The War on Trump Supporters Must Stop

[Frank Cannon]

No one seemed upset when Obama supporters are bashed. No one seems upset when Bernie or Clinton supporters are bashed. Why get upset at bashing Trump supporters?

[andy58-in-nh]

That John Kudla article might just be the longest, and perhaps dumbest straw man argument I have ever heard or read.

Which is saying a great deal, as Barack Obama has long since turned that particular mode of false argumentation into a virtual art form.

I dare say that most of us do not believe that Trump's supporters are hicks, but it wouldn't make any difference if they were.

Many people, including a large number of Republicans are not opposed to Trump's supporters, but oppose the guy they choose to support.

The problem with Trump is mostly Trump himself. He has unrelentingly attacked his fellow ( ) Republicans with insults, false accusations, and all manner of bombastic Twittery blather on a daily basis, while passively-aggressively feigning outrage at how terribly he has been treated.

The poor baby. If The Donald's skin were any thinner, medical schools could use him as a circulatory system model.

Sadly, some (not all, to be sure) of his acolytes have chosen to model their behavior after his or else shuttered their minds to any questioning of the man's words or behavior. Instead, it's everyone else who is wrong, not "The Winner!!" who always wins because he's a winner. Right. Call us when the spaceship comes to take you all to the comet.

[DCPatriot]

No one seemed upset when Obama supporters are bashed. No one seems upset when Bernie or Clinton supporters are bashed. Why get upset at bashing Trump supporters?

Have neither the time nor the crayons to explain it to you, Frank.   

[Bigun]

That John Kudla article might just be the longest, and perhaps dumbest straw man argument I have ever heard or read.

Which is saying a great deal, as Barack Obama has long since turned that particular mode of false argumentation into a virtual art form.

I dare say that most of us do not believe that Trump's supporters are hicks, but it wouldn't make any difference if they were.

Many people, including a large number of Republicans are not opposed to Trump's supporters, but oppose the guy they choose to support.

The problem with Trump is mostly Trump himself. He has unrelentingly attacked his fellow ( ) Republicans with insults, false accusations, and all manner of bombastic Twittery blather on a daily basis, while passively-aggressively feigning outrage at how terribly he has been treated.

The poor baby. If The Donald's skin were any thinner, medical schools could use him as a circulatory system model.

Sadly, some (not all, to be sure) of his acolytes have chosen to model their behavior after his or else shuttered their minds to any questioning of the man's words or behavior. Instead, it's everyone else who is wrong, not "The Winner!!" who always wins because he's a winner. Right. Call us when the spaceship comes to take you all to the comet.

  #nevertrump

[HootOwl]

Not from me. I will #NeverForgive those bastards who trashed the best conservative since Ronald Reagan in order to justify their support of a liberal con-artist. They couldn't be honest about their sentiments and simply say that they supported Trump because in their minds he had a better chance of beating Clinton. They had to drag a good man through the mud to reconcile an emotive-based reaction that they knew was wrong. I despise them all, to a man. Bad luck to the buggers!

I am with you.  I warned them  over at FR time and time again (before I got kicked out) t :patriot:hat they were burning their bridges to conservatives that disagreed with them.   Never arguing ideas or philosophies, we were trashed to no end. I was surprised at the number of good conservatives that endorsed him.
     Hillary is by far worse--I can't vote for her out of spite.  The Supreme Court is in jeopardy. Until a decent alternative  comes about, I must vote for Trump. Time is getting short.  http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/Smileys/default/th_patriot.gif

[libertybele]

There is no war.  You have your nominee; you have to live with him.  To think that there is a war against his supporters is absolutely ridiculous.  It's a matter of common sense in recognizing that a Trump presidency will be an absolute disaster and the worst thing for this country.  Trump supporters can continue to support him all they want and are free to do so, but expecting the remaining GOP electorate to vote for him because he has an 'R" next to his name is absolutely absurd.

#NeverTrump

[Rivergirl]

tRump has spit on every single person with whom he disagrees.
Now you are saying we should love the spit and embrace the spitter.
This is not the battered wives club, is it?

[Wingnut]

This is not the battered wives club, is it?

More like "Thunderdome"  Trump is Dr. Dealgood

[NavyCanDo]

Those with still access to TOS, would you dare to post a thread with the title -  The War on Anti-Trump people Must Stop

Not if you want to keep your access. And unless you want to see a real war of words, I would not suggest doing it.

[Frank Cannon]

More like "Thunderdome"  Trump is Dr. Dealgood

That is dead on.

[Frank Cannon]

Have neither the time nor the crayons to explain it to you, Frank.   

Gosh. I feel sad missing out on what what would surely be some enlightening teachings from you.

[libertybele]

Gosh. I feel sad missing out on what what would surely be some enlightening teachings from you.

...hmm...let's see ... do you mix red and blue crayons together to get Trump or is it red and yellow crayons?

#NeverTrump

[the_doc]

I can agree on ending the war on Trumpettes when they agree to the following terms:

1. Understand that the word "never" actually means "at no time." Therefore, stop trying to convert #NeverTrump to your side. We're not with you and NEVER will be. He's your turd sandwich, YOU eat it. We're sick of you telling us that we - who NEVER agreed to support Trump - must now support Trump or great calamity will befall the nation.

2. You admit that you were told in advance that we would NEVER support Trump. You must admit that you supported him with this full knowledge and that there wasn't any confusion. Therefore, you picked  candidate knowing full well that he would not get the support of a fair number of conservatives.

3. You OWN him yourself. That includes:

     a) If he loses. It's YOUR fault and not #NeverTrump's fault, who told you in advance that if you nominated him he was YOUR candidate to get elected, but without our help.

     b) If he wins and goes full John Roberts with his betrayal, giving liberals victory after victory.

You are not allowed to ever try and pin a Trump loss or Trump betrayal back on us.

4. You must understand that Trump is going to do the stupidest sh!t known to man - such as hiring a Soros-loving, dem-donating campaign finance manager who was a partner at Goldman Sachs just minutes after he stops criticizing Goldman Sachs. For this - and the countless stream of other foolishness - #NeverTrump is going to call him out. We will criticize him endlessly. You have to NOT take it personally, even though you will want to, because - you know - you're a hick who actually bought this con man's snake oil and will start feeling guilty.

5. When all this happens, you must not come on to threads and attack us, or the war is back on. Instead, if you decide to join the discussion, you should present as many "mea culpas" as your pride will allow, then slink back to the shadows.

For this, you get a truce, which means I'll stop blaming you for falling for Trump's BS. I'll focus on Trump himself and not the dumba$$es who actually voted for him.

IMO, yours is one of the best posts (of many good ones!) on this thread.

[Mesaclone]

A party runs a primary. Voters vote for the candidate they prefer. A candidate wins the nomination. The party rallies behind that nomiee, no matter how grudgingly.

Any other formula equals defeat...and defeat lies not at the hands of those who simply voted for the man they believe will make the best president, but rather, on those lacking the wisdom to understand that all of our candidates are better than whomever the Dems nominate. In '08 and '12, many "NeverMcCain's" and "NeverRomney's" sat home with their "ethics" and "superior morality" and we got Obama...and disaster. This year is no different, if those who lose in a primary...whatever faction within the party they may hold to...lack the maturity to move forward and support the nominee, they bear ALL of the blame for defeat in November. ALL of it.

Nobody MUST do anything...free country and all. On the other hand, anyone with a touch of common sense and some emotional maturity should clearly see the smart path of party unity. None of us, in our factions, gets veto power over who other Republicans vote for...and it is incumbent on all of us, win or lose, to get on board once someone has won the majority of delegates. Unity is not just the best way to win, it is the only to win...and winning is everything when you're talking about 3-4 VERY liberal SCJ's on a Hillary court vs 3-4 VERY conservative SCJ's on a Trump court.

[sinkspur]

A party runs a primary. Voters vote for the candidate they prefer. A candidate wins the nomination. The party rallies behind that nomiee, no matter how grudgingly.

Any other formula equals defeat...and defeat lies not at the hands of those who simply voted for the man they believe will make the best president, but rather, on those lacking the wisdom to understand that all of our candidates are better than whomever the Dems nominate. In '08 and '12, many "NeverMcCain's" and "NeverRomney's" sat home with their "ethics" and "superior morality" and we got Obama...and disaster. This year is no different, if those who lose in a primary...whatever faction within the party they may hold to...lack the maturity to move forward and support the nominee, they bear ALL of the blame for defeat in November. ALL of it.

Uh, no.

“If you aren’t for Trump, then you’re for Clinton” is a cheap rhetorical ploy. I’d write that any thinking adult would be ashamed for falling for that kind of sixth-grade debater’s stratagem, but a Republican electorate capable of choosing Donald Trump as its standard-bearer is incapable of shame.

The angry insistence — him or her! — is, for the moment, mainly an attempt to forestall further criticism of Trump. That criticism consists of stating a fact that is not a matter of degree but a binary proposition, a yes/no question. It is not that Trump is less mentally stable than Mrs. Clinton (probably true) or that he is more dishonest than Mrs. Clinton (difficult to say) or that he might do even more damage to the republic, or any other point of comparison between the candidates.

 The issue, instead, is this: Donald Trump is unfit for the office.

He is unfit for any office, morally and intellectually.

A man who could suggest, simply because it is convenient, that his opponent’s father had something to do with the assassination of President Kennedy is unfit for any position of public responsibility.

 His long litany of lies — which include fabrications about everything from his wealth to self-funding his campaign — is disqualifying.

His low character is disqualifying. His personal history is disqualifying.

His complete, utter, total, and lifelong lack of honor is disqualifying. The fact that he is going to have to take time out of the convention to appear in court to hear a pretty convincing fraud case against him is disqualifying.

 His time on Jeffrey Epstein’s Pedophile Island, after which he boasted about sharing a taste with Epstein for women “on the younger side,” is disqualifying.

The fact that he knows less about our constitutional order than does a not-especially-bright Rappahannock River oyster is disqualifying.

There isn’t anything one can say about Mrs. Clinton, monster though she is, that changes any of that.

Donald Trump is not fit to serve as president. He is not fit to serve on the Meade County board of commissioners. He is not fit to be the mayor of Muleshoe, Texas.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435091/donald-trump-republicans-unite

[Bigun]

I can agree on ending the war on Trumpettes when they agree to the following terms:

1. Understand that the word "never" actually means "at no time." Therefore, stop trying to convert #NeverTrump to your side. We're not with you and NEVER will be. He's your turd sandwich, YOU eat it. We're sick of you telling us that we - who NEVER agreed to support Trump - must now support Trump or great calamity will befall the nation.

2. You admit that you were told in advance that we would NEVER support Trump. You must admit that you supported him with this full knowledge and that there wasn't any confusion. Therefore, you picked  candidate knowing full well that he would not get the support of a fair number of conservatives.

3. You OWN him yourself. That includes:

     a) If he loses. It's YOUR fault and not #NeverTrump's fault, who told you in advance that if you nominated him he was YOUR candidate to get elected, but without our help.

     b) If he wins and goes full John Roberts with his betrayal, giving liberals victory after victory.

You are not allowed to ever try and pin a Trump loss or Trump betrayal back on us.

4. You must understand that Trump is going to do the stupidest sh!t known to man - such as hiring a Soros-loving, dem-donating campaign finance manager who was a partner at Goldman Sachs just minutes after he stops criticizing Goldman Sachs. For this - and the countless stream of other foolishness - #NeverTrump is going to call him out. We will criticize him endlessly. You have to NOT take it personally, even though you will want to, because - you know - you're a hick who actually bought this con man's snake oil and will start feeling guilty.

5. When all this happens, you must not come on to threads and attack us, or the war is back on. Instead, if you decide to join the discussion, you should present as many "mea culpas" as your pride will allow, then slink back to the shadows.

For this, you get a truce, which means I'll stop blaming you for falling for Trump's BS. I'll focus on Trump himself and not the dumba$$es who actually voted for him.

Sounds good to me! But they will never agree to those terms!  Not in their nature!

[the_doc]

A party runs a primary. Voters vote for the candidate they prefer. A candidate wins the nomination. The party rallies behind that nomiee, no matter how grudgingly.

I could not agree with you less.  The Party is supposed to pick a candidate who can win.  (Trump apparently can't win 270 electoral votes against Hillary even with generally solid GOP support.  When we look at the Blue Wall of States, it is pretty clear that Trump is not a guy who can break through that wall of electors.  [Oddly enough, I still hear Trump supporters talking about how Trump can surely win New York in the general election--just because he loudly proclaims that he can.  Heck, either Hillary or Bernie would mop the floor with him.  George W. Bush got more total votes in New York's GOP primary and still lost the state by 15 points in the general election.] ) 

To reveal your too-simplistic claim as even further off-base, I would point out that the Party's calculations are supposed to take into consideration the fact that a majority of Republicans don't like the candidate--and, more importantly, that a huge percentage of those dismayed Republican voters are so disgusted with the candidate that they have SWORN never to support him.

(You are actually suggesting that we #NeverTrump guys and gals must suddenly become amoral pragmatists and pick the lesser of two EVILS, whereas most of us #NeverTrump voters conscientiously refuse to choose between the lesser of two DEVILS.  We warned the Trump zealots about this, only to be ignored.) 

*** 

In the 1860 Convention, the presumptive nominee--New York's William Seward--got dumped in favor of Abraham Lincoln largely because the Convention's delegates believed that Seward's campaign had alienated too many Republicans.   

[Mesaclone]

I could not agree with you less.  The Party is supposed to pick a candidate who can win.  (Trump apparently can't win 270 electoral votes against Hillary even with generally solid GOP support.  When we look at the Blue Wall of States, it is pretty clear that Trump is not a guy who can break through that wall of electors.  [Oddly enough, I still hear Trump supporters talking about how Trump can surely win New York in the general election--just because he loudly proclaims that he can.  Heck, either Hillary or Bernie would mop the floor with him.  George W. Bush got more total votes in New York's GOP primary and still lost the state by 15 points in the general election.] ) 

To reveal your too-simplistic claim as even further off-base, I would point out that the Party's calculations are supposed to take into consideration the fact that a majority of Republicans don't like the candidate--and, more importantly, that a huge percentage of those dismayed Republican voters are so disgusted with the candidate that they have SWORN never to support him.

(You are actually suggesting that we #NeverTrump guys and gals must suddenly become amoral pragmatists and pick the lesser of two EVILS, whereas most of us #NeverTrump voters conscientiously refuse to choose between the lesser of two DEVILS.  We warned the Trump zealots about this, only to be ignored.) 

*** 

In the 1860 Convention, the presumptive nominee--New York's William Seward--got dumped in favor of Abraham Lincoln largely because the Convention's delegates believed that Seward's campaign had alienated too many Republicans.   

Parties aren't "supposed to do anything" in terms of picking candidates beyond setting up a voting infrastructure. That's for party voters to do, and they may pick anyone they want using whatever criteria they personally believe relevant. Once the people in the party for one nominee attain a majority of delegates for their guy...he wins. It is then incumbent on anyone who has not won, unless they want to perpetually suffer defeat to democrats, to vote for the party's nominee in the general election . It is a practice in common sense and a tactical concession to the rather obvious fact that not everyone gets everything they want out of every primary. If varied parts of the party who don't win a primary, pout like babies and take their ball home when their guy loses...than we all lose every time to the Hillary Clintons of the world.

[Bigun]

Parties aren't "supposed to do anything" in terms of picking candidates. That's for party voters to do, and they may pick anyone the want using whatever criteria they personally believe relevant. Once the people in the party for one nominee attain a majority of delegates for their guy...he wins. It is then incumbent on anyone who has not won, unless they want to perpetually suffer defeat to democrats, to vote for the party's nominee in the general election . It is a practice in common sense and a tactical concession to the rather obvious fact that not everyone gets everything they want out of every primary. If varied parts of the party who don't win a primary, pout like babies and take their ball home when their guy loses...than we all lose every time to the Hillary Clintons of the world.

You have COMPLETELY lost your mind and I don't have the time nor the inclination to help you find it!

[Frank Cannon]

...hmm...let's see ... do you mix red and blue crayons together to get Trump or is it red and yellow crayons?

#NeverTrump

I am not sure Trumps color is achievable using only primary colors.

[Bigun]

I am not sure Trumps color is achievable using only primary colors.

Oh I'm quite sure they are achievable ONLY with primary colors.

[geronl]

A party runs a primary. Voters vote for the candidate they prefer. A candidate wins the nomination. The party rallies behind that nomiee, no matter how grudgingly.

The Party can do what it likes. If the party is only half as big as it was before Trump, then that is not anyone else's fault.

Not my circus, not my orange monkey

[sinkspur]

Parties aren't "supposed to do anything" in terms of picking candidates beyond setting up a voting infrastructure. That's for party voters to do, and they may pick anyone they want using whatever criteria they personally believe relevant. Once the people in the party for one nominee attain a majority of delegates for their guy...he wins. It is then incumbent on anyone who has not won, unless they want to perpetually suffer defeat to democrats, to vote for the party's nominee in the general election . It is a practice in common sense and a tactical concession to the rather obvious fact that not everyone gets everything they want out of every primary. If varied parts of the party who don't win a primary, pout like babies and take their ball home when their guy loses...than we all lose every time to the Hillary Clintons of the world.

What nonsense.  If Trump gets beat like a drum as the polls are predicting, those who refused to endorse him are going to be heroes.  Trump will be gone after November and the rest of us will have to pick up the pieces of the wreckage you've made.

[INVAR]

The Trump Mob want their Il Duce, with his Loyalty Tests and whatnot - they can have him.

Those of us who actually understand the Constitution and who do not surrender principles for expedience are not going to seig-heil the Squadrisi.

Trump will not have my vote or support, all the threats and intimidation wills imply cement my resolve further.

Our vote is irrelevant anyway.

I am still convinced Trump is in there to ensure Hildabeast is Crowned Dear Mao Pantsuit and make the election appear "legitimate".

We lost the country in 2009.  We just don't realize it yet.

[Mesaclone]

What nonsense.  If Trump gets beat like a drum as the polls are predicting, those who refused to endorse him are going to be heroes.  Trump will be gone after November and the rest of us will have to pick up the pieces of the wreckage you've made.

If there is wreckage, it will be on your head. Anyone willing to let Hillary appoint 3-4 liberal justices by not supporting the GOP's nominee...gets what they deserve. An epic disaster.

If you had your way, and Ted Cruz had his, the party would shrivel to a few "righteous" evangelists, some toothless bubbas in the deep south and some folks holding out in old homes around the country. Good plan.