Mitch McConnell - The Baffling Continued Support for Donald Trump

Jump to Last Post 1-2 of 2 discussions (42 posts)

85
Sharlee01posted 3 years ago

"There's no question, none, that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day. No question about it," McConnell said at the time. "The people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their president."

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Thursday that he would "absolutely" support former President Donald Trump if he won the 2024 Republican presidential nomination.

"Well, there's a lot to happen between now and '24," McConnell said in an interview with Fox News. "I've got at least four members that I think are planning to run for president, plus some governors and others. There's no incumbent, a wide-open race, and should be fun for you all to cover."

Thoughts... Do you think Trump will run in 2024?

What do you think about Mitch McConnell claiming he would support Trump?
reply report
1. 0
  PrettyPantherposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  He said he would support Trump if he won. This is completely in keeping with McConnell's party-over-country philosophy. Mitch is all about keeping Republicans, and himself, in power even if it means voting to free an insurrectuinist to run for President again, and propping the insurrectionist up again if he wins.
  
  I'm not surprised in the least. Mitch does not want to lose the crazy Trump cult base because that would mean less power for the GOP.
  
  And, yes, I think the insurrectuinist will run again if he hasn't yet been convicted of a crime.
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Sounds exactly like the entire Democrat party, and the large majority of the Republican party as well. Looking at two failed impeachment attempts, and seeing 100% of Democrats vote lockstep with the party agenda, it is not possible to think that most of them are voting for the party, not the country. Ditto for the Republicans - when half the House, and half the Senate, vote one way, but it is divided along party lines, there is no other conclusion possible.
  
  A total failure of our legislative system, IMO. It is rare, and becoming ever rarer, to find any politician willing to vote the country over the party.
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  I don't think you answered her questions.
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  First, I didn't reply to "her", but to you.
  
  Second, I think I actually did answer the question ("What do you think about Mitch McConnell claiming he would support Trump?"), with a comment on the integrity of nearly all our politicians, including McConnell. I think our politicians nearly always vote the party line and that it is despicable, that they should not hold the office they do if that's their attitude.
  reply report
2. 85
  Kyler J Falkposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  I think Trump has proven himself a savvy businessman, and not a statesman. The two, in my opinion, are not mutually exclusive; but in Trump's case, I believe the distinction should be made. He acts more like an angsty teen than a man worthy of being POTUS, and he proved this on Twitter, and in his speeches more times than I could count.
  
  Here is what I hear McConnell saying, "I support the POTUS," and this reminds me of the line you must take when in the military of, "I support the commander-in-chief in all his decisions."
  
  When I was enlisted during Obama's second run, I wanted to vote (I think it was) Romney. However, at the time we weren't able to receive our ballots any other way than from a family member (mail takes weeks, even months to arrive) so I asked my superiors to get us some ballots. They'd always challenge me on this, saying and asking things like, "Why do you want to vote?" or, "Do you not support our commander-in-chief?" and even, "You don't need to vote, stop asking."
  
  The only appropriate response to this is, "I support the commander-in-chief in all his decisions, and will carry out his orders without fail. I just want to vote."
  
  When in a position where you are subservient to the POTUS, you do not undermine that position. Though in a politician's case it isn't so much undermining the position, it is about ensuring that you do not burn any bridges that you may have no choice but to cross in the future.
  reply report
  85
  Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this
  "Here is what I hear McConnell saying, "I support the POTUS," and this reminds me of the line you must take when in the military of, "I support the commander-in-chief in all his decisions."
  
  From his statement I get the same thing ---he will toe the line if Trump should become president once again.
  
  Thanks for sharing your experience while in the military of having a problem getting a ballot. I have never heard that before. Thanks for your service.
  reply report
  85
  Kyler J Falkposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  You have never heard of servicemen having trouble getting and submitting ballots? It was all over the news during this last election for a week or so, and was quickly buried. However, yes, there are certain times during someone's enlistment where voting can be made very difficult and is even discouraged.
  reply report
  85
  Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Seems when the Government is involved with anything there are problems. I use absentee ballot voting due to travel. I have never had a problem. I actually did not realize the military had such a problem.
  reply report
3. 80
  Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this
  It is obvious that Machiavelli Mitch is a two faced chiseler..
  
  How could Mitch condemn Trump from one side of his mouth while saying that he would support him from the other?
  
  This is just one of the many reasons why I loathe the Republican Party.
  
  It is a mistake to think that any QAnon loving entity can ever be a responsible party with which to negotiate. Like most progressives, I don't trust Republicans and think we should act to independently to get what the majority voted for done regardless of GOP obstructive bags of tricks.
  
  I say Donald Trump is going the be up to his ample rump in alligators now that Mr. Vance in New York is more than anxious to add another notch to his gunbelt to bring this clown down from his ivory tower.. The Supreme Court decision has just fed him to the wolves and I am delighted. He won't have time for a lot of political activity between now and 2024, in my opinion.
  reply report
  81
  GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  "This is just one of the many reasons why I loathe the Republican Party."
  
  Do you think the Democrat party is any different? How do you feel about their current stance that the Senate parliamentarian, (supposedly a non-partisan authority), should be ignored because she disagrees with their premise about the validity of passing a minimum wage law through budget reconciliation?
  
  Still supporting that "majority vote" position?
  
  GA
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  I recognize that both parties can be villainous, but one wants to ignore a parliamentarian so they can give the American people their first minimum wage increase since 2009 while the other continues to back an insurrectionist and QAnon conspiracy theories after people were killed in a violent insurrection.
  
  In my opinion, the level of villainy is currently off the charts in the GOP while Democrats are merely idling in politics as usual.
  
  I don't think they're even close.
  reply report
  80
  Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks, Panther, i was looking for an elaborate explanation for the much larger negative overriding themes regarding the Republicans over the Democrats. You saved me a little time and a lot of ink.
  
  2009? I say that it is about time for a change.
  
  I could compare elephant droppings to those of a sparrow, if we want to talk magnitude between the parties, with the GOP as the former, of course.
  
  This is for you GA, are you listening?
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  I feel like people have forgotten that not all transgressions are equal. As a parent, do you worry if your child sneaks a cookie after being told "no more"? Yes, some, but what if your child dresses up in battle gear, breaks into your neighbor's house, kills the dog, and steals their guns?
  
  Are both children equally troubled? I don't think so. And should your response to these transgressions be the same? No, one is pretty typical child behavior while the other is violently criminal.
  
  One can be worked with, but the other requires serious intervention. That is how I see the Democrats versus the GOP at this time.
  
  Look at what is happening at CPAC right now. It is highly disturbing. Personally, I am wary of anyone who continues to proudly call themselves a Republican at this point in our history.
  reply report
  80
  Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Panther, check out the latest outrage CPAC presents us with, "a golden Trump statue"
  
  https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/26/politics … index.html
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  The GOP is no longer a political party of conservative ideals. It has devolved into the Trump cult. If you don't like or at least pretend to like Trump, you're an enemy. It's very sad and very scary.
  reply report
  81
  GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, I am listening, but I am not hearing anything new., For instance, the Democrats wanting to ignore the rules isn't so bad because you agree with what they want. But the Republicans ignoring the rules is evil because you don't agree with what they want.
  
  Do you see the determining factor between your acceptance and your condemnation?
  
  You seem stuck in that rut of it's only wrong if you disagree with it. Right or wrong is still either right or wrong, whether rationalized or not. They don't change bud.
  
  GA
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  I don't think either one of us said the Democrats are right, or at least I didn't. In fact, I tried t explain how I see it as a degree of wrong with the example of the kids' transgressions.
  
  The current GOP is, right now as I type this, hosting a speech by a former president who invented a lie, fomented an angry mob to believe the lie, then incited them to storm the Capitol, all to retain power. I just don't see the Democrats' transgressions as anywhere near that level.
  
  Do you really think they're equivalent?
  
  Do you?
  
  Is a kid who steals a cookie as troubled as one who dons combat gear, breaks into a neighbor's house, kills the dog, and steals their guns?
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  One party invented fake reasons (twice!) to impeach a president, failing both times in their efforts to eliminate a political rival. The other challenged an election and made a speech.
  
  You're right - they are not equivalent at all.
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  I'm bored of your tired, worn out, broken record, fantasy deflections.
  
  Maybe someone else will bite.
  reply report
  81
  GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Relative to your "kid" example, I agree, and I wasn't arguing the equivalency of the wrongs. Except, maybe I was to Cred. He did in this thread, and in other threads maintained the stance I described in my reply to him.
  
  However, If the measure between the wrongness of the Democrats wanting to ignore the accepted rules of Senate procedures in order to achieve their political goals, and the wrongness of Pres. Trump's promotion of election fraud is to be judged, I would view them as equivalent—they both sought to corrupt our system of democracy.
  
  I don't see the Democrats rationalizing aborting Senate rules for political gain as a small thing, (like the kid stealing a cookie).
  
  GA
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  I really cannot agree. I see it as politics as usual, certainly no worse than MConnell's multitude of shenanigans in recent years.
  
  I might add that I have a philosophical belief that sometimes moral imperatives justify breaking the rules. Speeding to get a dying man to the hospital, for example. I'm not saying that is the situation here; I really haven't given it enough thought to have a strong opinion.
  
  However, I do think the motivation for ignoring a rule can be justification.
  reply report
  81
  GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Well, as I read your response I was formulating a reply about degrees of 'worseness', but then your closing sentence made it obvious that would be a wasted effort.
  
  Are you really saying that because you support the cause, (in this case a $15 minimum wage), it is justified to break the rules of our legislative process just because you have the majority?
  
  Geesh, PrettyPanther, do you understand the implications of that rationalization? Do you realize you would then have to accept a similar effort in a Republican majority? Do you understand that your support can be simply put as agreeing that might is right?
  
  Your cause is just, so any means to accomplish it are just. That seems to be what you are saying. How is that any different from Republican actions that are motivated by their belief that their cause is just?
  
  Yet, with no difference in the two attitudes, you declare yours to be good and the Republicans' to be evil. That is pretty shaky ground to stand on Sandy.
  
  GA
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Well, I'm not sure how you got all that out of war I said, which is: "I might add that I have a philosophical belief that sometimes moral imperatives justify breaking the rules. Speeding to get a dying man to the hospital, for example. I'm not saying that is the situation here; I really haven't given it enough thought to have a strong opinion."
  
  But, I will try to respond to this part of your post:
  
  Are you really saying that because you support the cause, (in this case a $15 minimum wage), it is justified to break the rules of our legislative process just because you have the majority?
  
  No, I did not say that. I did say I believe there are times when breaking the rules might be justified for moral reasons. This seems obvious to me, so may I reverse it and ask if you think there could never, under any circumstances, be a situation where the morally correct option would be to break the rules? I gave the simple example of speeding to get a dying man to the hosptal. It's harder to think of a moral reason to break the rules of Congress, but surely such a situation is within the realm of possibility.
  
  I don't see a need to respond to the rest of your post because you are arguing against a position I did not take.
  reply report
  81
  GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Maybe I misinterpreted what you meant to say. The discussion is about the Democrats wanting to ignore a parliamentarian ruling that the $15 minimum wage aspect was not within the rules.
  
  Then you say: "I might add that I have a philosophical belief that sometimes moral imperatives justify breaking the rules. Speeding to get a dying man to the hospital, for example. "
  
  Granted, you did offer a dying man example, but was I really that far off-base reading that comment to be relative t the parliamentarian ruling of this discussion?
  
  And then you further say,(I assumed relative to the topic of the discussion), that, "However, I do think the motivation for ignoring a rule can be justification."
  
  That sure seems to be related to the topic of the discussion—the Democrat push to ignore the rules.
  
  It seems you are saying I misinterpreted your comment. Well, the connections seem clear to me, but if I did misinterpret it, then it is a 'my bad' and it is my response that was off-the-mark. Dubiously, I will give you the benefit of the doubt.
  
  GA
  reply report
  81
  GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Maybe I misinterpreted what you meant to say. The discussion is about the Democrats wanting to ignore a parliamentarian ruling that the $15 minimum wage aspect was not within the rules.
  
  Then you say: "I might add that I have a philosophical belief that sometimes moral imperatives justify breaking the rules. Speeding to get a dying man to the hospital, for example. "
  
  Granted, you did offer a dying man example, but was I really that far off-base reading that comment to be relative to the parliamentarian ruling of this discussion?
  
  And then you further say, (I assumed relative to the topic of the discussion), that, "However, I do think the motivation for ignoring a rule can be justification."
  
  That sure seems to be related to the topic of the discussion—the Democrat push to ignore the rules.
  
  It seems you are saying I misinterpreted your comment. Well, the connections seem clear to me, but if I did misinterpret it, then it is a 'my bad' and it is my response that was off-the-mark. Dubiously, I will give you the benefit of the doubt.
  
  GA
  report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  I did say I haven't given it enough thought to have a strong opinion one way or the other.
  
  But, anyway, back to the main point that I was trying to make in the first place, and that is that I agree with credence that the Democrats cannot compete with the GOP's current level of villainy. The GOP are literally cooperating with insurrectionists.
  report
  81
  GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Well, now that we have cleared the air we are at a point where we simply disagree.
  
  I am completely with you on the point of the "insurrectionists," but beyond that, I think the Democrats are as bad as you think the Republicans are.
  
  The hypocrisy of current Democrat defenders cannot be ignored. Their justification that their cause is just and the Republicans are worse just doesn't hold water for me.
  
  GA
  report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  But I still think you are mischaracterizing my position. I merely said there are times when it is "right" to break the rules, but I did not say it was right in this case.
  report
  81
  GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Well hell, Ms. (you know I really wanted to say "girl). Now I am expected to interpret what you mean? :-)
  
  GA
  report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Of course. I have high expectations of some people here. :-)
  report
  80
  Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this
  You still don't get it.
  
  I did not say that the Democrats are angels as few politicians are.
  
  But there is such a thing as proportionality.
  
  You're upset about the idea of the Dems deciding to dispense with the filibuster? What did the republicans do when it was time to pass their massive tax cuts for the fat cats or this thing about Obamacare they wanted to repeal, did they seek Democrat Party imput? At this point, I don't care what republicans think, they will just take it without the benefit of KY, if necessary. That is explicit and not a Freudian slip, by the way.
  
  https://secondnexus.com/georgia-gop-res … ing-rights
  
  One of theirs had a slip which is not so much a glitch but the real motive behind the GOP and their so called claims of wanting to protect voter integrity and all of that rot.
  
  This not just congressional inhouse games but a threat to the Democratic process itself
  
  Republicans claim vote fraud in the last election that they never believed that they ever had to prove. Did Gore or Hillary Clinton threaten the very process when they lost under circumstances far more subject to review than 2020?
  
  Are Republicans afraid that they cannot win on the value of their ideas and policies without the need to restrict access to the ballot?
  
  SO, there is a difference. It is a dance with fascism thinking that the more difficult it is for people to vote the better your chances? It is a unacceptable attitude. But, you being so awashed in red and such, perhaps you cannot not see it, but I do and there is not equivalency between the Democrats and Republicans in my opinion.
  
  Then there is of course the President of the United States who challenges the democratic process by inciting a mob of ruffians and fomenting riotous behavior against the Capitol building Washington. When have the Democrats ever behaved this way?
  
  They are not the same and has never been in my opinion for some time. But you need a bit more blue hue to see any of this, GA.
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  "This not just congressional inhouse games but a threat to the Democratic process itself"
  
  You're absolutely right - even Democrats came right out and said that the second impeachment attempt was solely to eliminate what could be their primary opposition in 2024. Pretty bold, but at least for now they have the power in hand - the power to make such end run attempts to limit the people's choice.
  reply report
  80
  Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Trumps behavior in 2019 could well have warrated the impeachment proceedings regarding the Ukraine controversy So, he was acquitted on partisan lines, so what is the big deal?
  
  What about Clinton in 1998, were not he Republicans relentless in this case and completely partisan?
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Trump was impeached along party lines (zero democrats voting against) and acquitted along party lines (zero democrats voting for acquittal). The process was repeated this year, again with zero democrats crossing the party line.
  
  And you have to ask what is wrong with this picture, when 100% of Democrats (and very nearly that of Republicans) have no opinion but that of the party that keeps them in office? Why don't we just fire them all and put the party VIP's in instead, the "handlers" that are providing the opinions for our elected officials to hand out?
  
  Be a lot cheaper - all we'd need is a couple from each party. One to mouth the party platform and one as a spare in case the first gets sick.
  reply report
  81
  GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  I must disagree Cred. I think you are the one that is "still not getting it."
  
  When it comes to the fundamentals of our political process there is no "proportionality" involved. Wrong is wrong, whether it be by Republicans or Democrats. Wrong does not become 'right' just because you support the cause of the wrong. Or less wrong because the end justifies the effort.
  
  And you are "still not getting it" if you are reading my responses to be defending the Republicans.
  
  You should be less worried about the "Red" in my thoughts and more concerned about what you are willing to condone because it agrees with your Blue.
  
  I would quickly bet that if it were the Republicans promoting ignoring a parliamentarian ruling— purely for political gain, you would be bouncing off the walls with indignation.
  
  GA
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Hmm, I just did some reading and Schumer is saying they have ruled out going against the parliamentarian's ruling. I guess they're not as villainous as you thought. ;-)
  reply report
  81
  GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  I agree, it is not all of them. But who are "them"? Is it those that Schummer and Pelosi represent or those that AOC and the Squad represent?
  
  This entire thread is wrongly directed at the loudest voices of both parties when it should be making a distinction between those "loudest" voices and the mainstream voices.
  
  Early on I realized that it was the extreme of the Democrats that were pushing for ignoring the parliamentarian ruling, but, and it is an important "but" because it applies across the board, it is those voices that are heard by the American public.
  
  GA
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, the extremes often draw the most attention.
  reply report
4. 85
  Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this
  After watching CPAC for the last few days -- one can see the party is on board with supporting Trump in a 2024 run. Guess it's up to Trump if he decides to give it one more try.
  reply report
79
emgeposted 3 years ago
Trump is needed in America to undo all the deleterious effects of Joe Biden. He will contest in 2024 and win.
reply report
1. 0
  PrettyPantherposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  I am curious. Do you think Trump is the only person who can undo the deleterious effects of Biden?
  reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Mitch McConnell - The Baffling Continued Support for Donald Trump

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Mitch McConnell - The Baffling Continued Support for Donald Trump

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies