Odyssey of a NeverTrumper

[r9etb]

At this point I'm looking at this presidential election as a chance to cast a protest vote. Its not ideal but its the hand I was dealt.

That's where I am, too.  Much to my very great surprise.

[don-o]

All I'm doing is voting for the candidate that best represents my beliefs

I get every bit of that. There is only one viable option that represents my deeply held belief that HRC must not be CINC. It is that simple and very personal with a son who will be at the very tip of the spear in the next war.

[Smokin Joe]

I get every bit of that. There is only one viable option that represents my deeply held belief that HRC must not be CINC. It is that simple and very personal with a son who will be at the very tip of the spear in the next war.

I am sure you have grappled long and hard with that issue. Consider, that while hillary is no friend of the military, it was Obama who had to issue the cross border authority to let relief/rescue assets into Benghazi. It is my understanding that the two gentlemen who gave their lives so others could escape were not active duty SEALs, but were hired for security at the embassy. (Correct me if I am wrong, please). 

It is my opinion (and YMMV, but please consider) that Benghazi was a planned snatch-and-grab, the fruits of which would have been a hostage ambassador at an annex removed from the embassy, who would have been exchanged for the Terrorist lieutenants who were later released. By ignoring orders to stand down, relocating to the annex, and mustering and mounting a defense, the impression given was that the deal was not only off, but a set-up. The fighters and the Ambassador were killed in retaliation for that apparent betrayal. The reason no relief was forthcoming is that it would have eliminated any deniability on the part of those traitors in the DOS that this was a fluke, the guys were acting contrary to a stand down, etc., and cemented the idea of betrayal in the minds of the terrorist leadership which there were many other deals on the table with the second they got so much as one crumb of air support, much less troops on the ground.   Yep, any way you cut and slice it, that's betrayal, and treason, but there was likely a 'deal' in the background, maybe levels of deal we know nothing about.
Treason? I'm pretty sure whatever they were cooking up was, and for money.

Now, what I believe you are basing your decision on is the belief (hope, anyway) that Mr. Trump will not get our troops (as a force, not a couple of individuals) in harm's way needlessly or incompetently, out of pique or personal affront, using the Armed Forces of the Untied States of America to assuage his wounded ego.. whether or not the affront is worthy of committing our youth (especially yours) and treasure to retaliation or action. versus whether you believe Hillary would commit our Armed forces to needless or needlessly restricted conflict which would be difficult at best to resolve favorably for the Nation, the military, or even the individual soldier.

You're in a tough spot.  I'm not trying to persuade you, just provide perspective. We know the contempt which Hillary has for our service personnel. We've seen Trump stand behind them, ducking a debate. His motivation may be questioned there, but I don't think he would do anything which might have him appear to be a "loser", or which he could not blame away. The latter concerns me almost as much as the former, because I don't see him taking the responsibility for ever getting anything wrong. I don't think Hillary would necessarily start WWIII, although she might arrange the board. Trump, I am not so sure.

Whatever the outcome, I pray your son stays safe, especially from rash and corrupt decisions made on high.

[don-o]

  I don't think Hillary would necessarily start WWIII, although she might arrange the board. Trump, I am not so sure.

Whatever the outcome, I pray your son stays safe, especially from rash and corrupt decisions made on high.

Thank you for the prayers.

No pieces need to be rearranged. And a noted "gaffe" of Trump's about the use of nukes got me curious to do some looking around and I found this

As U.S. Modernizes Nuclear Weapons, ‘Smaller’ Leaves Some Uneasy

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/12/science/as-us-modernizes-nuclear-weapons-smaller-leaves-some-uneasy.html

Upthread, you laid out a scenario in which a rash and impulsive Trump launches. There's other scenarios to consider, in which our nuclear deterrence needs a hard look. It could be that this is what Trump may have been thinking of when he wondered aloud about use of nukes. (For those who hesitate to read the NYT piece - it's tactical, not strategic nukes.)

It is regrettable pattern, that he came with a one liner rather than a fully thought out framing of the issue.

But, back to Obama's third term...there's this

In recent weeks, the national security Cabinet members known as the Principals Committee held two meetings to review options for executive actions on nuclear policy. Many of the options on the table are controversial, but by design none of them require formal congressional approval. No final decisions have been made, but Obama is expected to weigh in personally soon.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/12/science/as-us-modernizes-nuclear-weapons-smaller-leaves-some-uneasy.html

Whatever it is he's cooking up, anyone really believe HRC will rescind it? Anyone think Trump just might?
 



 

[roamer_1]

I get every bit of that. There is only one viable option that represents my deeply held belief that HRC must not be CINC. It is that simple and very personal with a son who will be at the very tip of the spear in the next war.

I understand that - I really do. But that fear, no matter how valid, is not (IMHO) assuaged in the least by putting the loose cannon that Trump represents in there instead - NEITHER ONE is a good option for your son.

Trump absolutely does *not* represent the sort of measured diplomacy, calm hand on the rudder, or the solemn, oath-kept, born in blood understanding that keeps men free of war, or in the least, protects them if they must endeavor there.

IMHO, the danger is not mitigated in either of them, and in fact, is arguable in both directions (neither with a suitable outcome).

I do not envy your position, nor your son's, considering the options available. And I do pray that the Father would keep us, and especially our servicemen safe.

But by the numbers, Castle is still the better choice - even in this aspect.

[sitetest]

That's just trying to get me to accept "lesser of two evils" in different words.  But I'm rejecting your entire argument; the whole thing, because I don't accept your starting position.

As a matter of logic, you're basically trying to answer the question of which is better: an axe murderer or a knife murderer?

And in your formulation you're explicitly rejecting the possibility of answering, "neither: there's no 'better' because they're both guilty of murder."

I believe that a choice of either Trump or Clinton will be equally disastrous: certainly over the next 4-years, and probably long beyond that.

Even if the election comes down to voters choosing between them, I am not required as a matter of "prudential judgment" to choose either.  And as a matter of moral imperative, I'm required to not choose between them.

Yeah, what you said.  This whole thread is the attempt to shroud the choice to commit evil, wrapped up in a tendencies moral argument serving as a justification.

[XenaLee]

At this point I'm looking at this presidential election as a chance to cast a protest vote. Its not ideal but its the hand I was dealt.

Same here.  I never ever thought that I would be voting 3rd party.  In fact, in 2008 I recall arguing vehemently at TOS against it....and for supporting Palin (despite McCain). 

Things change.  In this case, for the worse.  There really is no viable candidate now.  The establishment RINOs shunned Cruz and eliminated the other candidates, any of which would have been better than what we have now.

I'll be voting 3rd party this year....yet another "first" in the Obamanation.  And I will not be alone re: that.

[don-o]

Yeah, what you said.  This whole thread is the attempt to shroud the choice to commit evil, wrapped up in a tendencies moral argument serving as a justification.

Do you mean


tendentious
adjective ten·den·tious \ten-ˈden(t)-shəs\
Popularity: Top 40% of words
Simple Definition of tendentious

    : strongly favoring a particular point of view in a way that may cause argument : expressing a strong opinion

Can you challenge me on any specific point I make?

[sitetest]

Yes, darned autocorrect.  Sorry about that.

[don-o]

Maybe I have missed it, but I have not seen anyone engage with the last paragraph I wrote in my essay.

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.

In 1973  Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn wrote

"If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?"

Who disagrees with this?

[don-o]

Yes, darned autocorrect.  Sorry about that.

If you want to fix it, I will take out the definition, but leave my question intact from my post..

[sitetest]

If you want to fix it, I will take out the definition, but leave my question intact from my post..

Nah, it's too much work.  Lol.

I just find your enterprise to be analogous to the criticisms of researchers who use data the way a drunk uses a lamppost, not for illumination, but for support.

I find that you have a conclusion that you wish to embrace:  it is moral to vote for trump.  And you're in search of a moral argument to support your conclusion.

I understand your motivating reason:  you have a son in the military, and you fear having hitlery become Commander in Chief.  I get that.  Because of obama, I was rather adamant that I would not permit my sons to join the military.  I'd be going out of my mind if either were in the service with the prospect of either hitlery or the orange a$$hoIe.

I find both unacceptably evil, and I find the orange a$$hoIe to be insane, as well.  hitlery has severe mental deficits which the pressures of office may lead to her suffering physical incapacity, and even death, but, as far as i can tell, although she is evil, craven, politically paranoid, greedy, and power-hungry, I don't belive that she's insane.  The orange a$$hoIe, on the other hand, only has occasional contact with reality.

[roamer_1]

[...] use data the way a drunk uses a lamppost, not for illumination, but for support.

Heh... Sure glad you clarified that statement... That's not where I thought it was going...

[don-o]

Nah, it's too much work.  Lol.

I just find your enterprise to be analogous to the criticisms of researchers who use data the way a drunk uses a lamppost, not for illumination, but for support.

I find that you have a conclusion that you wish to embrace:  it is moral to vote for trump.  And you're in search of a moral argument to support your conclusion.

You can "find" whatever you wish. But, it's clear you are not even engaging my point that it is not a moral argument at all. It is a matter of prudential judgment in which  better / worse are weighed as best as can be thought out.

It's clear that if Clinton is elected, she will never be prosecuted for the crimes that Comey listed on July 5. If Trump is elected, there is a reasonable hope that prosecution might go forward. That is a better outcome. Hillary getting off scott free is a worse outcome.



 

[Smokin Joe]

You can "find" whatever you wish. But, it's clear you are not even engaging my point that it is not a moral argument at all. It is a matter of prudential judgment in which  better / worse are weighed as best as can be thought out.

It's clear that if Clinton is elected, she will never be prosecuted for the crimes that Comey listed on July 5. If Trump is elected, there is a reasonable hope that prosecution might go forward. That is a better outcome. Hillary getting off scott free is a worse outcome.

I am less worried about anything approaching vengeance toward that traitor than I am about the future of this nation going forward. In the future she will be savaged in history, should this nation survive., or she will be written up as a 'great revolutionary hero' by our enemies.
The survival of America is paramount.
Even seeing that witch in orange coveralls or dancing from a gibbet is secondary to that. She WILL face a higher judge.

Which of them is more survivable, and which vice presidential candidate would be more survivable?
Her health can't be good, and the Donald is no spring chicken, and given to what appear (by the rashness of his actions) to be apoplectic episodes of his own. Someone is going to bust a gasket before four years go by, or be medicated into near somnolence.

[sitetest]

You can "find" whatever you wish. But, it's clear you are not even engaging my point that it is not a moral argument at all. It is a matter of prudential judgment in which  better / worse are weighed as best as can be thought out.

It's clear that if Clinton is elected, she will never be prosecuted for the crimes that Comey listed on July 5. If Trump is elected, there is a reasonable hope that prosecution might go forward. That is a better outcome. Hillary getting off scott free is a worse outcome.

Your  "prudential" judgement is really a moral judgement in disguise.  It is a prudential means to get to a particular moral end.

A prudential judgement would look past whether or not a specific individual escaped justice, or whether or not a specific individual got the nomination bring lying, cheating, stealing, and smearing.  The real prudential judgement is which presidency is the United States most likely to survive.  My bet is on hitlery.

[don-o]

What are the numbers? I want to understand how it fits into moral or prudential judgment.

As far as  moral judgment, I examine the acts that I know or suspect that both have done or have credibly alleged to have done and to to judge those acts  as morally good, evil or neutral.

And right off the bat, I am confronted  with a fairly long list for Hillary. For Trump not so much and nowhere near the seriousness of hers.

Does Castle have a list also? Of course he  does as do you and I. But, neither you nor I nor Castle will be taking the oath on Jan 20. One of two people who have both done evil acts will.

The prudential aspect then comes into play. Based on past evil acts, what is a reasonable expectation on which of the two will commit more and more serious evil acts as POTUS?

[roamer_1]

What are the numbers? I want to understand how it fits into moral or prudential judgment.

I only mean that Castle is a Nam vet - He contains that first quintessential principle that DEFCONS prefer - That he's been there, and done that, and knows what he is calling them up for, and knows the nature of their oath, written in blood. By the numbers, on this issue, Castle is far and away preferable as CinC.

As far as  moral judgment, I examine the acts that I know or suspect that both have done or have credibly alleged to have done and to to judge those acts  as morally good, evil or neutral.

And right off the bat, I am confronted  with a fairly long list for Hillary. For Trump not so much and nowhere near the seriousness of hers.

Well, on that account, you are talking to the wrong guy - That Trump owns gambling dens, strip clubs, and escort services has always been enough on it's face for me to tell he is of low character - And that low character, making him untrustworthy, disqualifies him in the very first round. End of story. Comparing his low character to Clinton's low character is a purposeless exercise.

Does Castle have a list also? Of course he  does as do you and I. But, neither you nor I nor Castle will be taking the oath on Jan 20. One of two people who have both done evil acts will.

However astonishingly small Castle's chances may be, your statement is predictive, not proven.

Let go, and let God.

The prudential aspect then comes into play. Based on past evil acts, what is a reasonable expectation on which of the two will commit more and more serious evil acts as POTUS?

Not for me... Voting *FOR* a person of low character is to endorse low character - Maybe even to give it mandate. Prudence has nothing to do with that.

[roamer_1]

The prudential aspect then comes into play. Based on past evil acts, what is a reasonable expectation on which of the two will commit more and more serious evil acts as POTUS?

To wit: At what point is the evidence of moral turpitude enough to absolutely outweigh prudential judgement? Or is it a matter of moral relevance, and there is no point at which moral turpitude is enough? Is morality merely an horizon line?

[don-o]

To wit: At what point is the evidence of moral turpitude enough to absolutely outweigh prudential judgement? Or is it a matter of moral relevance, and there is no point at which moral turpitude is enough? Is morality merely an horizon line?

It's a good question and I do not discount its relevance. I had an uncle who refused to vote for Reagan because he was divorced.

I am still not convinced that my choice on whom to vote for is a moral choice.  I think the act of voting is morally neutral.

Spirituality and Scruples

https://www.growingchristians.org/devotions/spirituality-and-scruples/

I am posting this here for my reference so I remember to give it a careful reading.

Thanks for the replies.




 
 

[don-o]

Welcome TBR. Though we obviously differ at this point, I look forward to your contributions to the discussion.

[Smokin Joe]

Welcome @AllThatJazzZ 

Hope you stick around. Many of us have seen the same potential in Trump.

Even more frightening is the other part of the equation: The right socioeconomic situation.

Without that, another roaring malcontent in the ditches of mainstream history (at most). With that angry and willing populace, wrapped in economic frustration, with ready groups to take their anger out on (someone to blame), and anger at those in their government who have not performed their sworn duties or failed to even attempt to fulfill the promises they made to get into office, things may develop differently around that rallying point, especially if that anger is so severe that the actions of the group and attempts to rationalize them defy their own stated logic, and even are destructive to the long term goals they claimed to desire.
Angry people make mistakes, very angry people make big mistakes.
And they have a leader.

Not all his supporters are so irrational, but never before have I seen so many Republicans so rabidly enthusiastic about a candidate they would have discarded five years ago as being antithetical to their philosophies.

[Mom MD]

I stumbled upon this site today, and the title of the thread caught my eye (although, as I suspected, I was ultimately disappointed in the argument). It was your post that made me decide to join the site, if for no other reason than to say that, upon reading your post, I stood up from my keyboard and applauded your words. In order to tell you that, I had to sign up to post. As I read on down, there were other posts that were quite principled. Imagine my great surprise and relief to find others who believe as I do and haven't been ripped to shreds as is the habit of some (cough, cough FR) sites.

As I read your words, I was reminded of the thoughts going through my mind yesterday as I watched "Judgment at Nuremberg." Some of the dialog literally sent chills down my spine as the movie depicted how the nation of Germany, the judges on trial, the patriots and the victims had to come to terms with the realization that Hitler's rise was as the result of a cult of personality that they had participated in. One wonders at what point the various individuals had their own personal epiphany of what he was. Also, did they dare speak about their newly discovered understanding of him? Surely not, lest they pay a considerable price.

Like you, I'm not saying Trump is a mass murderer. I'm not even coming close to saying that. I'm just pointing out that a Trump so unrestrained and flip-floppy as he has been when he's vying for the votes of the American people will feel safe to become even more unrestrained and flip-floppy once he's got the job. He's used to barking out orders, not being restricted by the confines of a pesky constitution. Obama has set a lawless precedent of complete disregard for the separation of powers. How hard would it be for Trump to plop himself behind the Resolute desk and decree whatever he wants to have happen? And will the Trumpsters hold him accountable for skirting his constitutional limits if they liked his proclamations? Would they do that Democrat thing of twisting themselves into pretzels to justify what The Donald does? Will their argument be, "Well, Obama did it"? Or, "Now Trump's got a pen and a phone"?

There was a fever over the land...
--Ernst Janning

There is an anger over the land...
--Trumpsters

Welcome   You will like it here   Jump in and enjoy

[INVAR]

It's clear that if Clinton is elected, she will never be prosecuted for the crimes that Comey listed on July 5….

I absolutely MARVEL at the absolute cognitive dissonance that exists in this country by a people who, despite evidence smacking them square in the face - ASSUME that this 'election' in November will be legitimate and that your vote will make a difference.

I guess the fact we suffered a velvet coup, and that every institution that touches government is corrupted beyond redemption, fails to register in everyone's minds because the thought of where we have actually arrived is too horrible to contemplate.

A people who refuse to even recognized where we have arrived, are a people who will not endure or survive what is coming.

The ballot box is not saving us. 

[roamer_1]

I am still not convinced that my choice on whom to vote for is a moral choice.  I think the act of voting is morally neutral.

I would disagree. Torah teaches us to be righteous in our judgements, and to use discernment - Not to follow the crowd, but to do what is right... I would be more attuned to applying that sort of protocol to my voting process.

Spirituality and Scruples

https://www.growingchristians.org/devotions/spirituality-and-scruples/

I am posting this here for my reference so I remember to give it a careful reading.

Thanks for the link... I'll think on it a spell too, but my knee-jerk reaction is to abstain from voicing my opinion too strenuously - My Messianic bend would probably cause more argument...