An Honest Challenge for the Never Trumpers

[DCPatriot]

An Honest Challenge for the Never Trumpers
Michael Brown 1/22/2018



During the Republican primaries, I was very nearly a Never Trumper, so I’m quite sympathetic to that mindset. But I have a challenge for all of you who still identify as Never Trumpers: Are you willing to be as honest about the accomplishments of President Trump as you are about his failings?

For many of you who could not vote for Trump, it was a matter of conscience. How could you be a “values voter” and yet vote for a man with such abysmal moral values, a thrice-married, playboy, billionaire?

Put another way, your integrity compelled you to be a Never Trumper. But does your integrity now compel you to admit where he has done well? Where he has kept his promises? Where he has championed causes that really matter to “value voters”? Where he has stood strong for the some of the great moral issues of the day?

Lest you think I’m being one-sided in my challenge to Never Trumpers, in June I wrote an article titled, “Don’t Sell Your Soul Defending the Words of President Trump.” And earlier this month I penned, “As Evangelicals Our Ultimate Allegiance is to the Lord, Not the President,” just to give two examples.

In short, I concur with prominent Never Trumper David French, who just last month counseled his colleagues to follow these guidelines: “Praise him when he’s right, critique him when he’s wrong, apply the same standards to your own side that you apply to ideological opponents, and keep your eyes fixed on the larger, more important cultural trends.”


But have Never Trumpers done this? On a regular basis, those of us who voted for Trump are called on to repudiate his latest ill-advised comment or tweet, or to condemn a past indiscretion. And with words similar to French’s, I recently wrote, “When the president does the right thing, we commend him and encourage him. When he does the wrong thing, with full respect for his office, we express our differences. Is this really so hard?”

But I ask again, have you done this as Never Trumpers? Doesn’t your integrity compel you to be even-handed, or, perhaps, to acknowledge where, at times, you may have been wrong?

more at:  http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbrown/2018/01/22/an-honest-challenge-for-the-never-trumpers-n2437690

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[Sanguine]

I would say that, yes, most of our NTs here have no problem saying so when Trump does well.

Good article - it tends to show how both sides of the Trump war became dug in early on. 

[aligncare]

I could be wrong, but I think the whole premise of the article is based on a logical fallacy.

Never means never. It doesn’t mean sometime or occasional or periodic. So, if one considers themselves NT, the author’s argument is going nowhere. Just ask @INVAR @Cripplecreek and the others. They speak honestly on the subject, they’ll tell you straight up. Never means never.

And with that, I await the coming storm....

[DCPatriot]

Steve Deace says it well: “I was once NeverTrump. I have called our current president both a narcissist and a child. Compared him to both Peter Pan and former pro wrestling manager extraordinaire Bobby ‘The Brain’ Heenan.

“But…

“The news that the Trump administration is setting up a new division within the Department of Health and Human Services to protect the conscience rights of doctors, nurses, and other health-care providers is unambiguously good. It allows HHS to come to the defense of conscientious objectors working in the health-care field by defending the God-given rights of those who opt out of ‘certain procedures’ — like the killing field that is abortion or gender-bending sex-change operations.”

This “is an outcome that simply wouldn’t and couldn’t have happened if Hillary Clinton was president,” nor Deace reasons, likely would have happened under an establishment candidate like Mitt Romney.

Wasn't even aware of 'conscientious objector' protection.   

[Jazzhead]

A NeverTrump, to me, is someone who doesn't want the President to succeed.  Many of us had serious, even existential, reservations about his experience and temperament,  and remain frustrated at his many unforced errors.   

But damn right I want him to succeed.   I want the economy to flourish,  the rule of law to prevail, and our national interests pursued.   Trump is doing his part.   

And this morning, as the government is shut down, compare and contrast how the Trump administration is trying to minimize the hardship of the situation,  while Obama sought only to weaponize it.   Trump has many enemies,  and too flippin' many of them seek destruction for its own sake.   

[DCPatriot]

I could be wrong, but I think the whole premise of the article is based on a logical fallacy.

Never means never. It doesn’t mean sometime or occasional or periodic. So, if one considers themselves NT, the author’s argument is going nowhere. Just ask @INVAR @Cripplecreek and the others. They speak honestly on the subject, they’ll tell you straight up. Never means never.

And with that, I await the coming storm....

No, @aligncare

Believe it or not, I wasn't necessarily trying to create another thread for "Members Only".

"NeverTrumper" is a term THEY embraced.   Like an Eagle Scout badge.   Like a lucite block.   

So, to see the vast majority here come around...as was pointed out above, is heartening.

But as you also said, there probably no more than a half dozen, who refuse.

I'm convinced they do it merely for the sport of it.   

[aligncare]

Wasn't even aware of 'conscientious objector' protection.   

Yeah, I heard about that on the radio the other day and thought, wow, the Trump administration really understands America and understands liberty.

Then I tuned in NPR. Should have heard the squealing over there at abortion central over this report.

[Sanguine]

I could be wrong, but I think the whole premise of the article is based on a logical fallacy.

Never means never. It doesn’t mean sometime or occasional or periodic. So, if one considers themselves NT, the author’s argument is going nowhere. Just ask @INVAR @Cripplecreek and the others. They speak honestly on the subject, they’ll tell you straight up. Never means never.

And with that, I await the coming storm....

Sure, I can accept that as long as you acknowledge that "EverTrump" means ever, and that ETs are incapable of even recognizing Trump's shortcomings, or of criticizing him for criticism-worthy actions/words.

[Concerned]

I've never considered myself a "Never Trumper".   Having said that, when the President does something I think is praise-worthy, I've repeatedly praised him including on Gorsuch, regulations, ISIS (he deserves "all the credit in the world" I said), his leadership on hurricane support for FL and TX, etc.  I've also repeatedly criticized him on his apparent lack of fiscal conservatism, the lies/falsehoods/misleading statements/distractions, his petty squabbles, the broken promises (especially the ones important to me), his childish name-calling, etc.

I'll never understand when supporters (detractors) personally disagree (agree) with a President’s actions, policies, or behavior, but choose silence over criticism (praise) simply because it's "their guy" (not "their guy").

[roamer_1]

Put another way, your integrity compelled you to be a Never Trumper.

Sorta. It isn't my integrity in question.

But does your integrity now compel you to admit where he has done well? Where he has kept his promises? Where he has championed causes that really matter to “value voters”? Where he has stood strong for the some of the great moral issues of the day?

Sure, though his 'accomplishments' are largely meaningless gestures - few and far between, hawked loudly.

In short, I concur with prominent Never Trumper David French, who just last month counseled his colleagues to follow these guidelines: “Praise him when he’s right, critique him when he’s wrong, apply the same standards to your own side that you apply to ideological opponents, and keep your eyes fixed on the larger, more important cultural trends.”

Well, no - The standard I apply is strict and sure in expectation. A much higher standard than I expect of 'ideological opponents (read liberals), who have no standard.

But I ask again, have you done this as Never Trumpers? Doesn’t your integrity compel you to be even-handed, or, perhaps, to acknowledge where, at times, you may have been wrong?

No. I haven't been wrong. And the scurrilous bastard and pompous boor is the very same thing he was in the primary.

And Mussolini made the trains run on rime.

[Bigun]

When I see the parade of orange jumpsuits led by Hillary Clinton I will sing the praises of The Trump administration forever but not until then.

[Jazzhead]

When I see the parade of orange jumpsuits led by Hillary Clinton I will sing the praises of The Trump administration forever but not until then.

So your motivation is revenge?   Enjoy the booming economy and let it go.   If you can't thank Trump for it, then that's your weakness, not his.   

[roamer_1]

When I see the parade of orange jumpsuits led by Hillary Clinton I will sing the praises of The Trump administration forever but not until then.

Yeah... I'd say, don't hold your breath.

[Sanguine]

So your motivation is revenge?   Enjoy the booming economy and let it go.   If you can't thank Trump for it, then that's your weakness, not his.

No, restoring the rule of law is.  If Trump does that, I'm sure most of the NT's here will jump in and thank him.

[Bigun]

No, restoring the rule of law is.  If Trump does that, I'm sure most of the NT's here will jump in and thank him.

Thank you @Sanguine.  I don't see his posts unless someone quotes him and you are right!  unless the rule of law is restored nothing else is going to matter!

[Cyber Liberty]

No, restoring the rule of law is.  If Trump does that, I'm sure most of the NT's here will jump in and thank him.

His comment about revenge is interesting to me.  The rule of law is only secondary in this case, to one who professes time and again, that the rule of law means everything to him.  Hmmm. 

I wonder why this is different?  I wonder if it understands the difference between "revenge" and "retribution?"

[Axeslinger]

Sure, I can accept that as long as you acknowledge that "EverTrump" means ever, and that ETs are incapable of even recognizing Trump's shortcomings, or of criticizing him for criticism-worthy actions/words.

Agree and for further evidence of the two way street that IS this problem, go to TOS and look at the comments for this very same article.  You’ll see why many NTs were driven to saying “oh hell no!”

[INVAR]

Never means never. It doesn’t mean sometime or occasional or periodic. So, if one considers themselves NT, the author’s argument is going nowhere. Just ask @INVAR @Cripplecreek and the others. They speak honestly on the subject, they’ll tell you straight up. Never means never.

Because your fellow Trump fanatics are unhinged morons who literally went out-of-their-minds berserk when those of us they knew did not support his election, agreed and applauded a Trump statement/action.  It was insisted that we may NOT jump on the 'Trump Train' to ride Trump's coattails of success after we worked so hard to prevent his election, nor nod our heads in agreement because we did not earn the right to agree with Trump, because we did not support him from the beginning.

The stupidity and idiocy of this demand BEGGED to be honored, and so I will refrain from publicly agreeing with or applauding Trump for anything he says or does.  I will only opine the negative and my disagreement with anything Trump says or does.

I have learned from the mouths and posts of the Rabid Trump Faithful, that it is NOT acceptable to applaud Trump when he does well and criticize him when he acts stupidly, no, no, no, no - we must only PRAISE HIM CONTINUALLY! 

[Jazzhead]

His comment about revenge is interesting to me.  The rule of law is only secondary in this case, to one who professes time and again, that the rule of law means everything to him.  Hmmm. 

I wonder why this is different?  I wonder if it understands the difference between "revenge" and "retribution?"

The law should be an instrument of justice, not revenge.  I'd tread carefully about establishing a precedent whereby the passage of an election means the winners can prosecute and imprison the losers.  The peaceful transfer of power has been a hallmark of this nation for two centuries, with the one exception leading to a brutal war.   

Hillary suffered a humiliating defeat, and was punished by being denied the perks of power.  I have no interest in seeing her in an orange jumpsuit -  the precedent would make us look like a banana republic.   

[Sanguine]

The law should be an instrument of justice, not revenge.  I'd tread carefully about establishing a precedent whereby the passage of an election means the winners can prosecute and imprison the losers.  The peaceful transfer of power has been a hallmark of this nation for two centuries, with the one exception leading to a brutal war.   

Hillary suffered a humiliating defeat, and was punished by being denied the perks of power.  I have no interest in seeing her in an orange jumpsuit -  the precedent would make us look like a banana republic.   

I agree with the justice part.  And, boy oh boy, does Hillary need justice.

What does this have to do with a transfer of power? 

[Bigun]

The law should be an instrument of justice, not revenge.  I'd tread carefully about establishing a precedent whereby the passage of an election means the winners can prosecute and imprison the losers.  The peaceful transfer of power has been a hallmark of this nation for two centuries, with the one exception leading to a brutal war.   

Hillary suffered a humiliating defeat, and was punished by being denied the perks of power.  I have no interest in seeing her in an orange jumpsuit -  the precedent would make us look like a banana republic.   

Even though she committed numerous crimes that would have put any lower level person in Leavenworth for the rest of their natural lives.

Very telling!

[aligncare]

Thank you @Sanguine.  I don't see his posts unless someone quotes him and you are right!  unless the rule of law is restored nothing else is going to matter!

I believe Trump (though he’s been criticized mercilessly for it) was trying to restore the rule of law regarding the policy memorandum sent from Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano to CBP, that eventually became the illegal Obama EO establishing DACA.

But, again as with anything Donald Trump does, he was attacked for insisting that congress act and do something about DACA, illegal in its present form. Legislation after all is congress’ job, not the president’s.

This president, as far as I can tell stays within the lines of his constitutional responsibilities.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Because your fellow Trump fanatics are unhinged morons who literally went out-of-their-minds berserk when those of us they knew did not support his election, agreed and applauded a Trump statement/action.  It was insisted that we may NOT jump on the 'Trump Train' to ride Trump's coattails of success after we worked so hard to prevent his election, nor nod our heads in agreement because we did not earn the right to agree with Trump, because we did not support him from the beginning.

The stupidity and idiocy of this demand BEGGED to be honored, and so I will refrain from publicly agreeing with or applauding Trump for anything he says or does.  I will only opine the negative and my disagreement with anything Trump says or does.

I have learned from the mouths and posts of the Rabid Trump Faithful, that it is NOT acceptable to applaud Trump when he does well and criticize him when he acts stupidly, no, no, no, no - we must only PRAISE HIM CONTINUALLY!

The break between Trump supporters and supporters of anyone but is simply irreconcilable. 

[Right_in_Virginia]

No, restoring the rule of law is.  If Trump does that, I'm sure most of the NT's here will jump in and thank him.

Pffft .... NT's will move the goal post.  It's what they do.

[Sanguine]

Pffft .... NT's will move the goal post.  It's what they do.

May we both hope Trump gives us the opportunity to prove you wrong.