Odyssey of a NeverTrumper

[mystery-ak]

What a thought provoking thread this is..

This election is turning into the most perplexing and agonizing decision I have ever made in politics. I have argued, pleaded and even lost friendships in discussing this year's election...has it been worth it?.....that is another question that needs to be answered.

[INVAR]

What a thought provoking thread this is..

This election is turning into the most perplexing and agonizing decision I have ever made in politics. I have argued, pleaded and even lost friendships in discussing this year's election...has it been worth it?.....that is another question that needs to be answered.

We have arrived at the time when speaking the truth, about anything or anyone when contrary to the narrative - will automatically engender hatred towards you.

We were warned in advance this would happen.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

What a thought provoking thread this is..

This election is turning into the most perplexing and agonizing decision I have ever made in politics. I have argued, pleaded and even lost friendships in discussing this year's election...has it been worth it?.....that is another question that needs to be answered.

Indeed it has been perplexing. I'm glad @don-o and @Mrs Don-o have shared their thoughts on the matter. This has been a respectful and thoughtful discussion and I've been seeing that attitude elsewhere in the forum. An encouraging sign. 

I think conscience figures on and my conscience will not allow me to dis-honor myself and vote for Trump (I also think there are reasons this would not be prudent in the long run, but that's a topic for another post). That said I have a lot of respect for people who are willing to vote for Trump who don't believe they are buying a pig in a poke. Romans 14 teaches that in matters of conscience Christians may not always come to the same conclusion and that we individually have to stand before God in these matters (v.4).

In that light I'm disappointed to see Trump become a Shibboleth of the conservative movement. Perhaps the question we ought to be asking is how did a man who has so little in common with us manage to split apart so many who have so much more in common with each other than they do with Trump. 

[don-o]

Indeed it has been perplexing. I'm glad @don-o and @Mrs Don-o have shared their thoughts on the matter. This has been a respectful and thoughtful discussion and I've been seeing that attitude elsewhere in the forum. An encouraging sign. 

I think conscience figures on and my conscience will not allow me to dis-honor myself and vote for Trump (I also think there are reasons this would not be prudent in the long run, but that's a topic for another post). That said I have a lot of respect for people who are willing to vote for Trump who don't believe they are buying a pig in a poke. Romans 14 teaches that in matters of conscience Christians may not always come to the same conclusion and that we individually have to stand before God in these matters (v.4).

Well, I'm not that guy. I've boiled it down to my unwillingness to enable a 3rd and 4th Obama term. I've tried to explain how have found a way to choose a flawed vessel to achieve my desired ends within the bounds of principle.

In that light I'm disappointed to see Trump become a Shibboleth of the conservative movement. Perhaps the question we ought to be asking is how did a man who has so little in common with us manage to split apart so many who have so much more in common with each other than they do with Trump.

It's a good question. My thought about that is contained in my essay, specifically regarding ideological politics. This has been in the corners of my mind when I tried to understand our perennial firing squads. More of which later. 

[Smokin Joe]

I received a pm with a link to a previous discussion here. Note the date, December 10, 2015. which is before I, and many of us, arrived here.  Thanks to the member who shared it.

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,188235.0.html
Please read it all.

This is exactly how I have felt, and,to some extent, continue to feel. However, when I began to consider decision making  in the light of prudential judgment, I saw this feeling for what it was. And, simply stated, that is pride. I was / am like the Pharisee praying in the temple...

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+18&version=AKJV
Read it all at the link for what Jesus has to say about that. The conclusion I make from His words confirms that my revulsion for Trump is indeed based on a moral judgment that I am making, based on my own spiritual pride and feeling of superiority even as the Pharisee was. Note that the Pharisee is, no doubt, speaking accurately about “other men”, but Jesus is not impressed.

However, prudential judgment takes me out of my pride and places me where I can rationally consider the question within a better / worse framework.

What scares me most about Trump, is that given the same circumstances, the same guidance, I can easily see that I could have turned out much the same. While some might not understand that, I see the seductive nature of the choices he has made. Only the Grace of God and a sense of Honor instilled as a child have turned me from many opportunities over my lifetime to profit handsomely if I just did the dishonorable thing. Just this once... no laws need be broken.
Only I fully recognize there is no way it would quit there. Once that dam was breached, the torrent would be overwhelming, and one dishonorable act would, of necessity be followed by another or all would be forfeit at some point.

When Jesus was in the desert for 40 days, He was offered to be made King of all he surveyed. Of course, He declined the temptations of the Devil, for His kingdom is not of this world.

Donald Trump has made his choices, as I have made mine. He has his reward, I will wait. It is not up to me to judge him, but I can see the choices where I could have ended up a similar person. That, my friends is frightening, to say the least.

[JustPassinThru]

were the OPEN PRIMARIES simply stupid or were they evil?  or is there a distinction??

A very wide distinction.

They were very clever, from the RINO-liberal perspective.  They're designed to PREVENT a non-Leftist from ever getting on the ballot in EITHER party.

It comes down to a basic tenet:  The default position of the average voter, is LIBERAL.  Liberalism is emotive; it's childlike; it's pure Id.  CONSERVATIVE tenets take thought; take explanation; take a sales job.

They also work.  When explained they're very persuasive, and they work.  That's why Reagan was able to sell Conservatism to the voters; and why liberals need to stoop to indoctrinating children and young people.  Because liberalism is where a child comes from; but as a thinking young person matures, he sees conservatism and a light bulb goes on.

Open primaries are to prevent another Reagan or Goldwater...or Cruz.

[r9etb]

Carried over from a different thread:


"Well, I'll give you points for effort.  But when you have to work that hard to justify one wrong choice over another wrong choice, without acknowledging the possibility that both choices are wrong, then it suggests you've got a categorical error of your own."

[Idaho_Cowboy]

I'm worried Trump by governing as the liberal he is on the one hand and acting out and validating all the absurd lies conservatives have been defending themselves against all these years will kill the Republican Party and possibly the conservative movement in the long run. I forget if it was Jonah Goldberg or George Will, but one of the two had an excellent article on this a couple month's back.

Trump has the potential to make the Republican Party a laughing stock and a by-word for a long time. Look at the reputation the Republican Party had in the 30’s. Now that he is the nominee this effect may already prove damaging, but the longer he is associated with the party, the more of an uphill battle this will create. For years we have been told that the Republicans are the party of the rich, heartless, bigoted, racist, anti-women Neanderthals, who can't be trusted not to nuke the world out of existence. Trump seems to be modeling himself on the media's caricature of the Republican Party. I think he's part of the Clinton machine and his job has been to do this. Many of his loyal supporters have been fooled into buying into a caricature of what they believe. 

In the long run Trump could make lead to the next generation of Clintons, literally or ideologically, winning for a long time. So in the short run Hillary may be worse, in the long run Trump may be worse. This isn't a one and down the Democrat party is chock-full of Hillary types. I don’t think there is enough evidence to argue Hillary is better using prudential judgment, but it comes pretty close to a stalemate in my mind when considering beyond the next eight years.

[r9etb]

Henry Ford said it well.  "You can't build a reputation on what you are going to do."  One's reputation is built on past deeds.

Unless you happen to be Obama, whose reputation was constructed through the hopes and fears of his sycophants.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

Carried over from a different thread:


"Well, I'll give you points for effort.  But when you have to work that hard to justify one wrong choice over another wrong choice, without acknowledging the possibility that both choices are wrong, then it suggests you've got a categorical error of your own."

The thought occured to me the other night of the sacred trust we convey with our vote. The future of our nation is at stake, the lives and well being of our children hang in the balance. Do we settle for a one of two choices simply because that's all we have or do we protest every step of the way any and all who will take our country the wrong direction? Do you leave your children with the wolves or with the bears?

[don-o]

Carried over from a different thread:


"Well, I'll give you points for effort.  But when you have to work that hard to justify one wrong choice over another wrong choice, without acknowledging the possibility that both choices are wrong, then it suggests you've got a categorical error of your own."

Name your categories, then.

Do you reject the better / worse  nature of choices implicit in prudential judgment?

[r9etb]

Name your categories, than.

Do you reject the better / worse  nature of choices implicit in prudential judgment?

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.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

Name your categories, then.

Do you reject the better / worse  nature of choices implicit in prudential judgment?

I'd say false dichotomy, but that depends on what effect you see of a taking a "third option". I'd love to see 3rd parties either Constitution or Libertarian do well on Election Day and send a message that the candidates of both parties are not supporting the interest of a significant portion of the country.

However, barring a stroke or someone getting eaten by worms like Herod in the Bible we are stuck with Trump or Hillary. Meaning you pretty much have a binary choice and you end up back at having to use prudential judgment. 

[don-o]

The thought occured to me the other night of the sacred trust we convey with our vote. The future of our nation is at stake, the lives and well being of our children hang in the balance. Do we settle for a one of two choices simply because that's all we have or do we protest every step of the way any and all who will take our country the wrong direction? Do you leave your children with the wolves or with the bears?

Do you have certainty that both Trump and Hillary pose the same threat? I know with 99.9999% certainty what I get with HRC.

With Trump, there is uncertainty. But, I can visualize the Congress finally asserting itself and exercising its  power. We could see some veryi nteresting coalitions emerge if Trump tries any monkey business.

You let Hillary in office and the Congress maintains its supine position; or discovers an even more humiliating one.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

Do you have certainty that both Trump and Hillary pose the same threat? I know with 99.9999% certainty what I get with HRC.

With Trump, there is uncertainty. But, I can visualize the Congress finally asserting itself and exercising its  power. We could see some veryi nteresting coalitions emerge if Trump tries any monkey business.

You let Hillary in office and the Congress maintains its supine position; or discovers an even more humiliating one.

Trump is an old buddy of the Clinton's, he started his campaign because of a phone call with the Clintons. He's taken stands for more government and against the consitution everychance he gets. I'm not seeing any uncertainty in regards to Trump. He's no wild card, he's a Democrat running as a Republican at the behest of the Clintons.

[INVAR]

Do you have certainty that both Trump and Hillary pose the same threat?

Certainty?  No one does. 

What we have are fruits in which to make a decision.

With Hillary we have a record and a lifetime of corruption, graft, personal enrichment, treason and Marxism.

With Trump we have a lifetime of Democrat support of Liberal values and we have what he says moment to moment - coupled with the politics of personal destruction employed against all who dare question him.

In my estimation - Trump's temperment and lack of any core except himself is inherently more dangerous in the office for the short term, Despite the fact I think he is nothing but a Trojan Stalking Horse for Hillary to begin with.

But, I can visualize the Congress finally asserting itself and exercising its  power. We could see some veryi nteresting coalitions emerge if Trump tries any monkey business.

Utterly laughable.  You actually think that a party that surrendered wholesale to Obama and the Democrats, including their Constitutional authority - over abject fears of Obama ginning up the media against them - is suddenly going to find a backbone to challenge Trump when he makes Obama's public excoriations look like amateur hour?

Trump has made the GOP his.  He owns them. They are NEVER going to oppose him on anything should some miracle happen and he is actually given the White House.  That is the deal with the devil McConnell and Dole's people made with Priebus and Trump.  Trump will keep the fascist gravy trains running on time.

You let Hillary in office and the Congress maintains its supine position; or discovers an even more humiliating one.

Better to have an enemy at the head of government we can clearly oppose than one we are responsible for.

[don-o]

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.

No. My starting point is to determine where good / evil properly belongs in making my decision on how to act.

My first question should be, "Is  voting good or evil, or possibly neutral as far as morality"? There are some who abstain from voting. They have their reasons. I do not hold the act of voting to be evil.

So I have decided that I will vote. And, in the current  situation, my knee jerk reaction was to ignore the binary choice. I would send a message, all of that sort of thinking. But, I did not lock myself into that and remained open to persuasion. I continued to read and to think and to engage in serious conversation with serious people who saw things from a different perspective.

Trump and Clinton are certainly evil in the sense that every son and daughter of Adam is evil.  The third party candidates are also evil. So regardless, if I vote there is no escape from voting for evil. (The Amish opt out option makes sense, though I choose otherwise.)

Perhaps I decide that third party is my best option. I can punish the Republicans and build "something" for the future. My choice won't impact the November results, but who cares. I've made my stand.

But then, I step back and play out the only two realistic results of November.

1 Clinton wins and we perhaps lose the Senate or are greatly diminished in both houses. She gets eight years of free wheeling to advance the statist agenda. What will restrain her? The Constitution Party? We already know the Republican Party won't

2. Trump wins a close election, even without the support of a sizable number of Conservatives. He makesacceptable SCOTUS appointments, or he finds Cruz, Lee, Sessions, Sasse, eyc aligning with the Dems to block him. He halts the downsizing of our military. He rescinds executive orders. He brings an end to race baiting.

What else might he do? He's a known unknown. HRC is a known known.

There is clearly a better / worse choice to be made.

It is not between good and evil or the lesser of two evils.

[INVAR]

No. My starting point is to determine where good / evil properly belongs in making my decision on how to act.

My first question should be, "Is  voting good or evil, or possibly neutral as far as morality"? There are some who abstain from voting. They have their reasons. I do not hold the act of voting to be evil.

So I have decided that I will vote. And, in the current  situation, my knee jerk reaction was to ignore the binary choice. I would send a message, all of that sort of thinking. But, I did not lock myself into that and remained open to persuasion. I continued to read and to think and to engage in serious conversation with serious people who saw things from a different perspective.

Trump and Clinton are certainly evil in the sense that every son and daughter of Adam is evil.  The third party candidates are also evil. So regardless, if I vote there is no escape from voting for evil. (The Amish opt out option makes sense, though I choose otherwise.)

Perhaps I decide that third party is my best option. I can punish the Republicans and build "something" for the future. My choice won't impact the November results, but who cares. I've made my stand.

But then, I step back and play out the only two realistic results of November.

1 Clinton wins and we perhaps lose the Senate or are greatly diminished in both houses. She gets eight years of free wheeling to advance the statist agenda. What will restrain her? The Constitution Party? We already know the Republican Party won't

2. Trump wins a close election, even without the support of a sizable number of Conservatives. He makesacceptable SCOTUS appointments, or he finds Cruz, Lee, Sessions, Sasse, eyc aligning with the Dems to block him. He halts the downsizing of our military. He rescinds executive orders. He brings an end to race baiting.

What else might he do? He'sa known unknown. HRC is a known known.

There is clearly a better / worse choice to be made.

It is not between good and evil or the lesser of two evils.

That is just another textbook example of pragmatism over principle.

Which is how we got to this point to begin with.


As a Christian, scripture lays out the minimal requirements for someone seeking office - and if God inspired those requirements for church office - how much more should those same fruits of goodly character should be present in someone seeking to administer an entire nation???

Neither Trump or Hillary qualify by those terms.

A man and a woman who cannot abide by their own personal vows of fidelity, are not persons to be entrusted with upholding the vows to protect and defend the Constitution and administer justice and execute the rule of law.  Expecting them to do so is absurd, and all one is doing is giving them license to perform lawlessness under the color of the office they wield.

Empowering tyrants is not something I will lend a hand to.  Both Hildabeast and Trump are already proven to be tyrants, and I will not aid their lording over the rest of us.

[don-o]

Better to have an enemy at the head of government we can clearly oppose than one we are responsible for.

How exactly do we oppose her appointments? How do we oppose her fulfilling the promises she has made to all those qualified donors? How do we oppose her tax and spend policies? How do we oppose her baby killing mania?

What's the oppo action plan for Obama's third term?

[r9etb]

No. My starting point is to determine where good / evil properly belongs in making my decision on how to act.

My first question should be, "Is  voting good or evil, or possibly neutral as far as morality"? There are some who abstain from voting. They have their reasons. I do not hold the act of voting to be evil.

For all your protests, your starting point is still that a) I have a duty to vote; and b) that I have to choose one of Trump or Clinton.  So you're still making a "lesser of two evils" argument, and you're also assuming that one of Trump or Clinton is (to any meaningful extent) a "lesser evil" than the other.

I reject both your specific and general premises. 

My position is that a victory by either Trump or Clinton is intolerable (albeit probably inevitable), from both the "prudential" and moral standpoints. 

We know that there's no perfect candidate, and given the choice between reasonably sane and responsible candidates, we can certainly use "prudential" criteria to choose the one who best represents our moral and outlook and pragmatic understanding of the world.

However, when both candidates are so very far from perfect as are these two, it is actively irresponsible to pretend (as you are doing) that it is possible to finesse our way to a palatable "prudential" choice.  It's like trying to make a "prudential" choice between axe and knife murderers.

[INVAR]

How exactly do we oppose her appointments? How do we oppose her fulfilling the promises she has made to all those qualified donors? How do we oppose her tax and spend policies? How do we oppose her baby killing mania?

We don't.  We can't.  We lost. 

Trump made sure of that.

We cannot stop any of this.  Not by the civil means that have been wholly perverted and corrupted by those in power.

Welcome to the velvet coup and soft dictatorship the GOP has helped construct for the Executive.

Welcome to what the Founders warned us would happen should we as a nation abandon our religion, morality and principles for pragmatism.

This is what happens when we choose the lesser of evils to rule us.  Candidates who would make Caligula blush.  And worse is yet to come, as the Lord has given this people on over to their own debased appetites.

What's the oppo action plan for Obama's third term?

Suffer and take it while laying the groundwork justification for what will be required if any shred of liberty it to exist for our posterity.  That liberty is lost for our generation.  Plain and simple fact. 

You are not opposing tyranny or stopping despotism at the ballot box, nor can you expect perverted and corrupted institutions to uphold principles that are now considered to be wrong and evil by a majority of this people.

The Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.  It was wholly inadequate to govern the kind of people we have become.  Which is why we now have Statism and top-down rich ruling class oligarchs calling the shots.

[roamer_1]

However, when both candidates are so very far from perfect as are these two, it is actively irresponsible to pretend (as you are doing) that it is possible to finesse our way to a palatable "prudential" choice. 

Nicely said... And in that, the lesser evil argument is made null, and the other valid choices (other than the two part set being forced upon us) become not only more palatable, but literally, also a better chance toward responsible government - I would much rather buck the long odds of Castle getting elected, with whatever vanishing chance there is of it, than knowingly endorse that which I know to be bad choices and another step down the road to tyranny.

Good post.

[Cripplecreek]

Nicely said... And in that, the lesser evil argument is made null, and the other valid choices (other than the two part set being forced upon us) become not only more palatable, but literally, also a better chance toward responsible government - I would much rather buck the long odds of Castle getting elected, with whatever vanishing chance there is of it, than knowingly endorse that which I know to be bad choices and another step down the road to tyranny.

Good post.

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.

[roamer_1]

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.

All I'm doing is voting for the candidate that best represents my beliefs - Which, I might add, is what we are supposed to be doing. If you read the commentary by the founding fathers, That is what they gave us the vote *for*... 

Not protest voting, not party voting, not lesser evil voting, nor complex philosophical hoop-jumping... It's a simple thing. Endorse that which you believe in.

Now if there wasn't a Conservative to vote for, that might be another issue, but there IS a Conservative in the mix - and there has been a Conservative in the mix ever since I quit voting for the big rhinestone 'R'. Why would anyone in their right mind vote for an ideology that they abhor?

All y'all can make it as complex as you like - But it boils down to a vote against your own ideology for the purpose of assuaging fear. That is not a valid reason to park one's principles.

[Ghost Bear]

All I'm doing is voting for the candidate that best represents my beliefs - Which, I might add, is what we are supposed to be doing. If you read the commentary by the founding fathers, That is what they gave us the vote *for*... 

Not protest voting, not party voting, not lesser evil voting, nor complex philosophical hoop-jumping... It's a simple thing. Endorse that which you believe in.

Now if there wasn't a Conservative to vote for, that might be another issue, but there IS a Conservative in the mix - and there has been a Conservative in the mix ever since I quit voting for the big rhinestone 'R'. Why would anyone in their right mind vote for an ideology that they abhor?

All y'all can make it as complex as you like - But it boils down to a vote against your own ideology for the purpose of assuaging fear. That is not a valid reason to park one's principles.

 

You said it better than I ever could. Thank you!