Non-Trump Republicans

[Vrede too]

Donald Trump's national political director 'steps back' from campaign

[O Really]

More like... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FPELc1wEvk

[Vrede too]

And:

[Vrede too]

Former Secretary of State Powell will vote for Clinton: Newsday

[rstrong]

HuffPo: Republicans Threaten Lawsuits Over TV Ads Linking Them To Donald Trump

Democrats have been resorting to a low-down dirty trick: Claiming that Republicans support the Republican leader.

[O Really]

Next Trump will be threatening to sue women for saying he did what he said he did.

[Vrede too]

Lawsuits may be silly, but it is sleazy of the DNCC to link any Republicans to Trump that really have publicly opposed him. There are plenty of other things to link Republicans to.

[Boatrocker]

HuffPo: Republicans Threaten Lawsuits Over TV Ads Linking Them To Donald Trump

Democrats have been resorting to a low-down dirty trick: Claiming that Republicans support the Republican leader.

Bastards!

[O Really]

Lawsuits may be silly, but it is sleazy of the DNCC to link any Republicans to Trump that really have publicly opposed him. There are plenty of other things to link Republicans to.

I don't think that's particularly sleazy - certainly not in the context of current campaigning. As long as they say "I'm a Republican" they can be tarred with the muck of the Republican leader. I'd say only those who were vocally anti-Trump from the start and continued to be might get a pass, but even for them, they'd benefit (as Republicans) with a Trump win.

[Vrede too]

As I understand it that's not what the ads are saying. Rather, they are deliberately implying and/or directly claiming support for Trump that had already been publicly rejected. This entire thread makes clear that Trump is the GOP nominee not "the Republican leader." It wasn't easy for some Republicans to disavow Trump, there could have been severe consequences. Those that did shouldn't be smeared by him.

Not "particularly sleazy ... in the context of current campaigning," is a depressingly low bar to set.

[rstrong]

Any Republican claiming to support Republican Party values is claiming to support Trump. Out of a field of 16 candidates and many more who could have run, Trump was nominated by a landslide. Entirely by party members. He is by definition the embodiment of party values.

It's not like Trump suddenly changed for the worse after the nomination; Republicans knew exactly who and what they were backing.

The only competitor with a significant percentage of the votes was Ted Cruz.

[Vrede too]

Trump doesn't "support Republican Party values", he supports Trump.

By your reasoning every dovish, honest, non-"pay for play", Wall Street donor rejecting progressive Dem that spurns super pacs should be smeared with Hillary, every Russian should be smeared with Putin, O Really and I should be smeared with McCrory's NC "values", and every Canadian should be smeared with whomever the prime minister is at the time. In contrast, I recognize diversity within political divisions when they are publicly and at times courageously aired.

If the ads said something like, "_____ will necessarily be in Trump's camp if Trump is elected despite _____'s non support for his candidacy," that would be legit. But, such honesty is too nuanced to be effective, hence the dishonest smear.

There are so, so many things to smear Republicans with, saying that all of them are Trumpettes is a low blow.

[rstrong]

Trump doesn't "support Republican Party values", he supports Trump.

I don't dispute that. But my point still stands: Trump's own values were on display to all. There was no shortage of alternatives. Republicans knew exactly what they were getting. And still they elected him by a landslide. There have been no post-nomination surprises; new scandals are entirely consistent with what we knew about him before.

If other Republicans want to distance themselves, that's fair. But not because they support Republican Party values and Trump does not. It's just the opposite actually.

By your reasoning every dovish, honest, non-"pay for play", Wall Street donor rejecting progressive Dem that spurns super pacs should be smeared with Hillary, every Russian should be smeared with Putin, O Really and I should be smeared with McCrory's NC "values", and every Canadian should be smeared with whomever the prime minister is at the time.

Not individually of course, but to some extent, yes. It's a question of how much.

For example I wouldn't have smeared America in general with Bush II's first term - taking the country to war in Iraq on false pretenses, turning the country into a mass torture state, etc.. Those are things the voters could not have predicted.

But then they re-elected him anyway, by a higher margin.

And then the *other* party was elected, and did nothing to punish those responsible. Cheney, Rove and the rest could go on network TV like nothing happened. John Yoo - who wrote the torture memos - got a job teaching law at University of California effing Berkeley. And then in 2012 and 2016 the major Republican candidates openly demanded the resumption of torture.... without hurting their campaigns.

So yeah, it's fair to declare Bush II presidency values to be American values.

Likewise it's fair to smear Canada with much of what Harper did. We didn't just elect him, we re-elected him a couple times. It might not be fair to smear us with his war on scientists - which came to light *after* his last re-election and played a significant part in his downfall.

But by then, anyone running on "Conservative Party values" knew exactly what those party values were, and could be fairly smeared with them. Nothing stopped them from running as independent candidates. Except of court that they *wanted* to be associated with the Conservative Party. You have to take the bad with the good.

[Vrede too]

Trump did not get 50% of the GOP votes. Is a plurality "a landslide"?

... Not individually of course....

That's my point. These non-Trump Republican pols are being smeared individually. If the ads solely said that they are members of a party so fucked up as to nominate Trump, I'd be fine with that.

[rstrong]

Trump did not get 50% of the GOP votes. Is a plurality "a landslide"?

It's certainly a landslide when you get 1,441 delegate votes and the closest competitor gets 551. And you win nearly double the popular vote and nearly four times the contests.

... Not individually of course....

That's my point. These non-Trump Republican pols are being smeared individually. If the ads solely said that they are members of a party so fucked up as to nominate Trump, I'd be fine with that.

As I wrote:

But by then, anyone running on "Conservative Party values" knew exactly what those party values were, and could be fairly smeared with them. Nothing stopped them from running as independent candidates. Except of court that they *wanted* to be associated with the Conservative Party. You have to take the bad with the good.

It's the same thing with Republicans down in the Excited States. Heck, the party even made the candidates in the primaries sign an oath that they'd support the eventual nominee. Party unity is a Republican value!

[O Really]

There's a difference in being a resident somewhere where the governor is a drooling imbecile and even being in the same political party. If I've got a Republican neighbor, s/he's partly to blame for McCrory. Not necessarily as an individual (again), but even then s/he's not totally absolved as long as they're generally supporting the party. But private citizens aren't the same as those running for office. Those anti-Trumpers are still saying "vote Republican down the line" and they're still getting support from the Republican committee that supports Trump. One can't really avoid responsibility simply by saying "I'm not responsible." On the other hand, if somebody disavows the Republican party because of its nomination and support of Trump, changes registration to unaffiliated and runs on their own as an independent, well, I'd be happy to support that.

[Vrede too]

I'm fine with smearing anyone running on "Conservative Party values", but that's different from smearing them as being Trumpettes when they aren't. My "platform" includes honesty and fairness.

[O Really]

I'd hang Trump around every Republican's neck like an albatross - from Senators to Governors to dog-catchers, if dog-catchers were partisan races. If a few of them get treated unfairly or less than totally honestly, hey - they're Republicans, they should be used to it.

[rstrong]

If the Republican leader chosen in a landslide by Republican delegates in the Republican primaries is so alien to your values, then perhaps you should consider not calling yourself a Republican.

[Vrede too]

Much of what America does is alien to my values. Should I consider not calling myself an American instead of working to get it to better reflect my values?

... If a few of them get treated unfairly or less than totally honestly ...

Dishonestly is the issue. My politics aren't as valueless, cynical and Machiavellian.

Trash the Trumpettes for being Trumpettes, the silent for being cowards and the rest for being GOP.