from Saddam Hussein.

              There doesn’t need to be proof that would stand up in court to show that there was a quid pro quo–if the question isn’t about whether the general should go to prison for treason.

              The immediate question is whether a general should lead our armed forces against Saddam Hussein–after it’s been found that the general is on Saddam Hussein’s payroll.

              Whether Hillary Clinton committed a crime is beside the point.

              The point is that Hillary Clinton accepted money from foreign governments while she was the Secretary of State–which is a gross act of impropriety even if it were somehow innocently intended.

              Hillary admits she accepted money from foreign governments, and Bill Clinton gave an interview stating that they wouldn’t pledge to stop doing it but they MIGHT MIGHT MIGHT IF IF IF Hillary actually wins the election.

              1. You keep lying. The Clinton Foundation isn’t Hillary Clinton. It is a global charity that takes global money. And Saudi Arabia, like it or not, is an ally.

                1. It is a charity in name only, and very little goes to anything that could actually be considered charitable works. It is a slush fund for the Clintons, you disingenuous twat.

                  1. You don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about and your brain has been pickled by right-wing media. Read a fucking fact checker every now and then before you accept something with absolutely no question just because it fits your stupid, childish black-and-white political worldview. According to CharityWatch, 89% of donations to the Clinton Foundation go directly to charitable works.

                2. You keep lying. The Clinton Foundation isn’t Hillary Clinton.

                  You’re right–it’s Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea.

                  It is a global charity that takes global money.

                  And just happened to receive large donations from foreign nations and defense contractors right before those same entities were awarded with arms deals.

                  Then tell me you’d be just fine with it all even if he had a (D) after his name, you ridiculous person.

                  Reverse the party and then get back to us on that, you mendacious twat.

                3. Saying the Clinton Foundation isn’t Hillary Clinton is absurd.

                  There are three Clintons that control the foundation, and Hillary is one of them. I bet two of them file jointly, too!

                  They’re the foundation board, they get paid to sit on the foundation board, and the foundation board decides how much the foundation board is paid.

                  Besides, Hillary took an active role in setting up the partnerships and investments the Foundation was responsible for putting together. See the article about how the Clinton Foundation set up an organized partnership among Russian donors to facilitate technology transfers.

                  This is like saying that Hillary and Bill weren’t really Whitewater because Whitewater was an LLC partnership not Hillary and Bill. Actually, Hillary put that partnership together herself when she was at Rose Law, and she and her husband ran the partnership. The proceeds of the partnership went into their pockets!

                  Saying that Hillary isn’t the Clinton Foundation despite her leading it, running it, profiting from its activities, etc. is being willfully obtuse.

            2. I’m just waiting on you to express a scintilla of outrage over one of Trump’s many, many shady business deals over the years.

              3,500 lawsuits (about half and half plaintiff and defendant). Named in 169 federal lawsuits.

              Now explain that all away after you’re done conjecturing. Go ahead. Then tell me you’d be just fine with it all even if he had a (D) after his name, you ridiculous person.

              1. Yes, business lawsuits are exactly the same as selling State Department access and approval to foreign governments and compromising national security in exchange for millions of dollars “donated” into a fake charity slush fund. You really are a dishonest cunt.

                1. You seriously believe that the Clinton Foundation takes money and does no charity with it? Is the basement you live in that deep?

                  1. You seriously believe that the Clinton Foundation takes money and does no charity with it?

                    Sure, about 10 percent of its expenditures. Warren Buffet’s secretary pays more than that in taxes.

                    1. You, too, don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.

                      You’re repeating a right-wing lie and I’m calling you on it. It’s like Google doesn’t exist for you idiots. The lie is to take the foundation’s expenditures on other charities and pretend like you’re a fucking moron and think that means it takes 90% and puts it in the pockets of the Clintons or whatever, as if anyone but a fucking moron would think they’d be able to get away with that.

                      In reality-land, the foundation is itself a charity, meaning it spends money mostly on doing its own work rather than on other charities. You could know this if you gave the slightest amount of effort. Sorry to have embarrassed you so publicly.

                    2. You, too, don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about

                      #Triggered

                      The lie is to take the foundation’s expenditures on other charities and pretend like you’re a fucking moron and think that means it takes 90% and puts it in the pockets of the Clintons or whatever, as if anyone but a fucking moron would think they’d be able to get away with that.

                      Good news–that strawman you torched was so large that military satellites were able to pick up its heat signature.

                      In reality-land, the foundation is itself a charity, meaning it spends money mostly on doing its own work rather than on other charities.

                      “Doing its own work”–nice euphemism.

                    3. Well that was a brilliantly executed rebuttal. Maybe the Clintons should have opted not to save African children from AIDS and malaria so that you’d have… precisely the same amount of irrational propaganda-fueled scorn for them as you do anyway.

                    4. Maybe the Clintons should have opted not to save African children from AIDS and malaria

                      “They’re just honest people trying to make a living!”

                  2. “You seriously believe that the Clinton Foundation takes money and does no charity with it?

                    You realize we can see what he actually wrote, right?

                    He didn’t say that the Clinton Foundation does no charity at all.

                    You know when outlaw motorcycle gangs aren’t trafficking in meth and illegal arms, they also support the Toys for Tots program!

              2. “I’m just waiting on you to express a scintilla of outrage over one of Trump’s many, many shady business deals over the years.”

                I’ve pointed those out in threads.

                I even applauded Root going after him for eminent domain abuse.

                That isn’t like taking money from foreign governments while the Secretary of State.

                1. I believe you also suggested Trump might have had someone whacked.

                  1. What I remembered was an episode of This American Life, where this guy was telling a story about a world famous developer that hated him.

                    He wouldn’t say the name of the developer, but every time he did an impression of what the developer said to him, he was doing an imitation of Donald Trump.

                    Anyway, this guy was a reporter that was writing negative press about this guy’s development–may have been eminent domain abuse or just throwing renters out to make way for condos or something. And this developer comes up to him and says something like, “You know, I can have guys like you taken care of”.

                    The guy wakes up the next morning looks outside, and there are these giant goombahs casing his house–menacing as hell. It scares the guy shitless, but after them casing his place in shifts, he decides to go out and talk to them. He offers to let them come in and use the restroom if they need it, starts bringing them out coffee in the morning, etc. After a while, they just show up for their shifs and hang out in his house. They watch TV, etc.

                    Turns out they were just construction workers that the developer put in suits, and paid extra to case this guy’s house.

                    Anyway, what I said was that every time the guy did an impression of what the developer was saying to him, it sounded like he was doing an impression of Donald Trump.

                    1. Ah, I remember the beginning, but not the end.

      4. “By 2012 the vice president of the Skolkovo Foundation, Conor Lenihan?who had previously partnered with the Clinton Foundation?recorded that Skolkovo had assembled 28 Russian, American and European “Key Partners.” Of the 28 “partners,” 17, or 60%, have made financial commitments to the Clinton Foundation, totaling tens of millions of dollars, or sponsored speeches by Bill Clinton.”

        Amid all the sloshing of Russia rubles and American dollars, however, the state-of-the-art technological research coming out of Skolkovo raised alarms among U.S. military experts and federal law-enforcement officials. Research conducted in 2012 on Skolkovo by the U.S. Army Foreign Military Studies Program at Fort Leavenworth declared that the purpose of Skolkovo was to serve as a “vehicle for world-wide technology transfer to Russia in the areas of information technology, biomedicine, energy, satellite and space technology, and nuclear technology.”

        Moreover, the report said: “the Skolkovo Foundation has, in fact, been involved in defense-related activities since December 2011, when it approved the first weapons-related project?the development of a hypersonic cruise missile engine. . . . Not all of the center’s efforts are civilian in nature.”

        “The Clinton Foundation, State and Kremlin Connections”
        Why did Hillary’s State Department urge U.S. investors to fund Russian research for military uses?

        —-Wall Street Journal

        http://tinyurl.com/j8vfz9f

        1. The piece goes on to state that the FBI put an OpEd in the Boston Business Journal warning people to steer away from Skolkovo (the partnership Hillary put together with cash and technology transfers from Clinton Foundation donors) because it was a front for military technology transfers to the Russians.

          Think about it. The FBI is warning companies to steer clear of an organization put together, financed, and backed by the U.S. Secretary of State–because it’s a front for the Kremlin!!!

          This is what we’re talking about when we talk about “impropriety”.

          1. Anybody else would be in jail for espionage for that kind of shit.

          2. A note on the author of that opinion piece:

            http://mediamatters.org/resear…..sto/203209

            Skolkovo partners with MIT and such American businesses as Microsoft, Boeing, Intel, Cisco, Dow Chemical, EMC Corporation, IBM, and Johnson & Johnson.

            Should they all be investigated?

            1. Tony thinks this is an actual argument. He really is that stupid.

            2. Why not? Four short years ago, you idiots were mocking Romney for pointing out how dangerous Russia was. Now that Wikileaks is airing the Dems’ dirty laundry, suddenly it’s a problem when Trump tells Russia to find Hillary’s lost emails.

              I mean, we’d certainly want to know if the boards of our major businesses are involved in RICO violations and espionage with our new (to us) #1 enemy, right?

              1. Mea culpa for some other people’s mocking of Mitt Romney. Happy, you poor baby?

                We also partner with Russia to send astronauts to space. They aren’t actually an enemy, even though the alliance is tenuous at the moment. The story here isn’t our relationship with Russia, it’s Trump’s being an apparent unwitting agent for them while running for president.

                1. Mea culpa for some other people’s mocking of Mitt Romney. Happy, you poor baby?

                  Typical passive-aggressive shitlib response.

                  The story here isn’t our relationship with Russia, it’s Trump’s being an apparent unwitting agent for them while running for president.

                  Well, shit, then if Hillary’s lost emails are nothing more than her yoga schedule and banana bread recipies, then it wouldn’t be a big deal if the Russians had them and there’s no need for a five-alarm freakout about Trump encouraging the Russians to find them.

            3. If there is sufficient evidence to suggest that those companies were using donations to the Clinton Foundation and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s partnership with the Russians as a means to profit from illegal technology transfers to the Russian military, then, yes, they should be investigated.

    3. I get why people wouldn’t want Trump. I don’t like the man. But for every single thing these Republicans are saying about Trump, CLINTON IS WORSE!!?!?!

      I am still not sure if I am voting GayJay or Trump. GayJay obviously holds positions I agree with much more than Trump (although, who the fuck knows what positions Trump has, it changes day to day). But Clinton holds few (if any) positions I agree with. Hell, I am not even a “non-interventionist”, but Clinton fucks that up. It is like she picks every way to involve American troops and money that either has no American national interest (or even works counter to it).

      So complain about Trump. Absolutely, but don’t turn around and vote for Clinton.

      1. Would it help to know that nearly everything you believe about Clinton is false or at least exaggerated?

        1. Would it help to know that nearly everything you believe about Trump is false or at least exaggerated?

          1. All I know is what I see on TV.

            1. Would it help to know that nearly everything you believe is false or at least retarded?

  18. Don’t worry Trumpkins I will still fight for your right to bear arms. But careful what you wish for – you are a greater threat to yourselves than anyone else.

  19. Reid J. Ribble

    That can’t be a real person, can it?

    1. *** looks around for Mr Lizard ***

    2. Reid J. Ribble on a big cock did nibble,
      Suckling for all he was worth,
      With his tongue he did tickle,
      That jizz hole so fickle,
      Till a thick stream drowned out his mirth.

  20. Back from the bar. Just got into a debate with a Hillary supporter. A big, fat dude in his 50’s. I tried to make logical points about Hillary’s warmongering etc… but the dude only responded with ad hominem and then tried to psychoanalyze me. Eventually, he got in my face and tried to physically intimidate me. I’m no small guy, so… whatever. Finally I just walked away. Not used to that considering I’ve been hanging out with Japanese people all day, every day for decades. Is that what is happening in America?

    1. Hillary will keep the free donuts and cheap beer coming. What do you think the guy is going to do? He’s acting in his own self interest, just like all the other useless losers who would support Hillary. Just like shreek and Tony. In fact, that could have been either of them.

    2. Trump mania has brought out a lot of thuggishness on the left. It’s a relief to see it, I figured they were all hyperventilating millennials and pearl-clutching socialist fogies.

      1. I’m not used to it. These guys are clearly dangerous and have no principles or concept of critical thinking. I feel sorry about about going Galtaro and respect you for staying in there to fight them.

      1. That was worth the journey. Don’t know what The Wire is, but looks like a good show.

        1. The Wire was an excellent show. Highly recommended.

        2. It’s a fine show that allows white people to act like they know what life is like inside black neighborhoods.

    3. Trump is a great gift to the Dems. Instead of having to defend Hillary’s abysmal record of incompetence, corruption, and selling out of progressive values, they can just say, “Look! Trump!” and they get most of their followers on board.

      1. Same for every previous republican candidate.

  21. Shreek’s freakin out, he’s freakin out.

  22. All of this is perfectly legitimate until you find out that the lions share of them will vote for Hillary instead. Then their protestations become complete and utter BS.

  23. Will be funny to watch the Trumpkins come up with excuses for abandoning their leader. “I supported him to shake things up in Washington. But now we can sleep on the Mall til 6 so that’s good enough for me.”

    1. On the bright side, at least it’s looking more and more every day like your gal will be dead or funcitonally incapacitated within a year or two. You know it’s bad when you need a guy with diazepam no more than ten feet away at all times!

      Clearly when she fell down and busted that head of hers open it fucked her up even worse than we realize, because her brains are even more fried than yours are, Weigs.

    2. Let us turn the whole country into a socialist fairyland by the joint operation of the army and people!

  24. “Some will say that as a Republican I have an obligation to support my party’s nominee. I have thought long and hard about that, for being a Republican is part of what defines me as a person.”

    There’s your problem. This has been the problem with American politics for awhile. Party is more important that, well, anything. I would accept that saying that being a conservative, liberal, progressive, libertarian (small l) defines you as a person, at least partially. But it should be that what defines you as a person draws your you to a particular organization, not the other way around. Having an organization define you as a person is call a cult.

  25. I wonder if sometime in the distant future, some people will start talking about how freedom once existed and there will be another movement towards liberty? Or will it just be a boot stamping on a human face forever?

    1. The latter. Freedom is rare and anomalous throughout history.

      1. And you will forever have a cadre of useful idiots like Tony for whom personal liberty is terrifying.

        1. My only hope is that I don’t have to share the same quarters with that fool in the gulags.

        2. What personal liberty do you feel that you lack that I don’t agree with you about?

      2. All it’s going to take is a couple of SCOTUS appointments by Hillary and the Bill of Rights will be effectively null and void. It’s on life support as it is. The USA is headed towards a hard left totalitarian state and we all know how that works out. Well those of us who were born more than 30 years ago and don’t rely on Facebook and Salon for our news. It’s amazing how fast the West is self destructing.

        I was listening to the radio this morning and that song ‘Winds of Change’ by the Scorpions was playing. I remember what a great moment it was when the Berlin Wall fell. And I can’t believe how fast Germany has rushed back towards what they escaped from. Western civilization is begging to be enslaved and the useful idiots will cheer their own enslavement

        1. Western civilization is begging to be enslaved and the useful idiots will cheer their own enslavement

          See Tony and shreek above, for example.

        2. They’ll probably be a big improvement on most of the Bill of Rights compared to recent years. What are you afraid of exactly? You must know specifically or else you wouldn’t use such hyperbolic language.

          1. Here’s where Tony pretends he’s unaware of Hillary’s statements regarding things like the 1st and 2nd amendments. And liberal justices support for the ever-expanding interpretations of the commerce clause that allows the federal government to force you to do (or to prohibit doing) anything they want. Or maybe he really is that stupid and ignorant.

            1. Well that’s what winning the presidency means. Maybe Republicans should have tried harder not to nominate the world’s biggest buffoon.

              Seriously, I think any halfway serious person on that side could have beat Hillary. Tough luck that the party is so full of complete fucking morons who fuck their relatives.

              1. Tough luck that the party is so full of complete fucking morons who fuck their relatives.

                Show us on the doll where daddy touched you.

              2. “winning” is easy when you have the entire world’s corporate media drawing equivalence between being a jerk on the internet and corruption that at least borders on treason. But it’s hard to argue that it carries any moral weight.

              3. Tony’s right on this count.

                I mean, let’s be honest: Donald Trump is a fucking dick.

                And, Hillary Clinton is a bitchy cunt. Most people wouldn’t want her to manage their McDonalds. She probably couldn’t win anything on a national level, except that the Republicans beat the Democrats in the race to the bottom, and their prize is loserville.

                So, bitchy cunt edges out fucking dick, and we get the first bitchy cunt president, and we race further down to the bottom.

                At least with Hillary we probably have a guaranteed 8 years before Socialist CrazyTown FuckUpYour Economista comes out of the democrat party, to rear its ugly head, fighting for the presidency against…what, I can’t even imagine. David Duke or something.

      3. The natural human desire for private property, keeping the fruits of one’s labor, and at least a modicum of privacy will likely never burn out; it’s the only hope there is for a resurgence of liberty.

        1. For everyone like that, there are a thousand Tonys in opposition.

  26. I won’t lift a finger to help Trump voters rationalize their decision, but there’s a reason I want to see him elected: Obama’s miserable legacy should not be ratified, nor should Hillary’s constant rank duplicity. The Trumpster fire may be migraine-inducing and I wouldn’t have a problem with the guy keeling over from an aneurysm the day after taking office, but he at least has a blank slate at least with regard to malice and incompetence and contempt for the rule of law in practice. The left has a proven record of deceit and mismanagement, Trump at least gets the benefit of the doubt until he fucks up, which is a matter of when, not whether.

    1. Trump will be Obama’s cover in history. “Nothing bad happened because of Obama, it was Trump that led the country down that bad path.”

      The only clean thing to do is vote for neither of them and get up on a box to keep the flood of shit off your shoes.

      1. That’s gonna have to be an awfully big box.

  27. “I won’t vote for Trump because then everyone will blame him for the problems created by Obama.” – Sad Trumpkin Mantra # 7

  28. Are there any news aggregators that aren’t completely politically biased bullshit? I can’t even look at news.google.com anymore.

    1. Embrace the bullshit. What a world we live in when Alex Jones is more accurate than most.

  29. “I won’t vote for Trump because he will abolish safe spaces for trolls online and then who am I going to fight with all day? I’m just reaching retirement – I will need a hobby.”

  30. “I won’t vote for Trump because he’s just too good for you people. You don’t deserve such a great leader.”

  31. “I won’t vote for Trump because then I can say ‘See I told you so!’ as Cankles runs this country into the ground.”

  32. If the nevertrumpers are endorsing hillary, they’re only accelerating the re-alignment from left/right to American/DC candidates; effectively, between the people and their states, and a sovereign that is corrupt, vicious, and so remote as to effectively be foreign. The last time that happened, we got the United States out of it.

    1. Trump is not even more socialist than Cankles because:

      1. I’m sure you thought that your comment was in some way related to mine. I can tell, because it is below it and indented.

  33. “I won’t vote for Trump because I’d rather let the government become even more tyrannical and we’ll have a better shot next time.”

  34. Republicans who hate Trump so much they declare an intent to instead vote for Clinton, are a special kind of self-destructive assholes, who are providing voters with an insight into their political motivations.

    I also can’t believe Amash won’t come out and support Johnson/Weld. WTF?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.