Is It Getting To Be About the Time When the #NeverTrumpers Should Go Radio Silent?

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Now, I don't like Trump. Should his numbers go down further -- or should some horrifying skeleton emerge from his gilded closets -- I'd support the Warrior Bees Attack and Eject the Interloper scenario.

But it appears unlikely at the moment. Not impossible, but unlikely.

So I have to ask: At this point, what is the point of the #NeverTrump impulse?

Do you guys actually want Hillary Clinton in office, as Ben Howe, possibly just being baiting and trollish, said a few weeks back?

You want more lies? More Benghazis? More jailed video makers?

More Transgendered Bathrooms and Co-Ed showers? More Title IX redefinitions? More Deal Colleague letters? More Social Rape Justice hoax prosecutions?

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/363703.php

Interesting article. I understand and respect the will and reserve of the nevertrumpers. Just think this article might warrant their input. If it doesn't change your mind that's fine too.

I still think it brings up good points.

[austingirl]

Read the thread about Trump changing the role of VP. Unconstitutional, but that doesn't matter to Trump. Read how there are parts of the job that Trump doesn't want to do himself. Read how he gets his info not from briefing papers but by reading newspapers and talking on the phone. Read how he "picks stuff up as he goes along."

Read it and weep.

[Relic]

Read the thread about Trump changing the role of VP. Unconstitutional, but that doesn't matter to Trump. Read how there are parts of the job that Trump doesn't want to do himself. Read how he gets his info not from briefing papers but by reading newspapers and talking on the phone. Read how he "picks stuff up as he goes along."

Read it and weep.

Assuming everything negative that you read and hear about Trump is true and unembellished, (unlikely as that may be), you still miss the point of the post and simply go off, affirming to all that will read your post, you have a deep hate of Trump.

In the light of the State Department documents regarding Hillary's emails, a particularly damning document that had even MSNBC's Morning Joe panelists all disgusted, should #nevertrump tone it down? What is the goal? Does #nevertrump really want Hillary in the White House? 

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Read the thread about Trump changing the role of VP. Unconstitutional, but that doesn't matter to Trump. Read how there are parts of the job that Trump doesn't want to do himself. Read how he gets his info not from briefing papers but by reading newspapers and talking on the phone. Read how he "picks stuff up as he goes along."

Read it and weep.

Link?

[Mechanicos]

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/363703.php

Interesting article. I understand and respect the will and reserve of the nevertrumpers. Just think this article might warrant their input. If it doesn't change your mind that's fine too.

I still think it brings up good points.

Now that hes assured the nomination yes.
At this point continuously posting liberal or corrupt sourced Trump attack pieces is not Principled conservatism or moral. It helps the evil. From here on forward its the difference between voting your conscious and activism on behalf of the opposition.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/363703.php

Interesting article. I understand and respect the will and reserve of the nevertrumpers. Just think this article might warrant their input. If it doesn't change your mind that's fine too.

I still think it brings up good points.

The article basically erects a bunch of strawmen, then trashes them.  And a lot of it seems to be based on this class-warfare mindset of the wealthier and more educated simply looking down on those they deem their inferiors.  The logical problem with that point is that Trump himself is extremely wealthy, and highly educated, and so that cannot be the basis of the opposition to him.  The problem isn't Trump's supporters, is what Trump is actually saying, and how he is behaving.  And if they don't like the fact that he's vulgar and says a lot of stupid things, there's nothing wrong or even elitist about that.

The biggest problem a lot of us have with Trump is something the article never addressed -- that the few ways in which he is better than Hillary are not enough to offset his negatives, which include a lot of stupid ideas, a gutter-level campaign that hurts the party as a whole, and the possibility that a failed Trump Presidency will do irreparable, long-term damage to the GOP, thereby handing long-term control of the country to the left by default.

[Relic]

The article basically erects a bunch of strawmen, then trashes them.  And a lot of it seems to be based on this class-warfare mindset of the wealthier and more educated simply looking down on those they deem their inferiors.  The logical problem with that point is that Trump himself is extremely wealthy, and highly educated, and so that cannot be the basis of the opposition to him.  The problem isn't Trump's supporters, is what Trump is actually saying, and how he is behaving.  And if they don't like the fact that he's vulgar and says a lot of stupid things, there's nothing wrong or even elitist about that.

The biggest problem a lot of us have with Trump is something the article never addressed -- that the few ways in which he is better than Hillary are not enough to offset his negatives, which include a lot of stupid ideas, a gutter-level campaign that hurts the party as a whole, and the possibility that a failed Trump Presidency will do irreparable, long-term damage to the GOP, thereby handing long-term control of the country to the left by default.

So, in the interest of clarity, would it be fair to say you'd rather have Hillary Clinton win?

Will you vote for Clinton?

[roamer_1]

The biggest problem a lot of us have with Trump is something the article never addressed -- that the few ways in which he is better than Hillary are not enough to offset his negatives, which include a lot of stupid ideas, a gutter-level campaign that hurts the party as a whole, and the possibility that a failed Trump Presidency will do irreparable, long-term damage to the GOP, thereby handing long-term control of the country to the left by default.

AND that he's doing it wrapped in some sort of 'conservatism', which puts it on my radar.

And no, I won't stop yelling about it. EVER.

[sinkspur]

Assuming everything negative that you read and hear about Trump is true and unembellished, (unlikely as that may be), you still miss the point of the post and simply go off, affirming to all that will read your post, you have a deep hate of Trump.

In the light of the State Department documents regarding Hillary's emails, a particularly damning document that had even MSNBC's Morning Joe panelists all disgusted, should #nevertrump tone it down? What is the goal? Does #nevertrump really want Hillary in the White House?

#NeverTrump doesn't want Trump in the White House. That the Republican voters saddled us with this Cheeto-faced bastard is not our fault.

If you get Hillary, it's YOUR fault.  I will never vote for Donald Trump; he proves daily (i.e, his outburst against Susanna Martinez yesterday) that he is unfit for the presidency.

[Relic]

#NeverTrump doesn't want Trump in the White House. That the Republican voters saddled us with this Cheeto-faced bastard is not our fault.

If you get Hillary, it's YOUR fault.  I will never vote for Donald Trump; he proves daily (i.e, his outburst against Susanna Martinez yesterday) that he is unfit for the presidency.

It's not about fault. It's about what is best. Given the choice of Hillary vs. Trump, you think Hillary is best?

Oh, and by the way, it's not MY fault, I didn't choose Trump. And I don't get Hillary, WE get Hillary.

[r9etb]

It's not about fault. It's about what is best. Given the choice of Hillary vs. Trump, you think Hillary is best?

They're both horrible candidates who would be disastrous presidents.  The only advantage of Trump over Clinton is that he'd be ineffective prior to his impeachment.

Why should I vote for either of them?

[roamer_1]

It's not about fault.

Yes it is.

It's about what is best.

So here we are again at the 'lesser evil' argument, right?

Given the choice of Hillary vs. Trump, you think Hillary is best?

False dilemma.
Darrel Castle best serves to represent my position, and he will get my endorsement.
Barring that, to abstain would be the next best logical action.

'Lesser evil' is still evil. To cast your vote in favor of 'lesser evil' is without a doubt, endorsing evil.

[sinkspur]

It's not about fault. It's about what is best. Given the choice of Hillary vs. Trump, you think Hillary is best?

Oh, and by the way, it's not MY fault, I didn't choose Trump. And I don't get Hillary, WE get Hillary.

I think both would be disasters.  That's why I'm not voting for either one.

[bolobaby]

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/363703.php

Interesting article. I understand and respect the will and reserve of the nevertrumpers. Just think this article might warrant their input. If it doesn't change your mind that's fine too.

I still think it brings up good points.

It's simple. Never Trump means Never Trump. So why keep beating that drum?

Because there are a lot of us and Trump and the GOP need to understand that they've prepared another turd sandwich to feed to voters.

What do we gain by going "radio silent?" If Trump wins, he'll pull a full-on Obama, "Elections have consequences. I won. You lost. Sit down. Shut up." Hell, the Trumpettes are doing that NOW in the primary.

So I guess we should just quietly comply and forget fighting for our conservative principles? Yeah, right. Great plan, man.

No - instead we'll keep reminding Trump and the GOP that we aren't happy with the turd sandwich they've prepared. We won't eat it. So, here's a newsflash Trump, the great DEALMAKER: as this article suggests, if we don't shut up, you could lose, right? So, if you want to win, you'd better think fast and figure out how to placate us. (Hint: it's not being being a world-class asshat and continuing your standard line of insults on Twitter.)

We may never vote for him, but it might be possible to get me to pipe down in my outspoken CRITICISM of him.

So why keep fighting for what we believe in? Because to not do so would be world-class cowardice. It doesn't matter how many times you Trumpettes advocate world-class cowardice, #NeverTrump won't participate.

[bolobaby]

Now that hes assured the nomination yes.
At this point continuously posting liberal or corrupt sourced Trump attack pieces is not Principled conservatism or moral. It helps the evil. From here on forward its the difference between voting your conscious and activism on behalf of the opposition.

Blah blah blah.

Supporting Trump *is* supporting liberalism, genius.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

So, in the interest of clarity, would it be fair to say you'd rather have Hillary Clinton win?

Will you vote for Clinton?

No.  I won't vote for her under any circumstances.  And as of right now, I hope Trump wins even though I'm personally not willing to vote for him yet.  It is possible that he could conduct himself in such a way between now and November than I may end up hoping she wins, or that he does the opposite and I end up voting for him.  In no case will I vote for Hillary.

I'm just pointing out what the real arguments are v. the strawman arguments.  Where each of us falls in terms of accepting those arguments is a different question.

[INVAR]

What is the goal? Does #nevertrump really want Hillary in the White House?

Let's cut to the quick:

WE DON'T CARE!

The choice between a Marxist Communist and a Populist Fascist who just talked about turning the GOP into the "Workers Party" is not a choice we are going to make.

We choose: OTHER.

If this people want their Marxist Communist or their Vulgar Fascist - they will have them as their Dear Leader.

We aren't contributing to either of them.

[Relic]

Yes it is.

Only to a whining little coward not worthy of my Trump style insult.

So here we are again at the 'lesser evil' argument, right?

Sorry about your purity, but reality often demands such decisions be made.

False dilemma.
Darrel Castle best serves to represent my position, and he will get my endorsement.
Barring that, to abstain would be the next best logical action.

'Lesser evil' is still evil. To cast your vote in favor of 'lesser evil' is without a doubt, endorsing evil.

Go bury your head, you're not worth the effort.

[Relic]

I think both would be disasters.  That's why I'm not voting for either one.

Fair enough. And it's also fair to remember WE will get Clinton. If the wench is elected, I'll remind you of that as long as the fairness doctrine allows it.

[Relic]

Let's cut to the quick:

WE DON'T CARE!

YOU don't care. You are quite full of yourself if you presume to speak for anyone but you.

I bet you complained about the Trump supporters wanting to burn it all down?

What do you get when you mix anger and irony? INVAR

[Hoodat]

Is It Getting To Be About the Time When the #NeverTrumpers Should Go Radio Silent?

That begins right after Hate Week.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_week

[Hoodat]

If the wench is elected, I'll remind you of that as long as the fairness doctrine allows it.

Yet commanding Conservatives to go radio silent is OK.

[bolobaby]

Fair enough. And it's also fair to remember WE will get Clinton. If the wench is elected, I'll remind you of that as long as the fairness doctrine allows it.

Hey, no problem. We'll also remind you that YOU chose the LOSER to represent our side in the primary. We'll also remind you that WE were very clear from the get-go that we would NEVER support him, and you chose him anyway.

Therefore, you did the calculus and decided, "It doesn't matter that they say they will NEVER support him, I'm going to back this turd sandwich in the primary and hope for the best."

So, whose fault will it be really?

(And don't give me any BS line about "I picked the guy most likely to win." At the time Trump started to lead, he was losing in the head-to-heads against Hillary while Cruz was winning. His unfavorables were also the highest. There was NO empirical evidence that he would be the best choice. Things only started to look up for him after he lied, lied, lied about and smeared, smeared, smeared Ted Cruz.)

[Relic]

Yet commanding Conservatives to go radio silent is OK.

Commanding? Commanding implies some sort of authority. At best, it's a suggestion.

I understand, your emotions are raw, and Trump has you tied in knots. Breathe.

The post only suggests that given Trump as the nominee, continued attacks on Trump only help Hillary. Some here are honest enough to admit they want to help Hillary versus Trump. I respect honesty.

As for conservatives? That's a funny one. Part of the FRefugee syndrome? You're all pure conservatives right? 

[INVAR]

YOU don't care. You are quite full of yourself if you presume to speak for anyone but you.

I bet you complained about the Trump supporters wanting to burn it all down?

What do you get when you mix anger and irony? INVAR

I was initially glad Trump set torch to the Ruling Class Establishment when he first began.  That ended when Trump put torch to anyone who would not kiss his ring and listened to his rhetoric and watched his foam-at-the-mouth faithful go into full beserker mode on various fora.

As to burning it all down - I think the demands that we neverTrump types shut up, coupled with the threats of arrest, hanging and execution for treason out there on social media and the net coming from rabid TRUMP supporters speaks plainly to the whole reason we want nothing to do with your political savior or your mob of the "American Workers Party".

I frankly don't care if I am the only person in the entire country who doesn't seig-heil your King Presumptive.  I won't be supporting him, and will continue to sound the alarm about him and Hillary both.