All of us here have morals and principles...that's the point. What makes you a narcissist is being a narcissist...assuming you have principles while others who disagree with you do not...or that your principles are somehow superior, more objectively true, and/or are more important than others principles.
Literally, by the very definition, principles are first things - immovable things. Principle things cannot be compromised, else they are not principles.
Since we are speaking of a specific set of principles - The Principles of Conservatism, or arguably the principles of a subset of Conservatism (SOCON, DEFCON, FICON), I would submit that resolution can be obtained via that criteria.
That one may or may not be principled outside of that criteria is of little interest to me, nor does it bear upon this conversation - Because it is Conservatism that is on point.
There is *NO* defense of Trump within the principles of Conservatism. None.
There is no factional principle that he defends, nor does he operate within it's philosophical boundaries. In fact, and historically, he is, and has been in direct opposition to most of those principles.
That is why his defenders fail to defend him on those principle, immovable things - reduced (yet again, mind you) to the 'lesser evil' argument, which is inevitably their last defense.
If it were otherwise, he would be defensible within the criteria, and believe me, there would be no argument, and you would have our support.
Thus, while I do not accuse anyone of being without principles, standards, or mores, since Trump is indefensible by way of Conservative principles in any way, it seems to me that his supporters' criteria is not Conservatism, or alternatively, that those supporters find that the principles of Conservatism can be compromised - which would make them less than principled, according to Conservatism, by the very definition.
