Author Topic: Odyssey of a NeverTrumper  (Read 86674 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline don-o

  • Worldview Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,280
  • FR Class of '98
Odyssey of a NeverTrumper
« on: August 03, 2016, 11:30:47 am »
Odyssey of a NeverTrumper

I was all in for Ted Cruz. When he failed to win a single county in South Carolina,
in hindsight, red flags should have been  raised high and warning alarms sounded loudly. Super Tuesday should have increased the foreboding, as Cruz won Texas only.

   I'm not sure of the exact timing, but, as Glenn Beck became a prime surrogate, my feelings of ultimate failure increased exponentially. Wisconsin was a temporary shot in the arm and I thought, “Well, in this crazy environment, maybe there's a new paradigm still forming that Ted will figure out.” Of course, that was not to be, as his last ditch effort in Indiana was unsuccessful.

   On one level, I understood why things were proceeding as they were. There is no shortage of analysis and commentary for all that. Regardless, the defeat of my Conservative champion left me with a welter of emotion. Probably the dominant one was disgust for the buffoon who had vanquished my champion, followed by a certainty that he would lose in a landslide; so, “to hell with the whole kit and caboodle.”

   But, “Fine,” I tried to rationalize the situation.., “The primaries are always nasty affairs. Surely there will be a Trump 2.0, who will mend fences, focus his message and basically grow up.” To this day, August 3 , 2016, I see no evidence of that  happening.

   But, as more time has passed,  my thoughts then began to turn to all the fathers' sons, and even more sadly, daughters, whom the next CinC will potentially send to war. Then came the infamous display of July 5 by FBI Director James Comey, which basically put the FedGov stamp of approval on identified criminality.

   It happens that my odyssey has coincided  with my reading of Richard Weaver's “Ideas Have Consequences.” Early in the introduction he writes of “the appalling problem, when one gets to actual cases, of getting men to distinguish between better and worse”

   Eureka! There's a concept I had somehow excluded from my thinking, although in my non-political life, I distinguish all the time. Maybe eating a piece of pie is not all that good for me, but eating one slice is better than eating the whole pie. So, how to relate that to politics?

   Making a political choice based on better or worse does not sully my soul, provided that I have a proper understanding what politics actually is, and that my expectations for it are clear. I must reject the messianic pretensions that so easily attach to ideology, regardless of its substance, be it Liberal or Conservative.

From: Conservatism and Ideological Politics
http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2013/10/conservatism-ideological-politics.html

“The problem of ideological politics is typified by certain factions of the Tea Party who, although espousing principles congenial to most conservatives, highlight the dangers inherent in excess each time their self-appointed leaders claim the exclusive right to set the “conservative agenda” and excoriate those who refuse to adopt their policies in whole. “Be my brother or I’ll kill you” was the Jacobin creed, yet the contemporary heirs of Edmund Burke dangle perilously close to adopting this as their motto each time they endeavor to attain ideological uniformity. Such an embrace would amount to a total abdication of the very principles conservatives seek to exonerate. “
   
   Therefore, if I am to participate in political life, I must first be clear and realistic on the actual choice I am making, as it has boiled down.

   Do I like my options? Not much.

   Shall I stand firmly on the belief that the lesser of two evils, being an evil, forbids me from exercising a prudential judgment based on better and worse?  I think not. I must find another way.

   I start with the understanding that this world is a fallen place and that men are fallen creatures. There  is no political system that will restore the world and men to the pre-fall state. However, there are things that I can do, both in my public and my private life, that will better or worsen myself, and by extension the sphere in which I live and act. With this as a basis, I then understand more clearly, the validity of “The perfect is the enemy of the good.”

   I need to be reminded that there is a distinction between moral judgment (good and evil) and prudential judgment (applies to tenable options that are not intrinsically evil.) With that distinction established, my odyssey can continue with a different way to think than before.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2019, 01:57:25 pm by don-o »

Offline HoustonSam

  • "That'll be the day......"
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,982
  • Gender: Male
  • old times there are not forgotten
Re: Odyssey of a NeverTrumper
« Reply #1 on: August 03, 2016, 11:48:51 am »
I hope you will write more on this @don-o.  Haven't had time to keep up with the Weaver threads in the last couple of weeks but I hope to get back to them soon.
James 1:20

Offline don-o

  • Worldview Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,280
  • FR Class of '98
Re: Odyssey of a NeverTrumper
« Reply #2 on: August 03, 2016, 11:56:00 am »
I hope you will write more on this @don-o.  Haven't had time to keep up with the Weaver threads in the last couple of weeks but I hope to get back to them soon.

No worries, Sam. They will be there. Loooking forward to Chapter 5.

Offline goodwithagun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,543
  • Gender: Female
Re: Odyssey of a NeverTrumper
« Reply #3 on: August 03, 2016, 01:51:51 pm »
Great post.
I stand with Roosgirl.

Offline Mrs Don-o

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33
Re: Odyssey of a NeverTrumper
« Reply #4 on: August 03, 2016, 02:45:26 pm »
I hope you will write more on this @don-o.  Haven't had time to keep up with the Weaver threads in the last couple of weeks but I hope to get back to them soon.
@don-o  @goodwithagun   @roamer_1 @lonestar dream

Guys and gals (there are two sexes.  Exactly, numerically two)--

I just want to chime in here, and I assure you I am not just don-o #2, although, scarily, it often seems that way!  Vulcan mind-meld, yikes----

This is what I'm running into all the time: the challenge of decisively distinguishing between moral decisions (good/evil) and prudential judgments (meh Oh-Kayyyy/ semi-OK / OK / a little more effectively OK / yeah that'll work OK, etc.)

[Aside: Just to throw a curve ball into the thing, a little while ago I read Graham Greene's sociopath/ spiritual novel "Brighton Rock," and he would divide the first category into two, make a distinction between moral  decisions (right/wrong) and spiritual realities (good/evil), the former being natural and rule-based, the latter being open to the transcendent dimensions of everything we are and do --- but that takes us further afield than I intend to go in this post. Read "Brighton Rock" and be well and truly distressed.)

Anyhow, I think the rules are very few, but very strict.  Morally, there are just a handful of things you must never choose --- intrinsic evils --- but the catch is, you must never choose them, as ends or as means, no matter what, even if it cost you your life, even if it entailed the destruction of the world: no to murder (the fully intentional killing of a known innocent human being), no to sexual violation, no to apostasy.

Whether as a means or as an end.

No, nay, never, and that's it.

These are what some "Philosophers of Action" would call "exceptionless norms".

And of course, no intentional participating in these wrongs in any way:  as sponsor, as accessory, as enabler, as inciter, as contributor, as approver or applauder, as slip-slidin' accomplice, as formal cooperator, etc.

Most of the decisions we make are not of that sort.  Most of them are prudential, i.e things which are neither morally obligatory nor morally prohibited, but simply morally neutral or allowable, scanning a range of things are up to your shades-of-gray judgment as to what looks like the best bet (or the least-bad bet) under the circumstances.

I would put political activity in general, and electoral advocacy in particular, in this category.  Nobody is either morally obliged nor morally prohibited from voting.  Nobody is morally obliged, or morally prohibited, from voting for a particular candidate.

I will add that if you vote for a deeply screwed-up candidate (which we all will, if we vote) we take on part-ownership of that person's official actions, and thus we acquire a solemn, long-term responsibility to kick our chosen politico's butt on a regular basis and seriously force him/her to do the right thing.  If you shrug off this long-term responsibility, you then become ever-more responsible for this politico's wrongdoing, inasmuch as he/she was "YOUR" candidate and you culpably failed to 
scream bloody murder to avert "YOUR" candidate's bad actions.

Class, discuss.
 


Offline guitar4jesus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,217
  • Gender: Male
  • Yup...
Re: Odyssey of a NeverTrumper
« Reply #5 on: August 03, 2016, 02:53:58 pm »
Sometimes there's just no lesser of two evils.

Offline skeeter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26,717
  • Gender: Male
Re: Odyssey of a NeverTrumper
« Reply #6 on: August 03, 2016, 02:59:43 pm »
@don-o  @goodwithagun   @roamer_1 @lonestar dream

Guys and gals (there are two sexes.  Exactly, numerically two)--

I just want to chime in here, and I assure you I am not just don-o #2, although, scarily, it often seems that way!  Vulcan mind-meld, yikes----

This is what I'm running into all the time: the challenge of decisively distinguishing between moral decisions (good/evil) and prudential judgments (meh Oh-Kayyyy/ semi-OK / OK / a little more effectively OK / yeah that'll work OK, etc.)

[Aside: Just to throw a curve ball into the thing, a little while ago I read Graham Greene's sociopath/ spiritual novel "Brighton Rock," and he would divide the first category into two, make a distinction between moral  decisions (right/wrong) and spiritual realities (good/evil), the former being natural and rule-based, the latter being open to the transcendent dimensions of everything we are and do --- but that takes us further afield than I intend to go in this post. Read "Brighton Rock" and be well and truly distressed.)

Anyhow, I think the rules are very few, but very strict.  Morally, there are just a handful of things you must never choose --- intrinsic evils --- but the catch is, you must never choose them, as ends or as means, no matter what, even if it cost you your life, even if it entailed the destruction of the world: no to murder (the fully intentional killing of a known innocent human being), no to sexual violation, no to apostasy.

Whether as a means or as an end.

No, nay, never, and that's it.

These are what some "Philosophers of Action" would call "exceptionless norms".

And of course, no intentional participating in these wrongs in any way:  as sponsor, as accessory, as enabler, as inciter, as contributor, as approver or applauder, as slip-slidin' accomplice, as formal cooperator, etc.

Most of the decisions we make are not of that sort.  Most of them are prudential, i.e things which are neither morally obligatory nor morally prohibited, but simply morally neutral or allowable, scanning a range of things are up to your shades-of-gray judgment as to what looks like the best bet (or the least-bad bet) under the circumstances.

I would put political activity in general, and electoral advocacy in particular, in this category.  Nobody is either morally obliged nor morally prohibited from voting.  Nobody is morally obliged, or morally prohibited, from voting for a particular candidate.

I will add that if you vote for a deeply screwed-up candidate (which we all will, if we vote) we take on part-ownership of that person's official actions, and thus we acquire a solemn, long-term responsibility to kick our chosen politico's butt on a regular basis and seriously force him/her to do the right thing.  If you shrug off this long-term responsibility, you then become ever-more responsible for this politico's wrongdoing, inasmuch as he/she was "YOUR" candidate and you culpably failed to 
scream bloody murder to avert "YOUR" candidate's bad actions.

Class, discuss.
 

Unfortunately I have no confidence in any ability to kick anyone's butt in the current political environment - politicians and bureaucrats especially at the federal level, once elected are less accountable to the average person than they've ever been.

Personally this election is a brand new experience. I still haven't decided on a course that acknowledges reality yet allows me to live with my conscience.

Offline don-o

  • Worldview Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,280
  • FR Class of '98
Re: Odyssey of a NeverTrumper
« Reply #7 on: August 03, 2016, 03:37:27 pm »
Sometimes there's just no lesser of two evils.

Are you using  moral or prudential judgment to make that conclusion?


Offline Ghost Bear

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,409
  • Gender: Male
  • Not an actual picture of me
Re: Odyssey of a NeverTrumper
« Reply #8 on: August 03, 2016, 03:50:11 pm »
The problem is that it's becoming more and more apparent that this year the choice between the "big two" candidates is not Evil vs. Good, or even Evil vs. Lesser Evil, but is Evil vs. Crazy.  Looking at it that way, what will your choice be?

My choice is to view this election (and all elections) in this way:

We live in a representative republic. As citizens, it is not our job to vote for the better qualified candidate, or the candidate with the better chance of winning, or even the less evil candidate. Our job as citizens is to vote for the candidate that we think will best represent us and our views. That's all.

Neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump represents me, or my views. Neither does Gary Johnson, or Jill Stein. The Presidential candidate in this year's race that does represent me and my views (to my mind, at least) is Darrell Castle. Therefore, that is whom I will be casting my vote for.

No moral quandary or agonized decision to make. Simply investigate the candidates and their views, and vote for the one that has the most in common with your own views. Easy.  :shrug:

Edited just to add a left-out word.
« Last Edit: August 03, 2016, 03:58:31 pm by Ghost Bear »
Let it burn.

Online roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 43,291
Re: Odyssey of a NeverTrumper
« Reply #9 on: August 03, 2016, 04:01:27 pm »

Class, discuss.
 

@Mrs Don-o  @LonestarDream  @don-o  @goodwithagun   

Hello Mrs. Don-o,

Thank you for pinging me to this fine course in philosophical mathematics...
For me, it is fairly simple:

Serial long-term immoral behavior, serial abuse of obligations (both in marriage and in business contracts),  Ever-changing promises with a finger in the wind: All of these point unerringly to a low character, and a person of low character cannot be trusted. End of story. The very first value necessary in a representative of any stripe must be trustworthiness.

The only way we will begin to obtain reliable, responsible statesmen is to insist upon them.
The only way to advance our Conservative principles comes by way of those statesmen.
Any other thought process ends in mere politicians.

Hence, my endorsement of Darrell Castle (if I can indeed legally vote for him), or I will abstain.


Offline guitar4jesus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,217
  • Gender: Male
  • Yup...
Re: Odyssey of a NeverTrumper
« Reply #10 on: August 03, 2016, 04:03:35 pm »
Are you using  moral or prudential judgment to make that conclusion?

In regard to the Trump fiasco, both.

From all I have seen so far, I can't in good conscience support Trump and support of Clinton is out of the question.  In fact I'd say it leans more to a prudential judgement than a moral one.

I don't think our elections really fall into the moral judgement category for the most part.  There are areas where they do but in this particular election the "opponents" both seem to take the same moral positions or immoral as the case may be.

But heck, I'm no philosopher...

Just praying for our nation.

Offline don-o

  • Worldview Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,280
  • FR Class of '98
Re: Odyssey of a NeverTrumper
« Reply #11 on: August 03, 2016, 04:06:37 pm »
No moral quandary or agonized decision to make. Simply investigate the candidates and their views, and vote the one that has the most in common with your own views. Easy.  :shrug:

Very well. But, the next POTUS will be one of two people. That is inevitable. Voting based on ones views, though, DOES impact which of those two wins. Yours is one less vote that either needs to gain.

That is simple math.

Offline INVAR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,961
  • Gender: Male
  • Dread To Tread
    • Sword At The Ready
Re: Odyssey of a NeverTrumper
« Reply #12 on: August 03, 2016, 04:11:38 pm »
It really is as if people willfully choose to ignore where this former Republic has arrived.

If we're talking a legitimate choice that better represents what most of us recognize as Conservatism, then Castle, or Johnson or Stein would be those choices to choose from.  But those choices are irrelevant - as is your vote.  The fact is that in a post-Constitutional coup of corruption we now exist under - our votes are less than worthless, notwithstanding the fact that the citizenry is being replaced and a majority of the population WANT Statism/Communism.

So even if our votes actually mattered, those of us who identify as Conservative are in a shrinking minority.  A morally reprobate population will choose the more reprehensible person to represent the zeitgeist that a population is motivated.

"Choice" is being removed from this culture and society unless you want to kill your baby and/or pretend you are another sex so you can flaunt your perversion as a preferred normalcy. 

Trump or The Mao Pantsuit are not really a 'choice' because the end result is exactly the same: death.
Fart for freedom, fart for liberty and fart proudly.  - Benjamin Franklin

...Obsta principiis—Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people. When the people give way, their deceivers, betrayers and destroyers press upon them so fast that there is no resisting afterwards. The nature of the encroachment upon [the] American constitution is such, as to grow every day more and more encroaching. Like a cancer, it eats faster and faster every hour." - John Adams, February 6, 1775

Offline LonestarDream

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,061
Re: Odyssey of a NeverTrumper
« Reply #13 on: August 03, 2016, 04:20:44 pm »
Epic piece Don, just Epic.  After the conventions and given the choices available, Trump is the more prudential choice.

Odyssey of a NeverTrumper
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,213071.0.html

   I was all in for Ted Cruz. When he failed to win a single county in South Carolina,
in hindsight, red flags should have been  raised high and warning alarms sounded loudly. Super Tuesday should have increased the foreboding, as Cruz won Texas only.

   I'm not sure of the exact timing, but, as Glenn Beck became a prime surrogate, my feelings of ultimate failure increased exponentially. Wisconsin was a temporary shot in the arm and I thought, “Well, in this crazy environment, maybe there's a new paradigm still forming that Ted will figure out.” Of course, that was not to be, as his last ditch effort in Indiana was unsuccessful.

   On one level, I understood why things were proceeding as they were. There is no shortage of analysis and commentary for all that. Regardless, the defeat of my Conservative champion left me with a welter of emotion. Probably the dominant one was disgust for the buffoon who had vanquished my champion, followed by a certainty that he would lose in a landslide; so, “to hell with the whole kit and caboodle.”

   But, “Fine,” I tried to rationalize the situation.., “The primaries are always nasty affairs. Surely there will be a Trump 2.0, who will mend fences, focus his message and basically grow up.” To this day, August 3 , 2016, I see no evidence of that  happening.

   But, as more time has passed,  my thoughts ten began to turn to all the fathers' sons, and even more sadly, daughters, whom the next CinC will potentially send to war. Then came the infamous display of July 5 by FBI Director James Comey, which basically put the FedGov stamp of approval on identified criminality.

   It happens that my odyssey has coincided  with my reading of Richard Weaver's “Ideas Have Consequences.” Early in the introduction he writes of “the appalling problem, when one gets to actual cases, of getting men to distinguish between better and worse”

   Eureka! There's a concept I had somehow excluded from my thinking, although in my non-political life, I distinguish all the time. Maybe eating a piece of pie is not all that good for me, but eating one slice is better than eating the whole pie. So, how to relate that to politics?

   Making a political choice based on better or worse does not sully my soul, provided that I have a proper understanding what politics actually is, and that my expectations for it are clear. I must reject the messianic pretensions that so easily attach to ideology, regardless of its substance, be it Liberal or Conservative.

From: Conservatism and Ideological Politics

http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2013/10/conservatism-ideological-politics.html   
   Therefore, if I am to participate in political life, I must first be clear and realistic on the actual choice I am making, as it has boiled down.

   Do I like my options? Not much.

   Shall I stand firmly on the belief that the lesser of two evils, being an evil, forbids me from exercising a prudential judgment based on better and worse?  I think not. I must find another way.

   I start with the understanding that this world is a fallen place and that men are fallen creatures. There  is no political system that will restore the world and men to the pre-fall state. However, there are things that I can do, both in my public and my private life, that will better or worsen myself, and by extension the sphere in which I live and act. With this as a basis, I then understand more clearly, the validity of “The perfect is the enemy of the good.”

   I need to be reminded that there is a distinction between moral judgment (good and evil) and prudential judgment (applies to tenable options that are not intrinsically evil.) With that distinction established, my odyssey can continue with a different way to think than before.
(?) Trump Realist    (*) Trump believer   (?) Never Trump,   Which are you ?

Offline don-o

  • Worldview Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,280
  • FR Class of '98
Re: Odyssey of a NeverTrumper
« Reply #14 on: August 03, 2016, 04:23:07 pm »

But heck, I'm no philosopher...

Just praying for our nation.

Nor am I, but philosophy need not be considered arcane nor incomprehensible.

We were allowed to open the Worldview formation / Anthropology category for exactly this purpose.

 I have had to do a good deal of thinking and sorting to come to my current position and have had actual verbal conversations with people. One of them is in the next room and one has a cell phone. That was important for me to do.



 

Offline LonestarDream

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,061
Re: Odyssey of a NeverTrumper
« Reply #15 on: August 03, 2016, 04:25:00 pm »
Supporting the convention of states.  Voting against Ryan soon.

Supporting local conservatives and causes- up and down the ticket.

Looks like we all let Huelskamp down this past weekend...

Unfortunately I have no confidence in any ability to kick anyone's butt in the current political environment - politicians and bureaucrats especially at the federal level, once elected are less accountable to the average person than they've ever been.

Personally this election is a brand new experience. I still haven't decided on a course that acknowledges reality yet allows me to live with my conscience.
(?) Trump Realist    (*) Trump believer   (?) Never Trump,   Which are you ?

Offline Ghost Bear

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,409
  • Gender: Male
  • Not an actual picture of me
Re: Odyssey of a NeverTrumper
« Reply #16 on: August 03, 2016, 04:27:19 pm »
Very well. But, the next POTUS will be one of two people. That is inevitable. Voting based on ones views, though, DOES impact which of those two wins. Yours is one less vote that either needs to gain.

That is simple math.

It is also one more vote for the candidate that best represents my views.

If you're looking for a way to rationalize voting for a person who doesn't represent your views, why?
Let it burn.

Offline LonestarDream

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,061
Re: Odyssey of a NeverTrumper
« Reply #17 on: August 03, 2016, 04:28:59 pm »
It is also one more vote for the candidate that best represents my views.

If you're looking for a way to rationalize voting for a person who doesn't represent your views, why?

8 years of Hillary.  She will not be impeached or denied a second term.

Donald will bow out after one term after his 'win'. 
« Last Edit: August 03, 2016, 04:33:11 pm by LonestarDream »
(?) Trump Realist    (*) Trump believer   (?) Never Trump,   Which are you ?

Offline Ghost Bear

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,409
  • Gender: Male
  • Not an actual picture of me
Re: Odyssey of a NeverTrumper
« Reply #18 on: August 03, 2016, 04:34:19 pm »
8 years of Hillary.  She will not be impeached or denied a second term.

I only have the power of 1 vote. No Presidential campaign in history has been decided by 1 vote. Therefore, I don't have the power to choose the winner in this election, or any other.

And again, my job isn't to pick the winner anyway.  "Representative Republic", remember?
Let it burn.

Offline don-o

  • Worldview Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,280
  • FR Class of '98
Re: Odyssey of a NeverTrumper
« Reply #19 on: August 03, 2016, 04:38:58 pm »
It is also one more vote for the candidate that best represents my views.

If you're looking for a way to rationalize voting for a person who doesn't represent your views, why?

Because my prudence brings better / worst into play. And, no, that is not moral relativism. That is the nature of the sorting of judgments we are called on to make.

Offline Ghost Bear

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,409
  • Gender: Male
  • Not an actual picture of me
Re: Odyssey of a NeverTrumper
« Reply #20 on: August 03, 2016, 04:43:38 pm »
Because my prudence brings better / worst into play. And, no, that is not moral relativism. That is the nature of the sorting of judgments we are called on to make.

So you think your 1 vote will tip the scales for one Presidential candidate or another? 

Well, that would be a first.
Let it burn.

Offline Meshuge Mikey

  • Master of Visual Propaganda
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 949
  • Gender: Male
Re: Odyssey of a NeverTrumper
« Reply #21 on: August 03, 2016, 04:47:52 pm »
were the OPEN PRIMARIES simply stupid or were they evil?  or is there a distinction??
Have Indentified as a Male since birth!

Offline sitetest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 680
  • #NeverEVERtrump. #Neverhitlery
Re: Odyssey of a NeverTrumper
« Reply #22 on: August 03, 2016, 04:49:23 pm »
This doesn't take into account the element of time, specifically as it flows from our actions as individuals or as a group.

Voting for either hitlery or stumpy is to reward bad behavior, and thus encourage more of it into the future.  If stumpy wins, every jerk with a spare nickel will ape the orangutan and run as an "outsider," lying, cheating, stealing, and smearing one's way to office, using the same tropes and idiocy as the orangutan.  I've already seen this by several candidates running for the House and Senate.  Ironically (or not so ironically), most of the are democrats.  The stumpy model fits well for them.

If hitlery wins, politicians will take as their model the iron stalinism of the new president.  And we will see them lining up the moneyed interests to power them into office, cutting deals with the party insiders to gain power, creating foundations ostensibly for charity that really serve as money engines, all the while as they preach freebies to the lumpenproletariat.

In either case, bad behavior will be rewarded by giving nearly all the votes to either the evil one or the evil & crazy one.

The alternative is to support a third party.  If enough folks do so, the turkeys who run our "major" parties might realize that they are losing their grip on the American electorate,  and try something different.  At this point, almost anything different from these twin evils would likely be an improvement.  Even Johnson.

So, my ballot will be cast with an eye toward the future.  I am resigned that this election will result in an evil outcome.  It is difficult for me to identify which is the worse evil.  Right now, I'm leaning toward stumpy as the worse evil.  But it doesn't matter.  Instead of participating in the current evil, I will cast my vote in a way to open the glimmer of a possibility for change.

Otherwise, if one only considers this election as a binary choice, the moral option is to refuse to participate in either of these works of satan, and stay home.
 
Former Republican.

Online roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 43,291
Re: Odyssey of a NeverTrumper
« Reply #23 on: August 03, 2016, 04:50:05 pm »
Because my prudence brings better / worst into play. And, no, that is not moral relativism. That is the nature of the sorting of judgments we are called on to make.

I think that's not right - Your positive endorsement, which is the only thing a vote can be, should endorse that which you, personally, believe in... To do otherwise is to risk a mandate in the aggregate, given to that which you abhor.

Imagine that: If all Conservatives did as you propose - The result is Trump, and Clinton blocked (which seems to be your main objective), but Trump with a mandate of enormous size.

And with that mandate, an embracing of the new 'conservatism' that Trump and his supporters espouse.
Are you sure you have calculated the unintended consequences?

Offline Idaho_Cowboy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,924
  • Gender: Male
  • Ride for the Brand - Joshua 24:15
Re: Odyssey of a NeverTrumper
« Reply #24 on: August 03, 2016, 04:50:30 pm »
Because my prudence brings better / worst into play. And, no, that is not moral relativism. That is the nature of the sorting of judgments we are called on to make.
I guess my question is this: Using Weavers ideas is there a line beyond which we do not cross a point beyond a lesser evil we still don't support. In politics is there such a thing as beyond the pale and how do we determine where that is?

“The way I see it, every time a man gets up in the morning he starts his life over. Sure, the bills are there to pay, and the job is there to do, but you don't have to stay in a pattern. You can always start over, saddle a fresh horse and take another trail.” ― Louis L'Amour