-
Odyssey of a NeverTrumper
I was all in for Ted Cruz. When he failed to win a single county in South Carolina,
in hindsight, red flags should have been raised high and warning alarms sounded loudly. Super Tuesday should have increased the foreboding, as Cruz won Texas only.
I'm not sure of the exact timing, but, as Glenn Beck became a prime surrogate, my feelings of ultimate failure increased exponentially. Wisconsin was a temporary shot in the arm and I thought, “Well, in this crazy environment, maybe there's a new paradigm still forming that Ted will figure out.†Of course, that was not to be, as his last ditch effort in Indiana was unsuccessful.
On one level, I understood why things were proceeding as they were. There is no shortage of analysis and commentary for all that. Regardless, the defeat of my Conservative champion left me with a welter of emotion. Probably the dominant one was disgust for the buffoon who had vanquished my champion, followed by a certainty that he would lose in a landslide; so, “to hell with the whole kit and caboodle.â€
But, “Fine,†I tried to rationalize the situation.., “The primaries are always nasty affairs. Surely there will be a Trump 2.0, who will mend fences, focus his message and basically grow up.†To this day, August 3 , 2016, I see no evidence of that happening.
But, as more time has passed, my thoughts then began to turn to all the fathers' sons, and even more sadly, daughters, whom the next CinC will potentially send to war. Then came the infamous display of July 5 by FBI Director James Comey, which basically put the FedGov stamp of approval on identified criminality.
It happens that my odyssey has coincided with my reading of Richard Weaver's “Ideas Have Consequences.†Early in the introduction he writes of “the appalling problem, when one gets to actual cases, of getting men to distinguish between better and worseâ€
Eureka! There's a concept I had somehow excluded from my thinking, although in my non-political life, I distinguish all the time. Maybe eating a piece of pie is not all that good for me, but eating one slice is better than eating the whole pie. So, how to relate that to politics?
Making a political choice based on better or worse does not sully my soul, provided that I have a proper understanding what politics actually is, and that my expectations for it are clear. I must reject the messianic pretensions that so easily attach to ideology, regardless of its substance, be it Liberal or Conservative.
From: Conservatism and Ideological Politics
http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2013/10/conservatism-ideological-politics.html (http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2013/10/conservatism-ideological-politics.html)
“The problem of ideological politics is typified by certain factions of the Tea Party who, although espousing principles congenial to most conservatives, highlight the dangers inherent in excess each time their self-appointed leaders claim the exclusive right to set the “conservative agenda†and excoriate those who refuse to adopt their policies in whole. “Be my brother or I’ll kill you†was the Jacobin creed, yet the contemporary heirs of Edmund Burke dangle perilously close to adopting this as their motto each time they endeavor to attain ideological uniformity. Such an embrace would amount to a total abdication of the very principles conservatives seek to exonerate. “
Therefore, if I am to participate in political life, I must first be clear and realistic on the actual choice I am making, as it has boiled down.
Do I like my options? Not much.
Shall I stand firmly on the belief that the lesser of two evils, being an evil, forbids me from exercising a prudential judgment based on better and worse? I think not. I must find another way.
I start with the understanding that this world is a fallen place and that men are fallen creatures. There is no political system that will restore the world and men to the pre-fall state. However, there are things that I can do, both in my public and my private life, that will better or worsen myself, and by extension the sphere in which I live and act. With this as a basis, I then understand more clearly, the validity of “The perfect is the enemy of the good.â€
I need to be reminded that there is a distinction between moral judgment (good and evil) and prudential judgment (applies to tenable options that are not intrinsically evil.) With that distinction established, my odyssey can continue with a different way to think than before.
-
I hope you will write more on this @don-o. Haven't had time to keep up with the Weaver threads in the last couple of weeks but I hope to get back to them soon.
-
I hope you will write more on this @don-o. Haven't had time to keep up with the Weaver threads in the last couple of weeks but I hope to get back to them soon.
No worries, Sam. They will be there. Loooking forward to Chapter 5.
-
Great post.
-
I hope you will write more on this @don-o. Haven't had time to keep up with the Weaver threads in the last couple of weeks but I hope to get back to them soon.
@don-o @goodwithagun @roamer_1 @lonestar dream
Guys and gals (there are two sexes. Exactly, numerically two)--
I just want to chime in here, and I assure you I am not just don-o #2, although, scarily, it often seems that way! Vulcan mind-meld, yikes----
This is what I'm running into all the time: the challenge of decisively distinguishing between moral decisions (good/evil) and prudential judgments (meh Oh-Kayyyy/ semi-OK / OK / a little more effectively OK / yeah that'll work OK, etc.)
[Aside: Just to throw a curve ball into the thing, a little while ago I read Graham Greene's sociopath/ spiritual novel "Brighton Rock," and he would divide the first category into two, make a distinction between moral decisions (right/wrong) and spiritual realities (good/evil), the former being natural and rule-based, the latter being open to the transcendent dimensions of everything we are and do --- but that takes us further afield than I intend to go in this post. Read "Brighton Rock" and be well and truly distressed.)
Anyhow, I think the rules are very few, but very strict. Morally, there are just a handful of things you must never choose --- intrinsic evils --- but the catch is, you must never choose them, as ends or as means, no matter what, even if it cost you your life, even if it entailed the destruction of the world: no to murder (the fully intentional killing of a known innocent human being), no to sexual violation, no to apostasy.
Whether as a means or as an end.
No, nay, never, and that's it.
These are what some "Philosophers of Action" would call "exceptionless norms".
And of course, no intentional participating in these wrongs in any way: as sponsor, as accessory, as enabler, as inciter, as contributor, as approver or applauder, as slip-slidin' accomplice, as formal cooperator, etc.
Most of the decisions we make are not of that sort. Most of them are prudential, i.e things which are neither morally obligatory nor morally prohibited, but simply morally neutral or allowable, scanning a range of things are up to your shades-of-gray judgment as to what looks like the best bet (or the least-bad bet) under the circumstances.
I would put political activity in general, and electoral advocacy in particular, in this category. Nobody is either morally obliged nor morally prohibited from voting. Nobody is morally obliged, or morally prohibited, from voting for a particular candidate.
I will add that if you vote for a deeply screwed-up candidate (which we all will, if we vote) we take on part-ownership of that person's official actions, and thus we acquire a solemn, long-term responsibility to kick our chosen politico's butt on a regular basis and seriously force him/her to do the right thing. If you shrug off this long-term responsibility, you then become ever-more responsible for this politico's wrongdoing, inasmuch as he/she was "YOUR" candidate and you culpably failed to
scream bloody murder to avert "YOUR" candidate's bad actions.
Class, discuss.
-
Sometimes there's just no lesser of two evils.
-
@don-o @goodwithagun @roamer_1 @lonestar dream
Guys and gals (there are two sexes. Exactly, numerically two)--
I just want to chime in here, and I assure you I am not just don-o #2, although, scarily, it often seems that way! Vulcan mind-meld, yikes----
This is what I'm running into all the time: the challenge of decisively distinguishing between moral decisions (good/evil) and prudential judgments (meh Oh-Kayyyy/ semi-OK / OK / a little more effectively OK / yeah that'll work OK, etc.)
[Aside: Just to throw a curve ball into the thing, a little while ago I read Graham Greene's sociopath/ spiritual novel "Brighton Rock," and he would divide the first category into two, make a distinction between moral decisions (right/wrong) and spiritual realities (good/evil), the former being natural and rule-based, the latter being open to the transcendent dimensions of everything we are and do --- but that takes us further afield than I intend to go in this post. Read "Brighton Rock" and be well and truly distressed.)
Anyhow, I think the rules are very few, but very strict. Morally, there are just a handful of things you must never choose --- intrinsic evils --- but the catch is, you must never choose them, as ends or as means, no matter what, even if it cost you your life, even if it entailed the destruction of the world: no to murder (the fully intentional killing of a known innocent human being), no to sexual violation, no to apostasy.
Whether as a means or as an end.
No, nay, never, and that's it.
These are what some "Philosophers of Action" would call "exceptionless norms".
And of course, no intentional participating in these wrongs in any way: as sponsor, as accessory, as enabler, as inciter, as contributor, as approver or applauder, as slip-slidin' accomplice, as formal cooperator, etc.
Most of the decisions we make are not of that sort. Most of them are prudential, i.e things which are neither morally obligatory nor morally prohibited, but simply morally neutral or allowable, scanning a range of things are up to your shades-of-gray judgment as to what looks like the best bet (or the least-bad bet) under the circumstances.
I would put political activity in general, and electoral advocacy in particular, in this category. Nobody is either morally obliged nor morally prohibited from voting. Nobody is morally obliged, or morally prohibited, from voting for a particular candidate.
I will add that if you vote for a deeply screwed-up candidate (which we all will, if we vote) we take on part-ownership of that person's official actions, and thus we acquire a solemn, long-term responsibility to kick our chosen politico's butt on a regular basis and seriously force him/her to do the right thing. If you shrug off this long-term responsibility, you then become ever-more responsible for this politico's wrongdoing, inasmuch as he/she was "YOUR" candidate and you culpably failed to
scream bloody murder to avert "YOUR" candidate's bad actions.
Class, discuss.
Unfortunately I have no confidence in any ability to kick anyone's butt in the current political environment - politicians and bureaucrats especially at the federal level, once elected are less accountable to the average person than they've ever been.
Personally this election is a brand new experience. I still haven't decided on a course that acknowledges reality yet allows me to live with my conscience.
-
Sometimes there's just no lesser of two evils.
Are you using moral or prudential judgment to make that conclusion?
-
The problem is that it's becoming more and more apparent that this year the choice between the "big two" candidates is not Evil vs. Good, or even Evil vs. Lesser Evil, but is Evil vs. Crazy. Looking at it that way, what will your choice be?
My choice is to view this election (and all elections) in this way:
We live in a representative republic. As citizens, it is not our job to vote for the better qualified candidate, or the candidate with the better chance of winning, or even the less evil candidate. Our job as citizens is to vote for the candidate that we think will best represent us and our views. That's all.
Neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump represents me, or my views. Neither does Gary Johnson, or Jill Stein. The Presidential candidate in this year's race that does represent me and my views (to my mind, at least) is Darrell Castle. Therefore, that is whom I will be casting my vote for.
No moral quandary or agonized decision to make. Simply investigate the candidates and their views, and vote for the one that has the most in common with your own views. Easy. :shrug:
Edited just to add a left-out word.
-
Class, discuss.
@Mrs Don-o @LonestarDream @don-o @goodwithagun
Hello Mrs. Don-o,
Thank you for pinging me to this fine course in philosophical mathematics...
For me, it is fairly simple:
Serial long-term immoral behavior, serial abuse of obligations (both in marriage and in business contracts), Ever-changing promises with a finger in the wind: All of these point unerringly to a low character, and a person of low character cannot be trusted. End of story. The very first value necessary in a representative of any stripe must be trustworthiness.
The only way we will begin to obtain reliable, responsible statesmen is to insist upon them.
The only way to advance our Conservative principles comes by way of those statesmen.
Any other thought process ends in mere politicians.
Hence, my endorsement of Darrell Castle (if I can indeed legally vote for him), or I will abstain.
-
Are you using moral or prudential judgment to make that conclusion?
In regard to the Trump fiasco, both.
From all I have seen so far, I can't in good conscience support Trump and support of Clinton is out of the question. In fact I'd say it leans more to a prudential judgement than a moral one.
I don't think our elections really fall into the moral judgement category for the most part. There are areas where they do but in this particular election the "opponents" both seem to take the same moral positions or immoral as the case may be.
But heck, I'm no philosopher...
Just praying for our nation.
-
No moral quandary or agonized decision to make. Simply investigate the candidates and their views, and vote the one that has the most in common with your own views. Easy. :shrug:
Very well. But, the next POTUS will be one of two people. That is inevitable. Voting based on ones views, though, DOES impact which of those two wins. Yours is one less vote that either needs to gain.
That is simple math.
-
It really is as if people willfully choose to ignore where this former Republic has arrived.
If we're talking a legitimate choice that better represents what most of us recognize as Conservatism, then Castle, or Johnson or Stein would be those choices to choose from. But those choices are irrelevant - as is your vote. The fact is that in a post-Constitutional coup of corruption we now exist under - our votes are less than worthless, notwithstanding the fact that the citizenry is being replaced and a majority of the population WANT Statism/Communism.
So even if our votes actually mattered, those of us who identify as Conservative are in a shrinking minority. A morally reprobate population will choose the more reprehensible person to represent the zeitgeist that a population is motivated.
"Choice" is being removed from this culture and society unless you want to kill your baby and/or pretend you are another sex so you can flaunt your perversion as a preferred normalcy.
Trump or The Mao Pantsuit are not really a 'choice' because the end result is exactly the same: death.
-
Epic piece Don, just Epic. After the conventions and given the choices available, Trump is the more prudential choice.
Odyssey of a NeverTrumper
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,213071.0.html
I was all in for Ted Cruz. When he failed to win a single county in South Carolina,
in hindsight, red flags should have been raised high and warning alarms sounded loudly. Super Tuesday should have increased the foreboding, as Cruz won Texas only.
I'm not sure of the exact timing, but, as Glenn Beck became a prime surrogate, my feelings of ultimate failure increased exponentially. Wisconsin was a temporary shot in the arm and I thought, “Well, in this crazy environment, maybe there's a new paradigm still forming that Ted will figure out.” Of course, that was not to be, as his last ditch effort in Indiana was unsuccessful.
On one level, I understood why things were proceeding as they were. There is no shortage of analysis and commentary for all that. Regardless, the defeat of my Conservative champion left me with a welter of emotion. Probably the dominant one was disgust for the buffoon who had vanquished my champion, followed by a certainty that he would lose in a landslide; so, “to hell with the whole kit and caboodle.”
But, “Fine,” I tried to rationalize the situation.., “The primaries are always nasty affairs. Surely there will be a Trump 2.0, who will mend fences, focus his message and basically grow up.” To this day, August 3 , 2016, I see no evidence of that happening.
But, as more time has passed, my thoughts ten began to turn to all the fathers' sons, and even more sadly, daughters, whom the next CinC will potentially send to war. Then came the infamous display of July 5 by FBI Director James Comey, which basically put the FedGov stamp of approval on identified criminality.
It happens that my odyssey has coincided with my reading of Richard Weaver's “Ideas Have Consequences.” Early in the introduction he writes of “the appalling problem, when one gets to actual cases, of getting men to distinguish between better and worse”
Eureka! There's a concept I had somehow excluded from my thinking, although in my non-political life, I distinguish all the time. Maybe eating a piece of pie is not all that good for me, but eating one slice is better than eating the whole pie. So, how to relate that to politics?
Making a political choice based on better or worse does not sully my soul, provided that I have a proper understanding what politics actually is, and that my expectations for it are clear. I must reject the messianic pretensions that so easily attach to ideology, regardless of its substance, be it Liberal or Conservative.
From: Conservatism and Ideological Politics
http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2013/10/conservatism-ideological-politics.html
Therefore, if I am to participate in political life, I must first be clear and realistic on the actual choice I am making, as it has boiled down.
Do I like my options? Not much.
Shall I stand firmly on the belief that the lesser of two evils, being an evil, forbids me from exercising a prudential judgment based on better and worse? I think not. I must find another way.
I start with the understanding that this world is a fallen place and that men are fallen creatures. There is no political system that will restore the world and men to the pre-fall state. However, there are things that I can do, both in my public and my private life, that will better or worsen myself, and by extension the sphere in which I live and act. With this as a basis, I then understand more clearly, the validity of “The perfect is the enemy of the good.”
I need to be reminded that there is a distinction between moral judgment (good and evil) and prudential judgment (applies to tenable options that are not intrinsically evil.) With that distinction established, my odyssey can continue with a different way to think than before.
-
But heck, I'm no philosopher...
Just praying for our nation.
Nor am I, but philosophy need not be considered arcane nor incomprehensible.
We were allowed to open the Worldview formation / Anthropology category for exactly this purpose.
I have had to do a good deal of thinking and sorting to come to my current position and have had actual verbal conversations with people. One of them is in the next room and one has a cell phone. That was important for me to do.
-
Supporting the convention of states. Voting against Ryan soon.
Supporting local conservatives and causes- up and down the ticket.
Looks like we all let Huelskamp down this past weekend...
Unfortunately I have no confidence in any ability to kick anyone's butt in the current political environment - politicians and bureaucrats especially at the federal level, once elected are less accountable to the average person than they've ever been.
Personally this election is a brand new experience. I still haven't decided on a course that acknowledges reality yet allows me to live with my conscience.
-
Very well. But, the next POTUS will be one of two people. That is inevitable. Voting based on ones views, though, DOES impact which of those two wins. Yours is one less vote that either needs to gain.
That is simple math.
It is also one more vote for the candidate that best represents my views.
If you're looking for a way to rationalize voting for a person who doesn't represent your views, why?
-
It is also one more vote for the candidate that best represents my views.
If you're looking for a way to rationalize voting for a person who doesn't represent your views, why?
8 years of Hillary. She will not be impeached or denied a second term.
Donald will bow out after one term after his 'win'.
-
8 years of Hillary. She will not be impeached or denied a second term.
I only have the power of 1 vote. No Presidential campaign in history has been decided by 1 vote. Therefore, I don't have the power to choose the winner in this election, or any other.
And again, my job isn't to pick the winner anyway. "Representative Republic", remember?
-
It is also one more vote for the candidate that best represents my views.
If you're looking for a way to rationalize voting for a person who doesn't represent your views, why?
Because my prudence brings better / worst into play. And, no, that is not moral relativism. That is the nature of the sorting of judgments we are called on to make.
-
Because my prudence brings better / worst into play. And, no, that is not moral relativism. That is the nature of the sorting of judgments we are called on to make.
So you think your 1 vote will tip the scales for one Presidential candidate or another?
Well, that would be a first.
-
were the OPEN PRIMARIES simply stupid or were they evil? or is there a distinction??
-
This doesn't take into account the element of time, specifically as it flows from our actions as individuals or as a group.
Voting for either hitlery or stumpy is to reward bad behavior, and thus encourage more of it into the future. If stumpy wins, every jerk with a spare nickel will ape the orangutan and run as an "outsider," lying, cheating, stealing, and smearing one's way to office, using the same tropes and idiocy as the orangutan. I've already seen this by several candidates running for the House and Senate. Ironically (or not so ironically), most of the are democrats. The stumpy model fits well for them.
If hitlery wins, politicians will take as their model the iron stalinism of the new president. And we will see them lining up the moneyed interests to power them into office, cutting deals with the party insiders to gain power, creating foundations ostensibly for charity that really serve as money engines, all the while as they preach freebies to the lumpenproletariat.
In either case, bad behavior will be rewarded by giving nearly all the votes to either the evil one or the evil & crazy one.
The alternative is to support a third party. If enough folks do so, the turkeys who run our "major" parties might realize that they are losing their grip on the American electorate, and try something different. At this point, almost anything different from these twin evils would likely be an improvement. Even Johnson.
So, my ballot will be cast with an eye toward the future. I am resigned that this election will result in an evil outcome. It is difficult for me to identify which is the worse evil. Right now, I'm leaning toward stumpy as the worse evil. But it doesn't matter. Instead of participating in the current evil, I will cast my vote in a way to open the glimmer of a possibility for change.
Otherwise, if one only considers this election as a binary choice, the moral option is to refuse to participate in either of these works of satan, and stay home.
-
Because my prudence brings better / worst into play. And, no, that is not moral relativism. That is the nature of the sorting of judgments we are called on to make.
I think that's not right - Your positive endorsement, which is the only thing a vote can be, should endorse that which you, personally, believe in... To do otherwise is to risk a mandate in the aggregate, given to that which you abhor.
Imagine that: If all Conservatives did as you propose - The result is Trump, and Clinton blocked (which seems to be your main objective), but Trump with a mandate of enormous size.
And with that mandate, an embracing of the new 'conservatism' that Trump and his supporters espouse.
Are you sure you have calculated the unintended consequences?
-
Because my prudence brings better / worst into play. And, no, that is not moral relativism. That is the nature of the sorting of judgments we are called on to make.
I guess my question is this: Using Weavers ideas is there a line beyond which we do not cross a point beyond a lesser evil we still don't support. In politics is there such a thing as beyond the pale and how do we determine where that is?
-
I only have the power of 1 vote. No Presidential campaign in history has been decided by 1 vote. Therefore, I don't have the power to choose the winner in this election, or any other.
And again, my job isn't to pick the winner anyway. "Representative Republic", remember?
1) Any voter on this board will influence at least two dozen votes here and in their community.
2) We all get two votes actually.
It matters WHERE you started from. If you voted for W, McCain or Romney your baseline is more aligned to the 'pure' Constitution Party platform which is our theoretical home. If you voted for Gore, Kerry or Obama you have a Statist baseline.
Now if Trump can get a Statist to stay home, he gets one vote. If he gets a Statist to switch sides, he gets two votes ( Hence the appeal to Bernie voters- or least getting them to vote for Jill Stein since Bernie 'betrayed' these voters)
Conversely, if Hillary gets a conservative to switch sides, she gets two votes ( Hence Kaine as VP not Warren) .
She also gets a vote if a Conservative uses their vote elsewhere...
-
If Hillary is given a pathway to victory, people will learn the lesson that full corruption pays.
Like FDR, we will earn at least 16 years. of it. The dems also had the house for 50 years as well.
There are many other things we can do other than voting for President that influence outcomes. The TEA party was one positive movement while it lasted.
This doesn't take into account the element of time, specifically as it flows from our actions as individuals or as a group.
Voting for either hitlery or stumpy is to reward bad behavior, and thus encourage more of it into the future. If stumpy wins, every jerk with a spare nickel will ape the orangutan and run as an "outsider," lying, cheating, stealing, and smearing one's way to office, using the same tropes and idiocy as the orangutan. I've already seen this by several candidates running for the House and Senate. Ironically (or not so ironically), most of the are democrats. The stumpy model fits well for them.
If hitlery wins, politicians will take as their model the iron stalinism of the new president. And we will see them lining up the moneyed interests to power them into office, cutting deals with the party insiders to gain power, creating foundations ostensibly for charity that really serve as money engines, all the while as they preach freebies to the lumpenproletariat.
In either case, bad behavior will be rewarded by giving nearly all the votes to either the evil one or the evil & crazy one.
The alternative is to support a third party. If enough folks do so, the turkeys who run our "major" parties might realize that they are losing their grip on the American electorate, and try something different. At this point, almost anything different from these twin evils would likely be an improvement. Even Johnson.
So, my ballot will be cast with an eye toward the future. I am resigned that this election will result in an evil outcome. It is difficult for me to identify which is the worse evil. Right now, I'm leaning toward stumpy as the worse evil. But it doesn't matter. Instead of participating in the current evil, I will cast my vote in a way to open the glimmer of a possibility for change.
Otherwise, if one only considers this election as a binary choice, the moral option is to refuse to participate in either of these works of satan, and stay home.
-
1) Any voter on this board will influence at least two dozen votes here and in their community.
2) We all get two votes actually.
It matters WHERE you started from. If you voted for W, McCain or Romney your baseline is more aligned to the 'pure' Constitution Party platform which is our theoretical home. If you voted for Gore, Kerry or Obama you have a Statist baseline.
Now if Trump can get a Statist to stay home, he gets one vote. If he gets a Statist to switch sides, he gets two votes ( Hence the appeal to Bernie voters- or least getting them to vote for Jill Stein since Bernie 'betrayed' these voters)
Conversely, if Hillary gets a conservative to switch sides, she gets two votes ( Hence Kaine as VP not Warren) .
She also gets a vote if a Conservative uses their vote elsewhere...
1 person, 1 vote.
Representative Republic.
Everything else is rationalization to excuse voting for someone who doesn't represent you, or to attempt to get others to vote for someone who doesn't represent them.
Edited to better say what I meant to say.
-
I have a much higher confidence level in your persuasive abilities and ultimate influence.
1 person, 1 vote.
Representative Republic.
Everything else is rationalization to excuse voting for someone who doesn't represent you, or to attempt to get others to vote for someone who doesn't represent them.
Edited to better say what I meant to say.
-
If Hillary is given a pathway to victory, people will learn the lesson that full corruption pays.
Voting for 'our guy' to block 'their guy' - Exactly the thing our fathers opined about in instituting the party system. It is only workable if 'our guy' is substantially what we would vote for without the party unity shtick.
The TEA party was one positive movement while it lasted.
The demise of the TEA Party is greatly exaggerated. At least here in the Rockies.
-
If Hillary is given a pathway to victory, people will learn the lesson that full corruption pays.
Like FDR, we will earn at least 16 years. of it. The dems also had the house for 50 years as well.
There are many other things we can do other than voting for President that influence outcomes. The TEA party was one positive movement while it lasted.
If the orange lunatic is elected, given today's report of the lunatic asking why we can't use nukes, maybe it'll all end in mushroom clouds and nuclear fall-out.
-
The demise of the TEA Party is greatly exaggerated. At least here in the Rockies.
Great to hear. Why we should be spending our time to promote it more and to convince our liberal friends to vote Jill Stein or Libertarian ( for the free weed :smokin:) .
-
If the orange lunatic is elected, given today's report of the lunatic asking why we can't use nukes, maybe it'll all end in mushroom clouds and nuclear fall-out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGsY4vBYdYM
-
If the orange lunatic is elected, given today's report of the lunatic asking why we can't use nukes, maybe it'll all end in mushroom clouds and nuclear fall-out.
Paying Iran billions to make nukes, giving ISIS arms and the Benghazi fiasco scare me far more.
Not to mention NK playing around. Obama/Hillary project zero deterrence.
Reagan projected deterrence but was widely portrayed as one who would accidentally blow up the world.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHmH1xQ2Pf4
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGsY4vBYdYM
Believe this is hearsay and we do not have the context....
-
Great to hear. Why we should be spending our time to promote it more [...]
Not how it works up here... TEA Party is all about getting your own hands dirty. Find out who's jamming the deal in your area, show up, and find out what you can do to help. No superstructure, no glory, just hard-core activism.
-
Paying Iran billions to make nukes, giving ISIS arms and the Benghazi fiasco scare me far more.
Not to mention NK playing around. Obama/Hillary project zero deterrence.
Reagan projected deterrence but was widely portrayed as one who would accidentally blow up the world.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHmH1xQ2Pf4
A president that is buddies with Czar Putin isn't exaclty a spring picnic either.
-
Believe this is hearsay and we do not have the context....
Ok, but one thing is for certain: If you know who Kingston Trio is, and can sing along, you are approaching geezer territory. I should know...
-
I have a much higher confidence level in your persuasive abilities and ultimate influence.
Stating the simple rules of the game isn't being persuasive, it's just being honest.
I'm just a goof with a keyboard, what influence can I have? :seeya:
-
A president that is buddies with Czar Putin isn't exaclty a spring picnic either.
This element of the election has been tough to talk about. Reagan was reviled for missile defense, because it was thought he would use the defense to start a nuke war with The Soviet Union.
So the obvious answer was the 'Nuclear Freeze' movement and Ted Kennedy's consorting with the Russians.
Instead of a nuclear war, missile defense brought down the Soviet economy as they tried in vain to keep up.
I see the Donald's carrot and stick approach with Putin through the lens of our enemies and deterrence.
IF I am Putin, China, Iran or Turkey my actions have fewer consequences when facing Hillary/Merkel than a strong US/UK alliance.
-
That is a tired argument. No matter how you flower up the "lesser of two evils" argument, it comes out the same. There is a matter of degree where that argument can morally work. All humans are flawed. Then there is a point where both cross over the line of acceptable. That's when you make a stand and say neither.
Too much to untangle at once. Please clarify the line you are talking about crossing.
-
A Christian does not choose evil means and the ends do not justify the means. Trump is a walking wrecking ball with very thin skin. To give him the power of the Presidency would be a moral evil in and of itself.
This is simply throwing prudence out the window. Do you equate having a thin skin with immorality?
It is not. It is a character flaw, the common lot of the children of Adam.
Should you choose to vote 3rd party, what can be known of that ones character flaws? Hadn't you better be finding out? Ref: JFK.
I do not understand with you mean by evil mens and ends. Please clarify.
-
All effort to paint Trump as a moral choice or a benign choice takes willful blindness.
Who is doing that?
I will not cover my eyes or deny what I see. I will not be party to handing him power. The consequences will be on those who choose either. Let it be by their hands and not mine. I will not choose between them. That way my conscience is clear.
Will you at least consider that your non-participation in a binary choice assists the worse, HRC, to power?
-
Sometimes there's just no lesser of two evils.
@guitar4jesus @don-o @goodwithagun @roamer_1 @lonestar dream
I can see what you're saying: like do you want to be shot, beheaded or hung?
However, at present (this opinion may change) I see Trump, not as a candidate with acceptable qualities, but as a big ol' gnarly log I can roll into the legs of Hillary Rodham Clinton. No more and no less. I don't want hm to do anything but stop HRC, and stop her real hard. After that, he can drop dead the next day for all I care.
(I do not, of course, mean that in a death-dealing way. I just mean I want for him what I want for my own self, a timely and repentant death, when the Lord wills. Which I hope will be --- sigh --- timely.)
Meanwhile, A big ol' stupid log we can roll into HRC's legs. We've got it. Let's use it.
Check with me in 15 minutes and see if I still believe this. I find the political weather so bizarre (grapefruit-sized hailstones followed by a toothy sharknado) as to be quite unpredictable. It would be dark humor if it didn't have this nightmarish "gosh, it's almost real" quality.....
-
Check with me in 15 minutes and see if I still believe this. I find the political weather so bizarre (grapefruit-sized hailstones followed by a toothy sharknado) as to be quite unpredictable. It would be dark humor if it didn't have this nightmarish "gosh, it's almost real" quality.....
Yeah, that's where I've been living this year!
-
I guess my question is this: Using Weavers ideas is there a line beyond which we do not cross a point beyond a lesser evil we still don't support. In politics is there such a thing as beyond the pale and how do we determine where that is?
Quick reply - I think the first order of business is to get good / evil (morality) and better / worse (prudence) clear and to be sure on what goes into which bucket. I'm not sure I have made that point clearly enough; but shall try to do so.
After I attend to some business in the world, involving my prudence.
-
She also gets a vote if a Conservative uses their vote elsewhere...
Trump is a statist
-
Trump is a statist
Considering the involvement of Pence and Gingrich , no where near the level of Hillary/Huma.
We should not comfort ourselves otherwise. Despite his flaws, would we really have been better off with 8 years of Gore over Bush?
-
Considering the involvement of Pence and Gingrich , no where near the level of Hillary/Huma.
We should not comfort ourselves otherwise. Despite his flaws, would we really have been better off with 8 years of Gore over Bush?
Pence and Gingrich aren't going to change Trump. Trump is completely and morally unacceptable as a human being much less a candidate.
-
Will you at least consider that your non-participation in a binary choice assists the worse, HRC, to power?
We are not limited to a "binary choice" despite what "conventional wisdom" insists. We can write in a candidate of our choice, we can vote third party.
If you deem that action 'non-participation', oh well. The fact remains the amount of fraud and corruption now institutionalized has already rendered the idea of an honest election, utterly laughable to anyone looking at reality. Cook County went national in 2012 - you have seen your last "legitimate" national election. "Rigged" does not even begin to come close to what has happened under your nose. But go ahead and pretend otherwise if that feels more comfortable to you. 95% of the population shares that comfort.
I do not.
Because if this 'choice' truly is 'limited' to a binary - I view it as a choice of being burned alive at the stake or boiled alive in oil.
I choose neither and will flee with my life intact - having not surrendered it under a false pretense. Of course there are those who tell me that if I refuse to choose which death I want - then it will be made for me, confirming the fact that death is inevitable and the idea of 'choice' is ridiculous because the end result is the same.
Of course if one insists the choice will be made for us - that confirms the fact that we are not free, our hands are bound and the imposition of stake or oil is a foregone conclusion that will be administered whether we want it or not. illustrating that we exist in a despotic tyranny that most are comfortable with as long as their heads are not on the chopping block.
Stake or oil - Trump or Hillary.
I choose neither.
Because I choose neither, my principles and I will survive longer than the rest who submit to the fate others have prepared to administer.
-
Pence and Gingrich aren't going to change Trump. Trump is completely and morally unacceptable as a human being much less a candidate.
The thread is about Trump / Pence and their administration as the prudential choice.
There are tens of thousands of appointments that will be made in government over the next 8 years.
Do not want Hillary and her consort, Huma making these choices.
-
Odyssey of a NeverTrumper
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,213071.0.html
I was all in for Ted Cruz. When he failed to win a single county in South Carolina, in hindsight, red flags should have been raised high and warning alarms sounded loudly. Super Tuesday should have increased the foreboding, as Cruz won Texas only....
Oklahoma? Alaska?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016#March_1.2C_2016:_Super_Tuesday
I find it tough to read on when the article leads off with false claims.
-
Oklahoma? Alaska?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016#March_1.2C_2016:_Super_Tuesday
I find it tough to read on when the article leads off with false claims.
Think that Trump muscled away some of the Alaska delegates at the convention. But the larger point was that Cruz had few wins on Super Tuesday and did not do as well as expected in The South.
-
Oklahoma? Alaska?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016#March_1.2C_2016:_Super_Tuesday
I find it tough to read on when the article leads off with false claims.
Duly noted.
It does not effect my larger point, but I do regret my sloppiness.
-
Unfortunately I have no confidence in any ability to kick anyone's butt ...I still haven't decided on a course that acknowledges reality yet allows me to live with my conscience.
@don-o @goodwithagun @roamer_1 @lonestar dream
I, too, try to calibrate the probability that I, or any organization/movement I'm connected to, could actually influence Trump, before or fter an election. My chances of influencing him are equivalent to my chances of influencing HRC: near absolute zero.
However, If HRC were to become president, she has all kinds of power bases built up in the House, the Senate, the Judiciary, the Fed bureaucracy, the Demo-rabble constituencies, etc. Pluse trhe EneMmedia plus the University-Global Buggery Complex, and --- speaking of global --- plus the Saudis, Soros, the Brussels Bureaufascists, the Orcs and Feregi and whoever else she has been able to bribe, bully, or blackmail.
Whereas Trump is, I think, much more of a loose cannon. You never know who, what, when, where, or how. He is largely without allies (in the usual sense) and wildly unpredictable.
And those are his *good* qualities.
I mean that literally.
With HRC, you know exactly who she is and what she will do. I consider it all unfathomably evil. And she has the connections, built up over the past 40 years of relentless plotting and scheming, to do it.
Whereas with the Orange Imbecile, you KNOW he isn't going to accomplish half of what he says, and there are any number of people who can tie his hands and prevent him from doing anything that's downright lunatic. Or so we are entitled to hope.
We are in front of two doors., One of them is marked with skulls-and crossbones, biohazard symbols, flashing lights saying "Extreme Danger?" "Toxic Effluent?" "High Voltage?" "Deadly Risk?" "Imminent Catastrophe?" and about a dozen more menacing question marks.
The other door is labeled "Hillary Rodham Clinton."
I'm choosing the door with the question marks.
-
Paying Iran billions to make nukes, giving ISIS arms and the Benghazi fiasco scare me far more.
Not to mention NK playing around. Obama/Hillary project zero deterrence.
Reagan projected deterrence but was widely portrayed as one who would accidentally blow up the world.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHmH1xQ2Pf4
Pointing out the unacceptable nature of the current regime doesn't make the regime of the orange a$$hoIe any less unacceptable.
-
Considering the involvement of Pence and Gingrich , no where near the level of Hillary/Huma.
We should not comfort ourselves otherwise. Despite his flaws, would we really have been better off with 8 years of Gore over Bush?
What it feels like when trying to get people to grasp the irrefutable disaster guaranteed by Obama's third term.
(http://i414.photobucket.com/albums/pp221/drw509/lala.jpg)
-
I leave morality to those who understand it.
Were Trump in Officer Candidate Selection School, he would be failed with prejudice. That means failed so hard that he would be removed from the military in ANY capacity and blackballed. A CinC candidate should get the same consideration as a Third Lieutenant. On that alone, I can not support him in any capacity.
-
What it feels like when trying to get people to grasp the irrefutable disaster guaranteed by Obama's third term.
(http://i414.photobucket.com/albums/pp221/drw509/lala.jpg)
You are guaranteed that no matter what 'happens' in November.
Hillary's
Trojan
Stalking
Horse.
You've all been had.
-
I think that's not right - Your positive endorsement, which is the only thing a vote can be, should endorse that which you, personally, believe in... To do otherwise is to risk a mandate in the aggregate, given to that which you abhor.
Imagine that: If all Conservatives did as you propose - The result is Trump, and Clinton blocked (which seems to be your main objective), but Trump with a mandate of enormous size.
And with that mandate, an embracing of the new 'conservatism' that Trump and his supporters espouse.
Are you sure you have calculated the unintended consequences?
In my OP I write of having a realistic view of the limitations of politics, I'm going to add to be wary of overreaching to posit a future and long range results based on one election.
I do understand the hope to build "something" of a political home. This is laudable. But if HRC swears the oath on Jan 21, that little platoon will have a hard time to even find room to operate.
imo, a Trump mandate is not even a remote possibility.
Are you one who believes Trump is as/more dangerous than Clinton? If so, maybe we can talk about that.
-
What it feels like when trying to get people to grasp the irrefutable disaster guaranteed by Obama's third term.
(http://i414.photobucket.com/albums/pp221/drw509/lala.jpg)
Funny, I get the same feeling from talking to Trump Supporters. :thud:
-
@don-o @goodwithagun @roamer_1 @lonestar dream
I, too, try to calibrate the probability that I, or any organization/movement I'm connected to, could actually influence Trump, before or fter an election. My chances of influencing him are equivalent to my chances of influencing HRC: near absolute zero.
However, If HRC were to become president, she has all kinds of power bases built up in the House, the Senate, the Judiciary, the Fed bureaucracy, the Demo-rabble constituencies, etc. Pluse trhe EneMmedia plus the University-Global Buggery Complex, and --- speaking of global --- plus the Saudis, Soros, the Brussels Bureaufascists, the Orcs and Feregi and whoever else she has been able to bribe, bully, or blackmail.
Whereas Trump is, I think, much more of a loose cannon. You never know who, what, when, where, or how. He is largely without allies (in the usual sense) and wildly unpredictable.
And those are his *good* qualities.
I mean that literally.
With HRC, you know exactly who she is and what she will do. I consider it all unfathomably evil. And she has the connections, built up over the past 40 years of relentless plotting and scheming, to do it.
Whereas with the Orange Imbecile, you KNOW he isn't going to accomplish half of what he says, and there are any number of people who can tie his hands and prevent him from doing anything that's downright lunatic. Or so we are entitled to hope.
We are in front of two doors., One of them is marked with skulls-and crossbones, biohazard symbols, flashing lights saying "Extreme Danger?" "Toxic Effluent?" "High Voltage?" "Deadly Risk?" "Imminent Catastrophe?" and about a dozen more menacing question marks.
The other door is labeled "Hillary Rodham Clinton."
I'm choosing the door with the question marks.
I chose top stand before both doors. certain I will never choose Hillary, but also not certain as to whether I can choose Trump. I will not decide until I am in the voting booth, alone with my maker. In the meantime, I will watch and hope that something changes, so I will not have to choose between arsenic and cyanide.
-
Whole Bunch of fancy words...
Here is how this simple minded person sees it...
Ballot..
1. Vote for Hillary the Impaler
2. Vote for Trump the deceiver
3. Vote for either none of the above, write-in Cruz (or someone), or vote some third party person that impressed you.
Lord is looking over your shoulder to see how you vote to show him homage in what wisdom he imposed on you.
It is choice #3 all day. Yes I have kids (yes I worry about their future) but I trust the Lord all day before I will put trust in man. Plus I want the lesson taught to my kids that it is that simple, always put your chips on the Lord and you are not gambling with your soul in the balance.
-
Sometimes there's just no lesser of two evils.
They are pretty much neck and neck down the home stretch....
-
What it feels like when trying to get people to grasp the irrefutable disaster guaranteed by Obama's third term.
(http://i414.photobucket.com/albums/pp221/drw509/lala.jpg)
When the ship is on the rocks, will it matter who has the helm?
I question whether disaster can be avoided at this point. So often it seems one party sets up the prosperity or downturn the other party either takes credit for or gets blamed for. It takes time for the helm to respond, and there may well not be enough time to turn, even with the screws reversed and the helm hard over--and I just don't see that happening.
Economic lies, unemployment numbers seriously fiddled with, inflation masked, illegal immigration likely multiples of claimed numbers, invaded by executive order by possible terrorists, spent into the poorhouse (>100%GDP in debt), more racially divided than the 50s, children ignorant of our Republic, and indoctrinated by those who steer them away from a moral base, and regulated, regulated, regulated into foundering... More Government will not Make America Great Again, more efficient Government will just mean the problems we have will multiply without serious staff reductions--which just do not happen (someone's department would become less important if their staff was cut). Too many sacred cows, too many pet oxen to gore.
Only appealing to the vanity of the Orange one will possibly get him to work contrary to Hillary's agenda, and I am not sure even that would be sufficient. Besides, getting up every morning at 5 AM to face the East and shout "Good Job!" in unison would get old, quick. ..
-
This is simply throwing prudence out the window. Do you equate having a thin skin with immorality?
It is not. It is a character flaw, the common lot of the children of Adam.
Should you choose to vote 3rd party, what can be known of that ones character flaws? Hadn't you better be finding out? Ref: JFK.
I do not understand with you mean by evil mens and ends. Please clarify.
For example, when Liz Mair's PAC ran the Melania GQ Cover image ad, Trump assumed (or already knew better, but that is an even more diabolical option) that the ad came from Cruz's Campaign. He went after Heidi Cruz with both barrels and reloaded and did it again, even after Cruz had said "That's not one of ours." about the ad. When the facts came out, Trump lied and used the alleged attack on Melania to redouble his attacks on Heidi Cruz.
Rash assumption followed by virulent retaliation (against the wrong people) followed by prevarication to justify the first strike and follow on attacks (and continued lying) to keep up the meme.
Let's take that geopolitical.
A bunch of Lower Slobovian terrorists (Mohammed's Fighters for Terror) break their GPS on the way to New Orleans with a 'surplus' Soviet nuclear device in the hold of their trawler and intent to meet 72 virgins.
They nuke Key West, more by accident than design. Spectral analysis shows the device was Soviet made.
Putin says "That wasn't one of ours."
But before the LSMFT faction has a chance to assume credit for the attack, Trump goes ballistic, and orders ICBM and SLBM launches on the Former Soviet Union, where the device was made.
The news breaks that it was LSMFT terrorists who actually did the deed, but Trump lets the nukes detonate on target, decries the lyin' MSM for repeating accounts the attack was conducted by LSMFT which are just more of Prevaricating Putin's lies and hits with a second strike. Of course, by then, the Russians have launched their own birds...
-
I hope you will write more on this @don-o. Haven't had time to keep up with the Weaver threads in the last couple of weeks but I hope to get back to them soon.
@don-o @HoustonSam Ditto what Sam said. It is County fair week here.
-
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
(Opinion) Why Many “Conservatives” are Horrified by Donald Trump’s Candidacy
(I’m) We’re Better Than That!
I think that this reason is the most difficult for anyone to actually acknowledge, even privately. None of us are usually very willing to admit, at least in a public forum, that we view another fellow human being as “beneath” us. (After all, most of us (regardless of religious preference) will acknowledge that we are all God’s creatures, and using the old colloquial popular in the 1960s, firmly state, “God doesn’t make junk!”). Hence, most of us are loathe to admit to ourselves, no less in a public forum, that a man like Donald Trump is “beneath” us. That his appearance, personality, and personal history, offends our sensibilities! After all, we’re serious political beings, many of us have worked on campaigns since our teenage years, have donated (at times) more time & money than we could rightly afford over the years, we’ve read and studied the issues and political history for decades. But we are not snobs!
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
11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. 12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.
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.
Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.
John 7:24
-
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.
I may yet vote for Trump. But I can say unequivocally that my objection to him him has more to do with ideology than personality. I believe in pluralism, free trade, limited federal government and fundamental constitutional freedoms. I used to think Republicans did as well.
-
I may yet vote for Trump. But I can say unequivocally that my objection to him him has more to do with ideology than personality. I believe in pluralism, free trade, limited federal government and fundamental constitutional freedoms. I used to think Republicans did as well.
As of August 4, there is one ideologically pure candidate. that being HRC. We had an ideologically pure candidate in the Republican primaries. He lost.
Now Republicans have a nominee with no coherent ideology, to all appearances. Couple of questions:
1. Is he capable, or even desirous of developing one? I do not know. Trump remains a known unknown. I shall not pretend otherwise.
But, more importantly:
2. Is concern about his lackings and shortcomings sufficient reason to withhold support and allow the known known ideology of HRC to continue on the same path we have trod for the past eight years?
-
Odyssey of a NeverTrumper
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,213071.0.html
"You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill
I will choose a path that's clear…"
-Geddy Lee/Rush - Freewill
Funny how a Canadian in 1980 had such clarity of vision that he put the idea into verse. But decades later, some people have to tie themselves into knots to justify actions they know will result into great harm to their country.
There is no such thing as lesser evil. Thee is only evil and you empower it or you oppose it. Binary. Always was so, always will be so.
-
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 I find vaguely amusing is that what you claim to be "prudential judgment" has led you to support a candidate who himself appears to be completely lacking in prudence. **nononono*
From Merriam-Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prudence): Full Definition of prudence
1: the ability to govern and discipline oneself by the use of reason
2: sagacity or shrewdness in the management of affairs
3: skill and good judgment in the use of resources
4: caution or circumspection as to danger or risk
-
"You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill
I will choose a path that's clear…"
-Geddy Lee/Rush - Freewill
Funny how a Canadian in 1980 had such clarity of vision that he put the idea into verse. But decades later, some people have to tie themselves into knots to justify actions they know will result into great harm to their country.
There is no such thing as lesser evil. Thee is only evil and you empower it or you oppose it. Binary. Always was so, always will be so.
Hey Norm. Good to see you back posting. Care to engage my arguments? Basically, I am saying the "lesser of two evils" is a flawed concept.
-
2. Is concern about his lackings and shortcomings sufficient reason to withhold support and allow the known known ideology of HRC to continue on the same path we have trod for the past eight years?
This, of course, is the pertinent question. With Trump down 11 points in Pennsylvania at the moment, I don't have to worry about it. My vote will not be relevant. If it gets close again, then I will have to reconsider.
But I am pretty sure I can count on Trump to continue to implode without my help.
-
However, prudential judgment takes me out of my pride and places me where I can rationally consider the question within a better / worse framework.
Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.
John 7:24
Smokin Joe gave us a perfect example of the application of 'righteous judgement' when it comes to Trump.
For example, when Liz Mair's PAC ran the Melania GQ Cover image ad, Trump assumed (or already knew better, but that is an even more diabolical option) that the ad came from Cruz's Campaign. He went after Heidi Cruz with both barrels and reloaded and did it again, even after Cruz had said "That's not one of ours." about the ad. When the facts came out, Trump lied and used the alleged attack on Melania to redouble his attacks on Heidi Cruz.
Rash assumption followed by virulent retaliation (against the wrong people) followed by prevarication to justify the first strike and follow on attacks (and continued lying) to keep up the meme.
Let's take that geopolitical.
A bunch of Lower Slobovian terrorists (Mohammed's Fighters for Terror) break their GPS on the way to New Orleans with a 'surplus' Soviet nuclear device in the hold of their trawler and intent to meet 72 virgins.
They nuke Key West, more by accident than design. Spectral analysis shows the device was Soviet made.
Putin says "That wasn't one of ours."
But before the LSMFT faction has a chance to assume credit for the attack, Trump goes ballistic, and orders ICBM and SLBM launches on the Former Soviet Union, where the device was made.
The news breaks that it was LSMFT terrorists who actually did the deed, but Trump lets the nukes detonate on target, decries the lyin' MSM for repeating accounts the attack was conducted by LSMFT which are just more of Prevaricating Putin's lies and hits with a second strike. Of course, by then, the Russians have launched their own birds...
However, the vast majority will not consider that 'judgment' to have any validity - because, you know - cognitive dissonance. Will never happen, because well, no nukes have flown during the existence of our lives, so the idea that Trump would launch them is an absurdity they will tell themselves.
Judging righteous judgment would also dictate that a man who cannot maintain his own wedding vows, while bragging about bedding other men's wives, is not a man who will keep an oath to defend and protect the Constitution either.
But eyes glaze over, and heads shake, and the very statement is rejected out of hand because….. HILLARY!
This people deserve what is coming upon them, and the righteous Judgment of the Lord is upon us.
But no one wants to think that.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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."
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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*... :shrug:
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.
-
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*... :shrug:
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.
:amen:
You said it better than I ever could. Thank you! :patriot:
-
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.
That's where I am, too. Much to my very great surprise.
-
All I'm doing is voting for the candidate that best represents my beliefs
I get every bit of that. There is only one viable option that represents my deeply held belief that HRC must not be CINC. It is that simple and very personal with a son who will be at the very tip of the spear in the next war.
-
I get every bit of that. There is only one viable option that represents my deeply held belief that HRC must not be CINC. It is that simple and very personal with a son who will be at the very tip of the spear in the next war.
I am sure you have grappled long and hard with that issue. Consider, that while hillary is no friend of the military, it was Obama who had to issue the cross border authority to let relief/rescue assets into Benghazi. It is my understanding that the two gentlemen who gave their lives so others could escape were not active duty SEALs, but were hired for security at the embassy. (Correct me if I am wrong, please).
It is my opinion (and YMMV, but please consider) that Benghazi was a planned snatch-and-grab, the fruits of which would have been a hostage ambassador at an annex removed from the embassy, who would have been exchanged for the Terrorist lieutenants who were later released. By ignoring orders to stand down, relocating to the annex, and mustering and mounting a defense, the impression given was that the deal was not only off, but a set-up. The fighters and the Ambassador were killed in retaliation for that apparent betrayal. The reason no relief was forthcoming is that it would have eliminated any deniability on the part of those traitors in the DOS that this was a fluke, the guys were acting contrary to a stand down, etc., and cemented the idea of betrayal in the minds of the terrorist leadership which there were many other deals on the table with the second they got so much as one crumb of air support, much less troops on the ground. Yep, any way you cut and slice it, that's betrayal, and treason, but there was likely a 'deal' in the background, maybe levels of deal we know nothing about.
Treason? I'm pretty sure whatever they were cooking up was, and for money.
Now, what I believe you are basing your decision on is the belief (hope, anyway) that Mr. Trump will not get our troops (as a force, not a couple of individuals) in harm's way needlessly or incompetently, out of pique or personal affront, using the Armed Forces of the Untied States of America to assuage his wounded ego.. whether or not the affront is worthy of committing our youth (especially yours) and treasure to retaliation or action. versus whether you believe Hillary would commit our Armed forces to needless or needlessly restricted conflict which would be difficult at best to resolve favorably for the Nation, the military, or even the individual soldier.
You're in a tough spot. I'm not trying to persuade you, just provide perspective. We know the contempt which Hillary has for our service personnel. We've seen Trump stand behind them, ducking a debate. His motivation may be questioned there, but I don't think he would do anything which might have him appear to be a "loser", or which he could not blame away. The latter concerns me almost as much as the former, because I don't see him taking the responsibility for ever getting anything wrong. I don't think Hillary would necessarily start WWIII, although she might arrange the board. Trump, I am not so sure.
Whatever the outcome, I pray your son stays safe, especially from rash and corrupt decisions made on high.
-
I don't think Hillary would necessarily start WWIII, although she might arrange the board. Trump, I am not so sure.
Whatever the outcome, I pray your son stays safe, especially from rash and corrupt decisions made on high.
Thank you for the prayers.
No pieces need to be rearranged. And a noted "gaffe" of Trump's about the use of nukes got me curious to do some looking around and I found this
As U.S. Modernizes Nuclear Weapons, ‘Smaller’ Leaves Some Uneasy
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/12/science/as-us-modernizes-nuclear-weapons-smaller-leaves-some-uneasy.html
Upthread, you laid out a scenario in which a rash and impulsive Trump launches. There's other scenarios to consider, in which our nuclear deterrence needs a hard look. It could be that this is what Trump may have been thinking of when he wondered aloud about use of nukes. (For those who hesitate to read the NYT piece - it's tactical, not strategic nukes.)
It is regrettable pattern, that he came with a one liner rather than a fully thought out framing of the issue.
But, back to Obama's third term...there's this
In recent weeks, the national security Cabinet members known as the Principals Committee held two meetings to review options for executive actions on nuclear policy. Many of the options on the table are controversial, but by design none of them require formal congressional approval. No final decisions have been made, but Obama is expected to weigh in personally soon.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/12/science/as-us-modernizes-nuclear-weapons-smaller-leaves-some-uneasy.html
Whatever it is he's cooking up, anyone really believe HRC will rescind it? Anyone think Trump just might?
-
I get every bit of that. There is only one viable option that represents my deeply held belief that HRC must not be CINC. It is that simple and very personal with a son who will be at the very tip of the spear in the next war.
I understand that - I really do. But that fear, no matter how valid, is not (IMHO) assuaged in the least by putting the loose cannon that Trump represents in there instead - NEITHER ONE is a good option for your son.
Trump absolutely does *not* represent the sort of measured diplomacy, calm hand on the rudder, or the solemn, oath-kept, born in blood understanding that keeps men free of war, or in the least, protects them if they must endeavor there.
IMHO, the danger is not mitigated in either of them, and in fact, is arguable in both directions (neither with a suitable outcome).
I do not envy your position, nor your son's, considering the options available. And I do pray that the Father would keep us, and especially our servicemen safe.
But by the numbers, Castle is still the better choice - even in this aspect.
-
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.
Yeah, what you said. This whole thread is the attempt to shroud the choice to commit evil, wrapped up in a tendencies moral argument serving as a justification.
-
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.
Same here. I never ever thought that I would be voting 3rd party. In fact, in 2008 I recall arguing vehemently at TOS against it....and for supporting Palin (despite McCain).
Things change. In this case, for the worse. There really is no viable candidate now. The establishment RINOs shunned Cruz and eliminated the other candidates, any of which would have been better than what we have now.
I'll be voting 3rd party this year....yet another "first" in the Obamanation. And I will not be alone re: that.
-
Yeah, what you said. This whole thread is the attempt to shroud the choice to commit evil, wrapped up in a tendencies moral argument serving as a justification.
Do you mean
tendentious
adjective ten·den·tious \ten-ˈden(t)-shəs\
Popularity: Top 40% of words
Simple Definition of tendentious
: strongly favoring a particular point of view in a way that may cause argument : expressing a strong opinion
Can you challenge me on any specific point I make?
-
Yes, darned autocorrect. Sorry about that.
-
Maybe I have missed it, but I have not seen anyone engage with the last paragraph I wrote in my essay.
I need to be reminded that there is a distinction between moral judgment (good and evil) and prudential judgment (applies to tenable options that are not intrinsically evil.) With that distinction established, my odyssey can continue with a different way to think than before.
In 1973 Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn wrote
"If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?"
Who disagrees with this?
-
Yes, darned autocorrect. Sorry about that.
If you want to fix it, I will take out the definition, but leave my question intact from my post..
-
If you want to fix it, I will take out the definition, but leave my question intact from my post..
Nah, it's too much work. Lol.
I just find your enterprise to be analogous to the criticisms of researchers who use data the way a drunk uses a lamppost, not for illumination, but for support.
I find that you have a conclusion that you wish to embrace: it is moral to vote for trump. And you're in search of a moral argument to support your conclusion.
I understand your motivating reason: you have a son in the military, and you fear having hitlery become Commander in Chief. I get that. Because of obama, I was rather adamant that I would not permit my sons to join the military. I'd be going out of my mind if either were in the service with the prospect of either hitlery or the orange a$$hoIe.
I find both unacceptably evil, and I find the orange a$$hoIe to be insane, as well. hitlery has severe mental deficits which the pressures of office may lead to her suffering physical incapacity, and even death, but, as far as i can tell, although she is evil, craven, politically paranoid, greedy, and power-hungry, I don't belive that she's insane. The orange a$$hoIe, on the other hand, only has occasional contact with reality.
-
[...] use data the way a drunk uses a lamppost, not for illumination, but for support.
Heh... Sure glad you clarified that statement... That's not where I thought it was going...
-
Nah, it's too much work. Lol.
I just find your enterprise to be analogous to the criticisms of researchers who use data the way a drunk uses a lamppost, not for illumination, but for support.
I find that you have a conclusion that you wish to embrace: it is moral to vote for trump. And you're in search of a moral argument to support your conclusion.
You can "find" whatever you wish. But, it's clear you are not even engaging my point that it is not a moral argument at all. It is a matter of prudential judgment in which better / worse are weighed as best as can be thought out.
It's clear that if Clinton is elected, she will never be prosecuted for the crimes that Comey listed on July 5. If Trump is elected, there is a reasonable hope that prosecution might go forward. That is a better outcome. Hillary getting off scott free is a worse outcome.
-
You can "find" whatever you wish. But, it's clear you are not even engaging my point that it is not a moral argument at all. It is a matter of prudential judgment in which better / worse are weighed as best as can be thought out.
It's clear that if Clinton is elected, she will never be prosecuted for the crimes that Comey listed on July 5. If Trump is elected, there is a reasonable hope that prosecution might go forward. That is a better outcome. Hillary getting off scott free is a worse outcome.
I am less worried about anything approaching vengeance toward that traitor than I am about the future of this nation going forward. In the future she will be savaged in history, should this nation survive., or she will be written up as a 'great revolutionary hero' by our enemies.
The survival of America is paramount.
Even seeing that witch in orange coveralls or dancing from a gibbet is secondary to that. She WILL face a higher judge.
Which of them is more survivable, and which vice presidential candidate would be more survivable?
Her health can't be good, and the Donald is no spring chicken, and given to what appear (by the rashness of his actions) to be apoplectic episodes of his own. Someone is going to bust a gasket before four years go by, or be medicated into near somnolence.
-
You can "find" whatever you wish. But, it's clear you are not even engaging my point that it is not a moral argument at all. It is a matter of prudential judgment in which better / worse are weighed as best as can be thought out.
It's clear that if Clinton is elected, she will never be prosecuted for the crimes that Comey listed on July 5. If Trump is elected, there is a reasonable hope that prosecution might go forward. That is a better outcome. Hillary getting off scott free is a worse outcome.
Your "prudential" judgement is really a moral judgement in disguise. It is a prudential means to get to a particular moral end.
A prudential judgement would look past whether or not a specific individual escaped justice, or whether or not a specific individual got the nomination bring lying, cheating, stealing, and smearing. The real prudential judgement is which presidency is the United States most likely to survive. My bet is on hitlery.
-
What are the numbers? I want to understand how it fits into moral or prudential judgment.
As far as moral judgment, I examine the acts that I know or suspect that both have done or have credibly alleged to have done and to to judge those acts as morally good, evil or neutral.
And right off the bat, I am confronted with a fairly long list for Hillary. For Trump not so much and nowhere near the seriousness of hers.
Does Castle have a list also? Of course he does as do you and I. But, neither you nor I nor Castle will be taking the oath on Jan 20. One of two people who have both done evil acts will.
The prudential aspect then comes into play. Based on past evil acts, what is a reasonable expectation on which of the two will commit more and more serious evil acts as POTUS?
-
What are the numbers? I want to understand how it fits into moral or prudential judgment.
I only mean that Castle is a Nam vet - He contains that first quintessential principle that DEFCONS prefer - That he's been there, and done that, and knows what he is calling them up for, and knows the nature of their oath, written in blood. By the numbers, on this issue, Castle is far and away preferable as CinC.
As far as moral judgment, I examine the acts that I know or suspect that both have done or have credibly alleged to have done and to to judge those acts as morally good, evil or neutral.
And right off the bat, I am confronted with a fairly long list for Hillary. For Trump not so much and nowhere near the seriousness of hers.
Well, on that account, you are talking to the wrong guy - That Trump owns gambling dens, strip clubs, and escort services has always been enough on it's face for me to tell he is of low character - And that low character, making him untrustworthy, disqualifies him in the very first round. End of story. Comparing his low character to Clinton's low character is a purposeless exercise.
Does Castle have a list also? Of course he does as do you and I. But, neither you nor I nor Castle will be taking the oath on Jan 20. One of two people who have both done evil acts will.
However astonishingly small Castle's chances may be, your statement is predictive, not proven.
Let go, and let God.
The prudential aspect then comes into play. Based on past evil acts, what is a reasonable expectation on which of the two will commit more and more serious evil acts as POTUS?
Not for me... Voting *FOR* a person of low character is to endorse low character - Maybe even to give it mandate. Prudence has nothing to do with that.
-
The prudential aspect then comes into play. Based on past evil acts, what is a reasonable expectation on which of the two will commit more and more serious evil acts as POTUS?
To wit: At what point is the evidence of moral turpitude enough to absolutely outweigh prudential judgement? Or is it a matter of moral relevance, and there is no point at which moral turpitude is enough? Is morality merely an horizon line?
-
To wit: At what point is the evidence of moral turpitude enough to absolutely outweigh prudential judgement? Or is it a matter of moral relevance, and there is no point at which moral turpitude is enough? Is morality merely an horizon line?
It's a good question and I do not discount its relevance. I had an uncle who refused to vote for Reagan because he was divorced.
I am still not convinced that my choice on whom to vote for is a moral choice. I think the act of voting is morally neutral.
Spirituality and Scruples
https://www.growingchristians.org/devotions/spirituality-and-scruples/
I am posting this here for my reference so I remember to give it a careful reading.
Thanks for the replies.
-
Welcome TBR. Though we obviously differ at this point, I look forward to your contributions to the discussion.
-
Welcome @AllThatJazzZ :seeya:
Hope you stick around. Many of us have seen the same potential in Trump.
Even more frightening is the other part of the equation: The right socioeconomic situation.
Without that, another roaring malcontent in the ditches of mainstream history (at most). With that angry and willing populace, wrapped in economic frustration, with ready groups to take their anger out on (someone to blame), and anger at those in their government who have not performed their sworn duties or failed to even attempt to fulfill the promises they made to get into office, things may develop differently around that rallying point, especially if that anger is so severe that the actions of the group and attempts to rationalize them defy their own stated logic, and even are destructive to the long term goals they claimed to desire.
Angry people make mistakes, very angry people make big mistakes.
And they have a leader.
Not all his supporters are so irrational, but never before have I seen so many Republicans so rabidly enthusiastic about a candidate they would have discarded five years ago as being antithetical to their philosophies.
-
I stumbled upon this site today, and the title of the thread caught my eye (although, as I suspected, I was ultimately disappointed in the argument). It was your post that made me decide to join the site, if for no other reason than to say that, upon reading your post, I stood up from my keyboard and applauded your words. In order to tell you that, I had to sign up to post. As I read on down, there were other posts that were quite principled. Imagine my great surprise and relief to find others who believe as I do and haven't been ripped to shreds as is the habit of some (cough, cough FR) sites.
As I read your words, I was reminded of the thoughts going through my mind yesterday as I watched "Judgment at Nuremberg." Some of the dialog literally sent chills down my spine as the movie depicted how the nation of Germany, the judges on trial, the patriots and the victims had to come to terms with the realization that Hitler's rise was as the result of a cult of personality that they had participated in. One wonders at what point the various individuals had their own personal epiphany of what he was. Also, did they dare speak about their newly discovered understanding of him? Surely not, lest they pay a considerable price.
Like you, I'm not saying Trump is a mass murderer. I'm not even coming close to saying that. I'm just pointing out that a Trump so unrestrained and flip-floppy as he has been when he's vying for the votes of the American people will feel safe to become even more unrestrained and flip-floppy once he's got the job. He's used to barking out orders, not being restricted by the confines of a pesky constitution. Obama has set a lawless precedent of complete disregard for the separation of powers. How hard would it be for Trump to plop himself behind the Resolute desk and decree whatever he wants to have happen? And will the Trumpsters hold him accountable for skirting his constitutional limits if they liked his proclamations? Would they do that Democrat thing of twisting themselves into pretzels to justify what The Donald does? Will their argument be, "Well, Obama did it"? Or, "Now Trump's got a pen and a phone"?
There was a fever over the land...
--Ernst Janning
There is an anger over the land...
--Trumpsters
Welcome You will like it here Jump in and enjoy
-
It's clear that if Clinton is elected, she will never be prosecuted for the crimes that Comey listed on July 5….
I absolutely MARVEL at the absolute cognitive dissonance that exists in this country by a people who, despite evidence smacking them square in the face - ASSUME that this 'election' in November will be legitimate and that your vote will make a difference.
I guess the fact we suffered a velvet coup, and that every institution that touches government is corrupted beyond redemption, fails to register in everyone's minds because the thought of where we have actually arrived is too horrible to contemplate.
A people who refuse to even recognized where we have arrived, are a people who will not endure or survive what is coming.
The ballot box is not saving us.
-
I am still not convinced that my choice on whom to vote for is a moral choice. I think the act of voting is morally neutral.
I would disagree. Torah teaches us to be righteous in our judgements, and to use discernment - Not to follow the crowd, but to do what is right... I would be more attuned to applying that sort of protocol to my voting process.
Spirituality and Scruples
https://www.growingchristians.org/devotions/spirituality-and-scruples/
I am posting this here for my reference so I remember to give it a careful reading.
Thanks for the link... I'll think on it a spell too, but my knee-jerk reaction is to abstain from voicing my opinion too strenuously - My Messianic bend would probably cause more argument...
-
I absolutely MARVEL at the absolute cognitive dissonance that exists in this country by a people who, despite evidence smacking them square in the face - ASSUME that this 'election' in November will be legitimate and that your vote will make a difference.
I guess the fact we suffered a velvet coup, and that every institution that touches government is corrupted beyond redemption, fails to register in everyone's minds because the thought of where we have actually arrived is too horrible to contemplate.
A people who refuse to even recognized where we have arrived, are a people who will not endure or survive what is coming.
The ballot box is not saving us.
State Sovereignty was supposed to be a check on Federal power. That went away with Direct Election of Senators. The Senate was not only the superior body, but the voice of the States.
The other check is the moral aspect of our culture. Madison said it best, that the Constitution was written for, and only suitable for, a moral and devout people. With the 1960s counterculture, and its final overtaking of the formerly mainstream culture, we are now godless and amoral. We think, not in terms of right and wrong, but legal, illegal, what we can get away with and who we need to co-opt or bribe to escape punishment or be granted license.
We are failing. This election will not save us - the farcical nature of it is proof of how corrupt our culture and the people themselves, have come to be.
And I now fully expect this election will be the last in a long time. It appears that the Empress has it sewn up; and she is so feeble it will be her bodyguards and lieutenants ruling over us in her name. As Fidel Castro was kept propped up...long after he was gone, I firmly believe.
They'll have this mummified, vegitative body on life support so that Huma and Cheryl and whoever else is Inside, can rule. While we will come to the end of an unsustainable path. While we're slowly destroyed by Iranian Nukes or Chinese conquest...piece by piece.
-
I stumbled upon this site today, and the title of the thread caught my eye
Welcome @AllThatJazzZ ! Great first post!
-
As of August 4, there is one ideologically pure candidate. that being HRC. We had an ideologically pure candidate in the Republican primaries. He lost.
+1,000
Many of us supported Cruz. Came up short.
Cant allow Hillary! a pathway to the presidency .....
-
"You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill
I will choose a path that's clear…"
-Geddy Lee/Rush - Freewill
Funny how a Canadian in 1980 had such clarity of vision that he put the idea into verse. But decades later, some people have to tie themselves into knots to justify actions they know will result into great harm to their country.
There is no such thing as lesser evil. Thee is only evil and you empower it or you oppose it. Binary. Always was so, always will be so.
This thread is about a prudential choice, not the lesser of two evils. While we can build up other options over time, we essentially have a binary choice to make in Nov.
Of course, we have Senators and Congressmen to vote for. And we can also do many other things like supporting the convention of states....
-
This, of course, is the pertinent question. With Trump down 11 points in Pennsylvania at the moment, I don't have to worry about it. My vote will not be relevant. If it gets close again, then I will have to reconsider.
But I am pretty sure I can count on Trump to continue to implode without my help.
The polling is flawed. HW Bush was down 17 in 1988. Still, I voted then. Trump will close.
In a key swing state like PA, you can never assume Hill will win. Particularly considering the damage done to the coal/steel/working demo...
-
I absolutely MARVEL at the absolute cognitive dissonance that exists in this country by a people who, despite evidence smacking them square in the face - ASSUME that this 'election' in November will be legitimate and that your vote will make a difference.
Then why waste your time?
-
If you read the commentary by the founding fathers, That is what they gave us the vote *for*... :shrug:
There were 17 candidates to FOR during the primaries. Yet many folks like Jonah Goldberg went the nihilistic route in Feb and said 'never'. In the context of the primaries, 'never' was never on the ballot.
Some folks like Thomas Sowell were smart enough to see the end game and voted like many of us did for Cruz.
The convention is over we can either allow Hillary a pathway or not now. Any of our 17, even Jeb! (even with all of his NWO connections ) would be better than Hillary.
-
In addition, to her poor judgement demonstrated in Benghazi-- Bill and Hill have PROVEN gross and crass misjudgement while playing with the nuke football. Way beyond our speculations, these are actual events in world history.
The following morning, Sunday 13 June, Clark arrived at Jackson's HQ at Skopje. It was pointed out to him that the Russians were isolated and could not be reinforced by air and that Russian support had been a vital part of getting a peace agreement. Antagonising them would only be counterproductive. Clark refused to accept this and continued to order the runway blocked, claiming to be supported by the UN Secretary General.[2] Jackson refused to enforce Clark's orders, reportedly telling him "I'm not going to start the Third World War for you."[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incident_at_Pristina_airport
But that is not even the worst of it.
There have only been two countries who have given up Nukes. Clintons in charge have taught would be rouge states like Iran and NK that there is zero upside to give up nukes...
How? The Budapest memorandum.
Russia’s annexation of Crimea and covert invasion of eastern Ukraine places an uncomfortable focus on the worth of the security assurances pledged to Ukraine by the nuclear powers in exchange for its enuclearization. In 1994, the three depository states of the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)—Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom—extended positive and negative security assurances to Ukraine.
The depository states underlined their commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity by signing the so-called “Budapest Memorandum.”
Using new archival records, this examination of Ukraine’s search for security guarantees in the early 1990s reveals that, ironically, the threat of border revisionism by Russia was the single gravest concern of Ukraine’s leadership when surrendering the nuclear arsenal.
The failure of the Budapest Memorandum to deter one of Ukraine’s security guarantors from military aggression has important implications both for Ukraine’s long-term security and for the value of security assurances for future international nonproliferation and disarmament efforts. Russia’s breach of the Memorandum invites strong scrutiny of other security commitments and opens an enormous rhetorical opportunity for proliferators to lobby for a nuclear deterrent.
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/Issue%20Brief%20No%203--The%20Breach--Final3.pdf
For example, when Liz Mair's PAC ran the Melania GQ Cover image ad, Trump assumed (or already knew better, but that is an even more diabolical option) that the ad came from Cruz's Campaign. He went after Heidi Cruz with both barrels and reloaded and did it again, even after Cruz had said "That's not one of ours." about the ad. When the facts came out, Trump lied and used the alleged attack on Melania to redouble his attacks on Heidi Cruz.
Rash assumption followed by virulent retaliation (against the wrong people) followed by prevarication to justify the first strike and follow on attacks (and continued lying) to keep up the meme.
Let's take that geopolitical.
A bunch of Lower Slobovian terrorists (Mohammed's Fighters for Terror) break their GPS on the way to New Orleans with a 'surplus' Soviet nuclear device in the hold of their trawler and intent to meet 72 virgins.
They nuke Key West, more by accident than design. Spectral analysis shows the device was Soviet made.
Putin says "That wasn't one of ours."
But before the LSMFT faction has a chance to assume credit for the attack, Trump goes ballistic, and orders ICBM and SLBM launches on the Former Soviet Union, where the device was made.
The news breaks that it was LSMFT terrorists who actually did the deed, but Trump lets the nukes detonate on target, decries the lyin' MSM for repeating accounts the attack was conducted by LSMFT which are just more of Prevaricating Putin's lies and hits with a second strike. Of course, by then, the Russians have launched their own birds...
-
Yet if Jeb had won the nomination, there would indeed be jillions of Trumpsters who would be NeverJeb. Same with Christie, Kasich and others. In doing so, the same argument could be made that a NeverJebber will give us a Hillary presidency. Those who started off as NeverJeb wouldn't be moved by that argument. Therefore, it's unfair to fault those of us who are NeverTrumpers for the stand we've been forced to take to stay true to our most deeply held convictions.
Hypothetical. Jeb! or Kasich would be far worse than Trump for me. And yet, would still vote for our nominee.
-
Thank you. I appreciate the welcome. Your avatar is PRICELESS!!
I also appreciate your tagline. It's because of this election cycle that I've been reminded so clearly by the Lord that He is in control and can and will involve Himself in the affairs of mankind if we do our part. Second Chronicles 7:14 (or as Trump would say, "two Chronicles" :silly:) is an instruction that we believers often overlook. I repent of my lackadaisical attitude in fulfilling my obligation of that scripture. I understand that we've gotten ourselves into this mess and that only the Lord in His wisdom can deliver us. It's why I can be so comfortable with my decision to ignore the top of the ballot and focus on the other candidates.
I was much more worried and agitated over the election until a friend of mine posted the following: No matter who is president, Jesus is King. That's all I need to know.
-
So, to come full circle to the point you made which I quoted above, this can't be described as anything but a cult.
No argument here. For something really scary, (although we often just gawk or make fun of all but the most blasphemous) check this thread out http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,209817.0.html (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,209817.0.html) Many of us early on made reference to such luminaries as Jones, Manson, and the fellow whose people were waiting for a ride on the UFO behind the Comet...It's worse than that in some ways, although it hasn't gone homicidal (yet?).
Like you, I suffered the disorienting realization on another site that suddenly I was surrounded by people I did not agree with, who were often hostile, who I had thought were of like mind. It is a strange place I have been before, long ago and far away, only then in a physical sense, not just online. A few test disagreements showed me that my presence was not welcome, and exit, stage left.
Thankfully, I had been sent what is now referred to as a 'lifeline', an invite to come test the waters here, and I was already looking for a forum more to my liking when I got that invite. I'm glad you found this site.
I think you'll like it here. Many of us are refugees/zotted/or part of the Exodus from FR, who had the temerity to support our candidate of choice, commonly (but not limited to) Cruz, or question the rampant cognitive dissonance we saw.
I think the GOP just blew it (with the help of agitators on twitter, Facebook, and a host of other online people) and lost their chance to be a major force in the future. Their only hope now is to co-opt the fraction of the Left which is not completely in the bag for Marxism, and between the FSA and shameless Communists, that may not be enough to put them over the top. Even if it does, they will be running well to the Left of Hubert Humphrey and JFK, the once quintessential Democrats.
I think if conservatism is to have a political future in America, short of a bloodbath (which I do not espouse), we have to pick the political party closest to our beliefs and work our collective hindparts off to build it into a force to be reckoned with.
I'll put in a shameless plug for the Constitution Party here, but what works best for you is what works best for you.
-
Stability, in pictures..
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CpSc3XmWEAQR-TA.jpg)
(https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f74739259e133062461dc0be23f3635b97bfab17dfba251246aaa73a3d1dba6a.jpg)
-
Stability, in pictures..
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CpSc3XmWEAQR-TA.jpg)
(https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f74739259e133062461dc0be23f3635b97bfab17dfba251246aaa73a3d1dba6a.jpg)
Geeeez! Wilya lookit the pile of voice recorders in the lower picture!
-
Wonder what she said? Sang?
-
Cotton: Clinton discussed executed Iranian scientist on email.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/cotton-clinton-discussed-executed-iranian-scientist-on-email/article/2598807
Another fumble of the nuclear football from Hill's emails.
Not hypothetical. Very real while discharging the duties of the #3 officer of The United States.
-
So, while there were some like you, I would be willing to bet that those who refrained from voting for Romney would have been joined by many others this time in an effort to send the establishment a message.
But I voted for Romney and W the first time when he lost the popular vote. And McCain and Dole.
All losers. Even W probably won the second term because the SWIFT guys fought FOR him.
While my third choice behind Walker and Cruz, at least Trump fights.
-
Then why waste your time?
Waste my time doing what?
Voting?
Irrelevant.
Making comments on forums and social groups?
Being a Watchman on the wall. Hopefully get some folks to recognize reality so they can survive what is coming with their faith intact.
-
Hillary Clinton recklessly discussed, in emails hosted on her private server, an Iranian nuclear scientist who was executed by Iran for treason, Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., said Sunday.
"I'm not going to comment on what he may or may not have done for the United States government, but in the emails that were on Hillary Clinton's private server, there were conversations among her senior advisors about this gentleman," he said on "Face the Nation." Cotton was speaking about Shahram Amiri, who gave information to the U.S. about Iran's nuclear program.
The senator said this lapse proves she is not capable of keeping the country safe.
"That goes to show just how reckless and careless her decision was to put that kind of highly classified information on a private server. And I think her judgment is not suited to keep this country safe," he said.
-
Wonder what she said? Sang?
Id like to Teach The world TO sing In Perfect harmony
Id like to Buy the World a Whizz and keep it company!
Its the Real Thing.... Panther Whizz!
(http://i.imgur.com/hcnTUCi.jpg)
-
Id like to Teach The world TO sing In Perfect harmony
Id like to Buy the World a Whizz and keep it company!
Its the Real Thing.... Panther Whizz!
(http://i.imgur.com/hcnTUCi.jpg)
I think she's a Malt Liquor type, myself.
-
I think she's a Malt Liquor type, myself.
No, I think she's got a foo-foo brand of Scotch in her portable bar-case; and her assistants probably drain it off and pour Old Crow in the bottle. Between her deadened tongue and her neurological issues, she no-doubt can't taste the difference.
-
The convention is over we can either allow Hillary a pathway or not now. Any of our 17, even Jeb! (even with all of his NWO connections ) would be better than Hillary.
The lesser evil argument... No thanks.
For Conservatives to endorse Trump, against *every* Conservative principle, to not only endorse him, but to possibly give him a mandate (which he will claim regardless)... To spend four years suffering the things he will most certainly do in the name of conservatism...
Better to put up with the enemy outside the gate, than to let him inside. No sale.
-
Walker/Cruz did well in their own neck of the woods. Walker way under performed expectations and Cruz over performed.
Primaries are over. And feel much better about Trump going than McCain, Romney or even W in his second term.
By implication you're saying Walker and Cruz don't fight? Walker didn't stand up to the union mobs and a recall election? And didn't he get reelected after that? And what about Cruz?
-
Once again, it is not the lessor evil argument. It is clear who the prudential choice here is. Can you name a single elected Constitution party official?
IF we want serious candidates from this party on the national stage, we ought to at least get one elected as Lt. Governor.
The lesser evil argument... No thanks.
For Conservatives to endorse Trump, against *every* Conservative principle, to not only endorse him, but to possibly give him a mandate (which he will claim regardless)... To spend four years suffering the things he will most certainly do in the name of conservatism...
Better to put up with the enemy outside the gate, than to let him inside. No sale.
-
Am still big Cruz and Walker supporters. Still think Cruz's filibuster was great.
Walker built an infrastructure that outspent his fundraising. Then he did not want to make the needed cuts like McCain did the 08 primaries.
It is possible to hold two thoughts simultaneously, Walker good, Cruz good AND Trump much better than Hillary.
I didn't accuse you of not voting for Romney. I was differentiating you from those who decided not to vote for the Republican nominee prior to this election cycle.
By implication you're saying Walker and Cruz don't fight? Walker didn't stand up to the union mobs and a recall election? And didn't he get reelected after that? And what about Cruz? He didn't start in the basement in his bid for junior senator from Texas and overtake Lt. Gov. Dewhurst who had been waaaaaaay ahead of him in the polls almost the entire time? Remind me again who stood up to Mitch McConnell and exposed him for the fraud that he is and did so on the senate floor. It's not like he didn't know that his actions would cost him greatly with the big dogs in the Republican party, yet you seem to imply that he's not a fighter. Excuse my incredulity, but please name me another lawmaker who put so much on the line in order to show the American people who's got our backs and who doesn't.
It disgusts me to the point of wanting to puke to remember how bloody disrespectful smarmy Donald was to him. And to others in the campaign as well. He didn't attack them on policy. He attacked them personally like an 8-year-old kid would do, and MY FELLOW AMERICANS APPLAUDED HIS SORRY @$$ for that!
So, my fellow American, that's apparently what your idea of "fighting" is. I think it's adolescent and it cheapens our electoral process, and for that reason I'm out.
-
Great thread! 888high58888
Go Castle
-
The lesser evil argument... No thanks.
At one time I embraced the rejection of the "lesser of two evils" as if were a settled and irrefutable proposition. I would like to see defenders of that "truism" defend its validity.
For Conservatives to endorse Trump, against *every* Conservative principle, to not only endorse him, but to possibly give him a mandate (which he will claim regardless)... To spend four years suffering the things he will most certainly do in the name of conservatism...
Politics is the art of the possible. As to Conservatism....
The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally - not a 20 percent traitor.
Ronald Reagan
Anyone notice the fractured that and honest analysis of present day Conservatism reveals it to be?
Better to put up with the enemy outside the gate, than to let him inside. No sale.
HRC = Known enemy. Ideologically pure.
DJT = Pragmatist. Neither friend nor enemy with satisfying consistency. Ideology is a mishmash.
Conservatism and Ideological Politics
http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2013/10/conservatism-ideological-politics.html
-
DJT = Pragmatist. Neither friend nor enemy with satisfying consistency. Ideology is a mishmash.
How ... interesting ... that you left out the whole "malignant narcissist, undisciplined, untrustworthy, veering madly on policy, self-destructively picks stupid fights, and never seems to learn a damned thing" part.
I guess if you need to justify a bad choice, it's best to whitewash the bad things.
-
Once again, it is not the lessor evil argument.
Yes, it most certainly IS.
It is clear who the prudential choice here is. Can you name a single elected Constitution party official?
I don't need to. That which I stand for IS that which I stand for.
If it isn't what I stand for, what in hell makes you think I will stand?
Of course I will stand for Castle.
1.) From all that I can see, he is a man of honor - That means he WILL do what he promises to do. Not that he will succeed mind you, but I do know he will try.
2.) And I know him to be Conservative, in the strict sense - That means he is well within the 80% margin of those things that I do stand for - I agree with him, in almost every case.
Those two aspects - the mettle he is made of, and his ideological stance - These are ready made for Conservatives to vote *for*. I can very easily endorse the man. In fact, though my vetting of him is not complete, there is so very little I can object to that objection pales to insignificance.
There is literally *no* comparison, no reasonable argument for me to likewise vote for Trump.
IF we want serious candidates from this party on the national stage, we ought to at least get one elected as Lt. Governor.
I couldn't care less. What the Constitution party stands upon (with great integrity) is the very same ground as me. That is all I need to know.
-
At one time I embraced the rejection of the "lesser of two evils" as if were a settled and irrefutable proposition. I would like to see defenders of that "truism" defend its validity.
I will be happy to. Let's get on with it.
Politics is the art of the possible. As to Conservatism....
Fine, if what you want is more politicians. Perhaps one would do better to dwell upon the definition of 'statesmanship'.
Anyone notice the fractured that and honest analysis of present day Conservatism reveals it to be?
There is no way that Trump meets the 80% mark - And even if he did come close, his character is of such a meager state that he is utterly untrustworthy - As I have said, it is his character, first and foremost, that disqualifies him. I need not even approach the ideology question at all.
HRC = Known enemy. Ideologically pure.
DJT = Pragmatist. Neither friend nor enemy with satisfying consistency. Ideology is a mishmash.
Oh, bullcrap. Trump is more NYC liberal than anything else. But here we are again at character: What is it that you would use to secure the promises that he claims to stand upon?
-
Can you name a single elected Constitution party official?
IF we want serious candidates from this party on the national stage, we ought to at least get one elected as Lt. Governor.
Not yet. If the Constitution Party is going to have elected candidates to office, it will need support. Not voting for someone or a particular party because they never won anything before just guarantees the status quo.
-
Not yet. If the Constitution Party is going to have elected candidates to office, it will need support. Not voting for someone or a particular party because they never won anything before just guarantees the status quo.
I went over to the Constitution Party site (https://www.constitutionparty.com/our-principles/platform-and-resolutions/ (https://www.constitutionparty.com/our-principles/platform-and-resolutions/)), just to see what those guys were all about. Some decent stuff, but some of their positions (e.g., return to the gold standard) are a bit loopy; and their stances on foreign policy and national defense are downright dangerous: did they learn nothing from the 20th Century?
All in all, they remind me of earnest doctrinaire libertarians with a different take on certain social issues.
As a matter of politics, their primary weakness is the assumption -- almost certainly unfounded -- that most people understand and share their view of the Constitution. The CP treats the Constitution as a fixed guide, upon which all agree, and as such it is the starting point for further discussion.
But they've got it backwards: the Constitution is the culmination of the Founders' thinking. It represents the end point -- no further discussion: this is what the government looks like. Unfortunately, the reality of modern politics is that not everybody has the same views on the Constitution. The debate has to be held again.
-
I went over to the Constitution Party site (https://www.constitutionparty.com/our-principles/platform-and-resolutions/ (https://www.constitutionparty.com/our-principles/platform-and-resolutions/)), just to see what those guys were all about. Some decent stuff, but some of their positions (e.g., return to the gold standard) are a bit loopy; and their stances on foreign policy and national defense are downright dangerous: did they learn nothing from the 20th Century?
All in all, they remind me of earnest doctrinaire libertarians with a different take on certain social issues.
As a matter of politics, their primary weakness is the assumption -- almost certainly unfounded -- that most people understand and share their view of the Constitution. The CP treats the Constitution as a fixed guide, upon which all agree, and as such it is the starting point for further discussion.
But they've got it backwards: the Constitution is the culmination of the Founders' thinking. It represents the end point -- no further discussion: this is what the government looks like. Unfortunately, the reality of modern politics is that not everybody has the same views on the Constitution. The debate has to be held again.
The only reason that debate might have to be held again is that people have become accustomed to the usurpation of power which has been accomplished by those at the Federal Level. Some people read into the Constitution a Right to murder babies in the womb, to force people to perform services for them (so far, baking cakes, arranging flowers and taking pictures, or the use of their property, but that will increase as the mindset does). Some people read that they have 'special' rights or privileges, by virtue of genetics or habits. And there are even some who read into it a right to prohibit others from doing things because they are somehow offended. etc. these 'found' rights are often in conflict with fundamental and long established rights enshrined in the Constitution and in legal precedent.
Branches of government have abdicated their Constitutional duties and those duties have either been ignored, neglected, or taken up by other branches of government which promulgate rules and regulations with the force of law and little or no Congressional oversight, or which rewrite laws to rule they are Constitutional. Everyone is legislating. Not their job.
That makes it difficult for the average person or small business to keep up with the changes, and that favors larger, existing businesses which can have a legal staff, HSE, or HR departments to keep up with that. A sole proprietorship doesn't have a chance. If those laws (you can be prosecuted, fined, or incarcerated for breaking them, so call it what you will, but they are laws) were written, discussed, and either approved or defeated by the branch of government which is tasked with producing legislation, there would be far fewer of them. There would not be time to generate that sheer volume of material. But then, if those laws did not usurp the power of the states to regulate things within their own several borders, they would not be needed. Let the power devolve. Then the States can choose what to prioritize, and act accordingly or not.
In the past few decades, things have been found in the Constitution I am sure the Framers didn't put there, and frankly, I can't find. Given that, and weak logical skills, it is no surprise that there are people who think they have a Constitutional Right to equal outcomes, not just equal opportunities. We have a whole Federal Department writing universal standards which virtually guarantee that level of ignorance of original intent and the philosophy behind it will continue or become worse. Again, a usurpation, combined with a distinct conflict of interest. (Federal Control vs Liberty)
It won't be straightened out any time soon, mainly because the problem is an educational one, and becoming a cultural one.
Going back to that basic framework (including repeal of the 17th Amendment), and even a more original (to the time of the Amendment) interpretation of the 16th Amendment would do much to curb the Federal Leviathan. (Income was not considered to include wages, but the income from investments. Working for wages is an exchange of a service or skill for something more universally accepted: money. An exchange, not income.) A balanced budget would be a nice start, too. That would mean stripping the Federal Government of a host of usurped powers and the agencies which wield them, and returning those powers to the states to regulate as they see fit and as their budgets will allow, or abolishing those controls and returning that power to the people directly. Which would mean the people, ultimately, would decide what would be done by government--that as a question of scope as well as intensity, and how that money would be raised.
At present we aren't on the gold standard. If anything, it is the oil standard: the 'petrodollar'. Only being the reserve currency, the unit accepted for petroleum sales worldwide, the currency oil is priced in, has permitted the tremendous 'overprinting' of the dollar and kept the currency afloat. Everyone has some, no one wants it to fold. If that status was removed, the dollar would not be worth anything but a small fraction of its current purchasing power, and would have to be exchanged for some other currency or commodity to engage in international trade.
This keeps us tied to the Saudis, despite out ability to produce enough oil for our own needs and/or import it from elsewhere (Canada, Mexico, for two), and to tap the vast resources available offshore on our continental shelf and in Alaska. (Keep in mind that if you split Alaska down the middle, Texas becomes the third largest state). Neither, with the exception of the Gulf of Mexico (as part of the continental shelf) has been well explored, and the GOM has plenty of room for wildcatting. So, despite the terrorists on 9/11 being overwhelmingly Saudi nationals, we have military forces deployed to defend that nation, our president bows to their leadership, and our (oil) industry is severely damaged by their market shenanigans as they try to shut it down, raising the value of the petrodollar by flooding the market with crude oil and hurting our international export trade.
By shifting their production quotas they control the value of the dollar in world markets, and because they are holding a lot of dollars, the value of their holdings as well.
-
The only reason that debate might have to be held again is that people have become accustomed to the usurpation of power which has been accomplished by those at the Federal Level.
Everything you say following this sentence is true. But it's this sentence that needs to be addressed. Put another way, people hold to a set of beliefs and expectations that are different from the beliefs and expectations that the Founders wrote into the Constitution.
I think the reason why, has mainly to do with the fact that we, as a society, have largely forgotten what it's like to worry about dire consequences. Because our nation is so very wealthy, we really don't face the same sorts of consequences that drove the Founders. Being free of consequences has its undoubted good sides, but it also causes us to not think things through as well as we might -- we (as a society) are able to do incredibly stupid things without immediate penalty.
Of course, it all adds up to things like political fragmentation and $20 trillion in federal debt, the butcher's bill for which will eventually come due. But as Mr. Keynes pointed out, that's all been thought of as "long run" stuff, and "in the long run we're all dead." Not our problem.
It won't be straightened out any time soon, mainly because the problem is an educational one, and becoming a cultural one.
True. The question is: in the absence of consequences, can we ever hope to use education to change the culture to take us back to the earlier view of government and society?
-
Everything you say following this sentence is true. But it's this sentence that needs to be addressed. Put another way, people hold to a set of beliefs and expectations that are different from the beliefs and expectations that the Founders wrote into the Constitution.
I think the reason why, has mainly to do with the fact that we, as a society, have largely forgotten what it's like to worry about dire consequences. Because our nation is so very wealthy, we really don't face the same sorts of consequences that drove the Founders. Being free of consequences has its undoubted good sides, but it also causes us to not think things through as well as we might -- we (as a society) are able to do incredibly stupid things without immediate penalty.
Of course, it all adds up to things like political fragmentation and $20 trillion in federal debt, the butcher's bill for which will eventually come due. But as Mr. Keynes pointed out, that's all been thought of as "long run" stuff, and "in the long run we're all dead." Not our problem.
True. The question is: in the absence of consequences, can we ever hope to use education to change the culture to take us back to the earlier view of government and society?
I don't think things will change without serious consequences people just aren't wired that way.
As Kipling wrote in the last two stanzas of the God's of the Copybook Headings
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;
And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!
http://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/poems_copybook.htm
-
I don't think it's a matter of debate so much as old-fashioned EDUCATION. And misinformed or ignorant people holding public seminars will do more harm than good.
Witness some of the threads here, which may or may not represent the party. The "CONSTITUTION PARTY" advocating Internet censorship? Yes, of porn. Nobody is "for" porn - at least not in this kind of discussion group. But to give the government the power to ban and censor pornography over the Internet, is to give the government the power to ban and censor over the Internet. Porn will be the Slippery Slope. Soon after, it will be ideas and political positions that the government rejects, which will be censored - and pornography, the opiate of the low-intellect masses, will be ignored and even encouraged.
So...obviously there are many in the so-called Constitution Party which have little understanding of Federalism or the danger of government control over media.
That's just one example. I'm sure there are others but since this party is scarcely registering...I'm not going to knock myself out researching it.
I did not see any authorization in the Constitution to regulate porn, not that it would have been an issue. At least not on the Federal Level. Now while that includes things we might find universally offensive, including child porn, abuse porn, S&M, coprophilic porn, and all sorts of sick stuff out there, I see no route to regulate that among adults at the Federal Level written into the Constitution. Other laws, be they for protection of children, against specific types of acts on a public health basis, etc. could be made, just not at the Federal level.
The States sure retain that option, and the people, themselves, have the option to not provide a market for what they consider obscene.
-
In reading through this thread at the #NeverTrump/#Lust4Hillary responses, I begin to wonder if the #NeverTrump folks are suicidal.
Bear with me - they seem resigned to Hillary winning, because their brand of "conservatism" isn't being championed in this election cycle. What gets me is, their brand of conservatism was NEVER championed by a nominated GOP candidate in past election cycles, but I don't think these folks ended up voting for Obama, or Gore, or Clinton. Now though, after they thought they had their guy (our guy, actually, as a Cruz voter) and he managed to lose, they are at the "let Hillary win" stage.
No matter that Hillary will seal the destruction of the United States that Obama started. No matter that her Supreme Court nominees will strengthen Abortion, Homosexual Rights, Federal Power, Amnesty, and all the rest, forever dooming the country to Venezuela-style "democracy" within 20 years.
It's almost as if they are suicidal. Worse, because they espouse actions that will destroy others - their children, grandchildren, and neighbors - theirs will take the form of murder-suicide. And no amount of smug, "wash my hands of both parties" pseudo-moral sophistry eliminates their immoral watch-the-world burn attitude.
Look up "normalization bias" and understand, you #NeverTrump/#****Hillary types, that you and yours will face murder and persecution in the world you advocate. Living on a mountain or under a bridge won't save you. Ask a Venezuelan.
-
In reading through this thread at the #NeverTrump/#Lust4Hillary responses, I begin to wonder if the #NeverTrump folks are suicidal.
Thank you for getting the thread back on topic. Tunnel vision and closed mindedness is tough to overcome unless one admits that he just might possibly have it.
-
In reading through this thread at the #NeverTrump/#Lust4Hillary responses, I begin to wonder if the #NeverTrump folks are suicidal.
Bear with me - they seem resigned to Hillary winning, because their brand of "conservatism" isn't being championed in this election cycle.
Well, perhaps the strawman you've built is suicidal, but that's really up to you.
As for the real people who won't vote for Trump.... the guy is totally unfit for the office. Of course we won't vote for him. But we won't vote for Hillary, either, because she's also unfit for office.
-
Please can we return to topic?
-
Mod note:
This thread contains a very good discussion of the Gold Standard, which should not be lost.
I will be locking the thread for a short period to move that part of the discussion to a new thread in about 20 minutes. Sorry for any inconvenience!
The Gold Standard discussion is now HERE (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,219899.html).
-
Mod note:
The Gold Standard discussion is now HERE (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,219899.html).
Well done and much appreciated.
-
In reading through this thread at the #NeverTrump/#Lust4Hillary responses, I begin to wonder if the #NeverTrump folks are suicidal.
No, quite the other way around - It is those who will compromise their beliefs that bring forth compromise. It is that compromise that is suicide.
Bear with me - they seem resigned to Hillary winning, because their brand of "conservatism" isn't being championed in this election cycle.
That's because it's true.
What gets me is, their brand of conservatism was NEVER championed by a nominated GOP candidate in past election cycles, but I don't think these folks ended up voting for Obama, or Gore, or Clinton.
Oddly enough, the only Republican presidents that won were the ones that I voted for - I didn't vote for Poppy's 2nd term, I didn't vote for Dole, nor McCain't, nor Romney. Hmmm... Maybe that's a coincidence, or maybe that's what is at work against Trump too. Maybe once again the Republicans will have to learn that the way they win is by offering up a candidate who is true to what the Republicans purport to stand for.
Now though, after they thought they had their guy (our guy, actually, as a Cruz voter) and he managed to lose, they are at the "let Hillary win" stage.
Rather, I have no dog in the fight - there is no difference between the two major candidates. Why should I vote for that which I do not believe in, and in fact abhor?
No matter that Hillary will seal the destruction of the United States that Obama started. No matter that her Supreme Court nominees will strengthen Abortion, Homosexual Rights, Federal Power, Amnesty, and all the rest, forever dooming the country to Venezuela-style "democracy" within 20 years.
The thing you leave out, doomsayer, is that I can largely say the very same thing about your candidate, and it would be true.
It's almost as if they are suicidal. Worse, because they espouse actions that will destroy others - their children, grandchildren, and neighbors - theirs will take the form of murder-suicide. And no amount of smug, "wash my hands of both parties" pseudo-moral sophistry eliminates their immoral watch-the-world burn attitude.
Ahh... So it is IMMORAL *not* to vote for your immoral candidate over the other immoral candidate. Do you listen to yourself?
Look up "normalization bias" and understand, you #NeverTrump/#SeigHillary types, that you and yours will face murder and persecution in the world you advocate. Living on a mountain or under a bridge won't save you. Ask a Venezuelan.
You forget it was Geo. W. Bush that began the exponential devaluation of our money - Venezuela is coming, and there is nothing that is going to stop it now, especially a crony capitalist from NYC, whether it be the democrat one, or the republican one. And it is PRECISELY the refusal to insist upon Conservatism that has brought us here.
-
I would put political activity in general, and electoral advocacy in particular, in this category. Nobody is either morally obliged nor morally prohibited from voting. Nobody is morally obliged, or morally prohibited, from voting for a particular candidate.
I will add that if you vote for a deeply screwed-up candidate (which we all will, if we vote) we take on part-ownership of that person's official actions, and thus we acquire a solemn, long-term responsibility to kick our chosen politico's butt on a regular basis and seriously force him/her to do the right thing. If you shrug off this long-term responsibility, you then become ever-more responsible for this politico's wrongdoing, inasmuch as he/she was "YOUR" candidate and you culpably failed to
scream bloody murder to avert "YOUR" candidate's bad actions.
Class, discuss.
Suddenly, Teach, I'm even more grateful that my state has a "None of These Candidates" voting option
for presidential candidates (and others, in fact).
And that's the option I intend to vote come November. No apologies, no regrets.
-
Well, perhaps the strawman you've built is suicidal, but that's really up to you.
As for the real people who won't vote for Trump.... the guy is totally unfit for the office. Of course we won't vote for him. But we won't vote for Hillary, either, because she's also unfit for office.
What strawman would that be? I make propositional statements. I have shared how I have come to the conclusion I have. I mostly get back, bottom line, that a Clinton presidency is an acceptable outcome.
Reality. Deal with it.
-
What strawman would that be?
That would be the strawman built by the poster to whom I was responding.
I make propositional statements. I have shared how I have come to the conclusion I have. I mostly get back, bottom line, that a Clinton presidency is an acceptable outcome.
Aaaand, there's your strawman, which is clearly false. Pretty much everybody on this thread has stated that a Hillary presidency is also unacceptable.
Reality. Deal with it.
Doctor, heal thyself.
-
Look up "normalization bias" and understand, you #NeverTrump/#****Hillary types, that you and yours will face murder and persecution in the world you advocate. Living on a mountain or under a bridge won't save you. Ask a Venezuelan.
The conservative NeverTrump types here are being equated to "****Hillary"? Outrageous.
-
No matter that Hillary will seal the destruction of the United States that Obama started. No matter that her Supreme Court nominees will strengthen Abortion, Homosexual Rights, Federal Power, Amnesty, and all the rest, forever dooming the country to Venezuela-style "democracy" within 20 years.
Tell us what we don't know.
But while you're at it, you might care to ask . . .
Where is the Evidence That Trump Would Defend the Constitution? (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/438736/donald-trump-supreme-court-constitution-promises-are-fantasy)
-
Ask a Venezuelan.
Yes . Obama/Hillary = Chavez/Maduro
In reading through this thread at the #NeverTrump/#Lust4Hillary responses, I begin to wonder if the #NeverTrump folks are suicidal.
Bear with me - they seem resigned to Hillary winning, because their brand of "conservatism" isn't being championed in this election cycle. What gets me is, their brand of conservatism was NEVER championed by a nominated GOP candidate in past election cycles, but I don't think these folks ended up voting for Obama, or Gore, or Clinton. Now though, after they thought they had their guy (our guy, actually, as a Cruz voter) and he managed to lose, they are at the "let Hillary win" stage.
No matter that Hillary will seal the destruction of the United States that Obama started. No matter that her Supreme Court nominees will strengthen Abortion, Homosexual Rights, Federal Power, Amnesty, and all the rest, forever dooming the country to Venezuela-style "democracy" within 20 years.
It's almost as if they are suicidal. Worse, because they espouse actions that will destroy others - their children, grandchildren, and neighbors - theirs will take the form of murder-suicide. And no amount of smug, "wash my hands of both parties" pseudo-moral sophistry eliminates their immoral watch-the-world burn attitude.
Look up "normalization bias" and understand, you #NeverTrump ... types, that you and yours will face murder and persecution in the world you advocate. Living on a mountain or under a bridge won't save you. Ask a Venezuelan.
-
What strawman would that be? I make propositional statements. I have shared how I have come to the conclusion I have. I mostly get back, bottom line, that a Clinton presidency is an acceptable outcome.
Reality. Deal with it.
We are looking at which is the most survivable outcome at this point. You are conflicted having a son in the Armed Forces and find Hillary to be the greatest threat to your Son. Please keep in mind that whatever deals they had set up with terrorists in Benghazi, it was Obama as CinC who had to authorize any military rescue or support. He did not. That was not the purview of the Department of State, but the CinC.
That doesn't justify nor make me (or anyone else) feel any better about the shady dealings with the enemy in Libya, nor the whole Arab Spring (MB coup) and the attempts at regime change across North Africa and around the ME, which in turn set up the 'refugee crisis' which stuffed a somnolent Europe with terrorists, leading to the problems throughout the continent. Hillary is definitely a snake, a liar, a crook, and a traitor. But I don't think she'll shift gears to WWIII and possibly a nuclear exchange.
Which CinC would your Son be least threatened by? If I could predict the future I could tell you, but I can't. I understand your conflicted position, and why you came to the conclusion you have, and honestly wish I could say you are right. But I can't. Trump's rash, impulsive, and downright vindictive behaviour during the campaign, and then the lies to cover for being wrong, and continued attack indicate someone not ready for prime time statecraft. I think he'll make a disaster of foreign affairs, and that's when they'll call your Son and his brothers at arms in to fix it.
IMHO, neither outcome is acceptable, the question is which outcome will be survivable, not just for your Son, but for all of us and this Nation as well.
May Almighty God help us survive the harvest of our folly.
-
The primaries are over. The "other than Trump supporters" WERE a majority, but that is the way the game is played. Reality.
One of two candidates will swear the oath on Jan 20. Reality.
There is one ideologically pure candidate. Reality.
Not voting Trump lessens the work load and paves the path for the pure statist ideology candidate. Reality.
-
The primaries are over. The "other than Trump supporters" WERE a majority, but that is the way the game is played. Reality.
One of two candidates will swear the oath on Jan 20. Reality.
There is one ideologically pure candidate. Reality.
Not voting Trump lessens the work load and paves the path for the pure statist ideology candidate. Reality.
And 'they' couldn't care less. Reality.
-
And 'they' couldn't care less. Reality.
I would not go that far. I would say "they" (a term I hesitate to use - it's not specific) care about a single aspect to the exclusion of all others.
This is known from my experience.
-
Reality.
Our moral choices matter to God. Reality.
-
I would not go that far. I would say "they" (a term I hesitate to use - it's not specific) care about a single aspect to the exclusion of all others.
This is known from my experience.
(http://www.artsjournal.com/engage/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/StrawMan.jpg)
-
I would not go that far. I would say "they" (a term I hesitate to use - it's not specific) care about a single aspect to the exclusion of all others.
This is known from my experience.
'They'...are not morons. 'They' are not ill-informed. Just for the example you cite.
Therefore, 'They' couldn't care less.
-
The sHrillary..and The Donny are playing n the same team! the score wont matter unless another Team Shows Up!!
(http://i.imgur.com/87Dwqdp.gif)
-
Our moral choices matter to God. Reality.
You have yet to prove that the choice of who to vote for is a moral choice. To, again. try to be clear, one must decide first whether the act of voting is morally permissible. I find no moral basis not to vote. Moral judgements apply to acts that I do or do not do. They do not apply to other people.
That is for prudential judgment and the better / worse analysis.
-
You have yet to prove that the choice of who to vote for is a moral choice. To, again. try to be clear, one must decide first whether the act of voting is morally permissible. I find no moral basis not to vote. Moral judgements apply to acts that I do or do not do. They do not apply to other people.
That is for prudential judgment and the better / worse analysis.
Given that I completely reject your analysis, and have given ample justification for doing so, I'm really not that interested in your rehash of unconvincing claims.
I'm just going to content myself with reminding you of your fallacies.
-
You have yet to prove that the choice of who to vote for is a moral choice. To, again. try to be clear, one must decide first whether the act of voting is morally permissible. I find no moral basis not to vote. Moral judgements apply to acts that I do or do not do. They do not apply to other people.
That is for prudential judgment and the better / worse analysis.
So on the flip side, if voting is not a moral issue; there would be no moral issue with voting in a Hillary or a Hitler. There must be some level we say enough is enough. How do we decide where that is?
-
(http://www.artsjournal.com/engage/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/StrawMan.jpg)
Like everything you post on this thread, you again fail again to post anything but sophistry. Do you know what that word means? Hint: It comes before philosophy.
-
Like everything you post on this thread, you again fail again to post anything but sophistry. Do you know what that word means? Hint: It comes before philosophy.
Wow. A bit touchy, Don?
Project much?
Strawman much?
Because, hey, you did it again!
-
You have yet to prove that the choice of who to vote for is a moral choice. To, again. try to be clear, one must decide first whether the act of voting is morally permissible. I find no moral basis not to vote. Moral judgements apply to acts that I do or do not do. They do not apply to other people.
That is for prudential judgment and the better / worse analysis.
My voting is an act I do. It is a moral choice for me.
I find it sad to find another conservative that thinks there is no morality in their choice to vote.
-
You have yet to prove that the choice of who to vote for is a moral choice. To, again. try to be clear, one must decide first whether the act of voting is morally permissible. I find no moral basis not to vote. Moral judgements apply to acts that I do or do not do. They do not apply to other people.
That is for prudential judgment and the better / worse analysis.
Doesn't every action we take or don't take boil down to a moral choice?
-
Doesn't every action we take or don't take boil down to a moral choice?
Yes.
Especially when that choice bears directly on the morality of this nation.
-
Doesn't every action we take or don't take boil down to a moral choice?
I don't think it's quite THAT easy - I may choose the action of reaching into this here bag of tortilla chips, and make the conscious decision to pick one at random, and dip it into this bowl of salsa sitting here...
Is that a matter of morality? Unless you want to call me on my rather corpulent body type, not really...
-
Like everything you post on this thread, you again fail again to post anything but sophistry. Do you know what that word means? Hint: It comes before philosophy.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v165/crutch999/Sophistry%20Aint%20Nobody_zps4q0hrqky.jpg)
-
I don't think it's quite THAT easy - I may choose the action of reaching into this here bag of tortilla chips, and make the conscious decision to pick one at random, and dip it into this bowl of salsa sitting here...
Is that a matter of morality?
lol ... quite right. I made the mistake in my younger years of trying to defend the proposition that it is. It was a rather embarrassing "hobgoblins of little minds" moment for me.
However, a decision to not vote for either major party candidate is rather different....
-
So on the flip side, if voting is not a moral issue; there would be no moral issue with voting in a Hillary or a Hitler. There must be some level we say enough is enough. How do we decide where that is?
Correct. Then enters prudential judgement where the better / worse options must be be weighed.
Consider eating pie. It is not a matter that needs moral judgement. My belief is that God allows me to eat anything that is is edible.
I probably should, however grapple with some better or worse aspects using prudential judgment..
What kind of pie? How much pie? If I eat all the pie how does that action affect others who deserve some of that pie? How much will my pie eating affect my health?
With Trump / Clinton, what I have done is to think of the post January 20 reality and what is a reasonable expectation. It takes little time to conclude with high confidence that Clinton is Obama's third term. I call that, in my mind "a known known" and consider it unacceptable.
So, I must judge the realistic options I have for preventing it.
As of today, Trump is that realistic option. I reject the "pick your poison" assertion. And I can live with some "known unknowns."
As to those who thinks that his moral failings and his undisciplined tongue, disqualify him, I won't attempt to dissuade them. I posted my essay to share MY experience.
-
@guitar4jesus
Your tag: If you place winning above integrity you have already lost.
That's it... Right in a nutshell. Thx.
-
My voting is an act I do. It is a moral choice for me.
I find it sad to find another conservative that thinks there is no morality in their choice to vote.
The Amish don't vote. I do vote.
-
I don't think it's quite THAT easy - I may choose the action of reaching into this here bag of tortilla chips, and make the conscious decision to pick one at random, and dip it into this bowl of salsa sitting here...
Is that a matter of morality? Unless you want to call me on my rather corpulent body type, not really...
I don't know, are you double dipping? ;)
Seriously, if you are over-indulging, like I have a tendency to do, then yes, I would say it is a moral decision with respect to how God wants us to live.
-
You have yet to prove that the choice of who to vote for is a moral choice. To, again. try to be clear, one must decide first whether the act of voting is morally permissible. I find no moral basis not to vote. Moral judgements apply to acts that I do or do not do. They do not apply to other people.
That is for prudential judgment and the better / worse analysis.
@don-o You and weaver are shooting well over my head, but I can't shake the feeling that one judgement day I'm going to stand accountable to the leaders I give support to with my vote. Now, maybe I can't argue that in high tone philosophy; but gosh durn it there right and there's wrong. This country is in the mess that it is in for making immoral choices in regards to our leaders.
Is it immoral to vote for a member of the KKK, or a murder. We live in a Republic and we as citizens are stewards of our nation. I think we will stand accountable for the choices we make that will effect our children and grand children. I think that makes voting a moral issue. Now I can't prove it with all the high highfalutin language you cotton to, but there it is.
-
lol ... quite right. I made the mistake in my younger years of trying to defend the proposition that it is. It was a rather embarrassing "hobgoblins of little minds" moment for me.
However, a decision to not vote for either major party candidate is rather different....
Right... It is different. Take as a case study, the moral impact of knowingly supporting a candidate that is pro-choice. Or even supporting a candidate that is merely indifferent to the injustice of abortion...
There is surely a moral aspect in such a decision. One which I will not suffer.
-
@guitar4jesus
Your tag: If you place winning above integrity you have already lost.
That's it... Right in a nutshell. Thx.
888high58888
-
I don't know, are you double dipping? ;)
Seriously, if you are over-indulging, like I have a tendency to do, then yes, I would say it is a moral decision with respect to how God wants us to live.
I maintain that the moral aspect is the act of eating. Eating is not evil. It is a spiritual danger, imo, in trying to make every decision into a moral choice. Perhaps do some thinking about scrupulosity.
This is for the discussion and I am not accusing anyone of anything.
I. Could. Be. Wrong.
Always applies.
-
Right... It is different. Take as a case study, the moral impact of knowingly supporting a candidate that is pro-choice. Or even supporting a candidate that is merely indifferent to the injustice of abortion...
There is surely a moral aspect in such a decision. One which I will not suffer.
No candidate who places no value on the lives of babies will get my vote. Anyone who says that Planned Parenthood does wonderful things can find someone else to vote for them.
Proverbs 24: 11-12 "If thou forbear to deliver them that are drawn unto death, and those that are ready to be slain; If thou sayest, Behold, we knew it not; doth not he that pondereth the heart consider it? and he that keepeth thy soul, doth not he know it? and shall not he render to every man according to his works?"
-
One candidate espouses policies, aimed to flood the country with ever more illegal immigrants and high-terror risk muslim refugees.
For the wellbeing and safety of my family, neighbors it seems more "moral" to consider their well being.
-
No candidate who places no value on the lives of babies will get my vote. Anyone who says that Planned Parenthood does wonderful things can find someone else to vote for them.
:amen:
-
Right... It is different. Take as a case study, the moral impact of knowingly supporting a candidate that is pro-choice. Or even supporting a candidate that is merely indifferent to the injustice of abortion...
There is surely a moral aspect in such a decision. One which I will not suffer.
This is a more reasonable example of *why* voting is an act of morals. I respect you, @don-o, for attempting to put Weaver's words into practice, but my feeling is you are not applying them correctly in this case. I think you have to go back further than better or worse to right and wrong. Why don't you support a candidate like Hillary, based just on the issues and putting aside her less than ethical tendencies of behavior? Because she supports abortion and it is wrong? Because in general the democrat party supports removal of our liberty? It seems we have ample evidence that Trump may be slightly better on abortion; if you take some of his statements as truth he doesn't like but still thinks it should be an option. If you believe that abortion is wrong, he is still wrong. And on abortion, and many other issues, there is a candidate that is both better and right.
-
@don-o You and weaver are shooting well over my head, but I can't shake the feeling that one judgement day I'm going to stand accountable to the leaders I give support to with my vote. Now, maybe I can't argue that in high tone philosophy; but gosh durn it there right and there's wrong. This country is in the mess that it is in for making immoral choices in regards to our leaders.
Is it immoral to vote for a member of the KKK, or a murder. We live in a Republic and we as citizens are stewards of our nation. I think we will stand accountable for the choices we make that will effect our children and grand children. I think that makes voting a moral issue. Now I can't prove it with all the high highfalutin language you cotton to, but there it is.
Bravo! There is a point at which it's 'Oh, hell no!'... And you've got to stand for something.
Especially for principled Conservatives. We stand on solid ground, knowing inherently that the principles we live by are true. If everything went to hell in a hand-basket, those principles would STILL be true.
A different story if we are arguing over two Conservative candidates - One being more likely, but the other more principled... Maybe there is some room to let a little slide...
But there is nothing principled in Trump, and there is nothing principled in Clinton. To defend either is to defend falsity - that which we already know to be a lie and unworkable.
It is a pointless exercise.
-
One candidate espouses policies, aimed to flood the country with ever more illegal immigrants and high-terror risk muslim refugees.
No one has any idea what the other candidate will do because you can't believe a thing he says.
-
@don-o You and weaver are shooting well over my head, but I can't shake the feeling that one judgement day I'm going to stand accountable to the leaders I give support to with my vote.
Snipped for brevity only. I have to use the words I use for some precision of expressing what I believe. And I hope that nothing I write comes off as disparaging or condescending. I want to be called on it if it is.
And I do accept that people will come to different conclusion from their own points of view. I've shared mine and taken the hits.
Still standing.
-
I maintain that the moral aspect is the act of eating. Eating is not evil. It is a spiritual danger, imo, in trying to make every decision into a moral choice. Perhaps do some thinking about scrupulosity.
This is for the discussion and I am not accusing anyone of anything.
I. Could. Be. Wrong.
Always applies.
I did not really intend that the simple act of eating had some big moral aspect related to it. Rather that gluttonous eating has some moral aspect to it that may involve more than just a simple 0 or 1 choice.
-
My voting is an act I do. It is a moral choice for me.
I find it sad to find another conservative that thinks there is no morality in their choice to vote.
Or---depending on the alternative options they might be offered in their states---not to vote.
Frank Chodorov, "If We Quit Voting" (https://mises.org/library/if-we-quit-voting)
-
Eating is not evil.
It is if you're eating live babies... :shrug:
Always applies.
LOL! I thought that said 'Always APPLES'
:huh?:
-
Snipped for brevity only. I have to use the words I use for some precision of expressing what I believe. And I hope that nothing I write comes off as disparaging or condescending. I want to be called on it if it is.
And I do accept that people will come to different conclusion from their own points of view. I've shared mine and taken the hits.
Still standing.
It's all good. ^-^
I appreciate your precision and your willingness to share your point of view. I didn't take it to be condescending at all.
-
I don't know, are you double dipping? ;)
Well, yah - on purpose too... But I am the only one dipping into the bowl... so muhuhahaha! :smokin:
Seriously, if you are over-indulging, like I have a tendency to do, then yes, I would say it is a moral decision with respect to how God wants us to live.
*rolls eyes*... OK. fine... but setting that aside, and considering that there are no limbless, weeping, starving children within a readily definable area around me... Having a snack is not a moral issue.
-
My voting is an act I do. It is a moral choice for me.
I find it sad to find another conservative that thinks there is no morality in their choice to vote.
If you've been posting on Conservative boards for years....and I believe you have...then you're primarily affiliated and vote with the Republican Party.
The Primaries are over. Therefore, the infighting should be over.
For now...your moral vote must be decided on leaving America in the hands of Hillary, "There's only the Fight", Clinton...or take a chance on a person that loves American with all his heart, is in good health, and a successful businessman...even though he's become a caricature of himself.
"As you ramble on through life, brother, whatever by your goal.....keep your eye upon the donut, and not upon the hole"
-
Or---depending on the alternative options they might be offered in their states---not to vote.
(http://www.timolson.com/abstinencewinter99/12010006.jpg)
-
Lord willing... On General Election Day, I will go to my polling place, take my ballot and step into the booth. I will, at that moment, make what I deem is a moral decision. Factors I am probably not aware of today may go into that decision. To the extent possible, it will be absent any emotion such as anger, vindictiveness or my personal pettiness.
That is really what we should all do.
-
No one has any idea what the other candidate will do because you can't believe a thing he says.
I have enough information, to conclude she will do less, and he will do more to secure the safety of my family.
To disregard my family's safety is not moral.
-
I have enough information, to conclude she will do less, and he will do more to secure the safety of my family.
I do not.
-
I do not.
Me neither.
-
The Amish don't vote. I do vote.
Do you believe the Amish don't view that as a moral choice? If not, why don't they vote?
-
If you've been posting on Conservative boards for years....and I believe you have...then you're primarily affiliated and vote with the Republican Party.
The Primaries are over. Therefore, the infighting should be over.
Precisely why I am no longer a Republican - I am under no such obligation whatsoever.
[...]or take a chance on a person that loves American with all his heart, is in good health, and a successful businessman...
Wow. That's more sugar coating than Frosted Flakes.
[...]even though he's become a caricature of himself.
Trump has always been a caricature.
-
This is a more reasonable example of *why* voting is an act of morals. I respect you, @don-o, for attempting to put Weaver's words into practice, but my feeling is you are not applying them correctly in this case. I think you have to go back further than better or worse to right and wrong. Why don't you support a candidate like Hillary, based just on the issues and putting aside her less than ethical tendencies of behavior? Because she supports abortion and it is wrong? Because in general the democrat party supports removal of our liberty? It seems we have ample evidence that Trump may be slightly better on abortion; if you take some of his statements as truth he doesn't like but still thinks it should be an option. If you believe that abortion is wrong, he is still wrong. And on abortion, and many other issues, there is a candidate that is both better and right.
All I can say is what I have said. The act of voting is not a moral choice for me to make. It is a neutral matter. I suppose the Amish consider it to be so. But I am not Amish.
Let's talk about abortion. Is it reasonable to assume that the appointments that Trump makes will be identical to the ones Clinton makes? If you say it is, then there is no need for going any farther. Please reply.
-
'They'...are not morons. 'They' are not ill-informed. Just for the example you cite.
Therefore, 'They' couldn't care less.
"Caring'? How can you tell what we care about? Are you some sort of mind reader?
We are regaled with "pragmatism", with lesser evil false dichotomies, with TEOTWAWKI if we don't vote for the sh*t on the plate. Because the other sh*t choice has 'what plants crave' or something.
News flash!!!
It doesn't matter what we care about. Not to the people manipulating elections in this country.
It hasn't mattered to the GOP for decades. We have repeatedly tried to tell them, by stopping donations, reducing support, with the TEA party, the March on Washington, with primary challenges, letters, e-mails, phone calls...
They couldn't care less.
We are past the point where 'caring' means anything, because the brass at the GOP doesn't care if we do. And the whole 'send money or you don't care' Liberal cause fundraiser tactic has devolved to 'give us your vote or you don't care'?
DILLIGAF what you or they think at this point? #neverhillary#nevertrump and, because I'm a mite old for 'hashtags', #sand2.
-
No candidate who places no value on the lives of babies will get my vote. Anyone who says that Planned Parenthood does wonderful things can find someone else to vote for them.
Proverbs 24: 11-12 "If thou forbear to deliver them that are drawn unto death, and those that are ready to be slain; If thou sayest, Behold, we knew it not; doth not he that pondereth the heart consider it? and he that keepeth thy soul, doth not he know it? and shall not he render to every man according to his works?"
:amen:
Exactly right.
And that, my friend is a morally upright position.
-
If you've been posting on Conservative boards for years....and I believe you have...then you're primarily affiliated and vote with the Republican Party.
The Primaries are over. Therefore, the infighting should be over.
For now...your moral vote must be decided on leaving America in the hands of Hillary, "There's only the Fight", Clinton...or take a chance on a person that loves American with all his heart, is in good health, and a successful businessman...even though he's become a caricature of himself.
I do not see my vote, in my state, as such a black or white issue. For starters, there is no way in the world, my vote will make any difference in Texas. We will not cast our electoral college votes for any democrat this year.
This does encourages me to make a protest vote. A vote I don't expect to make any difference in those elected, only in those counting that cared enough to vote, and found the choice unacceptable.
-
The act of voting is not a moral choice for me to make.
For me, if an act is not a moral choice, then there is no right or wrong choice to make.
-
I do not see my vote, in my state, as such a black or white issue. For starters, there is no way in the world, my vote will make any difference in Texas. We will not cast our electoral college votes for any democrat this year.
This does encourages me to make a protest vote. A vote I don't expect to make any difference in those elected, only in those counting that cared enough to vote, and found the choice unacceptable.
That's true! But even if it wasn't I still wouldn't vote fore either Hillary or Trump!
-
Correct. Then enters prudential judgement where the better / worse options must be be weighed.
Consider eating pie. It is not a matter that needs moral judgement. My belief is that God allows me to eat anything that is is edible.
I probably should, however grapple with some better or worse aspects using prudential judgment..
What kind of pie? How much pie? If I eat all the pie how does that action affect others who deserve some of that pie? How much will my pie eating affect my health?
With Trump / Clinton, what I have done is to think of the post January 20 reality and what is a reasonable expectation. It takes little time to conclude with high confidence that Clinton is Obama's third term. I call that, in my mind "a known known" and consider it unacceptable.
So, I must judge the realistic options I have for preventing it.
As of today, Trump is that realistic option. I reject the "pick your poison" assertion. And I can live with some "known unknowns."
As to those who thinks that his moral failings and his undisciplined tongue, disqualify him, I won't attempt to dissuade them. I posted my essay to share MY experience.
I reckon it might matter whose pie it is you are eating. Pragmatism is that moral relativism by which we divest ourselves of moral responsibility and rationalize our actions.
For example, if an enemy combatant only shoots the wounded and infirm prisoners (instead of all of them), that is a pragmatic decision based on who would slow them down, consume resources which could be used on their own troops, etc. Yet that pragmatic act would be tried as a war crime.
We are facing a choice between two unacceptable candidates for the office of 'most powerful person in the world', or at, least, the Leader of the Free World', officially The President of the United States of America. Those are the candidates, barring accident or incident, from which the next POTUS will be elected. There are other choices. One may use their vote to promote what boils down to an alternate ideology via a third party candidate, which is very much a moral decision, to remain true to the beliefs one holds. Or one may choose that none of the candidates is sufficiently aligned with their moral beliefs and decide to withhold their vote rather than grant moral approval to any of those running for office, whether that reason be because the candidate's morals are too strict, or too loose.
Sure, it is a moral decision. Wrap it in whatever obfuscation you wish, but the soldier with the prisoners had a third option, namely to not shoot anyone they held as a prisoner.
-
No one has any idea what the other candidate will do because you can't believe a thing he says.
Just ask each candidate what the other would do and write down the opposite? But that would only work if they both lied all the time.
-
Well, yah - on purpose too... But I am the only one dipping into the bowl... so muhuhahaha! :smokin:
*rolls eyes*... OK. fine... but setting that aside, and considering that there are no limbless, weeping, starving children within a readily definable area around me... Having a snack is not a moral issue.
Don't you roll your eyes at me, mister. :P I wasn't suggesting you were taking a chip out of some poor starving child's hand. And as I said, it's not the act of eating that is itself the moral issue. I was more referring to overindulgence, in anything really, that can become a moral dilemma, and I only mentioned that because of your comment about being something less (or more) than svelte. It wasn't even really a comment about you personally, just overindulgence in general.
-
For me, if an act is not a moral choice, then there is no right or wrong choice to make.
Do you make a moral choice if you decide to buy a car? Not considerations of budget, fuel choice, practicality, etc. For those you use prudence. And better / worse.
Some Amish do consider buying a car an immoral act. Maybe. Maybe they could buy one, but not drive it, or ride in it.
-
Let's talk about abortion. Is it reasonable to assume that the appointments that Trump makes will be identical to the ones Clinton makes? If you say it is, then there is no need for going any farther. Please reply.
I really couldn't say if they will be the same or not. I honestly can't make heads or tails of where the guy stands from day to day. I am reasonably positive that Darrell Castle would not make identical appointments to either of them.
-
Do you make a moral choice if you decide to buy a car? Not considerations of budget, fuel choice, practicality, etc. For those you use prudence. And better / worse.
Some Amish do consider buying a car an immoral act. Maybe. Maybe they could buy one, but not drive it, or ride in it.
This is off topic, but your comment reminded me of a show I was watching, I think it was called Treehouse Masters. They had some local hired help come in for some extra hands on site and one was Amish. He could use their power tools, but could not own them. I found that interesting and wondered how closely that actually followed traditional Amish belief.
-
Do you make a moral choice if you decide to buy a car? Not considerations of budget, fuel choice, practicality, etc. For those you use prudence. And better / worse.
I will play some devil's advocate here. Do you decide to buy a Porsche or a Ford? You know you can't afford the Porsche, but the bank will approve your loan. Putting prudence aside, is it moral to buy the Porsche if you know you won't be able to pay your debt?
-
I reckon it might matter whose pie it is you are eating. Pragmatism is that moral relativism by which we divest ourselves of moral responsibility and rationalize our actions.
For example, if an enemy combatant only shoots the wounded and infirm prisoners (instead of all of them), that is a pragmatic decision based on who would slow them down, consume resources which could be used on their own troops, etc. Yet that pragmatic act would be tried as a war crime.
It's murder. I fail to see your point. Why are you conflating pragmatism with prudence? Prudence operated within a moral framework. Has nothing to do with pragmatism.
We are facing a choice between two unacceptable candidates for the office of 'most powerful person in the world', or at, least, the Leader of the Free World', officially The President of the United States of America. Those are the candidates, barring accident or incident, from which the next POTUS will be elected. There are other choices. One may use their vote to promote what boils down to an alternate ideology via a third party candidate, which is very much a moral decision, to remain true to the beliefs one holds. Or one may choose that none of the candidates is sufficiently aligned with their moral beliefs and decide to withhold their vote rather than grant moral approval to any of those running for office, whether that reason be because the candidate's morals are too strict, or too loose.
Sure, it is a moral decision. Wrap it in whatever obfuscation you wish, but the soldier with the prisoners had a third option, namely to not shoot anyone they held as a prisoner.
Is there ANY decision that is not a moral decision?
-
Do you make a moral choice if you decide to buy a car? Not considerations of budget, fuel choice, practicality, etc. For those you use prudence. And better / worse.
Some Amish do consider buying a car an immoral act. Maybe. Maybe they could buy one, but not drive it, or ride in it.
Yes there is moral choices for me in buying a car. My funds are not unlimited, what I choose to spend is money not available for other expenses, including those that greatly effect my family. Practicality tends to come back to how it impacts use, which often effects others. Buying a two seater sports car with five in the family would reflect a poor moral choice, when we cannot reasonably afford a toy of that expense.
Buying a blue car versus a red car is a not a moral choice, but then neither one has a wrong choice either.
If there isn't a "wrong" choice for me, then there isn't a moral aspect of the choice.
Can you say your vote (for you) has a wrong choice, but there is no moral aspect to that choice?
-
We can discuss the definition of a "moral choice" til the cows come home, but none of that will change the fact that when one decides to cast a ballot for an amoral, degenerate, it IS a moral choice.
When I made the decision that I could not at any point in time vote for Donald Trump it was based almost entirely on a moral code that I will not violate. (My political positions are also based on that code).
I did not create the moral absolutes that I follow, but I try to follow them in every aspect of my life.
And when one is voting for the President of the United States, if one's morality is not involved in the choice, then no good decision can result from it.
-
I really couldn't say if they will be the same or not. I honestly can't make heads or tails of where the guy stands from day to day. I am reasonably positive that Darrell Castle would not make identical appointments to either of them.
Darrell Castle will not be the next President. And if you cannot see your way to grasping the horror of Hillary appointments degenerating the judiciary into the far future, well, fare thee well.
You think Obama was a rough ride? He's kiddie car compared to what Hillary is going to roll out.
Reality really bites.
-
Darrell Castle will not be the next President. And if you cannot see your way to grasping the horror of Hillary appointments degenerating the judiciary into the far future, well, fare thee well.
You think Obama was a rough ride? He's kiddie car compared to what Hillary is going to roll out.
Reality really bites.
We're talking about moral decisions and what is right and what is wrong. I cannot control other people's immoral decisions, I can only do my best to make my own decisions based on God's unwavering word of what is right and what is wrong. I will not be forced into making an immoral decision because of other people's immorality. I certainly understand where you are coming from, and I'm sure I do not have say again, like all my fellow conservative NeverTrumpers, we find both Hillary and Trump equally immoral and we are beyond disgusted that these two pillars of immorality are what our fellow citizens have given us from the two major parties.
-
I will not be forced into making an immoral decision because of other people's immorality.
Very good summation.
-
Darrell Castle will not be the next President. And if you cannot see your way to grasping the horror of Hillary appointments degenerating the judiciary into the far future, well, fare thee well.
You think Obama was a rough ride? He's kiddie car compared to what Hillary is going to roll out.
Reality really bites.
I'd rather take my chances with Clinton than Trump. Clinton represents personal corruption and policies with which I disagree. Trump's unstable, thuggish temperament represents an existential danger to the nation, and his appeal to the racist alt-right is repugnant to me - not the least because Trump claims to the representative of the Party of Lincoln.
I want my party back - and that means defeating Trumpism.
-
Is there ANY decision that is not a moral decision?
Yes. Which prayers to say first.
-
I'd rather take my chances with Clinton than Trump. Clinton represents personal corruption and policies with which I disagree. Trump's unstable, thuggish temperament represents an existential danger to the nation, and his appeal to the racist alt-right is repugnant to me - not the least because Trump claims to the representative of the Party of Lincoln.
I want my party back - and that means defeating Trumpism.
And that is a moral decision. One of two long term outcomes are acceptable: Either a third party grows in power enough to challenge the existing major parties, or one of the existing parties is stripped of the amoral and immoral people who have backed this fiasco. If the decision is the latter, the GOP is the existing major party with some acceptably moral people in power, and as the least corrupt, the one to save. So I see your intent, and won't argue with that.
The Continental Army lost far more battles than it won, but it won the war. The question for Republicans becomes "Will 'winning' this battle lose the war?". I think the outcome of a Trump victory, long term, for the GOP would be an end to the Party, and definitely a refutation of any moral high ground it may have enjoyed at the national level.
-
As some of you may have gathered, I don't really spend much time posting here any longer. However, I noticed Don's essay thread here when he posted it and it has caught my attention as the discussion has progressed. I want to let Don know how much I appreciate this thread, and his willingness to lay out his personal path and the reasoning that he used.
I will share some of my thoughts on the overall topic. But be forewarned, I am not an "argument addict" by nature, and I really don't have a lot of time to post on a message forum, so I most likely will not respond to any replies to this post. I will simply share my opinions, I am sure that not many will agree. So be it.
I am sure that you've all heard an expression along these lines before: "you can't argue someone out of a proposition that they didn't arrive at using reason and logic." In my view, Don has been attempting to "argue" and reason with people that are in a deep state of denial. For if you can not accept the clear fact: if Trump is not elected, then Hillary will be sworn in on January 20, 2017, then you won't be accepting much beyond that.
A bit more about that, for members here.
Some may argue that it is likely that almost half of the eligible population won't bother voting, so my one vote doesn't matter. While there is some truth to that, the eligible population of voters are NOT the people that are participating in BR (or any other right of center forums). Discounting the wide variations in philosophy and perspective, by and large the members of BR are people from the right of center population. Not all are GOP members, but they are certainly not members of the left of center population. Therefore, you are the people that the GOP candidate (whatever you may think of our recent candidates, is neither here nor there) typically and traditionally draws upon for a voter base. Because of this clear truth, it logically follows that: BR members that refuse to support and vote for Trump in the general election are, without dispute, supporting Clinton's electoral victory. Of course, this varies by state, it is more relevant to people living in some states than others. But for many of you, like it or not, your support (and potential vote) for Trump is all that is standing in the gap to prevent 0baa's 3rd and likely 4th term. Certainly not the hand that you would prefer, but in fact, the hand that you've been dealt.
Look, I am sure that many of you are in the same camp as I am (and many others across the country): I voted for McCain in 2008 in an attempt to stop 0baa, I voted for Romney in 2012 in an attempt to stop 0baa. Neither of them was my first choice during the primaries. It is just what sensible, mature people do, when they wish to attempt to stop an evil force. And now in 2016, sensible, mature people will vote for Trump in an attempt to stop HRC; regardless of who was her/his first choice during the primaries. There it is, full stop.
All of this talk of being "above it all" with a "clear conscience" or wasting a vote on a 3rd party candidate with zero hope of winning one EV, is just simply hogwash. And a lot of it is hogwash with all sorts of bizarre religiosity layered over it.
Speaking for myself as an evangelical Christian since 1989, I have a much more practical, and I believe to be more sound view of the whole "morality and my vote" issue. Here's what I believe, you may disagree:
- God wants me to be a good steward, and that includes stewardship of my role in the manmade government under which I reside.
- Part of that stewardship involves making the effort (at a minimum) to be registered to vote, and to cast a vote.
- God also always wants me to be a good steward of the intelligence and ability to reason that he chose to gift me at birth, and help me develop along the way.
- Therefore, God wants me to vote for the best possible candidate that is available to me in this very critical election.
That's the way I see, and have for quite some time. It is simple, it is not fancy, but I believe that it is based on Biblical truth. (Also included in this, but not stated, is my belief that God doesn't want me to squander my vote (poor stewardship) because I am upset and/or angry that the candidate(s) that I preferred are no longer in the running.)
And taking that a bit further, I do not believe that my vote for a candidate chains me to a running train of responsibility for any future actions of that candidate. As an example, I voted for GWB twice. I was very disappointed (to put it mildly) with some of his actions during those 2 terms (that I helped him achieve). But I have never felt "guilty" or under God's judgment for those votes. I simply used the same model that I sketched above, GWB was the best possible choice for me (and what I perceived to be my country's best interests) at the time. Simple.
And as Don has pointed out so many times, Trump is the "known, unknown" and HRC is the "known, known." And I am convinced that the vast majority of the people arguing that HRC is, or is potentially, worse than Trump, know that that simply isn't true (but it is a good excuse!). Unless they have been living under a rock somewhere, they KNOW how evil HRC is, and has been, for many decades. (Truth be told, there are probably few living humans as evil as HRC; we should count our blessings!)
And since I bothered to check in today, let me share a bit of my thinking about Trump's candidacy, in general terms.
Something that I believe causes a great deal of the anguish (and hatred) for Trump is also pretty simple. I've tried to bring it out in a few threads here before I left. Let me try to summarize it briefly now.
I will start with a few assumptions:
1. Trump loves America. (Now, he may also have an inordinate (or imprudent) amount of love for self and material things, but I don't believe that that overshadows his love of country.)
2. Trump is a smart man (even though he can not speak publicly in the manner with which most of us expect an intelligent man to speak).
3. He wants to WIN the general election.
Now, because he wants to actually WIN the general election, he had to craft a strategy to reach that goal. Because he is a smart man, he looked back at the prior elections and saw how easily the Democrats marginalized and destroyed the Republican nominee (even in the two GWB elections that he won). To anyone also looking at this recent history, it is pretty apparent how they accomplish that. Trump decided that he would NOT allow himself to be marginalized in the same way, because he wants to WIN.
He would not allow them to use hot-button social issues to defeat him before he had a chance to mount his challenge. He knew that it was likely that HRC would be the Democrat candidate, he knew that issues akin to the "war on women" would be prominent in the attack. He also knew that to win a general election in 2016 America, one must gather in a lot of the independents or "moderates" to your side (and that harsh partisan rhetoric that tickles the ears of the hardliners does nothing for that). And he also knew that there was a great deal of untapped votes (almost one half of the eligible electorate) that were available, with the right message, pushing the right buttons.
So on this basis, he crafted his message and his campaign. Because of this, it was obvious that he would not be speaking the same language that many traditional "conservatives" were attracted to hearing, especially social conservatives. I first noticed this back in July of 2015. The PP issue was in the news and Trump had recently entered the race. I listened carefully as he spoke about the issue. Was he elegant with his words? No, he never is. Did he "play to the base" and take on a 'fire and brimstone' approach? No. What he did was two-fold:
1. He spoke out against abortion. He stated quite clearly that he does not support abortion (beyond the two exceptions). He made it clear that he would NOT support funding PP to perform abortions.
2. He disarmed the left from using their typical talking points against him by saying that he believes in supporting "women's health" issues (using their language). That women's health issues were very important to him, and he would be a strong supporter of women's health issues. (Now where I believe that he went too far, is when he also said that "PP does many good things for women's health." That was a unnecessary stretch, IMO.)
At that point in time I realized what he was doing. I realized that he would be running an unorthodox campaign in an attempt to disarm the typical weapons that are deployed against a Republican presidential candidate. If you look back over the past year, you can see that he had collected a set of these (and other) issues and opinions on them, that he would unleash throughout the primaries and general election campaign. In fact, you can see clearly that he had been running a general election campaign simultaneously throughout the primaries. Another recent example of him taking an unorthodox approach for the Republican candidate is him speaking about "protecting the rights of the LGBQT community." Now, he didn't say that he would expand their rights, or create special rights, just protect their rights as citizens. Sure, he got a lot of backlash from the traditional conservative right for that. But.... he again disarmed his opponents. It will be much harder for them to slap the "he hates gays!" label on him, and make it stick.
Now I know that there are a lot of techniques and tactics that he used in the primaries to dispatch with his competitors that have left a lot of sore feelings and ill will. Do I personally approve of them all? No. Could I have done a better job? I doubt it. Because, for all of our complaints about some of his tactics, the simple fact remains that in order to WIN the general election, one has to first become a candidate in the general election. We have all acknowledged that politics is a "dirty business" for many years. Why would we expect anything different in 2015-16?
Does any of this change the fact that Trump is indeed a flawed candidate that often does a horrendous job at speaking? No.
But, at this point in the game, he remains the only one that has a chance to stop HRC. Simple. Reality.
Because no matter what high principles many clamor for day and night, unless you can WIN the general election, you will NEVER have a chance to support them as the Chief Executive and Commander in Chief.
It still remains a leap of faith to believe that Trump will stay true to his campaign policy statements. There are no guarantees in life. And perhaps it is even more of a gamble to place that faith in a man that has no depth of experience or even understanding of Constitutional governance. But again, it comes back to one of Don's main points: we KNOW what HRC will do.
Sorry for the long rant, I hope that it was at least entertaining for you, if you bothered to read this far!
-
Thanks, Katz for a rare pragmatic discussion of the political REALITY of the day. It is binary, whether one choses to like it or not.
At several points in life, I was faced with options not of my making.
Once I screwed up badly, and was seduced by the Ross Perot song. But most of the time I can discern the realistic, logical options, and act accordingly. It does NOT mean that I approve of the options; merely I can discern them and select accordingly.
I want for America to make better decisions regarding illegal immigration, admitting risky dangerous costly refugees, and about the economy.
There is no uncertainty which of the only two options matches with my priorities. (My two favorites at the beginning were Perry and Walker; tested Republican governors, btw.)
-
As some of you may have gathered, I don't really spend much time posting here any longer. However, I noticed Don's essay thread here when he posted it and it has caught my attention as the discussion has progressed. I want to let Don know how much I appreciate this thread, and his willingness to lay out his personal path and the reasoning that he used.
I will share some of my thoughts on the overall topic. But be forewarned, I am not an "argument addict" by nature, and I really don't have a lot of time to post on a message forum, so I most likely will not respond to any replies to this post. I will simply share my opinions, I am sure that not many will agree. So be it.
I am sure that you've all heard an expression along these lines before: "you can't argue someone out of a proposition that they didn't arrive at using reason and logic." In my view, Don has been attempting to "argue" and reason with people that are in a deep state of denial. For if you can not accept the clear fact: if Trump is not elected, then Hillary will be sworn in on January 20, 2017, then you won't be accepting much beyond that.
A bit more about that, for members here.
Some may argue that it is likely that almost half of the eligible population won't bother voting, so my one vote doesn't matter. While there is some truth to that, the eligible population of voters are NOT the people that are participating in BR (or any other right of center forums). Discounting the wide variations in philosophy and perspective, by and large the members of BR are people from the right of center population. Not all are GOP members, but they are certainly not members of the left of center population. Therefore, you are the people that the GOP candidate (whatever you may think of our recent candidates, is neither here nor there) typically and traditionally draws upon for a voter base. Because of this clear truth, it logically follows that: BR members that refuse to support and vote for Trump in the general election are, without dispute, supporting Clinton's electoral victory. Of course, this varies by state, it is more relevant to people living in some states than others. But for many of you, like it or not, your support (and potential vote) for Trump is all that is standing in the gap to prevent 0baa's 3rd and likely 4th term. Certainly not the hand that you would prefer, but in fact, the hand that you've been dealt.
Look, I am sure that many of you are in the same camp as I am (and many others across the country): I voted for McCain in 2008 in an attempt to stop 0baa, I voted for Romney in 2012 in an attempt to stop 0baa. Neither of them was my first choice during the primaries. It is just what sensible, mature people do, when they wish to attempt to stop an evil force. And now in 2016, sensible, mature people will vote for Trump in an attempt to stop HRC; regardless of who was her/his first choice during the primaries. There it is, full stop.
All of this talk of being "above it all" with a "clear conscience" or wasting a vote on a 3rd party candidate with zero hope of winning one EV, is just simply hogwash. And a lot of it is hogwash with all sorts of bizarre religiosity layered over it.
Speaking for myself as an evangelical Christian since 1989, I have a much more practical, and I believe to be more sound view of the whole "morality and my vote" issue. Here's what I believe, you may disagree:
- God wants me to be a good steward, and that includes stewardship of my role in the manmade government under which I reside.
- Part of that stewardship involves making the effort (at a minimum) to be registered to vote, and to cast a vote.
- God also always wants me to be a good steward of the intelligence and ability to reason that he chose to gift me at birth, and help me develop along the way.
- Therefore, God wants me to vote for the best possible candidate that is available to me in this very critical election.
That's the way I see, and have for quite some time. It is simple, it is not fancy, but I believe that it is based on Biblical truth. (Also included in this, but not stated, is my belief that God doesn't want me to squander my vote (poor stewardship) because I am upset and/or angry that the candidate(s) that I preferred are no longer in the running.)
And taking that a bit further, I do not believe that my vote for a candidate chains me to a running train of responsibility for any future actions of that candidate. As an example, I voted for GWB twice. I was very disappointed (to put it mildly) with some of his actions during those 2 terms (that I helped him achieve). But I have never felt "guilty" or under God's judgment for those votes. I simply used the same model that I sketched above, GWB was the best possible choice for me (and what I perceived to be my country's best interests) at the time. Simple.
And as Don has pointed out so many times, Trump is the "known, unknown" and HRC is the "known, known." And I am convinced that the vast majority of the people arguing that HRC is, or is potentially, worse than Trump, know that that simply isn't true (but it is a good excuse!). Unless they have been living under a rock somewhere, they KNOW how evil HRC is, and has been, for many decades. (Truth be told, there are probably few living humans as evil as HRC; we should count our blessings!)
And since I bothered to check in today, let me share a bit of my thinking about Trump's candidacy, in general terms.
Something that I believe causes a great deal of the anguish (and hatred) for Trump is also pretty simple. I've tried to bring it out in a few threads here before I left. Let me try to summarize it briefly now.
I will start with a few assumptions:
1. Trump loves America. (Now, he may also have an inordinate (or imprudent) amount of love for self and material things, but I don't believe that that overshadows his love of country.)
2. Trump is a smart man (even though he can not speak publicly in the manner with which most of us expect an intelligent man to speak).
3. He wants to WIN the general election.
Now, because he wants to actually WIN the general election, he had to craft a strategy to reach that goal. Because he is a smart man, he looked back at the prior elections and saw how easily the Democrats marginalized and destroyed the Republican nominee (even in the two GWB elections that he won). To anyone also looking at this recent history, it is pretty apparent how they accomplish that. Trump decided that he would NOT allow himself to be marginalized in the same way, because he wants to WIN.
He would not allow them to use hot-button social issues to defeat him before he had a chance to mount his challenge. He knew that it was likely that HRC would be the Democrat candidate, he knew that issues akin to the "war on women" would be prominent in the attack. He also knew that to win a general election in 2016 America, one must gather in a lot of the independents or "moderates" to your side (and that harsh partisan rhetoric that tickles the ears of the hardliners does nothing for that). And he also knew that there was a great deal of untapped votes (almost one half of the eligible electorate) that were available, with the right message, pushing the right buttons.
So on this basis, he crafted his message and his campaign. Because of this, it was obvious that he would not be speaking the same language that many traditional "conservatives" were attracted to hearing, especially social conservatives. I first noticed this back in July of 2015. The PP issue was in the news and Trump had recently entered the race. I listened carefully as he spoke about the issue. Was he elegant with his words? No, he never is. Did he "play to the base" and take on a 'fire and brimstone' approach? No. What he did was two-fold:
1. He spoke out against abortion. He stated quite clearly that he does not support abortion (beyond the two exceptions). He made it clear that he would NOT support funding PP to perform abortions.
2. He disarmed the left from using their typical talking points against him by saying that he believes in supporting "women's health" issues (using their language). That women's health issues were very important to him, and he would be a strong supporter of women's health issues. (Now where I believe that he went too far, is when he also said that "PP does many good things for women's health." That was a unnecessary stretch, IMO.)
At that point in time I realized what he was doing. I realized that he would be running an unorthodox campaign in an attempt to disarm the typical weapons that are deployed against a Republican presidential candidate. If you look back over the past year, you can see that he had collected a set of these (and other) issues and opinions on them, that he would unleash throughout the primaries and general election campaign. In fact, you can see clearly that he had been running a general election campaign simultaneously throughout the primaries. Another recent example of him taking an unorthodox approach for the Republican candidate is him speaking about "protecting the rights of the LGBQT community." Now, he didn't say that he would expand their rights, or create special rights, just protect their rights as citizens. Sure, he got a lot of backlash from the traditional conservative right for that. But.... he again disarmed his opponents. It will be much harder for them to slap the "he hates gays!" label on him, and make it stick.
Now I know that there are a lot of techniques and tactics that he used in the primaries to dispatch with his competitors that have left a lot of sore feelings and ill will. Do I personally approve of them all? No. Could I have done a better job? I doubt it. Because, for all of our complaints about some of his tactics, the simple fact remains that in order to WIN the general election, one has to first become a candidate in the general election. We have all acknowledged that politics is a "dirty business" for many years. Why would we expect anything different in 2015-16?
Does any of this change the fact that Trump is indeed a flawed candidate that often does a horrendous job at speaking? No.
But, at this point in the game, he remains the only one that has a chance to stop HRC. Simple. Reality.
Because no matter what high principles many clamor for day and night, unless you can WIN the general election, you will NEVER have a chance to support them as the Chief Executive and Commander in Chief.
It still remains a leap of faith to believe that Trump will stay true to his campaign policy statements. There are no guarantees in life. And perhaps it is even more of a gamble to place that faith in a man that has no depth of experience or even understanding of Constitutional governance. But again, it comes back to one of Don's main points: we KNOW what HRC will do.
Sorry for the long rant, I hope that it was at least entertaining for you, if you bothered to read this far!
It was entertaining, and I did read that far. I am not sure attributing incoherence to an ingenious strategy is accurate, although certainly there is something disarming in trying to attack the policy statements of someone who has essentially straddled every issue either through words, actions, or both. No matter who says what, it can be refuted.
The campaign, essentially. is to present a blank slate and let the voter write what they want on it. That is how Obama won, not just once but twice, with people interpreting his hollow verbiage as they chose and often displaying the same sort of near-worship of the man. The only difference is this time the frame has an excessive amount of gilding on it.
The other part is to make outrageous statements and walk them back (part issue straddling, part dominating the news cycle). The only problem with that is that there is enough coming out about his opponent that would work against her, that he is, in effect, providing a smokescreen (unintentionally or otherwise) for the bad press she would otherwise get, but doesn't because his outrageousness is dominating the news cycle.
Her true believers have been lined up and waiting for this moment for a decade or more, and new ones have come in to replace the ones who have died out. She has nothing to prove to her sycophants, they are in the bag and have been there. Only bad press can hurt her, and that isn't getting out, partly because the media is biased, but partly because of Trump, himself.
Now the other thing is the idea that a third party vote is wasted. It's back to the self-fulfilling prophesy of they can't win, so I won't vote for them, even though they are exactly what I want, so they don't win. (See! I told you so!)
If you shopped that way, nothing you own would be what you want. In politics, power goes to those who have backing, backing to those who have a following, the following to those who have the 'right' ideas, with that one exception. It is the 'electability' argument all over again.
Catch-22. How does a party gain members and strength if the prospective members won't vote that way because it doesn't have members and strength? I will submit, the only way things are going to change is if the voters do, in practice, vote for what they want. If that is Constitutional Government, vote that way, if it is Liberalism with FSA outlets on every street corner, vote that way. If it is a big question mark, well, let your conscience be your guide.
I won't, however, be deterred (again) to vote for the most acceptable unacceptable outcome to keep the most unacceptable unacceptable outcome from winning. Instead, I have resolved to either vote for the government I want, or, given no acceptable choice, not at all.
-
Sorry for the long rant, I hope that it was at least entertaining for you, if you bothered to read this far!
Excellent summation, Mick!
I caught myself nodding my head more than a few times, reviewing, what is a year of events you've traced to this point.
And a special shout-out for citing the religiosity of some arguments used here. :laugh:
-
For if you can not accept the clear fact: if Trump is not elected, then Hillary will be sworn in on January 20, 2017, then you won't be accepting much beyond that.
Despite my admiration for you as a friend and scholar I stopped reading right there as it is a COMPLETE logical fallacy! If everyone who cannot stomach either Hillary or Trump actually followed their conscience and voted that way neither of them would be sworn in as president om January 20, 2017.
I'm NOT going to play the hostage dilemma game anymore! EVER!
-
Despite my admiration for you as a friend and scholar I stopped reading right there as it is a COMPLETE logical fallacy! If everyone who cannot stomach either Hillary or Trump actually followed their conscience and voted that way neither of them would be sworn in as president om January 20, 2017.
I'm NOT going to play the hostage dilemma game anymore! EVER!
Ditto. I won't be voting for Trump just because he's not Hillary; nor vice versa. I'm voting for neither - they're equally bad. So I'm just looking for a way to lodge a vote for some other candidate that might send some sort of message instead.
-
I am sure that you've all heard an expression along these lines before: "you can't argue someone out of a proposition that they didn't arrive at using reason and logic." In my view, Don has been attempting to "argue" and reason with people that are in a deep state of denial. For if you can not accept the clear fact: if Trump is not elected, then Hillary will be sworn in on January 20, 2017, then you won't be accepting much beyond that.
First flaw: Between the two, I don't care who wins. Literally, and without emotion, both fall outside of my unconditional parameters. I see no difference in the two, whatsoever. The only acceptable outcome is for NEITHER to win, so that is the option I will work toward, despite any argument toward it being an extremely long shot - There is otherwise 'nothing to lose', so why not go for broke?
Not all are GOP members, but they are certainly not members of the left of center population. Therefore, you are the people that the GOP candidate (whatever you may think of our recent candidates, is neither here nor there) typically and traditionally draws upon for a voter base. Because of this clear truth, it logically follows that: BR members that refuse to support and vote for Trump in the general election are, without dispute, supporting Clinton's electoral victory.
NONSENSE. If the GOP so badly needs to draw upon right of center for their base, then they damn well ought to put up a candidate that is right of center. And that is not yet enough - FAR right of center - Then you are getting into the ballpark. Until then, I don't give a flying fig what the GOP, or anyone else feels is my duty - My duty is to Conservatism, not the GOP, and there is no reason whatsoever for me to vote for the big rhinestone 'R' otherwise - And especially so, when their candidate is a NYC liberal.
Look, I am sure that many of you are in the same camp as I am (and many others across the country): I voted for McCain in 2008 in an attempt to stop 0baa, I voted for Romney in 2012 in an attempt to stop 0baa. Neither of them was my first choice during the primaries. It is just what sensible, mature people do, when they wish to attempt to stop an evil force. And now in 2016, sensible, mature people will vote for Trump in an attempt to stop HRC; regardless of who was her/his first choice during the primaries. There it is, full stop.
Bullcrap. It doesn't work. And once again, it will be proven in spades. You cannot vote AGAINST anything. Your vote is nothing but a positive endorsement. If there are enough people that positively agree with you, then you win. That means you have to have a positive message with which to engage the population. FEAR of Clinton, and the weak argument that Trump is somewhat better is a ludicrously lame argument, and not a positive message in the least.
And I did not vote for Romney, nor McCain't, nor Dole, nor Poppy's second term. If you want to win, nominate a Conservative.
All of this talk of being "above it all" with a "clear conscience" or wasting a vote on a 3rd party candidate with zero hope of winning one EV, is just simply hogwash. And a lot of it is hogwash with all sorts of bizarre religiosity layered over it.
What is hogwash is pulling the lever for that which you abhor.
Therefore, God wants me to vote for the best possible candidate that is available to me in this very critical election.
Right. And that candidate, beyond any question, is Darrell Castle.
(Also included in this, but not stated, is my belief that God doesn't want me to squander my vote (poor stewardship) because I am upset and/or angry that the candidate(s) that I preferred are no longer in the running.)
You guys always throw that in there - Once again, and HEAR ME: I do not vote for men. I vote for principles. I am not unduly upset that Cruz is out of the running. For all intensive porpoises, Castle is standing on the same ground as Cruz. Why would I squander my precious vote on a NYC liberal when there is a perfectly good Conservative in the race? Not that I would vote for the liberal anyway....
And as Don has pointed out so many times, Trump is the "known, unknown" and HRC is the "known, known." And I am convinced that the vast majority of the people arguing that HRC is, or is potentially, worse than Trump, know that that simply isn't true (but it is a good excuse!). Unless they have been living under a rock somewhere, they KNOW how evil HRC is, and has been, for many decades. (Truth be told, there are probably few living humans as evil as HRC; we should count our blessings!)
More fear and baloney. Trump is not an unknown. He is predictably liberal, with a very long public record. He is also predictably of low character. And he lies out of both sides of his face. You know what you're getting.
I will start with a few assumptions:
1. Trump loves America. (Now, he may also have an inordinate (or imprudent) amount of love for self and material things, but I don't believe that that overshadows his love of country.)
Unfounded. Trump loves himself. And Trump loves power.
2. Trump is a smart man (even though he can not speak publicly in the manner with which most of us expect an intelligent man to speak).
Again, unfounded. He has made terrifically stupid mistakes, not only in the election, but all the way along.
3. He wants to WIN the general election.
I would have given you that not very long ago, but I don't even know that anymore. He certainly isn't looking like he wants to win right now.
Now, because he wants to actually WIN the general election, he had to craft a strategy to reach that goal.
Again, more analysis than necessary. He came in like a bull in a china shop, denigrated his opponents with lies and false memes - and won.
But in doing so, he pissed off absolutely everyone he was going to need to win the election.
Now he can't get support, nor can he get money, nor can he get good press.
Brilliance, right? Nope. Absolute stupidity.
He's done. Y'all just don't know it yet.
But, at this point in the game, he remains the only one that has a chance to stop HRC. Simple. Reality.
Nope. He.will.not.win.
If you want to win against Hillary, Castle is the better bet... Or maybe that McMuffin guy. I don't know about him yet.
Because no matter what high principles many clamor for day and night, unless you can WIN the general election, you will NEVER have a chance to support them as the Chief Executive and Commander in Chief.
To win without principles intact, is no win at all. Not that it matters, because without Conservatives, he will not win. And Conservatives will not turn out for him, because their principles matter to them, and they will not forsake them. End of story.
It still remains a leap of faith to believe that Trump will stay true to his campaign policy statements.
No, way past faith - Unicorns farting rainbows territory... He is of low character. He lies like a rug. He is on all sides of all issues. You won't be getting what you want. Guarandamnteed.
-
I'm NOT going to play the hostage dilemma game anymore! EVER!
:hands:
-
I'm NOT going to play the hostage dilemma game anymore! EVER!
Earl....while you and I many not be around ten years from now, the country we're going
to be leaving our children and grandchildren will be decided this November 8th.
Lose the hate...and hold your nose again, like a big boy.
Then go home and take a long shower. :laugh:
-
Once I screwed up badly, and was seduced by the Ross Perot song.
The irony of your statement is rich..........Thanks for a hearty belly laugh.
-
Earl....while you and I many not be around ten years from now, the country we're going
to be leaving our children and grandchildren will be decided this November 8th.
Lose the hate...and hold your nose again, like a big boy.
Then go home and take a long shower. :laugh:
KMA David! Not this time! Not EVER again!
-
#NeverTrump speaks of irony? Never Trump = president Hillary. Now, that's irony for you.
-
:amen: :amen:
If you've been posting on Conservative boards for years....and I believe you have...then you're primarily affiliated and vote with the Republican Party.
The Primaries are over. Therefore, the infighting should be over.
For now...your moral vote must be decided on leaving America in the hands of Hillary, "There's only the Fight", Clinton...or take a chance on a person that loves American with all his heart, is in good health, and a successful businessman...even though he's become a caricature of himself.
"As you ramble on through life, brother, whatever by your goal.....keep your eye upon the donut, and not upon the hole"
-
Can we please not go there?
-
:amen:
I have enough information, to conclude she will do less, and he will do more to secure the safety of my family.
To disregard my family's safety is not moral.
-
KMA David! Not this time! Not EVER again!
:laugh: :seeya:
-
Can we please not go there?
It's cool, @don-o
Before Donald Trump, I would have driven to his house and cut his grass if he needed help for any reason.
Trump does that to people, it seems.
-
This thread more than any other demonstrates the utter futility of political arguments.
Totally pointless.
-
This thread more than any other demonstrates the utter futility of political arguments.
Totally pointless.
Thanks for sharing.
-
If everyone who cannot stomach either Hillary or Trump actually followed their conscience and voted that way neither of them would be sworn in as president om January 20, 2017.
QFT
-
I am sure that you've all heard an expression along these lines before: "you can't argue someone out of a proposition that they didn't arrive at using reason and logic." In my view, Don has been attempting to "argue" and reason with people that are in a deep state of denial. For if you can not accept the clear fact: if Trump is not elected, then Hillary will be sworn in on January 20, 2017, then you won't be accepting much beyond that.
I detect a tendency to equate reason with “Jedi mind tricks.” I am beginning to understand that. I am ashamed to admit this, but I only recently discovered that sophistry predated philosophy.
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,210473.0.html
The word “pragmatism” was mentioned in relation to my argument. Pragmatists ARE Sophists. I am neither. My starting point is John 1:1.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
This is absolute, not relative Truth.
-
This thread more than any other demonstrates the utter futility of political arguments.
Totally pointless.
Thanks for sharing.
I think Ghost Bear is onto something. What's the point - for those of us with a job and a life - to piss time away arguing with intransigence?
#NeverTrump is DNC-approved to be 100 percent obdurate and immovable. And that's just some of their better qualities...let's just say I wont go into intelligence quotient here.
-
I think Ghost Bear is onto something. What's the point - for those of us with a job and a life - to piss time away arguing with intransigence?
#NeverTrump is DNC-approved to be 100 percent obdurate and immovable. And that's just some of their better qualities...let's just say I wont go into intelligence quotient here.
I'm rubber and you're glue, whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you. :tongue2:
-
I think Ghost Bear is onto something. What's the point - for those of us with a job and a life - to piss time away arguing with intransigence?
#NeverTrump is DNC-approved to be 100 percent obdurate and immovable. And that's just some of their better qualities...let's just say I wont go into intelligence quotient here.
Supporters of the Donald should never discuss "intelligence quotient" because they would lose every time. As far as "better qualities", at least, unlike tRump supporters, we have some.
-
Earl....while you and I many not be around ten years from now, the country we're going
to be leaving our children and grandchildren will be decided this November 8th.
Lose the hate...and hold your nose again, like a big boy.
Then go home and take a long shower.
So when was it exactly that you agreed that the Presidency was a monarchy??
The country our posterity will inherit was permanently decided back in 2008 and 2012.
It took many decades to get there, but when the people tossed out our Foundational principles and religious heritage, it was a done deal.
Only a religious and moral people are capable of maintaining a Constitutional Republic. Since we are no longer those people, a Republic we no longer are.
-
Earl....while you and I many not be around ten years from now, the country we're going
to be leaving our children and grandchildren will be decided this November 8th.
Lose the hate...and hold your nose again, like a big boy.
Then go home and take a long shower. :laugh:
Oh no, just heck no. I want my kids to know their Daddy stood by right and wrong no matter the consequences; I only can only pray I don't fail them in that. I want my girls to grow up and know that a real man lives by Davy Crockett's old saying. Be sure you are right, and then go ahead. If I don't live that example who are they going pick when they grow up?
You must do what you think is right and so must I, but in my mind a real man doesn't compromise his principles for expediency. I'm not going to sacrifice my sacred honor for Donald J. Trump, not by a durn sight. The winners and the losers aren't determined on this earth anyways.
-
Oh no, just heck no. I want my kids to know their Daddy stood by right and wrong no matter the consequences; I only can only pray I don't fail them in that. I want my girls to grow up and know that a real man lives by Davy Crockett's old saying. Be sure you are right, and then go ahead. If I don't live that example who are they going pick when they grow up?
You must do what you think is right and so must I, but in my mind a real man doesn't compromise his principles for expediency. I'm not going to sacrifice my sacred honor for Donald J. Trump, not by a durn sight. The winners and the losers aren't determined on this earth anyways.
Absolutely damn straight.
-
Oh no, just heck no. I want my kids to know their Daddy stood by right and wrong no matter the consequences; I only can only pray I don't fail them in that. I want my girls to grow up and know that a real man lives by Davy Crockett's old saying. Be sure you are right, and then go ahead. If I don't live that example who are they going pick when they grow up?
You must do what you think is right and so must I, but in my mind a real man doesn't compromise his principles for expediency. I'm not going to sacrifice my sacred honor for Donald J. Trump, not by a durn sight. The winners and the losers aren't determined on this earth anyways.
I couldn't have said it better!
-
Oh no, just heck no. I want my kids to know their Daddy stood by right and wrong no matter the consequences; I only can only pray I don't fail them in that. I want my girls to grow up and know that a real man lives by Davy Crockett's old saying. Be sure you are right, and then go ahead. If I don't live that example who are they going pick when they grow up?
You must do what you think is right and so must I, but in my mind a real man doesn't compromise his principles for expediency. I'm not going to sacrifice my sacred honor for Donald J. Trump, not by a durn sight. The winners and the losers aren't determined on this earth anyways.
Yes!
We think too much. We don't need to be amateur philosophers to understand right and wrong. We don't need to choose a president based on who is better. We pick who we think is best, regardless of who the man next to me picks.
-
Oh no, just heck no. I want my kids to know their Daddy stood by right and wrong no matter the consequences; I only can only pray I don't fail them in that. I want my girls to grow up and know that a real man lives by Davy Crockett's old saying. Be sure you are right, and then go ahead. If I don't live that example who are they going pick when they grow up?
You must do what you think is right and so must I, but in my mind a real man doesn't compromise his principles for expediency. I'm not going to sacrifice my sacred honor for Donald J. Trump, not by a durn sight. The winners and the losers aren't determined on this earth anyways.
Couldn't of said it any better. :amen: :amen:
-
Yes!
We think too much. We don't need to be amateur philosophers to understand right and wrong. We don't need to choose a president based on who is better. We pick who we think is best, regardless of who the man next to me picks.
That makes me sad. I thought Conservatives placed a great value on thinking.
-
That makes me sad. I thought Conservatives placed a great value on thinking.
If you've been following the Trump campaign, you lost that ideal a very long time ago.
I used to think that Conservatives were the thinkers too, until very recently.
Trump's popularity proves one of two things. Either conservatives are illogical, emotional and unethical, or Trump followers are not conservative.
There really isn't another option.
But to RoosGirl's point.
Sometimes overthinking removes our 'reality' from the spiritual, and we forget the basics of what is right and what is wrong.
The book of Romans deals a lot with the foolishness of the philosophers of the age, vs the reality and truth in God's word.
I recommend you re-read it.
-
But to RoosGirl's point.
Sometimes overthinking removes our 'reality' from the spiritual, and we forget the basics of what is right and what is wrong.
Thank you for saying this better than I did. It is the overthinking that becomes a problem. Particularly in this case, when on the surface both major party candidates are so disagreeable, to get the magnifying lens out trying to find the "better" so as to justify a choice that we don't even like is a waste of time. If you've made your choice and feel there is no other, then move on. There is no point in discussing further. Unless you want to be talked out of what you think is a bad choice. If it's as simple as "I won't vote for Hillary so I must vote for Trump" there is nothing further to discuss. There is no moral decision with this case, and since you @don-o are looking at it this way I can understand why you think there is no moral decision to make. But of course, there are choices other than Hillary or Trump.
-
Thank you for saying this better than I did. It is the overthinking that becomes a problem. Particularly in this case, when on the surface both major party candidates are so disagreeable, to get the magnifying lens out trying to find the "better" so as to justify a choice that we don't even like is a waste of time. If you've made your choice and feel there is no other, then move on. There is no point in discussing further. Unless you want to be talked out of what you think is a bad choice. If it's as simple as "I won't vote for Hillary so I must vote for Trump" there is nothing further to discuss. There is no moral decision with this case, and since you @don-o are looking at it this way I can understand why you think there is no moral decision to make. But of course, there are choices other than Hillary or Trump.
Many good points there @RoosGirl . Carrying it a bit further, if you believe the decision you have made is a good one, and morality is not involved, why set yourself up like this and asked to be talked out of what you believe to be a well thought out decision? Why write a vanity and ask for people to prove you wrong? And then dismiss others' well considered points by saying morality isn't involved (when it clearly is).
There's a lot of cognitive dissonance with this whole thing.
-
...It happens that my odyssey has coincided with my reading of Richard Weaver's “Ideas Have Consequences.” Early in the introduction he writes of “the appalling problem, when one gets to actual cases, of getting men to distinguish between better and worse”
Eureka! There's a concept I had somehow excluded from my thinking, although in my non-political life, I distinguish all the time....
Do I like my options? Not much.
Shall I stand firmly on the belief that the lesser of two evils, being an evil, forbids me from exercising a prudential judgment based on better and worse? I think not. I must find another way.
I start with the understanding that this world is a fallen place and that men are fallen creatures. There is no political system that will restore the world and men to the pre-fall state. However, there are things that I can do, both in my public and my private life, that will better or worsen myself, and by extension the sphere in which I live and act. With this as a basis, I then understand more clearly, the validity of “The perfect is the enemy of the good.”
I need to be reminded that there is a distinction between moral judgment (good and evil) and prudential judgment (applies to tenable options that are not intrinsically evil.) With that distinction established, my odyssey can continue with a different way to think than before.
Beautifully stated, don-O.
We have to work with what we've got, not whine that we do not have better materials to work with. This only helps the "bad guys" -- the Left Progressive ideologues who have come to infest the federal government, from which position of power they seek to destroy the American middle class, the American way of life and the Constitution itself. Or so it seems to me.
While reading your article, Aristotle's Spoudaios came forcefully to mind. This concept refers to the mature man who is a truly public-spirited and public-minded man, in that he loves his country and comes to its service. Not only in times of crisis; though he is particularly needful at such times, to restore the public order and the well-being of the people.
Thank you don-O, for your excellent article.
@don-o
-
Thank you don-O, for your excellent article.
@don-o
You're welcome.
And in response to some recent posts before yours....
I have tried to address every substantive point of objection that has been raised. If anyone wants to simply opine, “You're wrong.” that is fine. Once is enough.
If I have failed to address a substantive point, I will try again.
If I have “ask(ed) for people to prove you wrong” please cite that and I well delete it. I do not recall doing that. That was not and is not my purpose.
I had a change of mind on the morning of July 5. I worked out the implications of that change in my mind and then wrote them down. What of the fact that few agree with me? I don't care. Not every one who reads, posts.
I can look at myself in the mirror and anyone in the eye.
-
What of the fact that few agree with me? I don't care. Not every one who reads, posts.
If this is in response to my comment about voting for who is best regardless of who the man next to me votes for then I will respond this way: If I have understood your process for arriving at a decision then it seems to me your statement above is in contrast to that process. If it was not in response to my comment referenced it still seems to me that your process of decision making and the statement above are in essence opposite to each other.
-
I can look at myself in the mirror and anyone in the eye.
And that is the best you can do for yourself and have every reason to be satisfied with your decision.
-
If this is in response to my comment about voting for who is best regardless of who the man next to me votes for then I will respond this way: If I have understood your process for arriving at a decision then it seems to me your statement above is in contrast to that process. If it was not in response to my comment referenced it still seems to me that your process of decision making and the statement above are in essence opposite to each other.
I have no idea what that means.
-
You're welcome.
And in response to some recent posts before yours....
I have tried to address every substantive point of objection that has been raised. If anyone wants to simply opine, “You're wrong.” that is fine. Once is enough.
If I have failed to address a substantive point, I will try again.
If I have “ask(ed) for people to prove you wrong” please cite that and I well delete it. I do not recall doing that. That was not and is not my purpose.
I had a change of mind on the morning of July 5. I worked out the implications of that change in my mind and then wrote them down. What of the fact that few agree with me? I don't care. Not every one who reads, posts.
I can look at myself in the mirror and anyone in the eye.
And yet, you continue to post to people you know disagree with you to try to convince them that there is only one "reality," and that is yours.
You don't act as if you don't care.
If I am the only one here who believes exactly as I do (I'm sure I am, because no two people think exactly alike), I am more than happy to stand my ground against arguments against me. This election has been a perfect example of that. I find myself being in a position I have never been in before as a very faithful Republican, and that is being completely repulsed by the degenerate liberal running on the Republican ticket. I have done deep soul searching, and am on entirely new ground in my conservatism because it is the first time in my 67 years that a Republican candidate doesn't have a single value that I have, and have always had as a Conservative Republican.
But if I were the only one, I would still stand strong, because my decision is based on immutable principles of right and wrong.
If you are the only one here, then I encourage you to continue to stand your ground, make your case, look yourself in the mirror and be satisfied that you are doing the right thing, continue to discuss why you believe as you do, but have the respect for others to believe we are doing the same thing.
I'm going to repeat what is become a theme song of mine here, but bears repeating. If you are reluctantly voting for Trump as a means of stopping Hillary because you believe she is worse than he, most of us have no problem with that at all. But if you are here trying specifically to shame others to join your version of "reality," and vote for Trump against our consciences, then your arguments need to be sharply countered.
-
I have no idea what that means.
Sorry I was not more clear, I will try to explain. Your comment was that you don't care what others think. However, my understanding of how you arrived at your decision is your belief that too many other people will be voting for Trump for you not to vote for him. I see that basically as you caring what other people think because you have based your decision, in part, on it.
-
Sorry I was not more clear, I will try to explain. Your comment was that you don't care what others think. However, my understanding of how you arrived at your decision is your belief that too many other people will be voting for Trump for you not to vote for him.
Where do I say anything close to that? Too many people voting for Trump? I want him to win. So Hillary will lose.
-
I'm going to repeat what is become a theme song of mine here, but bears repeating. If you are reluctantly voting for Trump as a means of stopping Hillary because you believe she is worse than he, most of us have no problem with that at all. But if you are here trying specifically to shame others to join your version of "reality," and vote for Trump against our consciences, then your arguments need to be sharply countered
I am still on the fence but I think don and others are reluctantly voting for Trump..... I can only speak for myself as I would never presume to tell anyone how to vote or make them feel guilty about it....I hope most of us feel that way.
-
I am still on the fence but I think don and others are reluctantly voting for Trump..... I can only speak for myself as I would never presume to tell anyone how to vote or make them feel guilty about it....I hope most of us feel that way.
That's accurate for me. I can not control any feelings of guilt that people have.
-
That's accurate for me. I can not control any feelings of guilt that people have.
I have absolutely none. Let the chips fall where they may.
-
We have to work with what we've got, not whine that we do not have better materials to work with.
That would be far more tenable if we hadn't been given nothing better than a choice between arsonists
for putting out the fire burning the national house.
Hillary Clinton doesn't like that Constitution thing (http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2015/10/03/hillary-clinton-doesnt-like-constitution-thing/)
Trump, the Anti-Constitutional Authoritarian (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428208/trump-anti-constitutional-authoritarian)
I say again, few are the things for which I am more grateful, involving my life in Nevada since 2007, than the option to vote
"None of These Candidates" when to "work with what we've got" happens---as it does this year, regarding a vote for the
presidency---to stand athwart every instinctual, intellectual, and, yes, moral sense I bear in my imperfect enough being.
-
Where do I say anything close to that? Too many people voting for Trump? I want him to win. So Hillary will lose.
You have stated that the reality is that either Hillary or Trump will win and will vote for Trump only so Hillary does not win. I take this as, you don't *want* to vote for Trump, but since so many other people are unwilling to vote for who they want because a third party will never win, you feel you have to go along with them. That to me is, in a way, caring what other people think and basing a decision, at least in part, upon it.
-
I have absolutely none. Let the chips fall where they may.
Conservatism and freedom has already lost this rigged election. Probably never to return.
I only feel bad that we didn't do more 8 years ago.
-
That's accurate for me. I can not control any feelings of guilt that people have.
Well, if it makes you feel better don-o, nothing you have said has made me feel guilty in the least. I never feel guilty when I do the right thing.
My only comment to you is that you are quite deliberately trying to convince others to join you in your decision, without respecting our right to make a different decision without your trying to lay guilt on us.
I doubt that anyone who has come to the conclusion I have come to, for the reason I have come to it, feels any form of guilt.
So there is no need to worry about your lack of control over our lack of guilt. :beer:
-
I doubt that anyone who has come to the conclusion I have come to, for the reason I have come to it, feels any form of guilt.
I don't feel "guilt." Why should I feel "guilt" because some other group of people chose a candidate so bad that I cannot support him, even given that the other candidate is so very awful?
Nah, my feelings run more along the lines of profound disappointment in the party I've supported my entire life, for nominating who they did; and a deep unease about the future of the nation because of the choice the GOP (not I!) made.
I needn't follow them over the cliff.
-
I don't feel "guilt." Why should I feel "guilt" because some other group of people chose a candidate so bad that I cannot support him, even given that the other candidate is so very awful?
Nah, my feelings run more along the lines of profound disappointment in the party I've supported my entire life, for nominating who they did; and a deep unease about the future of the nation because of the choice the GOP (not I!) made.
I needn't follow them over the cliff.
Precisely. And I believe that is the opinion of the majority of us.
I was curious as to why there was an assumption that non-Trumpers feel any form of guilt.
Doing what you believe is right based on all the evidence and grounded in an understanding of right and wrong doesn't result in guilt.
It results in freedom.
-
Just saw this on the Welcome thread and thought it applies:
(http://memions.com/wp-content/themes/wumblr/themify/img.php?src=http://memions.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Minion-Quote-When-you.jpg&w=590&h=&q=70)
No guilt. No worries about what other people think.
Just freedom.
That's where I am. Praise the Lord! :laugh:
-
I was curious as to why there was an assumption that non-Trumpers feel any form of guilt.
I suppose it's based in part on a tacit belief that "my vote is the only one that matters." If I do X the election turns out one way; and if I do Y, the election turns out a different way. So of course I should feel guilty if my choice turns out to result in a bad president.
However, as a matter of statistics the effect of my individual vote is actually negligible.
The other part has to do with an assumption that Hillary in the oval office would be worse than Trump. And she will be awful.
The underlying assumption is that Trump is somehow a better choice. However, his present behavior is predictive of his presidency; and his behavior suggests a presidency that will be rudderless, random, and animated by petty vindictiveness, at a time of great danger in the world.
Finally, the entire "Odyssey" argument rests on two fallacious assumptions: first, that we have only two choices in this election; and second, that one of the choices is acceptable. But neither of those happens to be true in this case. I can choose to vote some other way; and I can recognize that neither Clinton nor Trump are fit for the presidency.
-
I suppose it's based in part on a tacit belief that "my vote is the only one that matters." If I do X the election turns out one way; and if I do Y, the election turns out a different way. So of course I should feel guilty if my choice turns out to result in a bad president.
However, as a matter of statistics the effect of my individual vote is actually negligible.
The other part has to do with an assumption that Hillary in the oval office would be worse than Trump. And she will be awful.
The underlying assumption is that Trump is somehow a better choice. However, his present behavior is predictive of his presidency; and his behavior suggests a presidency that will be rudderless, random, and animated by petty vindictiveness, at a time of great danger in the world.
Finally, the entire "Odyssey" argument rests on two fallacious assumptions: first, that we have only two choices in this election; and second, that one of the choices is acceptable. But neither of those happens to be true in this case. I can choose to vote some other way; and I can recognize that neither Clinton nor Trump are fit for the presidency.
Well said. I'm in total agreement.
-
Where do I say anything close to that? Too many people voting for Trump? I want him to win. So Hillary will lose.
That is the way I feel too. She must lose.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcUCLwWCihE&feature=youtu.be
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcUCLwWCihE&feature=youtu.be
-
I am still on the fence but I think don and others are reluctantly voting for Trump..... I can only speak for myself as I would never presume to tell anyone how to vote or make them feel guilty about it....I hope most of us feel that way.
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 am looking at your graphic @musiclady and wondering why it says "when" someone thinks of you and not "what".
-
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.
-
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..... **nononono*
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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..... **nononono*
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
Their complete misuse of the word "democracy" and their devotion to a man who is, if anything ANTI-Constitutional reveals a deep lack of understanding of what America stands for.
I agree that they do not "hate their country." They are just oblivious as to what really has made this country great.
Donald Trump doesn't understand America, nor does he have the resources nor beliefs to do anything but take it further down into oblivion.
-
Donald Trump doesn't understand America, nor does he have the resources nor beliefs to do anything but take it further down into oblivion.
But....but....BUT he's been involved in four major bankruptcies! Obviously he knows what he is doing...(Is the country in THAT much trouble?) :nometalk:
-
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.
Very, very good questions.
-
Very, very good questions.
But you didn't answer the 'yes or no'. They aren't questions they are rhetorical traps.
-
But what do you love? Do you love sticking to your ideals more than you love the United States and your fellow citizens?
Without Conservatism, there is no United States. For that reason, yes. What we conserve are the very principles we were founded upon.
In other words, does feeling good about being a #NeverTrump person trump the nasty results of your position?
Your premise, that defeating one liberal with another will somehow be 'better,' is a ludicrous proposition. The results will be nasty regardless. If you want something better, fight to elect the Conservative. The answer to this question is made null - it is a false premise.
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?
Again, the premise is rendered null - There is no evidence that Trump would pick better judges than Clinton.
Both are liberals, both believe in big government - You hang your hopes on a promise that has already been overturned.
There is no positive reason to vote Trump. This is nothing more than 'lesser evil' and is an argument without any meat upon the bone. Conservatives - That is, TRUE Conservatives, are not swayed by fear. We know we stand upon solid ground.
-
It occurs to me that the spoonful of sugar that is represented by Americans positively choosing (through election) Conservatism, and seeking to overturn the present direction - That spoonful of sugar would certainly make the medicine much easier to swallow...
But swallow we will, one way or another... Or we will surely die.
The poison is liberalism. The cure is Conservatism.
Those that seek any other comfort are fooling themselves.
-
I am kinda hoping for a hillary win.
-
I am kinda hoping for a hillary win.
I'm kinda hoping a meteor falls on the site of the first debate and takes them both out.
But don't tell the Secret Service I said that. :nometalk:
-
I am kinda hoping for a hillary win.
I'm hoping for a miracle and that one or both candidates flame out before the election and a saner choice presents itself.
-
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 might as well be asking the following:
But what do you love? Do you love sticking to your God and your bible and your moral principles and your minority beliefs more than what the people in this country say they want?
In other words, does feeling good about being a Christian trump all the nasty consequences of making other people feel guilty in their sins that come from your intransigent beliefs? Are you okay saying you think your views on morality, such as adultery and homosexuality trump what the Supreme Court and the majority of this people believe is moral?
The world hates those who cling to unchangeable truth.
John 15:18
-
@Idaho_Cowboy
@Smokin Joe
@roamer_1
@INVAR
I appreciate your responses to the questions that were posed to me. It is nice to have all of your similar, but different, perspectives that are all equally great answers.
-
But you didn't answer the 'yes or no'. They aren't questions they are rhetorical traps.
Or you might be uncomfortable if you have to think about the answers. It is easier to ignore consequences than face them. That doesn't make the consequences any less real.
On the other hand, we all have coping mechanisms, and publicly standing on principle as the country falls down around your ears is better than huffing glue. So good luck!
-
Or you might be uncomfortable if you have to think about the answers. It is easier to ignore consequences than face them. That doesn't make the consequences any less real.
On the other hand, we all have coping mechanisms, and publicly standing on principle as the country falls down around your ears is better than huffing glue. So good luck!
And here is an example showing why this thread is a waste of time and effort: Trump Supporters and #NeverTrump'ers have fundamentally different worldviews, and neither can really understand or comprehend the other. **nononono*
-
Or you might be uncomfortable if you have to think about the answers. It is easier to ignore consequences than face them. That doesn't make the consequences any less real.
On the other hand, we all have coping mechanisms, and publicly standing on principle as the country falls down around your ears is better than huffing glue. So good luck!
My principles were principles long before I came along. They are the principles of my Deity, the founders, and my ancestors who go back on this continent to the early 1600s. A relative was a signer of The Declaration of Independence. If you read my answers, you will see I have given these some thought. Departure from those principles is not something be to be taken lightly, especially not those principles laid out by Almighty God, and after careful and lifelong consideration, I have decided not to.
If you are only interested in making snarky comments about huffing glue and watching the country fall down, consider I alone cannot support the country. By myself, I can't glue together what has been broken any more than I can break it. That usually takes a mob. I am not one, nor am I part of one.
I will stand on my principles and hope and pray enough will stand with me that when we pick up the pieces from this great Trumpertantrum, we can reassemble those into something more resembling the Republic we had than the mess y'all (with abundant assistance) broke. The seminal question is one of where you will stand and what you will do. My mind is made up.
-
@Ghost Bear @DB
I'm curious, in a way, to see how deep the populism of Trump really is. The only way illary can win is through complete fraud. Pretty sure I couldn't take that. So if there really are that many people that ticked maybe they will institute the Will Of The People.
-
@RoosGirl
And here is an example showing why this thread is a waste of time and effort: Trump Supporters and #NeverTrump'ers have fundamentally different worldviews, and neither can really understand or comprehend the other. **nononono*
They do? Different worldviews. I think they have the same worldviews. In a round about way. It is the flat earth people that have a different worldview.
-
My mind is made up.
Did you make it up yourself? Or did you have help? Juuuuust kidding. Of course you had help.
Life is just a fantasy. Can you live this fantasy life?
-
@RoosGirl
They do? Different worldviews. I think they have the same worldviews. In a round about way. It is the flat earth people that have a different worldview.
Not sure what you would have me understand from your comment.
-
Did you make it up yourself? Or did you have help? Juuuuust kidding. Of course you had help.
Life is just a fantasy. Can you live this fantasy life?
Yep. I'm figuring it out, read a book that helps, and its been interesting, so far. I have had a tremendous amount of help, though from a fellow from Nazareth and His Dad. I'm doing reasonably well, all things considered. Always room for improvement, always somewhere to go if things go downhill. It's like flying. If you don't run out of air before you land, you did okay.
-
Or you might be uncomfortable if you have to think about the answers. It is easier to ignore consequences than face them. That doesn't make the consequences any less real.
On the other hand, we all have coping mechanisms, and publicly standing on principle as the country falls down around your ears is better than huffing glue. So good luck!
The consequences for voting for evil people is more evil. Neither candidate has a moral compass that guides them. Both are vile liars that say whatever it takes to further their wealth/power without any shame whatsoever. It isn't any more complicated than that. To think you can make a deal with either candidate and get a good outcome is plain foolish. If you vote for either of them the consequence is they will do their evil in your name and you will own a piece of it. No amount of "I didn't know" will absolve you of it - you had all the evidence you needed up front to know where it would go and you chose to do it anyway. That's the naked truth.
-
But what do you love? Do you love sticking to your ideals more than you love the United States and your fellow citizens?
What made America great?
Ideals and sticking to them. Nothing more.
-
I'm kinda hoping a meteor falls on the site of the first debate and takes them both out.
But don't tell the Secret Service I said that. :nometalk:
You realize of course that if SMoD was included in all the polls that are being taken, it could very well qualify for a podium on the same stage as Chump and Killary....
That SMoD is polling higher than any other 3rd party candidate is all I need to know about the acceptability of the lesser and greater evils currently running.
-
I remember, they were going to defy the GOP, destroy the GOPE etc etc
Now the same people they hated from McConnell to Ryan and McCain have been endorsed by Comrade Orange, and now THE PARTY is the end-all and be-all and we must have unity!
and Trump supporters can't see they have been led by the nose to embrace what they hated most a few months ago? Now these same people who wanted conservatives to win elections are actively leading anti-conservative hate campaigns?
By November they will all be led to voting for Hillary by Trump.
-
My principles were principles long before I came along. They are the principles of my Deity, the founders, and my ancestors who go back on this continent to the early 1600s. A relative was a signer of The Declaration of Independence. If you read my answers, you will see I have given these some thought. Departure from those principles is not something be to be taken lightly, especially not those principles laid out by Almighty God, and after careful and lifelong consideration, I have decided not to.
I have little doubt that I share your principles. But there is a difference of opinion how to correctly apply them to the current situation.
Is voting for an immoral / amoral man an immoral act? If it is, how can one vote at all? Does this resonate...? "There is none righteous..." and "All have sinned..."? Therefore, if I am to vote, I accept that I will be voting for a sinner; a sinner like me.
So the moral choice is whether to vote or not. The matter of who to vote for is a matter of prudential / practical judgment. Since I lack omniscience, I am left to my God given reason to evaluate the more or less likely results of my choice.
If I decide that there is absolutely no difference, that the Republic is lost, and the end is nigh, I may need to consider if I am being tempted to despair. (That has always been an easy one for me to fall into.)
I have decided that rejecting the binary choice endorses, in effect, thw worse outcome of the binary choice (Hillary Clinton). And I cannot get myself off that hook.
-
You realize of course that if SMoD was included in all the polls that are being taken, it could very well qualify for a podium on the same stage as Chump and Killary....
That SMoD is polling higher than any other 3rd party candidate is all I need to know about the acceptability of the lesser and greater evils currently running.
We should probably be glad that Boaty McBoatface isn't on the ballot.
-
Voting for the Republican means a president who will be kept in check by the media.
Voting for the Democrat means a president whose critics will be kept in check by the media.
-
I have little doubt that I share your principles. But there is a difference of opinion how to correctly apply them to the current situation.
Is voting for an immoral / amoral man an immoral act? If it is, how can one vote at all? Does this resonate...? "There is none righteous..." and "All have sinned..."? Therefore, if I am to vote, I accept that I will be voting for a sinner; a sinner like me.
So the moral choice is whether to vote or not. The matter of who to vote for is a matter of prudential / practical judgment. Since I lack omniscience, I am left to my God given reason to evaluate the more or less likely results of my choice.
If I decide that there is absolutely no difference, that the Republic is lost, and the end is nigh, I may need to consider if I am being tempted to despair. (That has always been an easy one for me to fall into.)
I have decided that rejecting the binary choice endorses, in effect, thw worse outcome of the binary choice (Hillary Clinton). And I cannot get myself off that hook.
Your argument boils down to the idea that all sin is equivalent, and equally bad. You are not allowing for the possibility that while all of us are sinners, some of us strive to do better and some of us embrace sin wholeheartedly. Looked at in that way, the moral choice would be to vote for the candidate that is trying hardest to do the best, or at least the candidate not embracing evil and sin as much.
-
Voting for the Republican means a president who will be kept in check by the media.
Voting for the Democrat means a president whose critics will be kept in check by the media.
This goes to a very important matter that perhaps is not getting the attention it needs. And that matter is a continuing awareness of the input we all are using to inform our opinions.
Who is steering me in what direction and why?
My Trump Realism does not mean that I am blind to his messaging problems. But those shortcomings do not blind me to the agendas of those purporting to "report the news" or grace me with their opinions.
-
Voting for the Republican means a president who will be kept in check by the media.
Voting for the Democrat means a president whose critics will be kept in check by the media.
That's an interesting concept - but WHY do we ACCEPT it?
I understand Separation of Powers and divided government - but the media is not government and it is unaccountable and dishonest. Having them not enable a corrupt and demented old-bat Empress is good; but having them just as out-of-control, LIBELING the Lord-President, is JUST as bad.
WITNESS the chaos they caused during George W. Bush's two terms.
This is worth considering - but in its own right, in rejecting the media; in putting pressure on would-be sponsors to NOT sponsor it. To turn OFF the Idiot Box. To NOT get news from Yahoo. To NOT immerse ourselves in this filthy, twisted propagandist media.
-
My Trump Realism does not mean that I am blind to his messaging problems. But those shortcomings do not blind me to the agendas of those purporting to "report the news" or grace me with their opinions.
I guess if you can dismiss Trump's utter unfitness for office as "messaging problems," then there's no point in discussing anything with you.
-
I guess if you can dismiss Trump's utter unfitness for office as "messaging problems," then there's no point in discussing anything with you.
Is that a promise?
-
And here is an example showing why this thread is a waste of time and effort: Trump Supporters and #NeverTrump'ers have fundamentally different worldviews, and neither can really understand or comprehend the other. **nononono*
Yep. There's a lack of respect, creeping into both sides that is troublesome.
-We both believe this election will fundamentally change America
-We both care about what direction this country is headed in.
-We both want the best for this country going forward
-We are both concerned about the country we leave our children
-We both think the Clinton's will be a disaster.
-We are both following our conscience in casting our vote.
-We both believe the other side is inadvertently helping Hillary Clinton
-We do see a completely different way forward.
-However, that key difference should not in the minds of either side negate the commonalities or lead us to believe the other side is merely pretending to believe them. I must do what I think is right and Trump supporters must do what they think is right. Hopefully in the post-Trump conservative movement we can join forces again. In the mean time we would be wise not to kill those who don't say Shibboleth the way we do.
-Neither side is going to be brow beaten into violating what they believe to be right or against the reasoned decisions they have made. This panicky "Oh em gee, if you don't join my side you're of the devil" attitude is ludicrous. Most of us are just shoveling these posts out of the way to get to the good stuff, and there is a lot of good stuff on this thread and that can lead to greater wisdom and understanding.
Just my $0.02
-
Is that a promise?
Oh, hell yes. I'm a bit tired of your pompous reminders of "reality," when your grasp on same seems rather ... self-serving.
-
Yep. There's a lack of respect, creeping into both sides that is troublesome.
-We both believe this election will fundamentally change America
-We both care about what direction this country is headed in.
-We both want the best for this country going forward
-We are both concerned about the country we leave our children
-We both think the Clinton's will be a disaster.
-We are both following our conscience in casting our vote.
-We both believe the other side is inadvertently helping Hillary Clinton
-We do see a completely different way forward.
-However, that key difference should not in the minds of either side negate the commonalities or lead us to believe the other side is merely pretending to believe them. I must do what I think is right and Trump supporters must do what they think is right. Hopefully in the post-Trump conservative movement we can join forces again. In the mean time we would be wise not to kill those who don't say Shibboleth the way we do.
-Neither side is going to be brow beaten into violating what they believe to be right or against the reasoned decisions they have made. This panicky "Oh em gee, if you don't join my side you're of the devil" attitude is ludicrous. Most of us are just shoveling these posts out of the way to get to the good stuff, and there is a lot of good stuff on this thread and that can lead to greater wisdom and understanding.
Just my $0.02
goopo
(Worth AT LEAST a nickel! :patriot:)
-
If Hillary said the same things that Trump says, you would never know it. Our opinion of Trump is formed by the media narrative. Since I don't watch TV, my opinion is different. I'm not as startled by what he says because I don't receive the spin on it. Trump is just a bombastic businessman. That doesn't mean he will suck as a President. Hillary will be a dictator with a Goebbels-like media to support her.
With all the Trump Hitler comparisons, it's ironic that Hitler would have remained just a little loud-mouthed corporal if he didn't have the media propping him up.
-
I have little doubt that I share your principles. But there is a difference of opinion how to correctly apply them to the current situation.
Is voting for an immoral / amoral man an immoral act? If it is, how can one vote at all? Does this resonate...? "There is none righteous..." and "All have sinned..."? Therefore, if I am to vote, I accept that I will be voting for a sinner; a sinner like me.
So the moral choice is whether to vote or not. The matter of who to vote for is a matter of prudential / practical judgment. Since I lack omniscience, I am left to my God given reason to evaluate the more or less likely results of my choice.
If I decide that there is absolutely no difference, that the Republic is lost, and the end is nigh, I may need to consider if I am being tempted to despair. (That has always been an easy one for me to fall into.)
I have decided that rejecting the binary choice endorses, in effect, thw worse outcome of the binary choice (Hillary Clinton). And I cannot get myself off that hook.
There is, imho, no pretty option this time.
For me the fallacy of the binary choice is that it not only results in worse outcomes, but will continue to result in worse outcomes, and that will not change as long as we are slaves to that binary choice. One side will play the other against the other in the Kabuke Theater that politics has become, and when the red lights go off on the cameras they all go off to dinner together and raise a few to the dumbasses who keep them in their lifestyle. If the media people mind their Ps and Qs and prove trustworthy, they get to become somebodies and walk the halls of power, otherwise, they can do sports in Podunk.
I don't think the Republic is lost quite yet, otherwise, I'd be looking to do what my ancestors did when they received the land grant from Charles I. The writing is on the wall, leave while the leaving is good.
Instead, after decades of pushing that GOP button, I have decided that doesn't work. The Democrat button has had an 'out of order' sign on it from day one, but there are other choices.
Looking down the list, at the various Third Party options which have the potential to become major forces, I see the Libertarians, pushed by the media because they will likely not become the next Major Party because their platform will only be seen as liberalism with fewer rules. By giving attention to them, the Media can continue to marginalize the third parties and yet fulfill their obligation to report. Ditto the Green Party, but both have earned their place at the political table through the work of those promoting them. We are all sinners, but there are more flavors than chocolate and vanilla.
I like the platform of the Constitution Party, so I'll stump for it here. I see that as a return to the values which helped found this country, and I can back it without qualm.
If no one builds these other options by not paying fealty to the binary choices, we will be stuck with those same choices. Few on this site like the overall direction that has taken this country in the past half-century (Reagan was an outlier, a flyer on the political target of those 50 years) yet many are in thrall to the same system which brought them the left shift in the political arena, and promises more of the same in practice, if not with words. Those parties did not spring up overnight fully developed and powerful. It took work, and that means people who find the Party worth investing time and energy in will have to start and then continue to develop the support base needed to get to prominence as a political power. But it has to start somewhere.
If not now, when?
Otherwise, next election there will be another boogeyman facing another worse boogeyman and we'll have to vote for one or the other or the world will end. Again. Lather, rinse, repeat.
It is time to break the cycle.
-
Or you might be uncomfortable if you have to think about the answers. It is easier to ignore consequences than face them. That doesn't make the consequences any less real.
On the other hand, we all have coping mechanisms, and publicly standing on principle as the country falls down around your ears is better than huffing glue. So good luck!
To paraphrase the Flight of the Phoenix; if you think that we behave as if stupidity were a virtue; you've made it a bloody science! What is to be gained by comparing those who hold fast to their principles (as you yourself are doing) to druggies? Since when did compromising values become a virtue? Were Patrick Henry or Davy Crockett equivalent with glue sniffers in your eyes?
The consequences I'm worry about first are before the judgement seat of Christ not on this earth. I have a firm belief that compromising my values on this earth will not lead to good consequences here or there. You cannot get get good by choosing evil, nor can you go north by hiking south. If you want to get #Never Trumpers to join your cause you would first have to convince us Trump is a good choice, not by waving the specter or Hillary in our face and shouting "boo"!
-
@Ghost Bear @DB
I'm curious, in a way, to see how deep the populism of Trump really is. The only way illary can win is through complete fraud. Pretty sure I couldn't take that. So if there really are that many people that ticked maybe they will institute the Will Of The People.
That's how it should be. I just hope we didn't end up with one of two guys (the other being Jeb) who could lose to Hillary.
-
goopo
(Worth AT LEAST a nickel! :patriot:)
Dang fiat money ain't worth anything nowadays! Back when I was a kid a nickle would buy you real advice like cut a baby in half or Quando omni flunkus moritati. Thanks, @musiclady :laugh:
-
There is, imho, no pretty option this time.
For me the fallacy of the binary choice is that it not only results in worse outcomes, but will continue to result in worse outcomes, and that will not change as long as we are slaves to that binary choice.
...
It is time to break the cycle.
Okay.
What we had in the Republican primary was a paradigm of what a six-party race in the general election might look like. NO ONE gaining really deep support, and two stalking-horses, Graham and Kasich.
GAMESMANSHIP. And the LEAST desirable candidate who had some support (totally-repugnant candidates like Goober Graham and JEB! Shrub did get eliminated)...the guy with a very-shallow support base, with no articulated agenda, with nothing but bombast...Eric Hoffer's Arrogant Gesture...
...HE was the guy who came out on top. With thirty-something percent of the vote.
THAT is what a multi-party national election grings us to.
That is also how Salvador Allende wound up as Chilean President/dictator. He won a national election with far-less than a majority; and when he pretended he had a mandate and imposed drastic changes, the public revolted.
Closer to home, it's how Bubba won in 1992, with a three-way race. Bubba got 42 percent of the vote. Had Perot not been running, Bubba would still have gotten 42 percent - AND LOST.
The chaotic multiparty elections model is no panacea. The ANSWER here is to LIMIT THE POWER of the Federal Government - and specifically that of the President. The test of a good system is not what good people can do, but what the inevitable bad candidates CAN NOT do.
-
There is, imho, no pretty option this time.
For me the fallacy of the binary choice is that it not only results in worse outcomes, but will continue to result in worse outcomes, and that will not change as long as we are slaves to that binary choice.
...
If not now, when?
Otherwise, next election there will be another boogeyman facing another worse boogeyman and we'll have to vote for one or the other or the world will end. Again. Lather, rinse, repeat.
It is time to break the cycle.
Outstanding post. Well said.
-
Yep. There's a lack of respect, creeping into both sides that is troublesome.
-We both believe this election will fundamentally change America
-We both care about what direction this country is headed in.
-We both want the best for this country going forward
-We are both concerned about the country we leave our children
-We both think the Clinton's will be a disaster.
-We are both following our conscience in casting our vote.
-We both believe the other side is inadvertently helping Hillary Clinton
-We do see a completely different way forward.
-However, that key difference should not in the minds of either side negate the commonalities or lead us to believe the other side is merely pretending to believe them. I must do what I think is right and Trump supporters must do what they think is right. Hopefully in the post-Trump conservative movement we can join forces again. In the mean time we would be wise not to kill those who don't say Shibboleth the way we do.
-Neither side is going to be brow beaten into violating what they believe to be right or against the reasoned decisions they have made. This panicky "Oh em gee, if you don't join my side you're of the devil" attitude is ludicrous. Most of us are just shoveling these posts out of the way to get to the good stuff, and there is a lot of good stuff on this thread and that can lead to greater wisdom and understanding.
Just my $0.02
My two cents:
One side believes in sticking to principles such as honesty and integrity. One side believes that "their evil is so great, anything done by our side to defeat them is justified!" In other words, the ends justify the means.
One side sees the other as dishonest and unprincipled. One side sees the other as inflexible and simple-minded.
The only time those two sides can work together is when each is deceiving themselves... or deceiving each other.
Personally, I don't see any positive way forward. I only see continued decline. There may be occasional moments, even years, of calm and apparent improvement (such as the years when Ronald Reagan was President) but looked at from the long view, the spiral is ever downward.
My own answer has been to look beyond this world at what comes next, and to do the best I can to prepare myself for it. Anyone else's mileage may vary.
-
There is, imho, no pretty option this time.
For me the fallacy of the binary choice is that it not only results in worse outcomes, but will continue to result in worse outcomes, and that will not change as long as we are slaves to that binary choice. One side will play the other against the other in the Kabuke Theater that politics has become, and when the red lights go off on the cameras they all go off to dinner together and raise a few to the dumbasses who keep them in their lifestyle. If the media people mind their Ps and Qs and prove trustworthy, they get to become somebodies and walk the halls of power, otherwise, they can do sports in Podunk.
I don't think the Republic is lost quite yet, otherwise, I'd be looking to do what my ancestors did when they received the land grant from Charles I. The writing is on the wall, leave while the leaving is good.
Instead, after decades of pushing that GOP button, I have decided that doesn't work. The Democrat button has had an 'out of order' sign on it from day one, but there are other choices.
Looking down the list, at the various Third Party options which have the potential to become major forces, I see the Libertarians, pushed by the media because they will likely not become the next Major Party because their platform will only be seen as liberalism with fewer rules. By giving attention to them, the Media can continue to marginalize the third parties and yet fulfill their obligation to report. Ditto the Green Party, but both have earned their place at the political table through the work of those promoting them. We are all sinners, but there are more flavors than chocolate and vanilla.
I like the platform of the Constitution Party, so I'll stump for it here. I see that as a return to the values which helped found this country, and I can back it without qualm.
If no one builds these other options by not paying fealty to the binary choices, we will be stuck with those same choices. Few on this site like the overall direction that has taken this country in the past half-century (Reagan was an outlier, a flyer on the political target of those 50 years) yet many are in thrall to the same system which brought them the left shift in the political arena, and promises more of the same in practice, if not with words. Those parties did not spring up overnight fully developed and powerful. It took work, and that means people who find the Party worth investing time and energy in will have to start and then continue to develop the support base needed to get to prominence as a political power. But it has to start somewhere.
If not now, when?
Otherwise, next election there will be another boogeyman facing another worse boogeyman and we'll have to vote for one or the other or the world will end. Again. Lather, rinse, repeat.
It is time to break the cycle.
:hands: :hands: :hands: :hands: :hands: :hands: :hands: :hands: :hands: :hands: :hands: :hands: :hands:
:beer: :patriot:
-
The chaotic multiparty elections model is no panacea. The ANSWER here is to LIMIT THE POWER of the Federal Government - and specifically that of the President. The test of a good system is not what good people can do, but what the inevitable bad candidates CAN NOT do.
A couple of points.
First, I think the GOP is headed the way of the Whigs, to be replaced by some other party ... the general two-party structure probably remains, with perhaps some new fringe parties off to the side (as now). I would not be surprised to see the Democrats facing the same realignment.
Second, it's all very well to say "limit the power of the Federal Government," but of course the question is, how? To quote the lady, "These things must be done delicately...." In reality, to achieve this presupposes a tremendous upheaval in the political (and probably economic) landscape. So our real problem is to figure out what that political transition looks like, and how to achieve it.
-
There is, imho, no pretty option this time.
-----
It is time to break the cycle.
Thank you for that. You brought something to my mind that I have briefly considered, but perhaps is worthwhile to add to the conversation.
Indeed, the supine posture of the Republican majorities is infuriating. Regardless of the reason (greed, corruption, cowardice, gullibility, stupidity) the cession of the exercise if Congressional responsibility to the Exeutive has become baked in.
We could csrtainly list them. Among the most egregious to me is th so-called War Powers Act. There are many more.
So which of the binary choice (there I go again 888blackhat) is more likely to motivate the Congress to break with recent precedent and assume its lawful and vital role in checking the Executive?
Check Hillary? No way. There are enough spineless Republicans to join with the Dems to thwart that. Welcome to Obama's third and fourth term.
Check Trump? Maybe. Certainly a more plausible and hopeful scenario.
-
The chaotic multiparty elections model is no panacea. The ANSWER here is to LIMIT THE POWER of the Federal Government - and specifically that of the President. The test of a good system is not what good people can do, but what the inevitable bad candidates CAN NOT do.
We are thinking in the same vein on this.
-
Second, it's all very well to say "limit the power of the Federal Government," but of course the question is, how? To quote the lady, "These things must be done delicately...." In reality, to achieve this presupposes a tremendous upheaval in the political (and probably economic) landscape. So our real problem is to figure out what that political transition looks like, and how to achieve it.
The Constitution shows us how. Shows us what the limits ARE and how to address violators.
And how to amend it when gaps or flaws show up.
And how to bypass the Federal government when Congress, which has turned on its people, refuse to enforce the Constitution or to consider Amendments.
The States lost their legislative body with Direct Election of Senators. That has to be reversed; and then TERM LIMITS.
And if an Article V convention is rejected, and even as the laborious process of going around roadblock politicians IS going on, work towards State Secession.
Remember, Secession need not be permanent or even carried through. It's pulling down the fire hoses, as other attempts to control the bonfire are tried but are failing.
-
Okay.
What we had in the Republican primary was a paradigm of what a six-party race in the general election might look like. NO ONE gaining really deep support, and two stalking-horses, Graham and Kasich.
GAMESMANSHIP. And the LEAST desirable candidate who had some support (totally-repugnant candidates like Goober Graham and JEB! Shrub did get eliminated)...the guy with a very-shallow support base, with no articulated agenda, with nothing but bombast...Eric Hoffer's Arrogant Gesture...
...HE was the guy who came out on top. With thirty-something percent of the vote.
THAT is what a multi-party national election grings us to.
That is also how Salvador Allende wound up as Chilean President/dictator. He won a national election with far-less than a majority; and when he pretended he had a mandate and imposed drastic changes, the public revolted.
Closer to home, it's how Bubba won in 1992, with a three-way race. Bubba got 42 percent of the vote. Had Perot not been running, Bubba would still have gotten 42 percent - AND LOST.
The chaotic multiparty elections model is no panacea. The ANSWER here is to LIMIT THE POWER of the Federal Government - and specifically that of the President. The test of a good system is not what good people can do, but what the inevitable bad candidates CAN NOT do.
I guess you missed the point. When the GOP collapses under the weight of its own self-contradiction, there will have to be another Party ready to step into that void. People like two or three to choose from. Any more than that and their eyes glaze over.
The party I am for is the Constitution Party, which advocates limiting Federal Power. You aren't going to get that with the two leading the pack right now. Other parties won't get the following if there are better options available. At present there are a couple dozen 'third' parties out there, I just picked the one which goes by the Constitution, because I seriously believe the Founders had a good idea that has been corrupted, watered down and gotten around ever since, with only a couple of actual improvements after the Bill of Rights.
-
Thank you for that. You brought something to my mind that I have briefly considered, but perhaps is worthwhile to add to the conversation.
Indeed, the supine posture of the Republican majorities is infuriating. Regardless of the reason (greed, corruption, cowardice, gullibility, stupidity) the cession of the exercise if Congressional responsibility to the Exeutive has become baked in.
We could csrtainly list them. Among the most egregious to me is th so-called War Powers Act. There are many more.
So which of the binary choice (there I go again 888blackhat) is more likely to motivate the Congress to break with recent precedent and assume its lawful and vital role in checking the Executive?
Check Hillary? No way. There are enough spineless Republicans to join with the Dems to thwart that. Welcome to Obama's third and fourth term.
Check Trump? Maybe. Certainly a more plausible and hopeful scenario.
I don't see Trump as anything but the thinnest of maybes, in that regard.
I see parallels with his opponent, only not as well exposed and documented because of either lack of opportunity or the curtain of private industry as opposed to the spotlight of public life.
I see him more as one who would take advantage of a Congress that can't resist a Democrat in the Oval Office, much less a forceful individual. (granted we don't know how key Valerie Jarrett has been behind the scenes nor the legions of other Dem minions). So that would all boil down to one mercurial personality who has played fast and loose with the truth in order to gain what he wants, and who is exhibiting a vindictive streak dominating the political landscape, using the powers usurped by predecessors and official agencies to target whom he pleases. I do not see him forcing the Congress to take that power back. I don;t see the current Congress acting as an effective check against him.
In attacking Heidi Cruz, he didn't bother to find out who ran the ad, but assumed it came from the Cruz camp, then, when the truth came out he lied about it and doubled down.
In principle, I see little difference. I wish I could say Trump is on 'our' side, but I don't think he is on any side but his own, whatever that entails, and whatever rules for the little people he violates.
I see them as equally dangerous, and neither as a step back toward the Constitutional Republic we desire, but rather both as damaging to those ends.
-
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,221046.0.html
New topic in "From our members'
States. rights
-
The chaotic multiparty elections model is no panacea. The ANSWER here is to LIMIT THE POWER of the Federal Government - and specifically that of the President. The test of a good system is not what good people can do, but what the inevitable bad candidates CAN NOT do.
I have advocated limited government for a very long time. Long enough to know that you are not going to limit
the power of the federal government until the American mindset---from the humblest individual citizen to the most
resourcefully successful citizen alike---is turned away from the mentality that tells it that the first recourse for solving
any human problem, whether matters of commerce or common life, is the State; and, until the same American
mindset is turned away from the kind of thinking that elevates the president to what amounts to an elected monarch
above and beyond what the Constitution prescribes for both.
-
Oh no, just heck no. I want my kids to know their Daddy stood by right and wrong no matter the consequences; I only can only pray I don't fail them in that. I want my girls to grow up and know that a real man lives by Davy Crockett's old saying. Be sure you are right, and then go ahead. If I don't live that example who are they going pick when they grow up?
You must do what you think is right and so must I, but in my mind a real man doesn't compromise his principles for expediency. I'm not going to sacrifice my sacred honor for Donald J. Trump, not by a durn sight. The winners and the losers aren't determined on this earth anyways.
:amen: 888high58888 @Idaho_Cowboy @mystery-ak T BR needs a like button
-
Or you might be uncomfortable if you have to think about the answers. It is easier to ignore consequences than face them. That doesn't make the consequences any less real.
On the other hand, we all have coping mechanisms, and publicly standing on principle as the country falls down around your ears is better than huffing glue. So good luck!
@Liberty Tree Dr For the record, this is one of the most ignorant smarmy TOS worthy comments I have read on this site. The vast majority of the comments I have read from the "never Trump" crowd have been cogent and intelligent. Our reasons for not supporting him are well thought out and NOT based on an emotional reaction. We have looked at his record, listened to his words, and arrived at what we consider to be a reasonable decision based on the best information available. The majority of us refuse to accept the self imposed limitations and complying with a nonexistent binary system.
-
@Liberty Tree Dr For the record, this is one of the most ignorant smarmy TOS worthy comments I have read on this site. The vast majority of the comments I have read from the "never Trump" crowd have been cogent and intelligent. Our reasons for not supporting him are well thought out and NOT based on an emotional reaction. We have looked at his record, listened to his words, and arrived at what we consider to be a reasonable decision based on the best information available. The majority of us refuse to accept the self imposed limitations and complying with a nonexistent binary system.
DITTOS.
:thumbsup:
-
@Liberty Tree Dr For the record, this is one of the most ignorant smarmy TOS worthy comments I have read on this site. The vast majority of the comments I have read from the "never Trump" crowd have been cogent and intelligent. Our reasons for not supporting him are well thought out and NOT based on an emotional reaction. We have looked at his record, listened to his words, and arrived at what we consider to be a reasonable decision based on the best information available. The majority of us refuse to accept the self imposed limitations and complying with a nonexistent binary system.
Double Dittos.
-
Quando omni flunkus moritati. @musiclady :laugh:
@Idaho_Cow boy one of my favorite quotes.
-
Dang fiat money ain't worth anything nowadays! Back when I was a kid a nickle would buy you real advice like cut a baby in half or Quando omni flunkus moritati. Thanks, @musiclady :laugh:
HA! A GIANT candy bar for a nickel, and music, music, music from the Nickelodeon. :laugh:
(And now I have a new/old Latin phrase in my repertoire. Thanks, @Idaho_Cowboy !)
-
@Liberty Tree Dr For the record, this is one of the most ignorant smarmy TOS worthy comments I have read on this site. The vast majority of the comments I have read from the "never Trump" crowd have been cogent and intelligent. Our reasons for not supporting him are well thought out and NOT based on an emotional reaction. We have looked at his record, listened to his words, and arrived at what we consider to be a reasonable decision based on the best information available. The majority of us refuse to accept the self imposed limitations and complying with a nonexistent binary system.
He does "ignorant smarmy" better than most around here.....
Good posting about the well thought out reasons for not voting for Trump, vs. the emotional tripe we see from elsewhere.
Thanks, @verga
-
@Liberty Tree Dr For the record, this is one of the most ignorant smarmy TOS worthy comments I have read on this site. The vast majority of the comments I have read from the "never Trump" crowd have been cogent and intelligent. Our reasons for not supporting him are well thought out and NOT based on an emotional reaction. We have looked at his record, listened to his words, and arrived at what we consider to be a reasonable decision based on the best information available. The majority of us refuse to accept the self imposed limitations and complying with a nonexistent binary system.
Triple dog dittos
-
Good posting about the well thought out reasons for not voting for Trump, vs. the emotional tripe we see from elsewhere.
Had an interesting exchange elsewhere, earlier today, with a couple of folks who were making the same argument from the opposite side:
In our current system one candidate of the two parties WILL win. A Trump victory must not be allowed to happen. The only way to assure that is to vote for Hillary and then act to change what you want to see changed. Please.
Exactly the same argument we're seeing here.
And my response to her was the same, too: I'm not required to accept the false choice she's demanding I make. Neither is fit, and there's nothing wrong with voting for neither.
-
@Liberty Tree Dr For the record, this is one of the most ignorant smarmy TOS worthy comments I have read on this site. The vast majority of the comments I have read from the "never Trump" crowd have been cogent and intelligent. Our reasons for not supporting him are well thought out and NOT based on an emotional reaction. We have looked at his record, listened to his words, and arrived at what we consider to be a reasonable decision based on the best information available. The majority of us refuse to accept the self imposed limitations and complying with a nonexistent binary system.
There is a better chance of the Sweet Meteor of Death than there is the POTUS who takes the oath on Jan 20 not being the result of the binary choice. Oh. it has existence all right.
-
There is a better chance of the Sweet Meteor of Death than there is the POTUS who takes the oath on Jan 20 not being the result of the binary choice. Oh. it has existence all right.
No, there will be three choices in play, to say the least:
Those who vote for Clinton
Those who vote for Trump
And Conservatives, who will 'take their ball and go home' or vote 3rd party.
Guess which way I'll be going...
-
There is a better chance of the Sweet Meteor of Death than there is the POTUS who takes the oath on Jan 20 not being the result of the binary choice. Oh. it has existence all right.
Your position is not unlike the mime who's trapped in the box. He simply cannot see any way out. Even though both candidates would mean utter disaster, the mime must, must stick with the traditional binary choice because.... well, why, exactly?
The only way the mime can leave the box is to .... just step out of it. "Well, I'll be. That box was never real to begin with."
The only way out of our political box -- Trump or Clinton? Seriously?!? -- is simply to step out of it. We're screwed this year no matter what. But if enough people step out of the false box, then next time we might very well have a better choice.
-
NeverTrump, that ne'er-do-well, amorphous pit of bile, actually believe their own fantasies and think that if they incessantly post negative opinions and false and misleading headlines, that that will make it so.
It won't.
-
No, there will be three choices in play, to say the least:
Those who vote for Clinton
Those who vote for Trump
And Conservatives, who will 'take their ball and go home' or vote 3rd party.
Guess which way I'll be going...
You missed the word result in the post you rsponded to.
-
NeverTrump, that ne'er-do-well, amorphous pit of bile, actually believe their own fantasies and think that if they incessantly post negative opinions and false and misleading headlines, that that will make it so.
It won't.
Definitely an antisocial type. Woof, woof, woof! That's my other dog imitation.
-
You have a strange way of ignoring me. So, after this, I will show you how it' s done.
-
You missed the word result in the post you rsponded to.
No, the 'result' will be generated by Conservatives 'staying home', yet again. In that, your binary choice is provably incorrect - Abstaining is an effective choice, and it has been all the way along. Elections have been lost because those that wish to abstain. So the choice is not binary, as your premise presumes.
I would argue that there is good evidence in Perot that 3rd Party is also valid - And more so this year... Both major candidates are unpopular - by epic, record setting proportions. Castle could very easily catch fire.
-
You have a strange way of ignoring me. So, after this, I will show you how it' s done.
I'll enter you in my "sent home crying" log.
-
NeverTrump, that ne'er-do-well, amorphous pit of bile, actually believe their own fantasies and think that if they incessantly post negative opinions and false and misleading headlines, that that will make it so.
It won't.
That Trump is not losing and heading for ignominious defeat?
THAT is what is so, A/C. And the negative headlines are generated by your orange peel.
-
As an adult who has had to come to terms with the fact that her parents (because they identified as Democrats) had to compromise and ultimately sell out on the principles upon which they raised me in order to continue to throw support behind the Democrat party, I heartily applaud you for your convictions. Even though I was an adult when I discovered that they were now defending things antithetical to my up upbringing, my heart sank as I watched my dear parents twist and turn to present contorted arguments that enabled them to ride the Democrat party rapids that carried them ever leftward.
Once I realized what my parents had had to embrace in order to justify their allegiance to the Democrat party, I decided that it would be prudent of me to separate myself from the Republican party -- a party with which I mostly identified and in which had great hopes of finding conservative candidates to represent me. It occurred to me that there could come a time when the Republican party could become just as flaky as the Democrat party, so from that point forward, I identified as a conservative. To the degree that the Republican party was aligned with true conservatism, I'd work toward that end with Republicans. Now that the term "conservative" has become so watered down in this election cycle, I have put a finer point on my political philosophy; I am now a Constitutional conservative. I pray that some segment of the Republican party doesn't come along and bastardize the meaning of that term, although I rather suspect some shmegegge will before long. Jaded? Me?
As an adult, I had observed the progression of events that took my parents from ones who taught me principles and values to two strangers who were willing to set those values aside for political expedience (and, at times, face-saving). Had I still been in my formative years when this move to the left occurred, I would have been quite confused. My foundation would have surely been shaken. Your children are truly blessed that you have chosen to reflect a trait of the Heavenly Father Who says, "I am the Lord. I change not."
A political party is a tool.
Conservatism...or, for that matter, Liberalism...these are political philosophies, or groups of philosophies based on certain precepts.
I vote Republican because up until the last twelve years, Republicans have been closer to my beliefs than has the other party. But in the twenty years they've promoted, relentlessly, mush-moderates who would easily fit into EITHER party - who are running for the office because they want the job. Because they want power and the trappings of power.
In the end, one picks the best choice. Even if things are so bad that a meaningless protest vote is the best choice.
And as chaotic as the situation is, it's not beyond the realm that I could vote Democrat again. If it were Zell Miller versus Donnie Lord Trumpy...I'd vote the D in a New York minute.
However, I doubt that EITHER party is going to back serious people who love their nation, again, for a long time in the future.
-
Just go out and vote everyone.
It is for the last time.
-
He does "ignorant smarmy" better than most around here.....
Good posting about the well thought out reasons for not voting for Trump, vs. the emotional tripe we see from elsewhere.
Thanks, @verga
You realize you and your side are making the emotional arguments, right? All I'm trying to do is make sure you think about the consequences. If you're OK with what Hillary will do to the country, then just admit it. Other members HAVE stated they are happier if Hillary wins - I don't agree, but at least I respect their position.
You and your ilk would rather make insults, of course. Please put me back on ignore if this is the best you can do.
-
@Liberty Tree Dr For the record, this is one of the most ignorant smarmy TOS worthy comments I have read on this site. The vast majority of the comments I have read from the "never Trump" crowd have been cogent and intelligent. Our reasons for not supporting him are well thought out and NOT based on an emotional reaction. We have looked at his record, listened to his words, and arrived at what we consider to be a reasonable decision based on the best information available. The majority of us refuse to accept the self imposed limitations and complying with a nonexistent binary system.
So, will you state, for the record, that you believe Hillary winning will be less damaging to the country? That you are more inclined to believe her Supreme Court picks will not be as bad as Trump's? That her amnesty and grant of citizenship to 10-20 million illegals will make it easier for conservatives to win in 2020 and beyond?
I'd even respect a statement that goes something like, "The USA is doomed, and Hillary would just make it fall faster while there's enough left to salvage." That is a logical argument (debatable, but still logical).
You CAN choose how to vote - no one argues that. You CANNOT, however, choose the consequences of your decision. This is not an emotional statement.
-
So, will you state, for the record, that you believe Hillary winning will be less damaging to the country? That you are more inclined to believe her Supreme Court picks will not be as bad as Trump's? That her amnesty and grant of citizenship to 10-20 million illegals will make it easier for conservatives to win in 2020 and beyond?
I'd even respect a statement that goes something like, "The USA is doomed, and Hillary would just make it fall faster while there's enough left to salvage." That is a logical argument (debatable, but still logical).
You CAN choose how to vote - no one argues that. You CANNOT, however, choose the consequences of your decision. This is not an emotional statement.
Let me put it this way. A Clinton Presidency will be predictably bad.
A Trump administration will be unpredictably so.
Either way, we're screwed, imho, but at least the GOP in Congress can be excoriated for not stopping or working to stop Hillary. In the case of Trump, it would be the opposite, no matter how bad his policies might be--the Congress (if still controlled by the GOP) would be expected to back him up.
I don't support either. I will vote for Castle, at this point.
-
Let me put it this way. A Clinton Presidency will be predictably bad.
A Trump administration will be unpredictably so.
Either way, we're screwed, imho, but at least the GOP in Congress can be excoriated for not stopping or working to stop Hillary. In the case of Trump, it would be the opposite, no matter how bad his policies might be--the Congress (if still controlled by the GOP) would be expected to back him up.
I don't support either. I will vote for Castle, at this point.
I could buy this argument, except the GOP Congress (if they retain control) has done a miserable job of holding Obama accountable. This is again a known problem versus a gamble. Hobbson's choice, I know...
-
I don't think Hillary is well enough to be President for very long. I don't think Trump can take the heat of the media picking apart everything he says.
-
I could buy this argument, except the GOP Congress (if they retain control) has done a miserable job of holding Obama accountable. This is again a known problem versus a gamble. Hobbson's choice, I know...
There are some issues, particularly RKBA, that the GOP has managed to not back down on. I have decided to vote Constitution Party for POTUS, in hopes of helping build a political force to challenge the uniparty in the future. I like the platform far better than what the GOP has even tried to do in terms of smaller government, and a host of other issues. Down ticket, I will support mostly GOP candidates.
-
So, will you state, for the record, that you believe Hillary winning will be less damaging to the country? That you are more inclined to believe her Supreme Court picks will not be as bad as Trump's? That her amnesty and grant of citizenship to 10-20 million illegals will make it easier for conservatives to win in 2020 and beyond?
I'd even respect a statement that goes something like, "The USA is doomed, and Hillary would just make it fall faster while there's enough left to salvage." That is a logical argument (debatable, but still logical).
You CAN choose how to vote - no one argues that. You CANNOT, however, choose the consequences of your decision. This is not an emotional statement.
The last thing I would want to do is introduce a dark note, but you know your chances of getting through to a NEVER! is slim to none, right?
I hate to be pessimistic about it but they have shown a remarkable capacity of ignoring the very real possibility that their actions will influence an election -- that is, when passion and a commitment to speaking out and campaigning against and voting against Hillary was needed -- they were absent. They were busy bashing Donald Trump (and his supporters – I might add).
You are absolutely correct, though. They do come at this from primarily an emotional state. I doubt that any have actually gone to websites and examined Mr. Trump's positions on the issues, which I had always believed were important to conservatives. However, the truth is the only thing that drives them is their hatred of Donald Trump. Such is politics.
But, that aside, you do Yoeman's work for the cause of logic and reason.
-
I could buy this argument, except the GOP Congress (if they retain control) has done a miserable job of holding Obama accountable. This is again a known problem versus a gamble. Hobbson's choice, I know...
What gamble? There is no bet. Trump is known.
-
But, that aside, you do Yoeman's work for the cause of logic and reason.
Ironic that a purveyor of strawmen should be lecturing us about logic and reason.
-
I'll enter you in my "sent home crying" log.
Trump supporters ask for discussion, what we usually get are insults -- as clearly seen in the above.
You know, some people say that I'm redundant, that I repeat myself, that I say things over and over. ^-^
But, I've got nuffin' on never Trump. They take every opportunity, every thread, every post, to scream at the top of their lungs, "No way I'm voting for Donald Trump!" Really? I never before heard that line uttered on TBR. Who would've ever guessed? :shrug: :silly:
But, please. Keep telling us every time how you're not voting for Donald Trump. Hillary likes hearing it.
-
Trump supporters ask for discussion, what we usually get are insults -- as clearly seen in the above.
You know, some people say that I'm redundant, that I repeat myself, that I say things over and over. ^-^
But, I've got nuffin' on never Trump. They take every opportunity, every thread, every post, to scream at the top of their lungs, "No way I'm voting for Donald Trump!" Really? I never before heard that line uttered on TBR. Who would've ever guessed? :shrug: :silly:
But, please. Keep telling us every time how you're not voting for Donald Trump. Hillary likes hearing it.
I'm not voting for Trump because he is Hillary's butt boy and that has been explained to you and others here hundreds of times already! You don't want discussion you want blind compliance just like Hillary and Trump! If you were given the same mod powers your cohort has you would be doing the exact same thing she does! Pulling or modifying comments she doesn't like or if need be shutting down entire threads!
-
Trump supporters ask for discussion, what we usually get are insults -- as clearly seen in the above.
You know, some people say that I'm redundant, that I repeat myself, that I say things over and over. ^-^
But, I've got nuffin' on never Trump. They take every opportunity, every thread, every post, to scream at the top of their lungs, "No way I'm voting for Donald Trump!" Really? I never before heard that line uttered on TBR. Who would've ever guessed? :shrug: :silly:
But, please. Keep telling us every time how you're not voting for Donald Trump. Hillary likes hearing it.
When have you EVER "discussed" Trump? Your constant refrain on threads, for MONTHS, has been to whine about those who criticize Trump.
Telling us to go to his website when he's disavowed half the things that website states as his views doesn't work any more. Trump's positions change with the wind, so any rational attempt at dissecting them is fruitless.
Most people who oppose Trump oppose Trump THE MAN. He is a reprehensible human being who treats anyone who disagrees with him like dirt and encourages his supporters to do the same.
Nothing Trump can do qualifies Trump for the presidency. He must be defeated.
-
What gamble? There is no bet. Trump is known.
The leopard doesn't change his stripes. :laugh: Nor do skunks.
-
The leopard doesn't change his stripes. :laugh: Nor do skunks.
And that's a fact.
-
You realize you and your side are making the emotional arguments, right? All I'm trying to do is make sure you think about the consequences. If you're OK with what Hillary will do to the country, then just admit it. Other members HAVE stated they are happier if Hillary wins - I don't agree, but at least I respect their position.
You and your ilk would rather make insults, of course. Please put me back on ignore if this is the best you can do.
What part of: " The vast majority of the comments I have read from the "never Trump" crowd have been cogent and intelligent. Our reasons for not supporting him are well thought out and NOT based on an emotional reaction. We have looked at his record, listened to his words, and arrived at what we consider to be a reasonable decision based on the best information available."
is not clear to you?
-
So, will you state, for the record, that you believe Hillary winning will be less damaging to the country? That you are more inclined to believe her Supreme Court picks will not be as bad as Trump's? That her amnesty and grant of citizenship to 10-20 million illegals will make it easier for conservatives to win in 2020 and beyond?
I'd even respect a statement that goes something like, "The USA is doomed, and Hillary would just make it fall faster while there's enough left to salvage." That is a logical argument (debatable, but still logical).
You CAN choose how to vote - no one argues that. You CANNOT, however, choose the consequences of your decision. This is not an emotional statement.
@Liberty Tree Dr If you want to engage in even the most basic intelligent debate then please stop resorting to the use of logical fallacies. And two things for the record: 1) What you do or do not respect is of no consequence to me at all.
2) Your response is 100% emotional. When you attempt to tell someone else what they think, believe or feel, that is based in emotion.
Now to answer the question that you should be asking: Which candidate do I believe will be worse for the country. My response is, I have no idea. Both candidates are self absorbed narcissists. Hillary is pro-abortion and anti 2nd amendment. trump has even less foreign affairs experience then Hillary and no understanding of the Nuclear Triad. Both are documented liars and Ai don't hink eitehr can be trusted on any number of issues.
-
@Liberty Tree Dr If you want to engage in even the most basic intelligent debate then please stop resorting to the use of logical fallacies. And two things for the record: 1) What you do or do not respect is of no consequence to me at all.
2) Your response is 100% emotional. When you attempt to tell someone else what they think, believe or feel, that is based in emotion.
Now to answer the question that you should be asking: Which candidate do I believe will be worse for the country. My response is, I have no idea. Both candidates are self absorbed narcissists. Hillary is pro-abortion and anti 2nd amendment. trump has even less foreign affairs experience then Hillary and no understanding of the Nuclear Triad. Both are documented liars and Ai don't hink eitehr can be trusted on any number of issues.
"But aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the show?"
:whistle:
-
Just go out and vote everyone.
It is for the last time.
@bigheadfred
I heard that last time around, and the time before that.
-
You realize you and your side are making the emotional arguments, right? All I'm trying to do is make sure you think about the consequences. If you're OK with what Hillary will do to the country, then just admit it. Other members HAVE stated they are happier if Hillary wins - I don't agree, but at least I respect their position.
You and your ilk would rather make insults, of course. Please put me back on ignore if this is the best you can do.
@Liberty Tree Dr
A couple of things:
Firstly, allowing oneself to be guided by morals and principles is not "emotional."
Secondly, if you want to talk about consequences, here are some consequences for you.
You folks forced Trump on us despite being shown, over and over, clear evidence that the man is a lifelong liberal and an amoral sleaze. No matter how much proof we offered, you chose to ignore it. Just as you ignored our promises that we would never vote for such a person.
But you were riding high then, weren't you? Things looked good for Trump at that point, and you could afford to dismiss us and tell us our votes weren't needed. Still, we continued to try and get you to see sense, because we knew it would eventually come to this point. Trump being Trump, we knew he would implode sooner or later, and you would be changing your tunes about needing our votes.
And here you are...increasingly desperate as you see Trump's chances slip away. But your problem isn't with us---it's with your candidate, who refuses to campaign outside of his vanity-stroking rallies, and who makes himself detestable to the general electorate.
But you're not going to change our minds. You don't force a liberal Hillary donor on conservatives and then expect us to accept him. You should have listened to us back then. Now, it's as though we warned you not to put that gun to your head because it was loaded, but you went ahead and pulled the trigger anyway, and now you want to blame us for the injury.
It isn't going to wash.
-
Pages and pages of posts and the number one reason to vote for Chump is that he's NOT Killary. At this point in a campaign if your major selling point is "I'm not as bad as (fill in the blank)....America is in trouble.
Funny thing is both the Lib/Progressives and the GOP are yelling the same thing, make one wonder....
-
The last thing I would want to do is introduce a dark note, but you know your chances of getting through to a NEVER! is slim to none, right?
I hate to be pessimistic about it
Then why do you do it so often?
that is, when passion and a commitment to speaking out and campaigning against and voting against Hillary was needed -- they were absent. They were busy bashing Donald Trump (and his supporters – I might add).
Please show direct eveidence of theis or admit that you are making things up out of whole cloth
You are absolutely correct, though. They do come at this from primarily an emotional state. I doubt that any have actually gone to websites and examined Mr. Trump's positions on the issues, which I had always believed were important to conservatives. However, the truth is the only thing that drives them is their hatred of Donald Trump. Such is politics.
[/quote]
which positions would those be?
https://youtu.be/rcUCLwWCihE
https://youtu.be/AXVaIMERRbU
https://youtu.be/GAaEAy_v988
He changes positions like I change my socks.
First he is going to build a wall, then it's negotiable , next it's a virtual wall, then it is .....
First he wants to ban all muslims, them muslims for terrorist countries.
First he is pro choice and won't ban partial birth abortion, this week he claims to be pro choice.
-
The last thing I would want to do is introduce a dark note, but you know your chances of getting through to a NEVER! is slim to none, right?
I hate to be pessimistic about it but they have shown a remarkable capacity of ignoring the very real possibility that their actions will influence an election -- that is, when passion and a commitment to speaking out and campaigning against and voting against Hillary was needed -- they were absent. They were busy bashing Donald Trump (and his supporters – I might add).
YOU PEOPLE and YOUR PRINCE EMPHATICALLY STATED AND INSISTED THAT YOU DID NOT NEED OUR VOTE, OUR SUPPORT OR OUR HELP TO "WIN" THE ELECTION. You said you would do it yourselves because you were a vast mob of peoples crossing all sorts of spectrums and backgrounds and that we who opposed your prince were less than irrelevant. We did not matter anymore.
Now you people change your tune, get snarky and insist that our refusal to seig-heil your Il Douche is going to negatively influence the election.
Insulting our principles as you people and your prince have done for months, is going to deserve a decidedly emotional reply to you tyrants pretending to be freedom fighters.
-
@Liberty Tree Dr
A couple of things:
Firstly, allowing oneself to be guided by morals and principles is not "emotional."
Secondly, if you want to talk about consequences, here are some consequences for you.
You folks forced Trump on us despite being shown, over and over, clear evidence that the man is a lifelong liberal and an amoral sleaze. No matter how much proof we offered, you chose to ignore it. Just as you ignored our promises that we would never vote for such a person.
Holdonnow. I am 95% sure that LTD was, like me, a Cruz supporter. So the "we told you so" screed is, at best misdirected.
I do understand having ones mind made up. I was right there. But, God help me if I ever get so prideful that I cannot examine my own mind to see if it is correctly made up.
-
(http://cdn-users2.imagechef.com/sketchpadmeme/160813/memea0476c544d158b0e.jpg)
-
Holdonnow. I am 95% sure that LTD was, like me, a Cruz supporter. So the "we told you so" screed is, at best misdirected.
I do understand having ones mind made up. I was right there. But, God help me if I ever get so prideful that I cannot examine my own mind to see if it is correctly made up.
@don-o
I'll let him address that. Either way, he's pushing Trump when there's no point in it.
Sometimes, things are so clear-cut and so morally well-defined that examination isn't necessary. But I appreciate the "prideful" label.
You know, when it comes to self-examination, you might want to hold up a mirror. You decided to support Trump, which I understand although I don't agree with it. But then you decided you had to convince the rest of us to do so, and in the process you've become a different person. It's sad to see, but that's the effect Trump has on people.
-
@don-o
I'll let him address that. Either way, he's pushing Trump when there's no point in it.
Sometimes, things are so clear-cut and so morally well-defined that examination isn't necessary. But I appreciate the "prideful" label.
You know, when it comes to self-examination, you might want to hold up a mirror. You decided to support Trump, which I understand although I don't agree with it. But then you decided you had to convince the rest of us to do so, and in the process you've become a different person. It's sad to see, but that's the effect Trump has on people.
Amen! Trump changes people........... and never for the better.
-
Holdonnow. I am 95% sure that LTD was, like me, a Cruz supporter. So the "we told you so" screed is, at best misdirected.
I do understand having ones mind made up. I was right there. But, God help me if I ever get so prideful that I cannot examine my own mind to see if it is correctly made up.
You need to stop assuming the mindset and convictions of others. It isn't pride that keeps me from wanting to vote for Donald Trump. It is the belief he is not my right choice for the job.
-
They just don't want to be confronted with his flip-flops and inconsistencies. You'd think that at some point they would have had enough and said, "I'm not defending this goofball anymore." But noooooooooo. He's their own personal goofball and they love it when he's all squirrelly.
I texted a friend the video "Donald Trump Lying for 13 Minutes Straight." No response. The next day was his birthday so I texted a birthday greeting. No response. A couple of days later I wondered if my texts were getting through so I texted again, asking if my texts were getting through. A day later he responds, "Yes, I got them, but I don't trust anything the liberal puts together and I don't want Hillary in office. As we want [sic] have a U.S. anymore."
I replied, "Yes, I got the message that you're a Trumpster. I was mistaken to believe that seeing Trump actually contradict HIMSELF with his OWN words coming out of his OWN mouth would present a different perspective. You've made up your mind, and nothing will move you from that position. I understand that. But you have to give those liberals credit for how they got Trump to contradict himself so many times over so many years. And they have an amazing knack for getting him to do it even in the same week! I wonder if they have special powers over him?"
What it all boils down to is that they don't want you to confuse them with the facts.
You are describing the hopelessness that I commented about previously. I know there are many many people who don't want to vote for Trump but are so convinced that they must. That must be an awful feeling, I can understand why that trapped feeling would alter someone's personality.
-
@don-o
I'll let him address that. Either way, he's pushing Trump when there's no point in it.
Sometimes, things are so clear-cut and so morally well-defined that examination isn't necessary. But I appreciate the "prideful" label.
You know, when it comes to self-examination, you might want to hold up a mirror. You decided to support Trump, which I understand although I don't agree with it. But then you decided you had to convince the rest of us to do so, and in the process you've become a different person. It's sad to see, but that's the effect Trump has on people.
Whoa. What in the world causes to to think that "prideful" was aimed at YOU? That is pure projection and very unfair. I was referring to myself only.
Of course, I am accused of being pompous and arrogant. So, if you want to add liar, there is a fine trifects.
-
I believe that's true of you. You have reexamined your position and found a way to come to terms with a different one. You've been honest about that.
I hope you're not implying that those of us who have reexamined our position and are at peace with our original conviction fully aware of the consequences are just being prideful or that we haven't made up our minds correctly.
Thanks for asking. The answer is no. I do my best to not attribute motive to others and welcome being called on it if I ever seem to.
-
Pages and pages of posts and the number one reason to vote for Chump is that he's NOT Killary. At this point in a campaign if your major selling point is "I'm not as bad as (fill in the blank)....America is in trouble.
Funny thing is both the Lib/Progressives and the GOP are yelling the same thing, make one wonder....
You missed selling point number two: He'd be easier to impeach!
-
Holdonnow. I am 95% sure that LTD was, like me, a Cruz supporter. So the "we told you so" screed is, at best misdirected.
I do understand having ones mind made up. I was right there. But, God help me if I ever get so prideful that I cannot examine my own mind to see if it is correctly made up.
When all this started, I compared the candidates' positions on the issues, noted their credibility viv-a-vis their past records and positions on issues, their behaviour, and came up with a ranked list of who was acceptable. I modified that list according to their behaviour and statements. At Iowa Cruz was first, Trump second (mainly because he was baiting all the right people, not because of his past), and Walker third. After Iowa, Trump had slid off the list. Everything I saw of Trump after that kept him there, rather than bring him back on.
don-o, I understand you have close kin in the Armed Forces, and don't want them unnecessarily put in harm's way. I wish the same for them, frankly, as I do for all in the service of this country.
What we differ on is a question of who is most likely to put them there. This discussion is tailored to your specific situation, but there are thousands of other parents out there who face a similar dilemma.
Clinton is crooked, corrupt to the core, plays fast and loose with the law and classified material.
Trump is mercurial, impulsive, has stated he will ignore our intel agencies, and has demonstrated he will attack before finding out the facts, and then when the facts show the attack unwarranted, will double down rather than back off.
You tell me who is most likely to have your offspring in the middle of some ill-conceived war.
Hillary may well have orchestrated the situation in which our people in Benghazi were killed, but none other than Barrack Obama, and Barrack Obama alone had the authority to give the go/no go order on any air support or rescue mission, and he did not give the 'go' order. Not to excuse her, while I am sure the machinations of that conniving witch put those guys in harm's way, it is Obama who left them there, whether she advised that or not, and Obama who has the most blood on his hands.
IMHO, she is not a suitable candidate for POTUS, either. Neither of them passes muster, but one is more likely to get your kid in the middle of some deep sh*t he didn't have to be in in the first place, and has a track record of doubling down if wrong. He won't accept the blame for his trainwrecks either, but will be hunting scapegoats the moment things go wrong instead of owning it and taking steps to make it right.
Oh, she'll lie, too, but my bet is that Benghazi was supposed to be a very low conflict level snatch and grab of a US Ambassador from a lightly secured annex (not even the embassy), and that plan was FUBAR'd when the two former SEALs showed up and fought (heroically, I might add). It would not surprise me to learn that Hillary and her boss had orchestrated the situation to pull off an exchange of some folks in Gitmo for an Ambassador and use that as a shining example of their foreign affairs acumen, but the setup went wrong.
While a hideous mess that unnecessarily cost American lives, it was not an event requiring or eliciting a strategic level response, nor were even small forces beyond those already there committed, much less beginning a major conflict.
I respect your decision, made for reasons we have gone over before. Only you bear that burden, especially as it relates to your progeny, even though many others will find themselves in a similar situation. It is a tough call, and I don't blame you for your choice either way. I am sure we both wish that the most likely candidates included someone we could be confident would not needlessly involve us in conflict and whom we could be confident would have our troops backs in the event their services are needed, making sure they had the utmost support. I would like to think they would make the best decisions for the US and our forces, based on a solid knowledge of our capabilities and the best intel available, and not rashly or unnecessarily commit our forces to conflict.
But one candidate has the personality which would commit forces to an unnecessary conflict, ignore intel, and double down if wrong while blaming everyone else.
-
When all this started, I compared the candidates' positions on the issues, noted their credibility viv-a-vis their past records and positions on issues, their behaviour, and came up with a ranked list of who was acceptable. I modified that list according to their behaviour and statements. At Iowa Cruz was first, Trump second (mainly because he was baiting all the right people, not because of his past), and Walker third. After Iowa, Trump had slid off the list. Everything I saw of Trump after that kept him there, rather than bring him back on.
don-o, I understand you have close kin in the Armed Forces, and don't want them unnecessarily put in harm's way. I wish the same for them, frankly, as I do for all in the service of this country.
What we differ on is a question of who is most likely to put them there. This discussion is tailored to your specific situation, but there are thousands of other parents out there who face a similar dilemma.
Clinton is crooked, corrupt to the core, plays fast and loose with the law and classified material.
Trump is mercurial, impulsive, has stated he will ignore our intel agencies, and has demonstrated he will attack before finding out the facts, and then when the facts show the attack unwarranted, will double down rather than back off.
You tell me who is most likely to have your offspring in the middle of some ill-conceived war.
Hillary may well have orchestrated the situation in which our people in Benghazi were killed, but none other than Barrack Obama, and Barrack Obama alone had the authority to give the go/no go order on any air support or rescue mission, and he did not give the 'go' order. Not to excuse her, while I am sure the machinations of that conniving witch put those guys in harm's way, it is Obama who left them there, whether she advised that or not, and Obama who has the most blood on his hands.
IMHO, she is not a suitable candidate for POTUS, either. Neither of them passes muster, but one is more likely to get your kid in the middle of some deep sh*t he didn't have to be in in the first place, and has a track record of doubling down if wrong. He won't accept the blame for his trainwrecks either, but will be hunting scapegoats the moment things go wrong instead of owning it and taking steps to make it right.
Oh, she'll lie, too, but my bet is that Benghazi was supposed to be a very low conflict level snatch and grab of a US Ambassador from a lightly secured annex (not even the embassy), and that plan was FUBAR'd when the two former SEALs showed up and fought (heroically, I might add). It would not surprise me to learn that Hillary and her boss had orchestrated the situation to pull off an exchange of some folks in Gitmo for an Ambassador and use that as a shining example of their foreign affairs acumen, but the setup went wrong.
While a hideous mess that unnecessarily cost American lives, it was not an event requiring or eliciting a strategic level response, nor were even small forces beyond those already there committed, much less beginning a major conflict.
I respect your decision, made for reasons we have gone over before. Only you bear that burden, especially as it relates to your progeny, even though many others will find themselves in a similar situation. It is a tough call, and I don't blame you for your choice either way. I am sure we both wish that the most likely candidates included someone we could be confident would not needlessly involve us in conflict and whom we could be confident would have our troops backs in the event their services are needed, making sure they had the utmost support. I would like to think they would make the best decisions for the US and our forces, based on a solid knowledge of our capabilities and the best intel available, and not rashly or unnecessarily commit our forces to conflict.
But one candidate has the personality which would commit forces to an unnecessary conflict, ignore intel, and double down if wrong while blaming everyone else.
Well said. Neither of the candidate has shows the least ability to take responsibility for anything in their lives. Do we want the one who blames UTube or the one who blames Twitter?
-
Well said. Neither of the candidate has shows the least ability to take responsibility for anything in their lives. Do we want the one who blames UTube or the one who blames Twitter?
Well, the one who blamed twitter went 'nuclear' (for a republican campaign) and attacked the wife of another candidate without finding out the facts. Then spread the lie that the reason for the attack was that the other candidate had really launched the ad. Then when the facts came to light, continued attacking the other candidate's wife, and spread the lie that the other candidate (who said "That isn't one of ours" about the ad) didn't disavow the ad. (Huh?) Then didn't disavow it enough (whatever that is), but maintained the attack the whole time on the other candidate's wife.
Attacked rashly and in an unprecedentedly vicious fashion, without intel. When he got the intel showing the wrong people had been attacked, didn't back down or apologize for acting rashly or attacking the wrong people, but redoubled the attack and continued to blame the wrong people, repeatedly, and for not saying loud enough that they had nothing to do with the ad.
The one who blamed You tube didn't get her boss to support people being attacked. But that was most likely a set-up anyway and the damage control there was likely to cover up other dealings which may not have initially included anyone getting killed.
-
Holdonnow. I am 95% sure that LTD was, like me, a Cruz supporter. So the "we told you so" screed is, at best misdirected.
I do understand having ones mind made up. I was right there. But, God help me if I ever get so prideful that I cannot examine my own mind to see if it is correctly made up.
@don-o And that is exactly what I did. I was initially a Cruz supporter and when he lost and Trump became the presumptive nominee, I supported him. After he "modified his position on immigration/wall as well as taxes. I re-examined my position and came to the conclusion that should he be elected I was not sure what party he would be a member of. That left Castle and Johnson. Johnson will not repeal some of the abortion laws so that rules him out.
-
@bigheadfred
I heard that last time around, and the time before that.
This time I mean it, dammit.
-
@Liberty Tree Dr
A couple of things:
Firstly, allowing oneself to be guided by morals and principles is not "emotional."
Guidance by morals is not emotional, but if you ignore the potential results of your choices because you want to "feel" that you're doing the right thing, that is not a logical behavior. You should be asking, "Is the result of my choice a good or bad thing according to my morality?" If you don't, there's the risk of the legalism of the Pharisees type.
Secondly, if you want to talk about consequences, here are some consequences for you.
You folks forced Trump on us despite being shown, over and over, clear evidence that the man is a lifelong liberal and an amoral sleaze. No matter how much proof we offered, you chose to ignore it. Just as you ignored our promises that we would never vote for such a person.
<<SNIP>>
Nope. As @don-o indicates, I'm a former Cruz guy. I plead my case almost exactly as you did on TOS, and was banned. In 2012, I fought many the rhetorical battle against Romney during the Primaries. Same in 2008 against McCain. But then my candidates lost in the primary each of those years, and I held my nose.
Why? Because logic dictates you must examine your options and choose the best outcome. Primary was decided. Trump is nominated. In the USA, a third party candidate is a spoiler that favors the Democrat. We get to pick one of two (2 point swing), or vote 3rd party/not vote and give a 1 point advantage to the Democrat (i.e. 1 less vote to get the majority).
If you want morality, you now must review the possible results of your actions. EXAMPLE: Hillary wins = 100% chance abortion continues forever and this is guaranteed via her SCOTUS picks and the massive amnesty she'll unleash to seal the Progressive agenda. If you think a Trump win will also yield 100% chance, then both outcomes are equally bad morally. However, if this declines even 1%, so that there's a tiny chance Trump's SCOTUS picks might reverse Roe v. Wade, logic would indicate you favor that chance. Hope for that 1% chance is emotional, choosing an action on that 1% chance is logical, as it is marginally superior to the results of the other chance.
You and I can debate the chances, and we can disagree, but do cease claiming you are moral while we are not. As I've outlined above, we are acting under a very robust moral model that takes into account consequences/actions, rather than adherence to dogma that then results in a greater evil.
-
Because logic dictates you must examine your options and choose the best outcome. Primary was decided. Trump is nominated. In the USA, a third party candidate is a spoiler that favors the Democrat. We get to pick one of two (2 point swing), or vote 3rd party/not vote and give a 1 point advantage to the Democrat (i.e. 1 less vote to get the majority).
Most of us here are done and finished practicing insanity, which is all your argument advocates.
We chose not to play that game anymore.
You are certainly welcome to continue to practice that insanity so so you can tell yourself in the mirror over and over that you were a better person than the rest of us if that makes you feel better.
-
Not much is "forever". Almighty God is, and the outcome of this life eternal. Vote your conscience, I'll vote mine.
-
You and I can debate the chances, and we can disagree, but do cease claiming you are moral while we are not. As I've outlined above, we are acting under a very robust moral model that takes into account consequences/actions, rather than adherence to dogma that then results in a greater evil.
This is not robust logic - This is PRECISELY why we end up in 'lesser evil' every_single_time.
This is why the majority of Republicans are spineless wimps, or even flaming liberals.
And mathematically, just as a spiral diminishing, the result of your logic is finally evil with no discernible difference - Precisely where we are right now - begging a candidate on a 1% chance that maybe abortion might somehow be lessened in some indiscernible way, while other, equally important principles and rights slide further and further away.
HELL NO! STOP! Stop settling for 1% for crying out loud! DEMAND 99%! This foolish appeasement needs to stop, or our doom will be sealed.
@CatherineofAragon
@Liberty Tree Dr
@don-o
-
Not much is "forever". Almighty God is, and the outcome of this life eternal. Vote your conscience, I'll vote mine.
Exactly ! Seek after righteousness and let YHWH do the rest.
-
Most of us here are done and finished practicing insanity, which is all your argument advocates.
We chose not to play that game anymore.
Exactly right - All this does is set up the next 'lesser evil' to be just a little bit worse than this one... And so it goes.
-
In 2012, I fought many the rhetorical battle against Romney during the Primaries. Same in 2008 against McCain. But then my candidates lost in the primary each of those years, and I held my nose.
And so did we all for the last two elections, And if we re unwilling to do it this time, it should tell you just how bad a choice wse have been given.
Why? Because logic dictates you must examine your options and choose the best outcome. Primary was decided. Trump is nominated. In the USA, a third party candidate is a spoiler that favors the Democrat. We get to pick one of two (2 point swing), or vote 3rd party/not vote and give a 1 point advantage to the Democrat (i.e. 1 less vote to get the majority).
Well maybe the county will get it's head out of it's butt and give us a better choice next time.
-
Most of us here are done and finished practicing insanity, which is all your argument advocates.
We chose not to play that game anymore.
You are certainly welcome to continue to practice that insanity so so you can tell yourself in the mirror over and over that you were a better person than the rest of us if that makes you feel better.
So it's now insane, as well as immoral, to recognize actions and their consequences?
Just wow! And this allusion to how others "feel" is pure emotion and blatant projection.
-
So it's now insane, as well as immoral, to recognize actions and their consequences?
Just wow! And this allusion to how others "feel" is pure emotion and blatant projection.
I don't recall if I ever addressed you directly. But, I just want to take this opportunity to commend you on your reasoning as a former Cruz supporter and the manner in which you conduct this very difficult thread.
The issue of some GOP members' reticence to support the nominee, and in too many cases, actively working to undermine him with negative, misleading and often false commentary -- which to some of us looks like it's helping Hillary -- is very troubling.
Thank you for your efforts, though. But, from the looks of things it all seems futile. :patriot:
-
I don't recall if I ever addressed you directly. But, I just want to take this opportunity to commend you on your reasoning as a former Cruz supporter and the manner in which you conduct this very difficult thread.
The issue of some GOP members' reticence to support the nominee, and in too many cases, actively working to undermine him with negative, misleading and often false commentary -- which to some of us looks like it's helping Hillary -- is very troubling.
Thank you for your efforts, though. But, from the looks of things it all seems futile. :patriot:
@aligncare Which false commentary would that be? Seriously, Please tell us exactly what we are saying that is false.
The man has been married and divorced multiple times. How can we trust any "vow" he makes?
He has been a multiple sides of every issue.
So please give specifics.
-
This is not robust logic - This is PRECISELY why we end up in 'lesser evil' every_single_time.
This is why the majority of Republicans are spineless wimps, or even flaming liberals.
And mathematically, just as a spiral diminishing, the result of your logic is finally evil with no discernible difference - Precisely where we are right now - begging a candidate on a 1% chance that maybe abortion might somehow be lessened in some indiscernible way, while other, equally important principles and rights slide further and further away.
HELL NO! STOP! Stop settling for 1% for crying out loud! DEMAND 99%! This foolish appeasement needs to stop, or our doom will be sealed.
@CatherineofAragon
@Liberty Tree Dr
@don-o
I think the chance of a good SCOTUS pick or 3 by Trump means the chance is much better than 1%. Maybe as high as 25%. And abortion is a national stain, but the SCOTUS picks will also have influence on a host of issues, from the homosexual agenda, to religious freedom, to our 1st and 2nd Amendment rights.
Tell me Hillary Clinton's SCOTUS picks will be better than Trump's.
-
This is not robust logic - This is PRECISELY why we end up in 'lesser evil' every_single_time.
This is why the majority of Republicans are spineless wimps, or even flaming liberals.
It will always be the Lesser Evil. All choices, including elections, are compromises. In an election, what/who is perfect to me, is deeply flawed to many other voters; and verse visa..
So one tries not to let the Good become the enemy of the Perfect. The Seventy-Percent Rule.
But this one, is a bridge too far. Not only is he DEEPLY flawed, and in many ways JUST LIKE our purported opposition party...he's deliberately, nastily, and with slander, turned on me; my values; the values of sincere conservatives; our political choices, who objectively are his moral betters.
This is not a popularity contest; and it's not a streetfight. Words have meanings; and accusations have consequences. The words we're getting are provable lies and slanders; the accusations false; and the vapid proposals are straight from the platform...OF DEMOCRATS.
There is nothing here for me; and for the nation, this promises a future with a simple and unstable rich playboy at the helm.
-
Thank you for your efforts, though. But, from the looks of things it all seems futile. :patriot:
You are welcome.
Allowing space for futility leads to despair which is not an option.
-
@JustPassinThru
Everyone is going to vote for hillary anyways whether they vote for her or not. So no worries.
-
@JustPassinThru
Everyone is going to vote for hillary anyways whether they vote for her or not. So no worries.
It's sure looking that way. The Elites have finally taken complete leave of their senses - they no longer have a feel for what they can pull off, or how far they can push.
The stage-setting for fraud this November is shocking, in its openness. And WHO they are doing it for...let's put it this way. This woman is not only a radical, she's a lifelong incompetent. She was incompetent when she was young, healthy and in full control of her senses.
Now she's old, tired, out-of-touch, and entering the dementia stage of Parkinson's. In this condition she's going to lead a revolutionary movement? How can this NOT fail, with her poor judgment, her incapacity; her lieutenants who're almost-certainly as incompetent as she is. This is a guaranteed recipe for failure and a bloodbath.
There's no assurance that patriots will reassert; what likely will happen is that the HARDER Left, the BLM Communists, will take over and slaughter these fools. The way Lenin did away with the Trotskyites.
This is it, folks.
-
Whoa. What in the world causes to to think that "prideful" was aimed at YOU? That is pure projection and very unfair. I was referring to myself only.
Of course, I am accused of being pompous and arrogant. So, if you want to add liar, there is a fine trifects.
@don-o
Well, if you look back at the context of your post and the way it was worded, you can see how I assumed it was aimed at me, since your mind was made up at one point, you reconsidered, and you changed your point of view. Clearly the pridefulness you associate with not doing that doesn't apply to you, since you did the opposite of what you consider to be prideful.
However, if you didn't mean it for me, then I misunderstood and I apologize.
However, I certainly didn't accuse you of being pompous, arrogant or a liar, so I won't accept that.
-
@JustPassinThru
Everyone is going to vote for hillary anyways whether they vote for her or not. So no worries.
Ain't it the truth!
:beer:
-
This time I mean it, dammit.
@bigheadfred
:green teeth:
-
Guidance by morals is not emotional, but if you ignore the potential results of your choices because you want to "feel" that you're doing the right thing, that is not a logical behavior.
Ignoring the longer term result of not having solid principals is a less logical behavior.
-
Ignoring the longer term result of not having solid principals is a less logical behavior.
But as Mr. Keynes famously quipped, "in the long run, we're all dead." :laugh:
Seriously, though, you're right. We're actually reaping the consequences now, of a weakening of solid principles. No principled party could nominate a Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. But it was inevitable that today's parties should do so.
-
@Liberty Tree Dr
Guidance by morals is not emotional, but if you ignore the potential results of your choices because you want to "feel" that you're doing the right thing, that is not a logical behavior. You should be asking, "Is the result of my choice a good or bad thing according to my morality?" If you don't, there's the risk of the legalism of the Pharisees type.
In other words, unless my moral guidance takes me to the conclusion you think is correct, then it is emotional.
Nope.
Nope. As @don-o indicates, I'm a former Cruz guy. I plead my case almost exactly as you did on TOS, and was banned. In 2012, I fought many the rhetorical battle against Romney during the Primaries. Same in 2008 against McCain. But then my candidates lost in the primary each of those years, and I held my nose.
I'm not pleading a case. I don't care if my decision is met with approval or not. If I'm the last NeverTrumper standing, I'm fine with that.
As I stated elsewhere, I held my nose for Romney in 2012, despite prayer and being convinced I was led not to do so, and the next day began a spiritual crisis for me that lasted for years. I won't go into the details. I'll just say that my nose-holding days are done. And Trump makes Romney look like Ronald Reagan.
Why? Because logic dictates you must examine your options and choose the best outcome. Primary was decided. Trump is nominated. In the USA, a third party candidate is a spoiler that favors the Democrat. We get to pick one of two (2 point swing), or vote 3rd party/not vote and give a 1 point advantage to the Democrat (i.e. 1 less vote to get the majority).
No, you get to pick only one of two because apparently you're under the impression someone is holding a gun to your head. In reality, you can do whatever you want, and I'm through with loyalty to a political party that holds my values in total contempt.
Especially when it expects me to cast my support behind an amoral, pathetically ignorant dumpster fire of a human being. Refusal to do so, for me, is the best outcome. I'm not going to delude myself for a second that God is fine with that.
If you want morality, you now must review the possible results of your actions. EXAMPLE: Hillary wins = 100% chance abortion continues forever and this is guaranteed via her SCOTUS picks and the massive amnesty she'll unleash to seal the Progressive agenda. If you think a Trump win will also yield 100% chance, then both outcomes are equally bad morally. However, if this declines even 1%, so that there's a tiny chance Trump's SCOTUS picks might reverse Roe v. Wade, logic would indicate you favor that chance. Hope for that 1% chance is emotional, choosing an action on that 1% chance is logical, as it is marginally superior to the results of the other chance.
I've seen the video in which Trump said he wouldn't do a thing to stop partial-birth abortion. To clarify, that's the process of driving scissors through a newborn's skull to kill it. I will never support such an individual, nor do I think for one moment that he's changed. And I refuse to tell myself that it would be moral for me to do so.
Trump has backtracked on his wall and he's on record saying that we have to take in Middle Eastern refugees. That latter remark was his instinct before someone told him he needed to walk it back.
Trump recently said he didn't care if the Senate went to the Democrats. To believe that he would appoint decent judges is a desperate fantasy. The man is a lifelong liberal without a single conservative impulse in his nature, nor even basic knowledge of conservative principles.
As bad as Hillary is, many on our side have fallen into the emotional trap of building her up into some kind of mythical Godzilla; there could never in the world be anyone worse. We cringe in terror of her, hide under our beds, and we're so desperate that we try to convince ourselves that a stupid game show host would be an improvement. Even though we're aware that he's as liberal as she is, and is in fact a longtime friend and donor. Now, if that's how you feel, okay, fine. But many of us believe otherwise.
The truth is, there can be someone just as bad as Hillary, and he's running with an R behind his name.
Bottom line: I fear God more than I fear Hillary Clinton.
You and I can debate the chances, and we can disagree, but do cease claiming you are moral while we are not.
You want to show me where I accused you of being immoral?
As I've outlined above, we are acting under a very robust moral model that takes into account consequences/actions, rather than adherence to dogma that then results in a greater evil.
As I've just shown you, there is no moral difference---only a perceived one that fear of Hillary Clinton has placed in your mind. With that, I'll ask you to
stop assuming NeverTrumps haven't thought through the consequences. We have---honestly.
-
As I've just shown you, there is no moral difference---only a perceived one that fear of Hillary Clinton has placed in your mind. With that, I'll ask you to
stop assuming NeverTrumps haven't thought through the consequences. We have---honestly.
An excellent effort, albeit one that would have been better directed to someone more willing to listen to you -- such as your cat, or a potted plant.
-
@Liberty Tree Dr
In other words, unless my moral guidance takes me to the conclusion you think is correct, then it is emotional.
Nope.
Please stop trying to re-write what I said. You seem emotionally invested in claiming some sort of superiority based on your belief that you are somehow moral while I am not. It is clear that I am perfectly comfortable stating that you and I can arrive at a different conclusion as to what the result/consequence of a choice is. I'm merely trying to make sure you understand that your choice does have moral consequences external to your internal sense of morality.
I'm not pleading a case. I don't care if my decision is met with approval or not. If I'm the last NeverTrumper standing, I'm fine with that.
As I stated elsewhere, I held my nose for Romney in 2012, despite prayer and being convinced I was led not to do so, and the next day began a spiritual crisis for me that lasted for years. I won't go into the details. I'll just say that my nose-holding days are done. And Trump makes Romney look like Ronald Reagan.
No, you get to pick only one of two because apparently you're under the impression someone is holding a gun to your head. In reality, you can do whatever you want, and I'm through with loyalty to a political party that holds my values in total contempt.
Especially when it expects me to cast my support behind an amoral, pathetically ignorant dumpster fire of a human being. Refusal to do so, for me, is the best outcome. I'm not going to delude myself for a second that God is fine with that.
I've seen the video in which Trump said he wouldn't do a thing to stop partial-birth abortion. To clarify, that's the process of driving scissors through a newborn's skull to kill it. I will never support such an individual, nor do I think for one moment that he's changed. And I refuse to tell myself that it would be moral for me to do so.
Trump has backtracked on his wall and he's on record saying that we have to take in Middle Eastern refugees. That latter remark was his instinct before someone told him he needed to walk it back.
Trump recently said he didn't care if the Senate went to the Democrats. To believe that he would appoint decent judges is a desperate fantasy. The man is a lifelong liberal without a single conservative impulse in his nature, nor even basic knowledge of conservative principles.
As bad as Hillary is, many on our side have fallen into the emotional trap of building her up into some kind of mythical Godzilla; there could never in the world be anyone worse. We cringe in terror of her, hide under our beds, and we're so desperate that we try to convince ourselves that a stupid game show host would be an improvement. Even though we're aware that he's as liberal as she is, and is in fact a longtime friend and donor. Now, if that's how you feel, okay, fine. But many of us believe otherwise.
The truth is, there can be someone just as bad as Hillary, and he's running with an R behind his name.
Bottom line: I fear God more than I fear Hillary Clinton.
You want to show me where I accused you of being immoral?
As I've just shown you, there is no moral difference---only a perceived one that fear of Hillary Clinton has placed in your mind. With that, I'll ask you to
stop assuming NeverTrumps haven't thought through the consequences. We have---honestly.
Very good outline of your position. Now you've laid out that your position finds both Trump and Clinton to be equally reprehensible. If there's no perceived difference, logic indicates voting neither is a valid action.
-
So it's now insane, as well as immoral, to recognize actions and their consequences?
You mean like voting for liberals pretending to be Conservatives and then expect Conservative principles and policies to be implemented?
Yes. I call that insane to vote for liberals and expecting to "win" against the Left or advance the principles the nation was founded on. Yes. I do call that insanity.
Doing the same stupid thing over and over and expecting different results is the actual definition if I recall.
Since the argument over Trump v Hillary has hinged on the strategy of choosing evil to represent you because he is a lesser evil than she is, is in itself simply immoral if one claims the bible as a foundation to their faith.
And this allusion to how others "feel" is pure emotion and blatant projection.
No more than the allusion that those who insist refusing to vote for either candidate is a vote for Hillary.
-
Please stop trying to re-write what I said. You seem emotionally invested in claiming some sort of superiority based on your belief that you are somehow moral while I am not. It is clear that I am perfectly comfortable stating that you and I can arrive at a different conclusion as to what the result/consequence of a choice is. I'm merely trying to make sure you understand that your choice does have moral consequences external to your internal sense of morality.
With all due respect to you, drop the condescension and the theme that you need to "make sure we understand."
Look, I'm not morally superior to you or anyone else, and I note that you didn't respond to my request that you show specific examples where I've indicated it. But accusations of self-righteousness from Trump supporters to NeverTrumps are common, and I have my theory as to the reason.
Very good outline of your position. Now you've laid out that your position finds both Trump and Clinton to be equally reprehensible. If there's no perceived difference, logic indicates voting neither is a valid action.
Thanks.
-
An excellent effort, albeit one that would have been better directed to someone more willing to listen to you -- such as your cat, or a potted plant.
Thank you!
-
@don-o
I'll let him address that. Either way, he's pushing Trump when there's no point in it.
Sometimes, things are so clear-cut and so morally well-defined that examination isn't necessary. But I appreciate the "prideful" label.
You know, when it comes to self-examination, you might want to hold up a mirror. You decided to support Trump, which I understand although I don't agree with it. But then you decided you had to convince the rest of us to do so, and in the process you've become a different person. It's sad to see, but that's the effect Trump has on people.
You'll understand how I might construe this bolded/underlined bit above as implying I'm immoral.
-
With all due respect to you, drop the condescension and the theme that you need to "make sure we understand."
Look, I'm not morally superior to you or anyone else, and I note that you didn't respond to my request that you show specific examples where I've indicated it. But accusations of self-righteousness from Trump supporters to NeverTrumps are common, and I have my theory as to the reason.
Thanks.
@Liberty Tree Dr @CatherineofArago Catherine I have asked TOS POS to show specific examples as well. Even though we have provided NUMEROUS examples of Trump's constant inconsistencies and backtracking. He is the only one emotionally invested and is too myopic to see it. We need to pray that God removes the scales from his eyes.
-
@Liberty Tree Dr @CatherineofArago Catherine I have asked TOS POS to show specific examples as well. Even though we have provided NUMEROUS examples of Trump's constant inconsistencies and backtracking. He is the only one emotionally invested and is too myopic to see it. We need to pray that God removes the scales from his eyes.
See post right above yours.
And please enlighten me on what "POS" stands for?
-
Isaiah 29:13-14
Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:
Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid.
The one I really like is "Render unto Caesar...". It is about time to burn off some fat and "Render Caesar".
Ok. I am going to go watch "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice" with my grandson. Maybe the answers to this "Trump v NeverTrump" can be found there.
In the meantime remember..."Jesus is Coming, Look Busy".
-
I think the chance of a good SCOTUS pick or 3 by Trump means the chance is much better than 1%. Maybe as high as 25%. And abortion is a national stain, but the SCOTUS picks will also have influence on a host of issues, from the homosexual agenda, to religious freedom, to our 1st and 2nd Amendment rights.
Wow. a one-in-four chance. Is that each pick, or en toto? Do you listen to yourself? Don't bet the farm.
Tell me Hillary Clinton's SCOTUS picks will be better than Trump's.
A ridiculous and meaningless question. Both are liberals. you will invariably get liberal judges. And the choosing is not only in the president, but the senate - Which we will almost certainly lose, because Trump. TADA!
-
It will always be the Lesser Evil. All choices, including elections, are compromises. In an election, what/who is perfect to me, is deeply flawed to many other voters; and verse visa..
So one tries not to let the Good become the enemy of the Perfect. The Seventy-Percent Rule.
This is a LIE, and I will prove it to you: Why are *ALL* the Democrats flaming liberals? And why doesn't that work the other way around? The answer is that it DOES work the other way around. All we have to do is actually vote for Conservatives.
-
EVERYTHING after the Fall is a lie.
-
This is a LIE, and I will prove it to you: Why are *ALL* the Democrats flaming liberals? And why doesn't that work the other way around? The answer is that it DOES work the other way around. All we have to do is actually vote for Conservatives.
The perfect candidate for ME, may be seriously flawed to YOU. And reverse.
We ALL have different expectations.
Why do the Democrats unite, and all become, as you say, flaming liberals? Because they are **NOT** voting PRINCIPLE. They are voting Free Excrement, for the most part. The few who are not, are voting access to power or access to the public coffers.
Those who are running are offering no principles. They mouth them, vaguely and inarticulately...like a poorly-done dance number. Because that's not what it's about. It's a quid-pro-quo: FREE EXCREMENT <-> POWER. Those who seek office and those behind the Democrat office-seekers, are there for the POWER. Voters are there, eager to BE BOUGHT with MOAR FREE.
There's some of that in the Republican side, too. Those are called, variously, "moderates" or "crony corporatists." Until now it has not been the majority of the Republican side.
Now, however, they're giving Conservatives the boot. Which is a mistake; because Crony Corporatism and Moar Free and money-printing and ZIRP can only take you so far; into a dead-end alley.
-
EVERYTHING after the Fall is a lie.
No, the principles of Conservatism are true - and most of them come right out of the Good Book
-
See post right above yours.
And please enlighten me on what "POS" stands for?
I don't know if you are immoral or not. I do know that you are a condescending TOSer that has yet to document a single claim you have made agaisnt us. As for POS google is your friend.
-
The perfect candidate for ME, may be seriously flawed to YOU. And reverse.
We ALL have different expectations.
Generally not true - unless you are talking about degrees. The point of Reagan Conservatism is to unite Conservatives, and it does - It does you no harm to vote for a candidate who holds both yours and my principles... And I can vote for that guy too.
Why do the Democrats unite, and all become, as you say, flaming liberals? Because they are **NOT** voting PRINCIPLE.
No, they too have a set of principles, generated from Marxism and such. They are false in my mind, but all the things the Democrats stand for - Those things are what their elected officials fight for.
That is not true of Republicans. They seldom pay more than lip service to Conservative principles, because they are not really Conservatives... Lesser evil compromises have left us with hardly anything in the way of representation, because our elected officials are more evil than the generation before them - Because settling for the lesser evil is what Republicans always do.
No more for me
-
That is not true of Republicans. They seldom pay more than lip service to Conservative principles, because they are not really Conservatives... Lesser evil compromises have left us with hardly anything in the way of representation, because our elected officials are more evil than the generation before them - Because settling for the lesser evil is what Republicans always do.
No more for me
Nor for me either.
But many view that thinking as sacrilege, treason and immorality, because they have been led to believe the presidency is a monarchy now - and voting for one person to high office is somehow going to save us from a worse emperor.
-
It is all a lie. Principles. Laws. Countries. Nations. Religions. Governments. Down the line. They are part of the deception. Inventions of Man.
(1) “When you see your likeness you are full of joy.
(2) But when you see your likenesses that came into existence before you — they neither die nor become manifest — how much will you bear?”
Indeed.
-
It is all a lie. Principles. Laws. Countries. Nations. Religions. Governments. Down the line. They are part of the deception. Inventions of Man.
(1) “When you see your likeness you are full of joy.
(2) But when you see your likenesses that came into existence before you — they neither die nor become manifest — how much will you bear?”
Indeed.
If that is true then everything you say is a lie also and no one should pay attention to anything you have to say.
-
Generally not true - unless you are talking about degrees. The point of Reagan Conservatism is to unite Conservatives, and it does - It does you no harm to vote for a candidate who holds both yours and my principles... And I can vote for that guy too.
Of course I'm talking about degrees. For example, I'd have preferred that Reagan more emphasize Federalism. Local control, as regards narcotics laws, the imbecilic 55-mph speed limit (took him seven years to get the courage to RAISE that and took CLINTON to abolish it).
He was the greatest President since the Civil War; and maybe the greatest ever; but there were things I disagreed with.
George W. Bush was more apart from me. His instincts were not conservative; but he did respect the Conservative support. And he tried to do right by them, with tax cuts, with an appropriate response to the WTC attack (yes, Iraq was part of that vetch; that's another topic) But there were many differences. All the same, I supported him, voted for him, twice, and blogged my support on a political-pundit website.
That's compromise. The problem here is that this isn't compromise; it's lipstick on a pig.
No, they too have a set of principles, generated from Marxism and such. They are false in my mind, but all the things the Democrats stand for - Those things are what their elected officials fight for.
That is not true of Republicans. They seldom pay more than lip service to Conservative principles, because they are not really Conservatives... Lesser evil compromises have left us with hardly anything in the way of representation, because our elected officials are more evil than the generation before them - Because settling for the lesser evil is what Republicans always do.
I disagree with this. Teamsters have little in common with college faculty voters. Homosexual activists have little in common with West Virginia coal miners. AFSCME and NEA voters have little in common with welfare recipients.
The blue-collar Democrat voters and the idlers and the media-professional classes...have NOTHING in common, except PURE HATRED for conservatives. The blue-collar joes don't even hate America, the way the reporters and faculty members and sodomites do. But they march in lockstep...united by dreams of power, money, and Free Excrement...delighted to stick it to those Christers with their guns and Bibles.
Not much of a base...until you get down to the nub. They're SHEEPLE. Elite or indigent, they all want GOVERNMENT as their MASTER.
That's not a principle. That's craven helplessness and raw hatred for the independently-successful.
-
That is the best part.
-
The blue-collar Democrat voters and the idlers and the media-professional classes...have NOTHING in common, except PURE HATRED for conservatives. The blue-collar joes don't even hate America, the way the reporters and faculty members and sodomites do. But they march in lockstep...united by dreams of power, money, and Free Excrement...delighted to stick it to those Christers with their guns and Bibles.
Not much of a base...until you get down to the nub. They're SHEEPLE. Elite or indigent, they all want GOVERNMENT as their MASTER.
That's not a principle. That's craven helplessness and raw hatred for the independently-successful.
THAT NAILS IT!
We have a majority population that sees the bible and our religious heritage as indifferent and a judgmental evil deserving to be abolished and ignored, and they all look to Government to replace the God they have abandoned as their provider.
-
You are welcome.
Allowing space for futility leads to despair which is not an option.
That depends on how you look at it. It is also an opportunity to exercise patience, wait for a time when futility no longer reigns, and prepare for that opportunity. Despair is the province of those without Faith.
-
@JustPassinThru
Everyone is going to vote for hillary anyways whether they vote for her or not. So no worries.
I have it figured out.
Y'see, I'm NOT voting for Trump, which I have been assured is a vote for Hillary.
I'm not voting for Hillary, either, which by the above logic should be a vote for Trump..
I'm voting for Castle, which, oddly enough is a vote for Castle.
I get to vote three times on one ballot.
It's enough to make me feel, well....like a DEMOCRAT!
Hey! Where's MY Free Shi....??
-
I disagree with this. Teamsters have little in common with college faculty voters. Homosexual activists have little in common with West Virginia coal miners. AFSCME and NEA voters have little in common with welfare recipients.
The blue-collar Democrat voters and the idlers and the media-professional classes...have NOTHING in common, except PURE HATRED for conservatives. The blue-collar joes don't even hate America, the way the reporters and faculty members and sodomites do. But they march in lockstep...united by dreams of power, money, and Free Excrement...delighted to stick it to those Christers with their guns and Bibles.
Not much of a base...until you get down to the nub. They're SHEEPLE. Elite or indigent, they all want GOVERNMENT as their MASTER.
That's not a principle. That's craven helplessness and raw hatred for the independently-successful.
Actually, if you boil it down far enough they all have one thing in common. They want government to guarantee their particular ticket on the government gravy train. Whether that ticket is government upholding the union so their wages/strike fund/retirement fund/employment opportunities keep rolling in, or whether their seat on the train is someone else paying for their abortion/food/rent/schooling/research/protected buggery/AIDS medicine/condoms/whatever gimmie they want, they all want a seat, whether they are going to work or not. They want the government to guarantee their seat, and pay for it.
The seminal difference is that Conservatives aren't looking for anything but the freedom to make the most of their own opportunities and to have the government get off their back. Have it go defend the border, uphold the law, get the mail through, keep the roads passable, and get out of the way.
"Moderates" are a blend of those two basic philosophies.
Like a bell curve, the two endpoints, the true totalitarian nanny-staters vs the absolute (real, not Marxists in disguise) anarchists are the rarity. the fat part of the curve was the middle, a balance between the conservative's government and the giveaway government, but that has been slumping toward the side of those who want more free stuff. Without reversing that trend and weaning the population of free stuff, it isn't going to get better.
-
@Smokin Joe
Where you live Joe, your vote will be for Castle. My no vote will be for Trump. But in other places where the population is really DENSE the apparatus is in place for hillary to win.
There is a long line of free shi**ers in front of you. So if you think you need it now you will have to bump a spot. But if you can hold it until you get to the gulag... Free housing, free uniforms, free food, free showers...
Or go weed the garden. The roots of the dodahs run deep but it can be done. You can eliminate them.
-
@Smokin Joe
Where you live Joe, your vote will be for Castle. My no vote will be for Trump. But in other places where the population is really DENSE the apparatus is in place for hillary to win.
There is a long line of free shi**ers in front of you. So if you think you need it now you will have to bump a spot. But if you can hold it until you get to the gulag... Free housing, free uniforms, free food, free showers...
Or go weed the garden. The roots of the dodahs run deep but it can be done. You can eliminate them.
There are definitely legions of the FSA out there in the people clusters. We even have a few here. They are everywhere, only here, as the oil boom implodes, the Social Serpents are on the prowl for 'caseload' trying to keep their funding and get more while the State budget shrinks, so they even want to generate more FSA recruits. We saw this the last time we had an oil boom, only now, if your obamacare insurance isn't up to snuff, did you know you are 'neglecting' your kids, even if they are healthy? If your job dried up with the oil boom, your insurance likely went the way of your paycheck. Neat trick, eh? Another trainload for the 'plantation'. Another layer to the control, and one the FedGov never should have had, and neither Hillary not Donald will do anything to get rid of.
-
@CatherineofAragon
If you think about it, this false claim that it is one or the other is very much against what the framers of the constitution wanted. They did not envision or intend a fixed two party system where your choice was binary. We need to get away from that concept and make the candidate earn our votes instead of choosing the lesser of the two evils because that's all there is. The only way to make it change is to refuse to play.
-
Actually, if you boil it down far enough they all have one thing in common. They want government to guarantee their particular ticket on the government gravy train. Whether that ticket is government upholding the union so their wages/strike fund/retirement fund/employment opportunities keep rolling in, or whether their seat on the train is someone else paying for their abortion/food/rent/schooling/research/protected buggery/AIDS medicine/condoms/whatever gimmie they want, they all want a seat, whether they are going to work or not. They want the government to guarantee their seat, and pay for it.
The seminal difference is that Conservatives aren't looking for anything but the freedom to make the most of their own opportunities and to have the government get off their back. Have it go defend the border, uphold the law, get the mail through, keep the roads passable, and get out of the way.
"Moderates" are a blend of those two basic philosophies.
Like a bell curve, the two endpoints, the true totalitarian nanny-staters vs the absolute (real, not Marxists in disguise) anarchists are the rarity. the fat part of the curve was the middle, a balance between the conservative's government and the giveaway government, but that has been slumping toward the side of those who want more free stuff. Without reversing that trend and weaning the population of free stuff, it isn't going to get better.
A simple solution that will never happen is you lose your vote if you collect goodies from the government. It is a conflict of interest to be able to vote for stuff from other people just because you have a majority. When critical mass is reached it is a positive feedback system that destroys itself. That should be an obvious conclusion that must be avoided for a society to prosper and last.
-
A simple solution that will never happen is you lose your vote if you collect goodies from the government. It is a conflict of interest to be able to vote for stuff from other people just because you have a majority. When critical mass is reached it is a positive feedback system that destroys itself. That should be an obvious conclusion that must be avoided for a society to prosper and last.
For the same reason I am against unions for public employees.
-
@CatherineofAragon
If you think about it, this false claim that it is one or the other is very much against what the framers of the constitution wanted. They did not envision or intend a fixed two party system where your choice was binary. We need to get away from that concept and make the candidate earn our votes instead of choosing the lesser of the two evils because that's all there is. The only way to make it change is to refuse to play.
That is another conversation and one worth having. But it does not alter the choice to be made and the better / worse results to be reasonably expected to come from that choice.
Which of the two (one of whom WILL swear the oath on Jan 20) endorses the past almost eight years and can be expected to more firmly entrench it? That is not a difficult question to answer.
-
@CatherineofAragon
If you think about it, this false claim that it is one or the other is very much against what the framers of the constitution wanted. They did not envision or intend a fixed two party system where your choice was binary. We need to get away from that concept and make the candidate earn our votes instead of choosing the lesser of the two evils because that's all there is. The only way to make it change is to refuse to play.
Political parties are private corporations. They sell voting blocs to powerful people and corporations. If you vote for either of the singularly unworthy major candidates this year you have consented to prove they can package you as though you were breakfast cereal.
-
That is another conversation and one worth having. But it does not alter the choice to be made and the better / worse results to be reasonably expected to come from that choice.
Which of the two (one of whom WILL swear the oath on Jan 20) endorses the past almost eight years and can be expected to more firmly entrench it? That is not a difficult question to answer.
I see hillary met with her true masters--the Rothchilds. Her victory assured. The die is cast. The dye is cast. So I abstain. I cannot give tacit approval to a system I believe to be defunct.
"Hillary has taken her role as a fricatrice so seriously she makes the Whore of Babylon look like a virgin."
-
A simple solution that will never happen is you lose your vote if you collect goodies from the government. It is a conflict of interest to be able to vote for stuff from other people just because you have a majority. When critical mass is reached it is a positive feedback system that destroys itself. That should be an obvious conclusion that must be avoided for a society to prosper and last.
It's a simple solution - but they want no part of it.
Government gimmes exist expressly FOR the purpose of providing politicians with a stick and a lever. It's why antiSocial inSecurity was never reformed to be run as an annuity. It's why the Left so loves the idea of growing government workforces. It's why they love-love-love UNIONINCED GOVERNMENT DRONES.
It's their whole model, of how to take a free people and arm-twist them into totalitarianism. They're so into that, and it's been the model since the New Deal and before that, Machine Politics...they're so into it, once they get to the point where they're ready to abandon public elections and guarantee their own permanence, they won't know how to act.
All they understand is campaign money-raising, public-money spending and squandering, and threatening various tax-consumer "groups" that should their evil, nasty-bad opponent conservatives win, the Free Money will STOP.
It's a helluva way to govern, but it's all they know and understand.
-
A simple solution that will never happen is you lose your vote if you collect goodies from the government. It is a conflict of interest to be able to vote for stuff from other people just because you have a majority. When critical mass is reached it is a positive feedback system that destroys itself. That should be an obvious conclusion that must be avoided for a society to prosper and last.
Could you define/ clarify what you mean by "goodies from the government."
I am eligible for disability from a service related injury that earned me a medical discharge. I never took it since I figured others could use it more. I have a friend that does receive full disability due to a service related accident. I have another friend that is on disability from the local police force. He was injured when a suspect decided run him and another officer over.
Would this also include people on Social Security after paying into it for 20, 30, or 40 years?
-
Would this also include people on Social Security after paying into it for 20, 30, or 40 years?
Just because you paid taxes does not make you entitled to some rebate just because you're old.
-
It does mean you get SS if that is what that tax is for. Otherways do away with that tax and let people do with their money as they please.
-
Could you define/ clarify what you mean by "goodies from the government."
I am eligible for disability from a service related injury that earned me a medical discharge. I never took it since I figured others could use it more. I have a friend that does receive full disability due to a service related accident. I have another friend that is on disability from the local police force. He was injured when a suspect decided run him and another officer over.
Would this also include people on Social Security after paying into it for 20, 30, or 40 years?
Welfare, food stamps, government housing, etc. If you were injured in the service of this country (and I don't mean as a politician) the country owes you some compensation for that. I have no problem with that at all. Regarding the police and firemen, I've seen a good number of officers/firemen claim disability under highly dubious conditions and I think it is heavily abused and needs to be better managed.
Regarding social security, if you paid into it all your life - and you're in the latter part of your life - you should be able to collect on it. Unfortunately as it stands it is a pyramid scheme and cannot continue the way it is forever.
-
Welfare, food stamps, government housing, etc. If you were injured in the service of this country (and I don't mean as a politician) the country owes you some compensation for that. I have no problem with that at all. Regarding the police and firemen, I've seen a good number of officers/firemen claim disability under highly dubious conditions and I think it is heavily abused and needs to be better managed.
Regarding social security, if you paid into it all your life - and you're in the latter part of your life - you should be able to collect on it. Unfortunately as it stands it is a pyramid scheme and cannot continue the way it is forever.
I was pretty sure that we were on the same page. Thank you for clarifying and confirming that.
-
I was pretty sure that we were on the same page. Thank you for clarifying and confirming that.
There are benefits, earned or paid for. Disability (especially military), retirements (including Social Security), were paid for one way or another.
There are a host of so-called "entitlements" from food stamps to Section 8 housing that were not earned, and were not paid for. There is no Constitutional Authority for the giveaways, and actually none for Social Security (which I have paid into since I was 14), but since people have paid into the program in good faith of receiving a return, that should be phased out. It is not the fault of those who paid in that the Government, itself, has filched the funds.
-
There are benefits, earned or paid for. Disability (especially military), retirements (including Social Security), were paid for one way or another.
There are a host of so-called "entitlements" from food stamps to Section 8 housing that were not earned, and were not paid for. There is no Constitutional Authority for the giveaways, and actually none for Social Security (which I have paid into since I was 14), but since people have paid into the program in good faith of receiving a return, that should be phased out. It is not the fault of those who paid in that the Government, itself, has filched the funds.
:beer:
-
Most of these programs would be in better shape if the fraud could be eliminated. I (we) have been in industry downturns and on unemployment/food stamps in the past. As a hand up and not a hand out.
-
Most of these programs would be in better shape if the fraud could be eliminated. I (we) have been in industry downturns and on unemployment/food stamps in the past. As a hand up and not a hand out.
Except for the fact that the ability to game the system was purposefully built in to most of the "Great Society" programs!
-
Except for the fact that the ability to game the system was purposefully built in to most of the "Great Society" programs!
And I suppose those people that do consider it "sticking it to the man". Their only accomplishment.
-
Most of these programs would be in better shape if the fraud could be eliminated. I (we) have been in industry downturns and on unemployment/food stamps in the past. As a hand up and not a hand out.
I drew unemployment many many years ago during a downturn, but learned then that those are part of the industry. This last time the flags went up when oil dropped below 100, when it broke support at 80, I really started putting money away (self-employed don't get unemployment). By the time my rig was laid down, Everything was paid off and I had enough to get by for a year. Of course, a lot of pending purchases and upgrades were put on hold, but everything is livable and functional, and paid off.
Funny how you go from paying 100K in taxes one year to making less than 20K the next.
I had a friend who applied for food stamps in '82 (which looked like the oil patch in '86 elsewhere), and the woman (who literally hung over the sides of her chair seat) told him he could have eight dollars the first month and maybe ten dollars the second. He shredded the application booklet over her desk and told her to gather it up and use it for a suppository.
I never bothered to apply. A country boy can survive...
-
And I suppose those people that do consider it "sticking it to the man". Their only accomplishment.
Some do, some don't. Some view it as something they are entitled to (the whole 'reparations' gambit is part of that), they feel 'owed'. They're just getting their slice of the pie.
-
I drew unemployment many many years ago during a downturn, but learned then that those are part of the industry. This last time the flags went up when oil dropped below 100, when it broke support at 80, I really started putting money away (self-employed don't get unemployment). By the time my rig was laid down, Everything was paid off and I had enough to get by for a year. Of course, a lot of pending purchases and upgrades were put on hold, but everything is livable and functional, and paid off.
Funny how you go from paying 100K in taxes one year to making less than 20K the next.
I had a friend who applied for food stamps in '82 (which looked like the oil patch in '86 elsewhere), and the woman (who literally hung over the sides of her chair seat) told him he could have eight dollars the first month and maybe ten dollars the second. He shredded the application booklet over her desk and told her to gather it up and use it for a suppository.
I never bothered to apply. A country boy can survive...
It was never about helping people when they need help! It was, and is, about keeping certain voting blocks voting for Democrats no matter what!
-
It was never about helping people when they need help! It was, and is, about keeping certain voting blocks voting for Democrats no matter what!
Exactly right. Recall LBJ's comments about how that would have a specific bloc voting Democrat for the next 50 years.
-
Exactly right. Recall LBJ's comments about how that would have a specific bloc voting Democrat for the next 50 years.
:thumbsup: :beer:
But most have no idea about that unfortunately.
-
His 50 years are up. And so is theirs.
-
His 50 years are up. And so is theirs.
It's beginning to look that way. Silly liberals, they always overreach. They went a Fergusson too far.
-
I'm pretty cynical. Hillary is the great powers' darling. Gonna be interesting times when she can't make it. What is plan b? What yuge crisis will they create?
Maybe they'll look around and say, "What this place needs is a big fat hairy war".
-
I see hillary met with her true masters--the Rothchilds. Her victory assured. The die is cast. The dye is cast. So I abstain. I cannot give tacit approval to a system I believe to be defunct.
"Hillary has taken her role as a fricatrice so seriously she makes the Whore of Babylon look like a virgin."
Interesting that you see the Rothchilds as the power behind the throne. Classic anti-semtic trope, the Z.O.G. (Zionist Occupied Government).
-
Exactly right. Recall LBJ's comments about how that would have a specific bloc voting Democrat for the next 50 years.
@Bigun @Smokin Joe exactly what I thought when I read bigun's comment. I drew unemployment back in my 20's. Since then IO have been unemployed twice. I took any job I could just to carry myself through.
-
For various reasons, I have been inactive here for quite a time. The current political scene has, perhaps, brought me back. And I thought back to this thread which we had in 2016. It was the best discussion I ever participated in.
My "misgivings" about HRC are confirmed 100% in light of what is being revealed about Democrat criminality in their 2016 power grab in a failed attempt to win a third and fourth Obama term. It, of course, failed. But, it looked like they had gotten away with it.
Last night, Rudy made me cheer out loud on Hannity. When asked if he would testify if subpoenaed, his words were sharp enough, but the look of his face was pure B'rer Rabbit..... "PLEASE, Don't throw me in that briar ptch."
-
Glad you’re back, @don-o
These certainly are troubling times. We’ll need every republican, conservative, Independent and disaffected democrat of conscience on board. We can’t let the Comeys, Pelosis, Schiffs and Tlaibs get away with this.
-
For various reasons, I have been inactive here for quite a time. The current political scene has, perhaps, brought me back. And I thought back to this thread which we had in 2016. It was the best discussion I ever participated in.
My "misgivings" about HRC are confirmed 100% in light of what is being revealed about Democrat criminality in their 2016 power grab in a failed attempt to win a third and fourth Obama term. It, of course, failed. But, it looked like they had gotten away with it.
Last night, Rudy made me cheer out loud on Hannity. When asked if he would testify if subpoenaed, his words were sharp enough, but the look of his face was pure B'rer Rabbit..... "PLEASE, Don't throw me in that briar ptch."
The rats realize that and so of course are subpoena-ing documents only. Giuliani needs to refuse and loudly demand to appear before the committee in person. I'd pay-per-view that one.
-
The rats realize that and so of course are subpoena-ing documents only. Giuliani needs to refuse and loudly demand to appear before the committee in person. I'd pay-per-view that one.
Say he refuses to supply documents and they issue contempt of Congress? Does that allow him to demand a hearing? I would pay as well!!
-
Good to see you @don-o. Very troubling times indeed.
-
Welcome back @don-o