Odyssey of a NeverTrumper

[Silver Pines]

This time I mean it, dammit.

@bigheadfred


 :green teeth:

[thackney]

Guidance by morals is not emotional, but if you ignore the potential results of your choices because you want to "feel" that you're doing the right thing, that is not a logical behavior.

Ignoring the longer term result of not having solid principals is a less logical behavior.

[r9etb]

Ignoring the longer term result of not having solid principals is a less logical behavior.

But as Mr. Keynes famously quipped, "in the long run, we're all dead."   

Seriously, though, you're right.  We're actually reaping the consequences now, of a weakening of solid principles.  No principled party could nominate a Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump.  But it was inevitable that today's parties should do so.

[Silver Pines]

@Liberty Tree Dr

Guidance by morals is not emotional, but if you ignore the potential results of your choices because you want to "feel" that you're doing the right thing, that is not a logical behavior.  You should be asking, "Is the result of my choice a good or bad thing according to my morality?"  If you don't, there's the risk of the legalism of the Pharisees type.

In other words, unless my moral guidance takes me to the conclusion you think is correct, then it is emotional.

Nope.

Nope.  As @don-o indicates, I'm a former Cruz guy.  I plead my case almost exactly as you did on TOS, and was banned.  In 2012, I fought many the rhetorical battle against Romney during the Primaries.  Same in 2008 against McCain.  But then my candidates lost in the primary each of those years, and I held my nose.

I'm not pleading a case.  I don't care if my decision is met with approval or not.  If I'm the last NeverTrumper standing, I'm fine with that.

As I stated elsewhere, I held my nose for Romney in 2012, despite prayer and being convinced I was led not to do so, and the next day began a spiritual crisis for me that lasted for years.  I won't go into the details.  I'll just say that my nose-holding days are done.  And Trump makes Romney look like Ronald Reagan.

Why?  Because logic dictates you must examine your options and choose the best outcome. Primary was decided.  Trump is nominated.  In the USA, a third party candidate is a spoiler that favors the Democrat.  We get to pick one of two (2 point swing), or vote 3rd party/not vote and give a 1 point advantage to the Democrat (i.e. 1 less vote to get the majority). 

No, you get to pick only one of two because apparently you're under the impression someone is holding a gun to your head.  In reality, you can do whatever you want, and I'm through with loyalty to a political party that holds my values in total contempt.

Especially when it expects me to cast my support behind an amoral, pathetically ignorant dumpster fire of a human being.  Refusal to do so, for me, is the best outcome.  I'm not going to delude myself for a second that God is fine with that.

If you want morality, you now must review the possible results of your actions.  EXAMPLE: Hillary wins = 100% chance abortion continues forever and this is guaranteed via her SCOTUS picks and the massive amnesty she'll unleash to seal the Progressive agenda.  If you think a Trump win will also yield 100% chance, then both outcomes are equally bad morally.  However, if this declines even 1%, so that there's a tiny chance Trump's SCOTUS picks might reverse Roe v. Wade, logic would indicate you favor that chance.  Hope for that 1% chance is emotional, choosing an action on that 1% chance is logical, as it is marginally superior to the results of the other chance.

I've seen the video in which Trump said he wouldn't do a thing to stop partial-birth abortion.   To clarify, that's the process of driving scissors through a newborn's skull to kill it.  I will never support such an individual, nor do I think for one moment that he's changed.  And I refuse to tell myself that it would be moral for me to do so.

Trump has backtracked on his wall and he's on record saying that we have to take in Middle Eastern refugees.  That latter remark was his instinct before someone told him he needed to walk it back. 

Trump recently said he didn't care if the Senate went to the Democrats.  To believe that he would appoint decent judges is a desperate fantasy.  The man is a lifelong liberal without a single conservative impulse in his nature, nor even basic knowledge of conservative principles. 

As bad as Hillary is, many on our side have fallen into the emotional trap of building her up into some kind of mythical Godzilla; there could never in the world be anyone worse.  We cringe in terror of her, hide under our beds, and we're so desperate that we try to convince ourselves that a stupid game show host would be an improvement.   Even though we're aware that he's as liberal as she is, and is in fact a longtime friend and donor.  Now, if that's how you feel, okay, fine.  But many of us believe otherwise.

The truth is, there can be someone just as bad as Hillary, and he's running with an R behind his name.

Bottom line: I fear God more than I fear Hillary Clinton.

You and I can debate the chances, and we can disagree, but do cease claiming you are moral while we are not.

You want to show me where I accused you of being immoral?

As I've outlined above, we are acting under a very robust moral model that takes into account consequences/actions, rather than adherence to dogma that then results in a greater evil.

As I've just shown you, there is no moral difference---only a perceived one that fear of Hillary Clinton has placed in your mind.  With that, I'll ask you to
stop assuming NeverTrumps haven't thought through the consequences.  We have---honestly.

[r9etb]

As I've just shown you, there is no moral difference---only a perceived one that fear of Hillary Clinton has placed in your mind.  With that, I'll ask you to
stop assuming NeverTrumps haven't thought through the consequences.  We have---honestly.

An excellent effort, albeit one that would have been better directed to someone more willing to listen to you -- such as your cat, or a potted plant.

[Liberty Tree Dr]

@Liberty Tree Dr
In other words, unless my moral guidance takes me to the conclusion you think is correct, then it is emotional.

Nope.

Please stop trying to re-write what I said.  You seem emotionally invested in claiming some sort of superiority based on your belief that you are somehow moral while I am not.  It is clear that I am perfectly comfortable stating that you and I can arrive at a different conclusion as to what the result/consequence of a choice is.  I'm merely trying to make sure you understand that your choice does have moral consequences external to your internal sense of morality. 

I'm not pleading a case.  I don't care if my decision is met with approval or not.  If I'm the last NeverTrumper standing, I'm fine with that.

As I stated elsewhere, I held my nose for Romney in 2012, despite prayer and being convinced I was led not to do so, and the next day began a spiritual crisis for me that lasted for years.  I won't go into the details.  I'll just say that my nose-holding days are done.  And Trump makes Romney look like Ronald Reagan.

No, you get to pick only one of two because apparently you're under the impression someone is holding a gun to your head.  In reality, you can do whatever you want, and I'm through with loyalty to a political party that holds my values in total contempt.

Especially when it expects me to cast my support behind an amoral, pathetically ignorant dumpster fire of a human being.  Refusal to do so, for me, is the best outcome.  I'm not going to delude myself for a second that God is fine with that.

I've seen the video in which Trump said he wouldn't do a thing to stop partial-birth abortion.   To clarify, that's the process of driving scissors through a newborn's skull to kill it.  I will never support such an individual, nor do I think for one moment that he's changed.  And I refuse to tell myself that it would be moral for me to do so.

Trump has backtracked on his wall and he's on record saying that we have to take in Middle Eastern refugees.  That latter remark was his instinct before someone told him he needed to walk it back. 

Trump recently said he didn't care if the Senate went to the Democrats.  To believe that he would appoint decent judges is a desperate fantasy.  The man is a lifelong liberal without a single conservative impulse in his nature, nor even basic knowledge of conservative principles. 

As bad as Hillary is, many on our side have fallen into the emotional trap of building her up into some kind of mythical Godzilla; there could never in the world be anyone worse.  We cringe in terror of her, hide under our beds, and we're so desperate that we try to convince ourselves that a stupid game show host would be an improvement.   Even though we're aware that he's as liberal as she is, and is in fact a longtime friend and donor.  Now, if that's how you feel, okay, fine.  But many of us believe otherwise.

The truth is, there can be someone just as bad as Hillary, and he's running with an R behind his name.

Bottom line: I fear God more than I fear Hillary Clinton.

You want to show me where I accused you of being immoral?

As I've just shown you, there is no moral difference---only a perceived one that fear of Hillary Clinton has placed in your mind.  With that, I'll ask you to
stop assuming NeverTrumps haven't thought through the consequences.  We have---honestly.

Very good outline of your position.  Now you've laid out that your position finds both Trump and Clinton to be equally reprehensible.  If there's no perceived difference, logic indicates voting neither is a valid action. 

[INVAR]

So it's now insane, as well as immoral, to recognize actions and their consequences?

You mean like voting for liberals pretending to be Conservatives and then expect Conservative principles and policies to be implemented?

Yes.  I call that insane to vote for liberals and expecting to "win" against the Left or advance the principles the nation was founded on.  Yes.  I do call that insanity.

Doing the same stupid thing over and over and expecting different results is the actual definition if I recall. 

Since the argument over Trump v Hillary has hinged on the strategy of choosing evil to represent you because he is a lesser evil than she is,  is in itself simply immoral if one claims the bible as a foundation to their faith.

And this allusion to how others "feel" is pure emotion and blatant projection.

No more than the allusion that those who insist refusing to vote for either candidate is a vote for Hillary.

[Silver Pines]

Please stop trying to re-write what I said.  You seem emotionally invested in claiming some sort of superiority based on your belief that you are somehow moral while I am not.  It is clear that I am perfectly comfortable stating that you and I can arrive at a different conclusion as to what the result/consequence of a choice is.  I'm merely trying to make sure you understand that your choice does have moral consequences external to your internal sense of morality. 

With all due respect to you, drop the condescension and the theme that you need to "make sure we understand." 

Look, I'm not morally superior to you or anyone else, and I note that you didn't respond to my request that you show specific examples where I've indicated it.  But accusations of self-righteousness from Trump supporters to NeverTrumps are common, and I have my theory as to the reason.

Very good outline of your position.  Now you've laid out that your position finds both Trump and Clinton to be equally reprehensible.  If there's no perceived difference, logic indicates voting neither is a valid action.

Thanks.

[Silver Pines]

An excellent effort, albeit one that would have been better directed to someone more willing to listen to you -- such as your cat, or a potted plant.

Thank you!

[Liberty Tree Dr]

@don-o

I'll let him address that.  Either way, he's pushing Trump when there's no point in it.

Sometimes, things are so clear-cut and so morally well-defined that examination isn't necessary.  But I appreciate the "prideful" label.

You know, when it comes to self-examination, you might want to hold up a mirror.  You decided to support Trump, which I understand although I don't agree with it.  But then you decided you had to convince the rest of us to do so, and in the process you've become a different person.  It's sad to see, but that's the effect Trump has on people.

You'll understand how I might construe this bolded/underlined bit above as implying I'm immoral. 

[verga]

With all due respect to you, drop the condescension and the theme that you need to "make sure we understand." 

Look, I'm not morally superior to you or anyone else, and I note that you didn't respond to my request that you show specific examples where I've indicated it.  But accusations of self-righteousness from Trump supporters to NeverTrumps are common, and I have my theory as to the reason.

Thanks.

@Liberty Tree Dr @CatherineofArago Catherine I have asked TOS POS to show specific examples as well. Even though we have provided NUMEROUS examples of Trump's constant inconsistencies and backtracking. He is the only one emotionally invested and is too myopic to see it. We need to pray that God removes the scales from his eyes.

[Liberty Tree Dr]

@Liberty Tree Dr @CatherineofArago Catherine I have asked TOS POS to show specific examples as well. Even though we have provided NUMEROUS examples of Trump's constant inconsistencies and backtracking. He is the only one emotionally invested and is too myopic to see it. We need to pray that God removes the scales from his eyes.

See post right above yours.

And please enlighten me on what "POS" stands for?

[bigheadfred]

Isaiah 29:13-14

Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:

Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid.

The one I really like is "Render unto Caesar...". It is about time to burn off some fat and "Render Caesar".

Ok. I am going to go watch "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice" with my grandson. Maybe the answers to this "Trump v NeverTrump" can be found there.

In the meantime remember..."Jesus is Coming, Look Busy".

[roamer_1]

I think the chance of a good SCOTUS pick or 3 by Trump means the chance is much better than 1%.  Maybe as high as 25%.  And abortion is a national stain, but the SCOTUS picks will also have influence on a host of issues, from the homosexual agenda, to religious freedom, to our 1st and 2nd Amendment rights. 

Wow. a one-in-four chance. Is that each pick, or en toto? Do you listen to yourself? Don't bet the farm.

Tell me Hillary Clinton's SCOTUS picks will be better than Trump's.

A ridiculous and meaningless question. Both are liberals. you will invariably get liberal judges. And the choosing is not only in the president, but the senate - Which we will almost certainly lose, because Trump. TADA!

[roamer_1]

It will always be the Lesser Evil.  All choices, including elections, are compromises.  In an election, what/who is perfect to me, is deeply flawed to many other voters; and verse visa..

So one tries not to let the Good become the enemy of the Perfect.  The Seventy-Percent Rule.

This is a LIE, and I will prove it to you: Why are *ALL* the Democrats flaming liberals? And why doesn't that work the other way around? The answer is that it DOES work the other way around. All we have to do is actually vote for Conservatives.

[bigheadfred]

EVERYTHING after the Fall is a lie.

[JustPassinThru]

This is a LIE, and I will prove it to you: Why are *ALL* the Democrats flaming liberals? And why doesn't that work the other way around? The answer is that it DOES work the other way around. All we have to do is actually vote for Conservatives.

The perfect candidate for ME, may be seriously flawed to YOU.  And reverse.

We ALL have different expectations.

Why do the Democrats unite, and all become, as you say, flaming liberals?  Because they are **NOT** voting PRINCIPLE.  They are voting Free Excrement, for the most part.  The few who are not, are voting access to power or access to the public coffers.

Those who are running are offering no principles.  They mouth them, vaguely and inarticulately...like a poorly-done dance number.  Because that's not what it's about.  It's a quid-pro-quo:  FREE EXCREMENT <-> POWER.  Those who seek office and those behind the Democrat office-seekers, are there for the POWER.  Voters are there, eager to BE BOUGHT with MOAR FREE.

There's some of that in the Republican side, too.  Those are called, variously, "moderates" or "crony corporatists."  Until now it has not been the majority of the Republican side.

Now, however, they're giving Conservatives the boot.  Which is a mistake; because Crony Corporatism and Moar Free and money-printing and ZIRP can only take you so far; into a dead-end alley.

[roamer_1]

EVERYTHING after the Fall is a lie.

No, the principles of Conservatism are true - and most of them come right out of the Good Book

[verga]

See post right above yours.

And please enlighten me on what "POS" stands for?

I don't know if you are immoral or not. I do know that you are a condescending TOSer that has yet to document a single claim you have made agaisnt us. As for POS google is your friend.

[roamer_1]

The perfect candidate for ME, may be seriously flawed to YOU.  And reverse.

We ALL have different expectations.

Generally not true - unless you are talking about degrees. The point of Reagan Conservatism is to unite Conservatives, and it does - It does you no harm to vote for a candidate who holds both yours and my principles... And I can vote for that guy too.

Why do the Democrats unite, and all become, as you say, flaming liberals?  Because they are **NOT** voting PRINCIPLE. 

No, they too have a set of principles, generated from Marxism and such. They are false in my mind, but all the things the Democrats stand for - Those things are what their elected officials fight for.

That is not true of Republicans. They seldom pay more than lip service to Conservative principles, because they are not really Conservatives... Lesser evil compromises have left us with hardly anything in the way of representation, because our elected officials are more evil than the generation before them - Because settling for the lesser evil is what Republicans always do.

No more for me

[INVAR]

That is not true of Republicans. They seldom pay more than lip service to Conservative principles, because they are not really Conservatives... Lesser evil compromises have left us with hardly anything in the way of representation, because our elected officials are more evil than the generation before them - Because settling for the lesser evil is what Republicans always do.

No more for me

Nor for me either.

But many view that thinking as sacrilege, treason and immorality, because they have been led to believe the presidency is a monarchy now - and voting for one person to high office is somehow going to save us from a worse emperor.

[bigheadfred]

 It is all a lie. Principles. Laws. Countries. Nations. Religions. Governments. Down the line.  They are part of the deception. Inventions of Man.

(1) “When you see your likeness you are full of joy.
(2) But when you see your likenesses that came into existence before you — they neither die nor become manifest — how much will you bear?”

Indeed.

[RoosGirl]

 It is all a lie. Principles. Laws. Countries. Nations. Religions. Governments. Down the line.  They are part of the deception. Inventions of Man.

(1) “When you see your likeness you are full of joy.
(2) But when you see your likenesses that came into existence before you — they neither die nor become manifest — how much will you bear?”

Indeed.

If that is true then everything you say is a lie also and no one should pay attention to anything you have to say.

[JustPassinThru]

Generally not true - unless you are talking about degrees. The point of Reagan Conservatism is to unite Conservatives, and it does - It does you no harm to vote for a candidate who holds both yours and my principles... And I can vote for that guy too.

Of course I'm talking about degrees. For example, I'd have preferred that Reagan more emphasize Federalism.  Local control, as regards narcotics laws, the imbecilic 55-mph speed limit (took him seven years to get the courage to RAISE that and took CLINTON to abolish it).

He was the greatest President since the Civil War; and maybe the greatest ever; but there were things I disagreed with.

George W. Bush was more apart from me.  His instincts were not conservative; but he did respect the Conservative support.  And he tried to do right by them, with tax cuts, with an appropriate response to the WTC attack (yes, Iraq was part of that vetch; that's another topic)  But there were many differences.  All the same, I supported him, voted for him, twice, and blogged my support on a political-pundit website.

That's compromise.  The problem here is that this isn't compromise; it's lipstick on a pig.

No, they too have a set of principles, generated from Marxism and such. They are false in my mind, but all the things the Democrats stand for - Those things are what their elected officials fight for.

That is not true of Republicans. They seldom pay more than lip service to Conservative principles, because they are not really Conservatives... Lesser evil compromises have left us with hardly anything in the way of representation, because our elected officials are more evil than the generation before them - Because settling for the lesser evil is what Republicans always do.

I disagree with this.  Teamsters have little in common with college faculty voters.   Homosexual activists have little in common with West Virginia coal miners.  AFSCME and NEA voters have little in common with welfare recipients.

The blue-collar Democrat voters and the idlers and the media-professional classes...have NOTHING in common, except PURE HATRED for conservatives.  The blue-collar joes don't even hate America, the way the reporters and faculty members and sodomites do.  But they march in lockstep...united by dreams of power, money, and Free Excrement...delighted to stick it to those Christers with their guns and Bibles.

Not much of a base...until you get down to the nub.  They're SHEEPLE.  Elite or indigent, they all want GOVERNMENT as their MASTER.

That's not a principle.  That's craven helplessness and raw hatred for the independently-successful.

[bigheadfred]

That is the best part.