Mike Lee, tea party senator, may help decide Trump’s fate at convention

[sinkspur]

@skeeter the flaw in your argument is anybody that your tiny group of people select by decree is identical to Hillary camp. Selected the same way way as how Hilary was selected. Its denying the will of the voters and a using a small group people who claim to be superior selecting the candidates.

That is not a Republic, that is not American, that is ruling class taking away our freedom to have a representative government. Right now we have a non-establishment person opposing an establishment person. If you had your way there really will be no difference and no reason to vote since both would be of the uniparty ruling class. Neither would represent us. So no. The fact you are promoting the same thing and same candidate selection process as the democrats makes your group the same as them. There is no difference.

Donald Trump is as establishment as anyone could possibly be. He has donated to the establishment, courted the establishment, hung with the establishment.  He's an elitist who's curried favor with every grubby politician in the country and championed many of them.

Donald Trump has never done a damned thing for the "little guy" except employ them at minimum wage and replace them with H1-B visa workers.

So cut the crap about Trump being "non-establishment."

[Mesaclone]

I am not helping Hillary by refusing to support another person that I honestly believe to be morally unfit for high office, and whose demonstrated character I believe would lead to disaster for the nation

I choose to help neither. You are free to make your decision, just as the Republican delegates in Cleveland are free, by the grace of God to make their own choices.

You are free to do whatever you want....just quit pretending your choice doesn't help Hillary become president. The only alternative to a Hillary presidency is Mr Trump....not voting for him IS helping her. That's not a moral assessment, it's just basic mathematics.

If a hungry lion and a hungry coyote are charging you, and you only have time to shoot one of them before they bite you....it's not a "moral" choice to shoot the lion. It's just smart. Likewise, when faced by any dichotomous choice, it is not immoral to choose the lesser evil...only a moral narcissist would do otherwise because choosing neither simply allows the greater evil to take effect...and let's be clear, the two evils in this election are not remotely equivalent.

[Jazzhead]

@skeeter .. Right now we have a non-establishment person opposing an establishment person. .

That's inside baseball nonsense.   That's not how voters think.   They don't play your insiders vs. outsiders games.  Voters have bigger problems than that.   Voters know Trump's an erratic brick short of a load.  Some dismiss him as bigot, others fear he's dangerous.   

He's not going to win the election.   He's just too compromised.   It's a doggone shame because we all know what that's gonna mean. 

  Last chance to yank back the wheel, folks.     

[Cripplecreek]

He's not going to win the election.   He's just too compromised.   It's a doggone shame because we all know what that's gonna mean. 

  Last chance to yank back the wheel, folks.   

I won't sell my soul for a man who can win, I'm certainly not selling my soul for a man sure to lose.

[mystery-ak]

You are free to do whatever you want....just quit pretending your choice doesn't help Hillary become president.

If a hungry lion and a hungry coyote are charging you, and you only have time to shoot one of them before they bite you....it's not a "moral" choice to shoot the lion. It's just smart. Likewise, when faced by any dichotomous choice, it is not immoral to choose the lesser evil...only a moral narcissist would do otherwise because choosing neither simply allows the greater evil to take effect...and let's be clear, the two evils in this election are not remotely equivalent.

I asked you to stop....do it!

[Mesaclone]

I asked you to stop....do it!

Stop what?

[sinkspur]

You are free to do whatever you want....just quit pretending your choice doesn't help Hillary become president.

If a hungry lion and a hungry coyote are charging you, and you only have time to shoot one of them before they bite you....it's not a "moral" choice to shoot the lion. It's just smart. Likewise, when faced by any dichotomous choice, it is not immoral to choose the lesser evil...only a moral narcissist would do otherwise because choosing neither simply allows the greater evil to take effect...and let's be clear, the two evils in this election are not remotely equivalent.

Ah, but some of us believe that they ARE equivalent, and that Trump may be worse because he has no principles whatsoever. 

That Hillary is in a position to win the White House is not my problem.  You foisted this orangutan on us and you are now advocating that drinking sewer water is better than drinking nuclear waste. 

I'm just not so thirsty that I will drink either.

[mystery-ak]

Stop what?

Oh brother...I have asked you several times to stop accusing members here that if they don't vote Trump they are voting for Hillary...you post this on damn near every thread....stop it!

[EasyAce]

None of the above.

If your state has that voting option, use it.

Then, you can't be accused plausibly of helping either enemy. Not unless your
accuser wants to stand exposed as a carping dolt.

For months we've been hearing the house is infested. So what do the primary
voters do? Barring any miracle at the Republican convention, they leave us
a choice between exterminators who may differ in their approaches but who
have one thing in common. They couldn't care less that you're not supposed
to clean out the infestation by blowing the house to smithereens.

They also have one other thing in common: Neither of them has ever once
shown any inclination away from statism, from the precept that the State
is the alpha and omega of life and that it's merely a question of which one
is qualified better to continue or abet the State's continuing metastasis. It
boggles the mind that a country founded by such as a Washington, a
Jefferson, a Madison, a Henry, and an Adams, has devolved so far as to
offer (again, barring the aforesaid miracle) a choice between a criminal
who knows but distorts and abuses the Constitution and a crank vulgarian
whose every known utterance indicates he wouldn't know the Constitution
from Carnal Knowledge.

Asking us to vote for either one of them is the moral equivalent of telling
a cancer patient that the cure is a pack of cigarettes, the choices are
filtered or non-filtered, and demurral is not an option.

[Sanguine]

Ah, but some of us believe that they ARE equivalent, and that Trump may be worse because he has no principles whatsoever. 

That Hillary is in a position to win the White House is not my problem.  You foisted this orangutan on us and you are now advocating that drinking sewer water is better than drinking nuclear waste. 

I'm just not so thirsty that I will drink either.

I still disagree with that to a point; rephrasing what you said DT is amoral, HRC is immoral.  One will actively seek to harm us, the other will only do so collaterally.  Neither are an appropriate choice for POTUS, but one is far worse than the other.

[sinkspur]

I still disagree with that to a point; rephrasing what you said DT is amoral, HRC is immoral.  One will actively seek to harm us, the other will only do so collaterally.  Neither are an appropriate choice for POTUS, but one is far worse than the other.

Well, see, I'm just not so sure.  I happen to think Hillary will be better than Obama; that Obama has been the nadir of liberal Democrats.

I'd take a Bill Clinton in his prime right now over Donald Trump.  He was  a pragmatic politician and knew how to work with everybody. 

[Mesaclone]

Oh brother...I have asked you several times to stop accusing members here that if they don't vote Trump they are voting for Hillary...you post this on damn near every thread....stop it!

So it's OK to argue that voting 3rd party does not help Hillary, but it's forbidden to argue that it does? Ok, will comply. I did not know that only the "pro" argument was allowed. Thanks for the clarification.

[Sanguine]

So it's OK to argue that voting 3rd party does not help Hillary, but it's forbidden to argue that it does? Ok, will comply. I did not know that only the "pro" argument was allowed. Thanks for the clarification.

You've stated it roughly 497.6 times already.  We got it.  You really don't need to say it again.  ...and again...and again....

[mystery-ak]

So it's OK to argue that voting 3rd party does not help Hillary, but it's forbidden to argue that it does? Ok, will comply. I did not know that only the "pro" argument was allowed. Thanks for the clarification.

I see reinforcements are here..did you get your ping?

I don't care what you argue...try a new tactic it's been posted on damn near every thread.

Last I heard citizens of the USA were still allowed to vote/not vote for whoever they want and they don't need to hear constantly the consequences of their vote one way or the other...they get it!

[Fantom]

I see reinforcements are here..did you get your ping?

I don't care what you argue...try a new tactic it's been posted on damn near every thread.

Last I heard citizens of the USA were still allowed to vote/not vote for whoever they want and they don't need to hear constantly the consequences of their vote one way or the other...they get it!

As an almost disinterested party Nancy, I do like it here.... you put up with too much.

[bilo]

No one here wants to elect Hillary, and no one here is going to vote for Hillary.

But a great number of us, the Sanity Caucus, are not ever going to vote for a loudmouthed, arrogant, ignorant, intolerant, bullying, value-free, morally abject steaming piece of human refuse simply because a bare plurality of primary voters have managed to foist him upon a 155-year old political party whose leaders have clearly lost their way.

Two proudly Statist beasts, their hour come 'round at last, now slouch toward Washington to be born. One is a bombastic and insufferable ass; the other, a vicious and power-hungry liar.

I vote for neither.

 

[GrouchoTex]

Not going to happen even if your tiny percent of crazy delegates want to elect Hillary.

I've been listening to this for quite a while now and I feel compelled to make a few observations:

1) I have yet to hear anyone on this forum want to go out and vote for Hillary. I have not yet found that individual. Isn't this a GOP/Conservative forum?

2) Talking among like-minded, freedom loving individuals will not persuade these people to all of a sudden, become liberal, and think Hillary should be our President.

3) We have a duty as a republic, and a 1st amendment right, to express our joy or distain over any candidate that may wish to seek the highest office in the land. Not to do so, why, just call King George back and say "We're sorry. Can we come home now?".

4) I could argue that, of all the Republican nominees, those closest to the positions Hillary holds are Kasich, Graham, Pataki, and Trump.

So wouldn't a vote for Trump be closer, in reality, to a vote for Hillary, than not voting for Trump?

[bilo]

Actually, the only one who could stop her now, as things are, is Castle. Trump has already lost. He just doesn't know it yet.

Don't be so sure.

Trump will probably win all the states Romney won and it will come down to the swing states. hillary is such a lousy person and candidate if Trump picks a good VP and has any control over himself he could win.

[Mechanicos]

I've been listening to this for quite a while now and I feel compelled to make a few observations:

1) I have yet to hear anyone on this forum want to go out and vote for Hillary. I have not yet found that individual. Isn't this a GOP/Conservative forum?

2) Talking among like-minded, freedom loving individuals will not persuade these people to all of a sudden, become liberal, and think Hillary should be our President.

3) We have a duty as a republic, and a 1st amendment right, to express our joy or distain over any candidate that may wish to seek the highest office in the land. Not to do so, why, just call King George back and say "We're sorry. Can we come home now?".

4) I could arue that, of all the Republican nominees, those closest to the positions Hillary holds are Kasich, Graham, Pataki, and Trump.

So wouldn't a vote for Trump be closer, in reality, to a vote for Hillary, than not voting for Trump?

Its called logic, common sense and reason. Nobody else other then Trump has a chance of beating Hilary. All the talk saying he cannot win, hes a stalking horse etc., is from people who have yet to get one prediction right on anything this election season. So the effort to duplicate what the democrats did with their selection process of rigging the delegates really pisses off millions of conservatives and will result in millions of good people staying home in Nov. The reason will be because such actions shows there is no difference between the parties. Neither will represent the voters.

[roamer_1]

Don't be so sure.

Trump will probably win all the states Romney won and it will come down to the swing states. hillary is such a lousy person and candidate if Trump picks a good VP and has any control over himself he could win.

Yeah... There's your first problem right there...
And no, he can't win. Christians won't be showing up in any force - And without the Christians, he's done.

[Mechanicos]

Yeah... There's your first problem right there...
And no, he can't win. Christians won't be showing up in any force - And without the Christians, he's done.

You do not speak for Christians. Trump won the Evangelical vote in the Primary. So you do not know what you are talking about or have a selective memory.

[roamer_1]

You do not speak for Christians. Trump won the Evangelical vote in the Primary. So you do not know what you are talking about or have a selective memory.

Watch and see.

[Mechanicos]

Watch and see.

We have watched, you have a 100 percent failure record of predictions. Not looking good going forward.

[GrouchoTex]

Its called logic, common sense and reason. Nobody else other then Trump has a chance of beating Hilary. All the talk saying he cannot win, hes a stalking horse etc., is from people who have yet to get one prediction right on anything this election season. So the effort to duplicate what the democrats did with their selection process of rigging the delegates really pisses off millions of conservatives and will result in millions of good people staying home in Nov. The reason will be because such actions shows there is no difference between the parties. Neither will represent the voters.

I don't believe that you answered my points, but I do understand your comments.
I still think Trump leaves Cleveland as the nominee.
Bloodied and Humbled, perhaps.
I'll keep an open mind, but between now and November, if the same gaffes are their, I'll have to conclude that is what it is, and may just have to walk away from it all.
It would be the first time since Reagan. I will try and stay optimistic, but I admit freely, I am skeptical.

[HonestJohn]

I still disagree with that to a point; rephrasing what you said DT is amoral, HRC is immoral.  One will actively seek to harm us, the other will only do so collaterally.  Neither are an appropriate choice for POTUS, but one is far worse than the other.

Immoral is still a form of morality (that you oppose).  Amoral is a total absence of morality of any sort.

Examples:

Immoral

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYJONPqBvlY

There are rules, however unpleasant, that one can live by and succeed.

---

Amoral

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mJ0HSLMba0

There are no set rules that you can live by.  You can't say to yourself... if I follow this rules, I will be safe.

---

Trump *IS* amoral... and that is what makes him so terrifying.