Even Ted Cruz the defacto leader of the #NeverTrump movement has seen the light and endorsed Donald Trump. The life of the republic is on the line, this not the time to go wobbly and let a Clinton back into the White House.
You were doing okay with the stock lesser evil argument. I've heard it all before and it is singularly unconvincing at this point, but here, you went completely off the rails.
Movement, schmovement. The only person central to the "#nevertrump" is each and every individual who recognizes that Trump is not fit for the office. There is no leader. If there is a "movement", it is only because there are a lot of people heading in the same direction with this, who all agree, independently, for whatever reason(s), that Trump is not fit for the job. So let's get that straight. There is no leader of the #nevertrump "movement" any more than the T.E.A. party was a national political Party.
A large and undefined number of people who are #nevertrump were Cruz supporters in the primary, not all, but a lot, but the concept that appears to elude not only you but most of the passengers on the 'Trump Train, is that #nevertrump doesn't necessarily mean pro-Cruz, although that oversimplified dichotomy (Cruz vs Trump) is the meme that pro-Trump people have been pushing as a reason to hate Cruz since the convention. It is false, but that never stopped Trump people from pushing a concept, no matter how flawed.
Cruz makes Cruz's decisions for Cruz.
No matter what he does, personally, it still does not change the facts, the record of behaviours both prior to the candidacy of Donald Trump, nor after he declared, which in the eyes of prospective voters render Trump as unsuitable for high office as Hillary.
What you don't seem to get, but is an observable phenomenon to the student of recent history, is that in general, the US Federal Government has managed to accumulate more and an increasingly broad scope of power over every facet of American life.
The way this has been done is interesting.
If Democrats are in control, those programs which strip the working class of assets and redistribute those to others are emplaced, and certain essential industries are placed under government control through the burden of regulation, but defense is given the appearance of languishing and law enforcement efforts are put on the back burner. Giveaways are increased to mollify the party voter base. Large numbers of people from elsewhere are imported, often illegally, and often with predictably bad results vis-a-vis crime and even terror activities.
When the backlash comes, and it does as surely as the other foot falling when one is walking, the GOP gains some modicum of control, Defense and Law enforcement take priority, and government power is increased through demands for security and safety, while the rights of the individual are diminished, or those powers are expanded to protect Americans from some threat, commonly one which has all the probability of affecting the average American as a lifetime of lightning has of striking any given individual. Those boogeymen have included everything from random gunmen, gunmen who target political figures, airplane hijackers/bombers, perpetrators of mass homicides, terrorist bombers from the right, left, and abroad, etc.
Under the guise of keeping us all 'safe', the government has granted itself the power to seize any asset in the war on terror (your crops, livestock, vehicles, farm fuel stocks, home, cash, bank accounts, firearms, ammunition, even the cans of beanie weenies in your cupboard) should the government so decide. While these powers would ordinarily be resisted by any Conservative, it was under the Republican administration these were slipped through, in the guise of the war on terror.
Under a Democrat administration, such assets could be taken, or those powers expanded.
THe 'hayfoot, strawfoot' demise of Americans' Rights has progressed thus, with Democrats passing measures that Democrats would object to if passed by Republicans, and Republicans passing measures that would be objected to by Republicans if Democrats passed them, with the net effect that the rights of the American People are diminished, often as emergency measures, and often with the blessings, if not by popular demand of the selfsame political figures which should properly oppose them.
It is small wonder that there is little apparent functional difference in the two Parties, that political opposition within the Federal power structure, once fierce, has become little more than token pandering for pet pork barrel projects designed mollify constituents and get individuals reelected, and winning just enough minor concessions to give the appearance something has been done, right down to howling about 'drastic cuts' which only increase a particular program by half as much as initially proposed.
Kabuke, plain and simple.
Neither Party is interested in anything but the consolidation of Power, unconstitutionally, by the Federal Government. Even the courts are compromised in this sense, as the Obamacare 'tax' ruling required the SCOTUS to rewrite the law and call what had been insisted was a "penalty", a "tax", in order for Roberts to uphold it, and that was done in the face of the Constitution, because the "tax" originated in the Senate, and revenue measures are required, by the Constitution, to originate in the House.
Our Republic is broken.
Our Government has gone rogue.
And proposing that someone who has no conception of how it is supposed to work, who has demonstrated repeatedly a contempt for rules, who is after personal gain, who will disregard rules and regulations, who will use power (economic or political, the latter rented or possessed) to cheat the 'little' guy, and has callous disregard for anything but their own personal gain is not the solution to America's problems. The autocratic tendencies of both candidates, apparent desire to reserve to themselves (or assume by populist acclaim) the powers of a dictator are an increased cause for concern.
Unfortunately, that describes the Republican candidate and the Democrat candidate for POTUS this year.
Note, please, I am as much #neverhillary as #nevertrump. I don't need a "leader" to see that neither is an acceptable candidate for the job of POTUS. As I have repeatedly stated, if this was a HR decision, I'd increase the offer of pay and re-run the ad.
As imminent threats go, at least Hillary can have the opposition of a GOP Congress (for what that is worth) versus the wholehearted support of one. If you really want to slow the demise of the Republic, the less government accomplishes, the better, because it isn't going to downsize, will not relinquish power under either, and we have seen already what the 'word' of either candidate is worth. Not squat.
I will not be voting to elect either one of them, but in an admittedly desperate effort to salvage our Republic, will vote for a candidate who runs on a Party Platform based on the Constitution of these United States of America, and on that interpreted via original intent.
It is time to get back to basics, return powers not Constitutionally relegated to the Federal Government to the States and the People, to dispense with the infringement of the Rights in the Bill of Rights, and recover our Republic.
Otherwise, we won't keep it, and America will get the government it votes for, and at that point, will deserve. If your concern is saving the Republic, you'd be #nevertrump, too, otherwise you're just another firebrand going to burn the village to save it.
