Odyssey of a NeverTrumper

[bigheadfred]

I am looking at your graphic @musiclady and wondering why it says "when" someone thinks of you and not "what".

[RoosGirl]

This is precisely my feeling - like @don-o I did not start as a Trump supporter.  If there was some other means of realistically getting someone else in the White House in 2016, I'd be all for it.  Unfortunately, that's not going to happen.  There are two choices and we're stuck with them.  And I know Clinton will utterly destroy the USA - can't choose her.

If we are going to hope and pine for unrealistic things (3rd party), I'd go all in and work my three-step process for getting the best candidate we could hope for:

• Perfect the art of Necromancy
• Change the Constitution to allow for a third & forth term
• Dig up George Washington & Ronald Reagan (President & Running Mate)

Has as much a shot as electing some no-name CIA neocon...

I doubt this is "precisely" your feeling given that you've already equated the conservative NeverTrumps here with certain historic European political parties.  It is worth repeating that that is your opinion and not precisely "I would never presume to tell anyone how to vote or make them feel guilty about it" as you would lead us to believe.  Unless you have had a change of heart and this is now finally your way of apologizing for that previous comment.

[musiclady]

I doubt this is "precisely" your feeling given that you've already equated the conservative NeverTrumps here with ****Hillary.  Now I know ****Hillary is going to get edited out again, but it is worth repeating that that is your opinion and not precisely "I would never presume to tell anyone how to vote or make them feel guilty about it" as you would lead us to believe.  Unless you have had a change of heart and this is now finally your way of apologizing for that previous comment.

A change of heart since he was on that "If-you-don't-vote-for-Trump-you-love-Hillary" crusade, just yesterday??

Don't count on it.....   

[don-o]

This is precisely my feeling - like @don-o I did not start as a Trump supporter.  If there was some other means of realistically getting someone else in the White House in 2016, I'd be all for it.  Unfortunately, that's not going to happen.  There are two choices and we're stuck with them.  And I know Clinton will utterly destroy the USA - can't choose her.

If we are going to hope and pine for unrealistic things (3rd party), I'd go all in and work my three-step process for getting the best candidate we could hope for:

• Perfect the art of Necromancy
• Change the Constitution to allow for a third & forth term
• Dig up George Washington & Ronald Reagan (President & Running Mate)

Has as much a shot as electing some no-name CIA neocon...

I would like to see any long term impact that any of the three most recent third party efforts have yielded:

Wallace '68
Anderson '80
Perot '92

And what is any possible expectation that 2016 is the exception.

[bigheadfred]

I would like to see any long term impact that any of the three most recent third party efforts have yielded:

Wallace '68
Anderson '80
Perot '92

And what is any possible expectation that 2016 is the exception.

There is a possibility that Trump is the quasi-third party candidate. Not completely a Democrat. Not completely  Republican. I think we have reached the category of "strange days". And it is going to get stranger still.

[roamer_1]

I would like to see any long term impact that any of the three most recent third party efforts have yielded:
[...]
And what is any possible expectation that 2016 is the exception.

To what end? If I don't vote 3rd party, I will abstain. Either way it will not produce a vote for Trump out of me.

[roamer_1]

You should.  You might find it enlightening.

It certainly is interesting that Conservatives have long been known to be 'obdurate and immovable'... Interesting that is being sold as a deficit.

Why would anyone think it will be different this time?

[roamer_1]

If we are going to hope and pine for unrealistic things (3rd party)

No one is 'hoping and opining'... Everyone knows that 3rd party is a long shot.
But, the unfortunate circumstance is that the only Conservative, the only Pro-Life candidate, at this point, resides in the cheap seats.

That is more a pox upon the Republicans than upon the 3rd party- These are things which Republicans are supposed to champion.

And it remains wholly absurd to vote for the NYC liberal Republican in hopes of getting some small treat - Like children grasping for candy at a parade, and that at the cost of every single principle thing we hold dear.

So as this is certainly the case, is it any wonder that Conservatives are all-in on the long shot?

[Smokin Joe]

I would like to see any long term impact that any of the three most recent third party efforts have yielded:

Wallace '68
Anderson '80
Perot '92

And what is any possible expectation that 2016 is the exception.

Past performance is no guarantee of future returns, as they say.

Wallace got shot. Puts a damper on your campaign, that does.
As for Anderson and Perot, there was no follow through. It is back to personality vs principles, and I would think that lesson has been learned.

I don't support the Constitution Party because of the Candidate so much as the platform, and the concept of returning to the principles and original intent of the Constitution. That, unlike a specific personality, is something that can endure for more than one election cycle.

The candidate is the embodiment of the principles, the person who is the standard bearer, but the principles are paramount.

Note that the GOP this year has opted for the opposite.

[Smokin Joe]

No one is 'hoping and opining'... Everyone knows that 3rd party is a long shot.
But, the unfortunate circumstance is that the only Conservative, the only Pro-Life candidate, at this point, resides in the cheap seats.

That is more a pox upon the Republicans than upon the 3rd party- These are things which Republicans are supposed to champion.

And it remains wholly absurd to vote for the NYC liberal Republican in hopes of getting some small treat - Like children grasping for candy at a parade, and that at the cost of every single principle thing we hold dear.

So as this is certainly the case, is it any wonder that Conservatives are all-in on the long shot?

I don't view third party as a longshot, I don't put the odds at winning the trifecta. But I do see a Party with principles over personality, and those principles align with my own. Unlike the GOP which has been progressively departing from my own philosophies, this one is pretty much spot-on (Constitution Party), and to me, that is something worth building for the long haul.

I don't expect to grab the brass ring on the first ride, but I expect, with work, the Party can be built into a political force. One thing is certain. Efforts to return the GOP to conservatism have failed miserably, and this election is proof.

[thackney]

I don't view third party as a longshot, I don't put the odds at winning the trifecta. But I do see a Party with principles over personality, and those principles align with my own. Unlike the GOP which has been progressively departing from my own philosophies, this one is pretty much spot-on (Constitution Party), and to me, that is something worth building for the long haul.

I don't expect to grab the brass ring on the first ride, but I expect, with work, the Party can be built into a political force. One thing is certain. Efforts to return the GOP to conservatism have failed miserably, and this election is proof.

Yep.  It has become obvious efforts need to be made for conservatism in another party.  Marathon, not a sprint.

[roamer_1]

I don't view third party as a longshot, I don't put the odds at winning the trifecta.

I don't see it as THAT long a shot anyway - The two major candidates are so very unpopular that folks are going to be looking at any alternative. The Constitution party claims more interest than they've ever had before, and I don't doubt that interest to be from those like minded folks who have finally reached the point of no return. We'll just have to see how that works out.

But I do see a Party with principles over personality, and those principles align with my own. Unlike the GOP which has been progressively departing from my own philosophies, this one is pretty much spot-on (Constitution Party), and to me, that is something worth building for the long haul.

Indeed - and that alignment of principles is the only reason to have associated with the Republicans - And the only reason to form a new association, as the Republicans have gone WAY too far to the left. Quite similar to the migration from FreeRepublic, and the dynamic is exactly the same. That is why we associate. There is no purpose for a party that cannot adhere to it's own charter.

I don't expect to grab the brass ring on the first ride, but I expect, with work, the Party can be built into a political force. One thing is certain. Efforts to return the GOP to conservatism have failed miserably, and this election is proof.

TRUE.

[Liberty Tree Dr]

A change of heart since he was on that "If-you-don't-vote-for-Trump-you-love-Hillary" crusade, just yesterday??

Don't count on it.....   

Does responding to a post about me still count as ignoring me?  Just curious.

To @RoosGirl 's point, I have amended my stance somewhat.  Now, instead of equating #NeverTrump with a desire for Hillary, I've taken to being less contentious by merely associating the #NeverTrump position with the natural outcomes of this position, such as the poster being OK to live with Hillary's 2-3 Supreme Court picks for the next 30-40 years, the amnesty of 20-30 million illegals to vote for her and the Democrats in 2020, her hollowing out of the US Military, her reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, and the like. 

So, no, you don't "love" Hillary if you are #NeverTrump.  I do apologize for stating that.

But what do you love?  Do you love sticking to your ideals more than you love the United States and your fellow citizens?  In other words, does feeling good about being a #NeverTrump person trump the nasty results of your position?  Are you OK with saying you think Trump's Supreme Court picks will be worse than Hillary's?  That you don't mind the citizenship/voter registration effort she starts in the first 100 days?

These are Yes or No questions. 

[Liberty Tree Dr]

I doubt this is "precisely" your feeling given that you've already equated the conservative NeverTrumps here with certain historic European political parties.  It is worth repeating that that is your opinion and not precisely "I would never presume to tell anyone how to vote or make them feel guilty about it" as you would lead us to believe.  Unless you have had a change of heart and this is now finally your way of apologizing for that previous comment.

See other post to @musiclady for my apology.  I doubt many/most/any on this forum would willingly give the fascist salute to Hillary. 

But there is still the point to be made about your intent versus the natural result of your action/inaction.  All we are trying to do is shed some light on the consequences of your stated positions.

[don-o]

Foreshadowing of HRC Presidency

Citing Clinton, sailor seeks leniency in submarine photos case

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,220768.0.html

A Navy sailor facing the possibility of years in prison for taking a handful of classified photos inside a nuclear submarine is making a bid for leniency by citing the decision not to prosecute Hillary Clinton over classified information authorities say was found in her private email account.

Petty Officer First Class Kristian Saucier, 29, is set to be sentenced Friday on a single felony charge of retaining national defense information without permission. In May, Saucier pleaded guilty in federal court in Bridgeport, Conn., admitting that while working on the U.S.S. Alexandria in 2009 he took and kept six photos showing parts of the sub's propulsion system he knew to be classified.

[RoosGirl]

Does responding to a post about me still count as ignoring me?  Just curious.

To @RoosGirl 's point, I have amended my stance somewhat.  Now, instead of equating #NeverTrump with a desire for Hillary, I've taken to being less contentious by merely associating the #NeverTrump position with the natural outcomes of this position, such as the poster being OK to live with Hillary's 2-3 Supreme Court picks for the next 30-40 years, the amnesty of 20-30 million illegals to vote for her and the Democrats in 2020, her hollowing out of the US Military, her reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, and the like. 

So, no, you don't "love" Hillary if you are #NeverTrump.  I do apologize for stating that.

But what do you love?  Do you love sticking to your ideals more than you love the United States and your fellow citizens?  In other words, does feeling good about being a #NeverTrump person trump the nasty results of your position?  Are you OK with saying you think Trump's Supreme Court picks will be worse than Hillary's?  That you don't mind the citizenship/voter registration effort she starts in the first 100 days?

These are Yes or No questions.

You think I shall answer your questions with the limitations you impose?  Hah.

I love my country and I love the idea of my country.  I love sticking to my ideals when I feel they will be what is best for the US and my fellow citizens.  Yes, I do feel good about being a NeverTrumper for the reasons that I have chosen to be a NeverTrumper, as opposed to voting out of fear or hopelessness or because I think I personally can get something free from one candidate.  I don't know if Trump's Court picks will be worse than Hillary's.  I doubt anything could be worse than Hillary's, but I don't doubt that they could be just as bad.  Since Trump changes his position at whim, has a history of saying one thing and then changing it within the same day or several days, I find it impossible to gauge what kind of person he will pick.  But, since he was in favor of the Kelo decision and has said his pro-abortion sister would make a great SC Justice I find it difficult to believe he would nominate someone that I would agree with.  I find no substantial difference, other than timeline, between her immigration policy and Trump's.

[r9etb]

You think I shall answer your questions with the limitations you impose?  Hah.

I love my country and I love the idea of my country.  I love sticking to my ideals when I feel they will be what is best for the US and my fellow citizens.  Yes, I do feel good about being a NeverTrumper for the reasons that I have chosen to be a NeverTrumper, as opposed to voting out of fear or hopelessness or because I think I personally can get something free from one candidate.  I don't know if Trump's Court picks will be worse than Hillary's.  I doubt anything could be worse than Hillary's, but I don't doubt that they could be just as bad.  Since Trump changes his position at whim, has a history of saying one thing and then changing it within the same day or several days, I find it impossible to gauge what kind of person he will pick.  But, since he was in favor of the Kelo decision and has said his pro-abortion sister would make a great SC Justice I find it difficult to believe he would nominate someone that I would agree with.  I find no substantial difference, other than timeline, between her immigration policy and Trump's.

Remind me to stay on your good side.... It's like you sliced and diced Trump by dancing on him with ice skates.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

Does responding to a post about me still count as ignoring me?  Just curious.

To @RoosGirl 's point, I have amended my stance somewhat.  Now, instead of equating #NeverTrump with a desire for Hillary, I've taken to being less contentious by merely associating the #NeverTrump position with the natural outcomes of this position, such as the poster being OK to live with Hillary's 2-3 Supreme Court picks for the next 30-40 years, the amnesty of 20-30 million illegals to vote for her and the Democrats in 2020, her hollowing out of the US Military, her reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, and the like. 

So, no, you don't "love" Hillary if you are #NeverTrump.  I do apologize for stating that.

But what do you love?  Do you love sticking to your ideals more than you love the United States and your fellow citizens?  In other words, does feeling good about being a #NeverTrump person trump the nasty results of your position?  Are you OK with saying you think Trump's Supreme Court picks will be worse than Hillary's?  That you don't mind the citizenship/voter registration effort she starts in the first 100 days?

These are Yes or No questions.

How in the wide wide world of sports could I claim to love my country if I abandon the ideals it's built on?

Don't worry, it's rhetorical.

[RoosGirl]

Remind me to stay on your good side.... It's like you sliced and diced Trump by dancing on him with ice skates.

Well, I never think I have the appropriate words to slice and dice anyone even if I wanted to, but I appreciate knowing that I have at least somewhat adequately gotten my point across to someone that hasn't decided I hate my country just because I won't vote for who they think I should.

[don-o]

How in the wide wide world of sports could I claim to love my country if I abandon the ideals it's built on?

Don't worry, it's rhetorical.

Actually, there is substance to it. Perhaps somday we will dig into it on the Worldview board.

The Founding: Search for Deeper Meaning

That the founding era should enjoy the special status it does is not surprising, since we still live under the forms of the Constitution. But the fact that it provides a common ground for students of American theory has not produced a consensus about either its character or about what the founders were really up to. With increasing frequency since the turn of the twentieth century, many scholars have raised troubling questions about the founders and their motives. Did they really believe in republican government, or were they intent on constructing a system that would protect elite interests under the rubric of a republican form? Can we take them at their word, believing what they said and wrote publicly, or were they advancing a hidden agenda? At still another level questions have arisen over what values or theories dominated during this period and whether or not it is marked by a theoretical continuity. Taken as a whole, the disputes that have arisen over the character of our founding have led some to conclude that any clear understanding of the American political tradition and the values that have informed it is next to impossible. Put otherwise, there seems to be an inverse relationship between the scholarly attention devoted to this period and our understanding of it, as evidenced by the proliferation of interpretations that have given rise to these critical questions.

There are reasons for these disputes. To begin with, there are those who seek an understanding of the American political tradition, of which the founding era is taken to be the core, from both a broader and “deeper” perspective. They seek, that is, to incorporate American political thought into more systematic philosophical schools or enduring strains of thought within the Western tradition, thereby rendering it more coherent and “whole.” In light of the fact that American political thought at its best is usually narrowly focused, these efforts are understandable. The Federalist, for example, is praised largely for its nuts-and-bolts approach, not for its metaphysical insights or theoretical coherence. Consequently, those concerned with the deeper questions concerning the origin and purposes of the state, the limits of law, the meaning of justice, and the like, find even the major works of the American tradition wanting. Their efforts are directed toward filling this void.

http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2013/03/the-founding-era.html

[r9etb]

Well, I never think I have the appropriate words to slice and dice anyone even if I wanted to, but I appreciate knowing that I have at least somewhat adequately gotten my point across to someone that hasn't decided I hate my country just because I won't vote for who they think I should.

I would never accuse the Trump supporters around here of "hating their country," because they clearly do not. 

However, I do have to wonder about their understanding of what this country stands for, and what it means to support a man who is quite obviously unfit to lead it.

[INVAR]

Foreshadowing of HRC Presidency

Citing Clinton, sailor seeks leniency in submarine photos case

Foreshadowing?

No wrong.

It's a CONSEQUENCE of the Obama regime eliminating the rule of law.  It's not just Hildabeast, but the entire federal beast at Mordor at the Potomac that has exempted themselves from the laws they impose on the rest of us little people.  All the Alphabets and the Congress itself participated in giving treason a pass - if it was one of the members of the oligarchy, so trying to hang this on Hildabeast alone is stupid.

[INVAR]

Actually, there is substance to it. Perhaps somday we will dig into it on the Worldview board.

The Founding: Search for Deeper Meaning

That the founding era should enjoy the special status it does is not surprising, since we still live under the forms of the Constitution. But the fact that it provides a common ground for students of American theory has not produced a consensus about either its character or about what the founders were really up to. With increasing frequency since the turn of the twentieth century, many scholars have raised troubling questions about the founders and their motives. Did they really believe in republican government, or were they intent on constructing a system that would protect elite interests under the rubric of a republican form? Can we take them at their word, believing what they said and wrote publicly, or were they advancing a hidden agenda? At still another level questions have arisen over what values or theories dominated during this period and whether or not it is marked by a theoretical continuity. Taken as a whole, the disputes that have arisen over the character of our founding have led some to conclude that any clear understanding of the American political tradition and the values that have informed it is next to impossible. Put otherwise, there seems to be an inverse relationship between the scholarly attention devoted to this period and our understanding of it, as evidenced by the proliferation of interpretations that have given rise to these critical questions.

There are reasons for these disputes. To begin with, there are those who seek an understanding of the American political tradition, of which the founding era is taken to be the core, from both a broader and “deeper” perspective. They seek, that is, to incorporate American political thought into more systematic philosophical schools or enduring strains of thought within the Western tradition, thereby rendering it more coherent and “whole.” In light of the fact that American political thought at its best is usually narrowly focused, these efforts are understandable. The Federalist, for example, is praised largely for its nuts-and-bolts approach, not for its metaphysical insights or theoretical coherence. Consequently, those concerned with the deeper questions concerning the origin and purposes of the state, the limits of law, the meaning of justice, and the like, find even the major works of the American tradition wanting. Their efforts are directed toward filling this void.

Great illustration of Satan's M.O.  Inspire men to question what was plainly laid down by impugning the motivations for the foundations.  "Surely you will not die!  For God knows that the day you eat the fruit thereof, you shall become as He is, knowing good and evil".

We watched him do that with the bible until the faith is so divided and lukewarm - it has no power anymore except to incite rage against it.

Now we get to read great "scholars" who will tell us that the Foundations are bad, because we must impugn the motivations of the Founders themselves.  How is this any different than what the Left already does?

Perhaps it illustrates how and why so many who self-identify as Conservatives and Christian have attached themselves to Trump.

They bought the timeless lie used since the beginning from the Devil himself.

[Smokin Joe]

But what do you love?  Do you love sticking to your ideals more than you love the United States and your fellow citizens?  In other words, does feeling good about being a #NeverTrump person trump the nasty results of your position?  Are you OK with saying you think Trump's Supreme Court picks will be worse than Hillary's?  That you don't mind the citizenship/voter registration effort she starts in the first 100 days?

These are Yes or No questions.

Bullsh*t, those are yes or no traps. You want answers, read on.

Do you love sticking to your ideals more than you love the United States and your fellow citizens? 

YES! My ideals are found in the Christian Bible and the Constitution the United States. My Government, in practice, reviles the former and only whips out the latter to invent another "Right" that doesn't exist in that document nor any reasonable interpretation thereof. My fellow citizens have been known to be hideously wrong in that regard, and have put the nation in the mess it is in by demanding far more government, either out of personal abdication of their rights or out of various forms of greed.
Sorry, those principles, especially the Biblical ones take precedence.
I love my country enough to use those principles to say to it and those citizens who have voted it into this electoral corner "You are wrong!"

In other words, does feeling good about being a #NeverTrump person trump the nasty results of your position?

Whoa. That is not the same question "in other words". It makes presumptions and contains pejorative adjectives.

I don't "feel good" about being placed in the position to be a #nevertrump by voters who got played for suckers and pushed that charlartan, at the behest of orchestrated twitter feeds and facebook posts and the most foul assemblage of slurs and lies used in a political contest in my lifetime (I have 8 great grandchildren). My position is the nasty result of an awful lot of people who gave in to their anger, petulance, and in a fit of childish pique, decided to break things rather than fix them. That Trumpertantrum will undo all the work of TEA Party groups to try to make inroads into the GOPe and will damage the brand beyond repair.  My position is a direct result of those nasty effects the Trump campaign has brought.

Are you OK with saying you think Trump's Supreme Court picks will be worse than Hillary's? 

It isn't what I am OK with, that is irrelevant. Trump was not my choice, Hillary damned sure wasn't, and, at this point I think the question is moot. However, Trump trashing down ticket candidates because they won't endorse him is what will lose the Senate and the chance to block Hillary's SCOTUS picks. As to whether Trump's SCOTUS picks would be better, you tell me. We have no real idea who he would appoint aside from his pro abort relatives. I'm not okay with convoluted questions designed to produce an answer that looks like something it isn't, so yes and no.

That you don't mind the citizenship/voter registration effort she starts in the first 100 days?

This is why registering to vote should not be a "national" issue but a State one, I wasn't even for "motor voter" because in those states which have it, when a non-citizen gets a driver's license, they are automatically registered (usually Democrat).

[RoosGirl]

I would never accuse the Trump supporters around here of "hating their country," because they clearly do not. 

However, I do have to wonder about their understanding of what this country stands for, and what it means to support a man who is quite obviously unfit to lead it.

It is my opinion they are operating from a place of fear and (somewhat) hopelessness.  Just like with anger, we do not make sound decisions when we make them from those mindsets.  Here I am talking about the people who would not normally vote for Trump but feel their only choice is to vote for either Trump or Hillary.  The people who have been campaign-long supporters of Trump I'm not sure what to make of other than, as you say, they do not think the same way I do about how this country was intended to be run.