Included in the post was a video of Chris Wallace interviewing Hueslskamp vs Newt Gingrich on all things Trump.
I summed it up with:
But the moment that captures his essence is when Chris Wallace asks him
what he's going to do if it comes down to Clinton vs Trump and he
answers, "I don't know. I'll need to talk to my wife." Good grief!
Congressman Huelskamp comes across as a scold. And no one likes a scold.
This is nothing more than "virtue signaling"; a favorite ploy of the
libtards. I'm more virtuous than you, and I want you to know that I am,
and thus, the conversation is over.
I lost?
Did Huelskamp lose because of his virulent anti-Trump attitude? I don't live in Kansas and have no idea why he lost. I do know that the farmers were pretty upset with him. That's not a good thing in Kansas.
If you want a lesson in how not to represent your Christian values, I re-posted the interview below.
Mr. Huelskamp can rest easy knowing his virtue is intact.
and, sad to say, it was rather embarrassing - for Huelskamp.
After doing a bit of due diligence on exactly who Tim Huelskamp is, I find the things he said rather weird. After perusing his website, I discovered that he and Donald Trump hold almost exactly the same positions on all major issues.
Aside from his penchant for wearing golf shirts with jackets, which I really hate (it's ugly, guys - don't do it), he seems like a nice guy. Married, with four adopted children, active in his church, and upholding, to the best of his ability, conservative values. Of course, no one is really sure what conservative values are anymore, but we'll just use it for lack of a better word.
However, after watching the following video, I will have to say (unfortunately) that I have to agree with The Last Refuge:
In the video below the congressman outlines how Donald Trump fails
all applied social litmus tests for conservative purity because Mr.
Trump is not: religious enough, preachy enough, politically correct
enough, and in a general sense is too crass for the moral authority wing
of the religious right.
As Congressman Huelskamp outlines, those who are elected to legislate
on appropriate bathroom issues, tone and manners, gender roles, as well
as appropriate hem lengths, distance between dance partners and the
dangers of modern cultural music, are aghast that a republican
electorate would consider such vulgar “New York values” (<— yes Alice, he actually said that).
Watch the video below and you’ll see exactly why “Religious Purity Conservative Republicans” lose elections:
He starts off by saying he wouldn't let his 9-year old watch a Donald Trump rally and neither would all the soccer moms and baseball dads, either. I'm not sure how he knows this, as he proceeds to call Trump "vulgar" and "crass."
He makes the statement that Trump's positions are not conservative; in particular, "issues of the heart." Yes, he really said that.
Huelskamp then says the New York Times article which ran on Sunday about Trump's treatment of women was "not a surprise." Except the NYT article was a complete spin job andthe lead woman in the article has already stated so this morningas I've already reported.
After bringing up all those moms and dads again, he then said he would never let his 14-year old son say the things that Trump has said, without explaining what those "things" are. I'm guessing that his 14-year old son has said much worse "things" than Trump has ever said, but to be fair, I don't know that for a fact. Just making a guess is all.
He claims Trump wants to "raise taxes on the rich", which has been clarified so many times it amazes me that someone would still be parroting that foolishness. The possibility of a smaller tax cut is not raising taxes on the rich.
But the moment that captures his essence is when Chris Wallace asks him what he's going to do if it comes down to Clinton vs Trump and he answers, "I don't know. I'll need to talk to my wife." Good grief!
Congressman Huelskamp comes across as a scold. And no one likes a scold.
This is nothing more than "virtue signaling"; a favorite ploy of the libtards. I'm more virtuous than you, and I want you to know that I am, and thus, the conversation is over.
