The Never-Trump bozos

[Norm Lenhart]

This is a blatant LIE!  If any such thing has EVER been posted on this site by a never Trump poster I seem to have missed it!

Thats just a typical child-mind lashing out because they hate hearing that yes, we were right.

We were 100% right. And they cannot stand the fact we are unafraid to say it. So they lash out as the child-mind does. They never matured into adult levels of logic and reason. So they invent fantasies of things, just as children do.

We have said repeatedly what we want and how to do it. They just choose to pretend we did not. Just as they pretend the libs won't line them up against a wall when their mistake in supporting trump comes back on them.

History is what it is.

[r9etb]

Which is the exact same thing I have repeatedly said.

The Trump people don't actually want your reasons, you know... they're way past reason and reasons. 

I'm sure psychiatrists have a word for it ... but what's going on is that they've invested so much in Donald Trump (who is strong to save), that they cannot separate him from the issues they care about.  To refuse to accept Trump is to attack their issues.

[Norm Lenhart]

The Trump people don't actually want your reasons, you know... they're way past reason and reasons. 

I'm sure psychiatrists have a word for it ... but what's going on is that they've invested so much in Donald Trump (who is strong to save), that they cannot separate him from the issues they care about.  To refuse to accept Trump is to attack their issues.

That word is 'Psychosis"

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Psychosis refers to an abnormal condition of the mind described as involving a "loss of contact with reality". People with psychosis are described as psychotic. People experiencing psychosis may exhibit some personality changes and thought disorder. Depending on its severity, this may be accompanied by unusual or bizarre behavior, as well as difficulty with social interaction and impairment in carrying out daily life activities.

[240B]

Good. This is much more civil than I have come to expect. Great.

We are all basically on the same side and want the same goals. It is with how to get there that we differ.

When I say that I do not understand NeverTrump fanatics, that is what I mean. They are not bad people or anything like that. I simply cannot understand anyone willfully allowing an opportunity to vote against Hillary to slip by.

I would have nominated her myself just for the purpose of giving me a chance to vote her down. I'm not crazy about Trump, but we are all-in and have no choice but to play the hand we are given.

Folding is not an option for me. Because if I fold, the game is over.

[Norm Lenhart]

Good. This is much more civil than I have come to expect. Great.

We are all basically on the same side and want the same goals. It is with how to get there that we differ.

When I say that I do not understand NeverTrump fanatics, that is what I mean. They are not bad people or anything like that. I simply cannot understand anyone willfully allowing an opportunity to vote against Hillary to slip by.

I would have nominated her myself just for the purpose of giving me a chance to vote her down. I'm not crazy about Trump, but we are all-in and have no choice but to play the hand we are given.

Folding is not an option for me. Because if I fold, the game is over.

No one here is allowing a vote against Hillary toslip by. We are voting. Just not for your lifetime documented liberal.

Now if that upsets you, good. Doesn't change the fact that we arent joining other liberals to try electing one of their own...Trump.

[Bigun]

Good. This is much more civil than I have come to expect. Great.

We are all basically on the same side and want the same goals. It is with how to get there that we differ.

When I say that I do not understand NeverTrump fanatics, that is what I mean. They are not bad people or anything like that. I simply cannot understand anyone willfully allowing an opportunity to vote against Hillary to slip by.

I would have nominated her myself just for the purpose of giving me a chance to vote her down. I'm not crazy about Trump, but we are all-in and have no choice but to play the hand we are given.

Folding is not an option for me. Because if I fold, the game is over.

Hillary and Trump are two slices of the same cyanide laced pie!  Members in full in the Clinton Crime Syndicate!  I will vote for neither!

[Henry Noel]

My wish is to flap my arms and fly. That will happen sooner than your wish

I'm not sure if you were addressing that remark to me, but if you were, then you imply that Constitutional, circumscribed government in the United States is dead, and that my only hope is to align myself behind some strongman who will do statism better than the other party's strongman. I don't concur with that assessment, and will struggle to do the right thing, no matter what the consequences. If this is the Alamo, I'm playing Colonel Travis.

If more conservatives had principles, we wouldn't be in these straits.

[Night Hides Not]

Hillary and Trump are two slices of the same cyanide laced pie!  Members in full in the Clinton Crime Syndicate!  I will vote for neither!

Shouldn't Trump supporters be playing in their own sandbox, instead of soiling the fields that the rest of us play on?

Just askin'...

[Night Hides Not]

I'm not sure if you were addressing that remark to me, but if you were, then you imply that Constitutional, circumscribed government in the United States is dead, and that my only hope is to align myself behind some strongman who will do statism better than the other party's strongman. I don't concur with that assessment, and will struggle to do the right thing, no matter what the consequences. If this is the Alamo, I'm playing Colonel Travis.

If more conservatives had principles, we wouldn't be in these straits.

Henry, there's no such thing as a "conservative without principles."

Since you've laid claim to Colonel Travis, I'll opt for David Crockett, a fellow naturalized Texan, though I was born in Oregon. By divine providence, the Army brought me to Texas when I started my career at Fort Bliss.

[r9etb]

If more conservatives had principles, we wouldn't be in these straits.

Most if not all conservatives have principles.  The problem is, my principles may not coincide 100% with yours, and you may care the most about different things than I do, and neither of us will agree with the next 10 conservatives we meet.  We tend to think our issues are the only important ones -- forgetting that the vast majority of what a president has to contend with has nothing at all to do with Our Issue.

So we get into these vicious little fights come primary season, each of us hating the other guy's candidate because he's squishy on Issue X or Y.  "I could never vote for a RINO like that!"

And thus we're fragmented into immiscible factions, none of which is strong enough on its own to contend with a demagogue like Trump, whose real talent is in finding and exploiting the fears and frustrations of the people who now support him.

And so, rather than a candidate who's not perfect but represents a great deal of what we believe in ... we end up with Donald Trump.

It's our own damned fault, too.

[Henry Noel]

Most if not all conservatives have principles.  The problem is, my principles may not coincide 100% with yours....

Well, yes, if key amongst your principles is the principle that one's principles can be whored away to the highest bidder.

[Norm Lenhart]

Most if not all conservatives have principles.  The problem is, my principles may not coincide 100% with yours, and you may care the most about different things than I do, and neither of us will agree with the next 10 conservatives we meet.  We tend to think our issues are the only important ones -- forgetting that the vast majority of what a president has to contend with has nothing at all to do with Our Issue.

So we get into these vicious little fights come primary season, each of us hating the other guy's candidate because he's squishy on Issue X or Y.  "I could never vote for a RINO like that!"

And thus we're fragmented into immiscible factions, none of which is strong enough on its own to contend with a demagogue like Trump, whose real talent is in finding and exploiting the fears and frustrations of the people who now support him.

And so, rather than a candidate who's not perfect but represents a great deal of what we believe in ... we end up with Donald Trump.

It's our own damned fault, too.

To  a degree, yes.

However, while we may mot agree 100% with each other on all conservative ideas, no conservative disagrees with any of the foundational principles. By definition if you disagree with the core, then you arent part of that ideology, whether it's conservative or liberal.

To wit: A conservative can no more support a documented liberal like Trump whose actions and statements run diametricaly opposed to conservatism, than a liberal could support Ronald Reagan.

Trump supporters can bray till the cows come home. The fact is that one cannot be for a thing and support a man working in opposition to a thing. The Reality is that few of us 'conservatives' are actually conservative. Most of us are moderates at best and liberals by and large. Those of us standing on principle in the face of the Trumpian horde bitchfest are by definition, conservative. Those of the horde that abandoned principles to try winning 'no matter what are by definition, unprincipled.

[r9etb]

Well, yes, if key amongst your principles is the principle that one's principles can be whored away to the highest bidder.

So did you even read what I wrote?

[musiclady]

To  a degree, yes.

However, while we may mot agree 100% with each other on all conservative ideas, no conservative disagrees with any of the foundational principles. By definition if you disagree with the core, then you arent part of that ideology, whether it's conservative or liberal.

To wit: A conservative can no more support a documented liberal like Trump whose actions and statements run diametricaly opposed to conservatism, than a liberal could support Ronald Reagan.

Trump supporters can bray till the cows come home. The fact is that one cannot be for a thing and support a man working in opposition to a thing. The Reality is that few of us 'conservatives' are actually conservative. Most of us are moderates at best and liberals by and large. Those of us standing on principle in the face of the Trumpian horde bitchfest are by definition, conservative. Those of the horde that abandoned principles to try winning 'no matter what are by definition, unprincipled.

Good post, Norm!

[Henry Noel]

Henry, there's no such thing as a "conservative without principles."

Yes, but there's such a thing as a person who calls himself a conservative while violating every tenet of the philosophy.

[Night Hides Not]

Most if not all conservatives have principles.  The problem is, my principles may not coincide 100% with yours, and you may care the most about different things than I do, and neither of us will agree with the next 10 conservatives we meet.  We tend to think our issues are the only important ones -- forgetting that the vast majority of what a president has to contend with has nothing at all to do with Our Issue.

So we get into these vicious little fights come primary season, each of us hating the other guy's candidate because he's squishy on Issue X or Y.  "I could never vote for a RINO like that!"

And thus we're fragmented into immiscible factions, none of which is strong enough on its own to contend with a demagogue like Trump, whose real talent is in finding and exploiting the fears and frustrations of the people who now support him.

And so, rather than a candidate who's not perfect but represents a great deal of what we believe in ... we end up with Donald Trump.

It's our own damned fault, too.

Speak for yourself, friend. Ted Cruz won 258 of 264 counties in Texas, including mine. It was my fourth chance to vote for him. Ted's major mistake was getting into the tar pits with Trump, and no one cried "foul!" when Trump went full ad hominem on him, his wife, and his father. Let's face it, low-information Republican primary voters booked seats on the Trump Train, which was aided and abetted by millions in free advertising, courtesy of cable news networks.

I'd like to send a few arrows Kasich's way, too, for staying in the race. By the time Kasich suspended his campaign, too many states had bought into Trump mania. You could say they went full Trump:

[Henry Noel]

So did you even read what I wrote?

Yes. Perhaps if you write it a little slower I'll see your point-of-view.

[Night Hides Not]

Yes, but there's such a thing as a person who calls himself a conservative while violating every tenet of the philosophy.

Agreed, but these individuals must be publicly corrected, and identified as non-conservatives. May I present David Brooks as Exhibit A?

[CSM]

The NeverTrumpanzies are Bozos. They are a bunch of crying sniveling children throwing a tantrum.

I have yet to hear a concise one sentence "goal statement" from the NeverTrumptards because they don't have one. They don't know what they want, except to make sure that Trump is not elected. And obviously, anyone with more than a couple of brain cells can comprehend that this means electing Hillary, which is something they adamantly deny to attempt to try avoid responsibility for what they are doing.

As far as I can tell they seem to have a platform that consists of getting Hillary elected to punish Trump supporters because they did not nominate the 'right' candidate according to them.

If you ask a NeverTrumpster, "What do you want? What is your goal?" The only answer they can give you is, 'We want revenge against the people who did not support our guy!', 'We want to show them WE WERE RIGHT!'

The NeverTrumpansie's argument is like an old vaudeville joke.
NT : I would never vote for Trump because Trump is unelectable!
(Yes but, he is only unelectable because of you; because you won't vote for him.)
NT : See what I mean!
(that doesn't make any sense)

However, if the situation was reversed and Jeb Bush was the nominee, the NeverTrumpsters would be the loudest in yelling at everyone to 'suck it up and take it like a man' because Hillary is worse! But, their blatant hypocrisy is lost on them.

The unwashed rabble are expected to do what they are told. The NeverTrumpsters cannot stand that they did not get their way this time. So now, they want to throw a wrench in the machine and tear the whole thing down. Which, if that's what they want to do, may not be such a bad thing anyway.

Screw it. If they want to wreck the Republican Party for not getting their way, I could live with that. It would certainly clarify things. The mono-Party would be all that there is to "choose" from. Except for Trump that's what we have now, but with Hillary at least it would be out in the open and exposed.

This screed is nonsensical and likely purposefully obtuse.  I should expect nothing less from someone that is clearly a Trump supporter.

That said, let me play along with the game for a moment.  My plan would be to support Constitutionalism and the candidates that support the return to small government principles, therefore increasing everyone's liberty and freedom.  That would result in less cronyism, more private property rights, a protection of life and the elimination of a "self described ruling class."

Everyone one of those items is directly opposed to Trump's positions.  I don't even have to go back to his pre-Republican Primary race days.  In this primary he has vowed to increase cronyism by expanding ethanol subsidies.  He has reiterated his hate for private property by claiming the use of "eminate domain to build a factory" is a "beautiful thing."  He has vowed to continue providing federal funding to planned parenthood.  He has admitted to buying corrupt politicians to get his way, therefore he funds the "ruling class."

So, in the end the Trump supporters may claim that "Hillary is so bad that we must get on the Trump Train."  But they need to ask themselves a simple question, "who enabled her to maintain her position and power?"  Well, the answer is certainly partially laid at the feet of the Media, but it is ALSO a result of Trump.  Trump's political pay-offs kept the Clintons flush with cash, therefore he enabled her to be where she is today. 

Yet, somehow I am supposed to get on the "trump train" to stop the person that TRUMP ENABLED for decades.  No thanks. 

You got your candidate, now you can drag him into office.

[r9etb]

To  a degree, yes.

However, while we may not agree 100% with each other on all conservative ideas, no conservative disagrees with any of the foundational principles. By definition if you disagree with the core, then you arent part of that ideology, whether it's conservative or liberal.

True in theory, but incorrect in practice.  How many times have people on this site (and even more over at TOS) completely dismissed reasonably good conservatives as "RINO" and stooges of the "GOPe?"  We piddled on our own shoes this time around, because we refused to see the forest for the trees.

Which brings us to the Trump supporters.  They are not unprincipled and many are truly conservatives (despite their current ridiculous behavior here and elsewhere). 

They've been fooled, it's true, because Trump was able to identify and exploit the things they're most afraid of.  Trump is a very, very talented demagogue.

[r9etb]

Yes. Perhaps if you write it a little slower I'll see your point-of-view.

Golly.  Surely you're not so unpleasant all the time?

[Henry Noel]

Golly.  Surely you're not so unpleasant all the time?

Only during certain periods.

[Norm Lenhart]

True in theory, but incorrect in practice.  How many times have people on this site (and even more over at TOS) completely dismissed reasonably good conservatives as "RINO" and stooges of the "GOPe?"...

  We piddled on our own shoes this time around, because we refused to see the forest for the trees.

And those are the moderates and liberals I am talking about. Their actions are the definition of someone pretending to be what they are not. Thus my statement is correct.

'WE' the conservative stood on principle and forwarded conservatism. 'THEY' the frauds obstructed conservatives like Cruz to forward and empower a documented lifetime liberal like Trump. They went along with every leftist lie and leftist meme. People who do that are leftists. AKA liberals and not conservative by any definition.

The net result is that one of two lifetime liberals will be president and a conservative will not. Thus 'WE' the conservatives did not piddle on anything. Liberals did what they always do. Empower more liberalism.

And if any of them wish to lie about it and say they did not, Good luck. History is what it is and the above is the reality we live in as a result. The result of THEIR actions.

[r9etb]

And those are the moderates and liberals I am talking about. Their actions are the definition of someone pretending to be what they are not. Thus my statement is correct.

'WE' the conservative stood on principle and forwarded conservatism. 'THEY' the frauds obstructed conservatives like Cruz to forward and empower a documented lifetime liberal like Trump. They went along with every leftist lie and leftist meme. People who do that are leftists. AKA liberals and not conservative by any definition.

The net result is that one of two lifetime liberals will be president and a conservative will not. Thus 'WE' the conservatives did not piddle on anything. Liberals did what they always do. Empower more liberalism.

And if any of them wish to lie about it and say they did not, Good luck. History is what it is and the above is the reality we live in as a result. The result of THEIR actions.

I rest my case.

[r9etb]

Speak for yourself, friend. Ted Cruz won 258 of 264 counties in Texas, including mine. It was my fourth chance to vote for him. Ted's major mistake was getting into the tar pits with Trump, and no one cried "foul!" when Trump went full ad hominem on him, his wife, and his father.

People did cry foul when Trump went ad hominem.  You can't blame them if other people didn't pay attention.

You're right about Cruz's mistake.  His response to the attacks made him look smaller, when a better candidate could have used them to look bigger. 

(This is part of why I'm not a Cruz supporter, btw... a president has to contend with far more difficult problems than infantile Trumpisms, and if Ted looks small there, he's in real trouble later, as president.)

Rubio had the same problem.  Walker was out before Trump took any real shots at him, but I suspect Walker would have come out looking better rather than worse. 

Our real problem is that really good candidates are too sane to enter into the lunacy that defines the Republican primary process.  The single-issue factions make it impossible for serious people to gain any traction.