WSJ: The Cheap Moralizing of Never Trump

[Norm Lenhart]

As @sneakypete would say, Do it, do it now!

Can you imagine the disgust that a great man like Donald has for those who fail him? They should look into Donald's eyes on their "Trump as George Washington" memes they post or his visage on their Trump commemorative plates and wither under his steely gaze!

Wither!

In SHAME!

The shame of failing Donald.

It really hurts me to type that. It really does. I'll be the first to admit that I have no use for Trump but I'm still human despite my hard heart. I take no joy in knowing that their lives are without meaning now. Cursed walk the earth as living shells of people. It's a curious form of undeath I think. Every breath they draw taking in not only the air that sustains them, but air filled with the disappointment of Donald, traveling through their lungs and bringing disappointment filled oxygen to every cell in their bodies.

Eventually I think that as Donald's disappointment with them grows, they will begin to calcify because being separated from the light of Donald, their bodies will yearn for any contact with te great one and as such, Donald's disappointment will build up in their systems like a waste product. The waste of trust Donald put in them. And eventually they will stand as statues, frozen in a state of shame so that the world may look upon them.

And a new legend will be born.

The legend....of Donald's Disappointment.

Coming soon to theaters in IMAX 3D and Dolby Atmos (where available).

[Norm Lenhart]

With a Hillary presidency it's not going to matter if they are here illegally or legally and she will certainly 'revisit' our rights under the second amendment.

That wouldn't be a concern had stupid people not elected lesser evil Republican congressmen. But stupid people, being stupid, didn't think ahead. They wanted instant gratification and filled the House and Senate with Republicans that cannot be trusted to tell the soon to be President Clinton II to find a bridge to jump off.

[ConstitutionRose]

Rudy disagrees. As a fed prosecutor I think he'd be qualified to assess if it was.

I get your point about the VE kiss. I'm as anti SJW/feminist as it gets and believe people have taken things too far. The VE Kiss was not a planned "Move on her like a bitch". It was a one off spontaneous type thing with no malice of forethought. But Trump has established a pattern and his words have legal ramifications should anyone file charges.

@Suppressed

First let me explain that I am not a snowflake.  My first career was in a male dominated field.  When I went back to college for my second career I was the only female in all of my classes and the only female on the job for a number of years.

You don't understand how much pressure a female is under in a male dominated career to handle these incidents "gracefully".  You need to get out of the excruciatingly uncomfortable and embarrassing situation leaving the offending male with his ego intact, while still making it clear that his "attentions" are unwelcome and without leaving an opening for the men to call you "a bitch", "not a team player" and other things that hamper work relationships and damage your reputation.

The entertainment industry is male dominate and extremely competitive.  Trump's behavior is no different than any other man who takes advantage of his position.  (For instance Bill Clinton).

I am no feminist.  I find these easily offended young ladies who whimper over every masculine display embarrassing.  Neither should I have to suffer unwelcome touching of my person simply because I am female and the male has a position superior to mine.

[txradioguy]

No you're not, no conservative would ever help elect Hillary Clinton, no, not ever.

Your simplistic and completely false narrative that because we don't support one Lib we're helping the other Lib get elected is worn out and tiresome.

Quit lying.

[Norm Lenhart]

First let me explain that I am not a snowflake.  My first career was in a male dominated field.  When I went back to college for my second career I was the only female in all of my classes and the only female on the job for a number of years.

You don't understand how much pressure a female is under in a male dominated career to handle these incidents "gracefully".  You need to get out of the excruciatingly uncomfortable and embarrassing situation leaving the offending male with his ego intact, while still making it clear that his "attentions" are unwelcome and without leaving an opening for the men to call you "a bitch", "not a team player" and other things that hamper work relationships and damage your reputation.

The entertainment industry is male dominate and extremely competitive.  Trump's behavior is no different than any other man who takes advantage of his position.  (For instance Bill Clinton).

I am no feminist.  I find these easily offended young ladies who whimper over every masculine display embarrassing.  Neither should I have to suffer unwelcome touching of my person simply because I am female and the male has a position superior to mine.

I agree completely and I do understand. I have a daughter thats ex military and now in the defense industry. Believe me I understand.

The only way to change it is to ensure people like Trump are barred from power. If they are that grabby, you can best believe their skills as a boss are going to lead to other issues for the company.

Snowflake women are a pox on the workforce to be sure and have ended the careers of good men unjustly. Hell, I had one go to HR on me because I opened a door for her. (she got laughed out of the office). But if the guy is gonna get on TV/Radio and brag about his BS, thats a bridge too far for any sane person.

[bolobaby]

If the NeverTrumpers elect Hillary I am done with politics. Under a president Hillary there is no point in voting or donating to her opposition. She will weaponize the entire federal government against conservatives and there is not a damn thing that can be done to stop her once she becomes president. So yeah, you elect her you deal with her.

Oh, this canard again.

Let's be clear - if anyone is responsible for Hillary, it is the Trumpettes.

#NeverTrump was clear from the get-go: we won't vote for either liberal asshat, Trump or Hillary. Despite our assurances of no support for Trump, you Trumpettes decided to nominate this stupid, liberal train wreck anyway, knowing that to win, you would need #NeverTrump support - support you would NEVER get (um, hence the name NEVERTrump).

You purposefully drove the car into a ditch and are now blaming people who weren't anywhere near your car.

Nice try. You chose a turd sandwich for a candidate. You bear ALL the responsibility when he loses to Hillary.

All of it.

[Norm Lenhart]

If the NeverTrumpers elect Hillary I am done with politics. Under a president Hillary there is no point in voting or donating to her opposition. She will weaponize the entire federal government against conservatives and there is not a damn thing that can be done to stop her once she becomes president. So yeah, you elect her you deal with her.

OK so thats a check in the Hillary column. If more of you took that pledge I'd bet people actually would vote for her just to get your kind out of the political process forever. It would be worth 4 years of hell because you wouldn't be there to hose us in the next election pushing your liberal BS.

[RoosGirl]

OK so thats a check in the Hillary column. If more of you took that pledge I'd bet people actually would vote for her just to get your kind out of the political process forever. It would be worth 4 years of hell because you wouldn't be there to hose us in the next election pushing your liberal BS.

Oh yes they would.  You know they wouldn't keep their word.

[Norm Lenhart]

Oh yes they would.  You know they wouldn't keep their word.

Indeed. You cant trust a word they speak.

[Silver Pines]

@Suppressed

First let me explain that I am not a snowflake.  My first career was in a male dominated field.  When I went back to college for my second career I was the only female in all of my classes and the only female on the job for a number of years.

You don't understand how much pressure a female is under in a male dominated career to handle these incidents "gracefully".  You need to get out of the excruciatingly uncomfortable and embarrassing situation leaving the offending male with his ego intact, while still making it clear that his "attentions" are unwelcome and without leaving an opening for the men to call you "a bitch", "not a team player" and other things that hamper work relationships and damage your reputation.

The entertainment industry is male dominate and extremely competitive.  Trump's behavior is no different than any other man who takes advantage of his position.  (For instance Bill Clinton).

I am no feminist.  I find these easily offended young ladies who whimper over every masculine display embarrassing.  Neither should I have to suffer unwelcome touching of my person simply because I am female and the male has a position superior to mine.

@ConstitutionRose

I agree with everything you've said here. 

I'm not a feminist, either.  I view a whistle or a compliment from a man as just that---a compliment.  I don't have anything in common with liberal women who exude man hatred and discomfort with their own femininity.

I've been followeed into rooms and backed up against the wall by a man who wanted to force himself on me.  I took care of it myself; I outlined to him what would happen to his anatomy if he didn't leave me alone.  There were no problems afterward.  IMO, the type of man who does this not only wants sex, but enjoys the intimidation and the domination of females.

Because I'm no feminist, and because I've always liked men and defended them, I never expected to find myself having to deal with conservative men who bend over backward to excuse a sexual predator.   This isn't gender studies here and we're not talking about some "women's issue."  It comes down to basic decency.  I will be damned before I give any quarter to men (or women) who expect me to be tolerant of someone who views me as a piece of meat to be groped and felt up.

[r9etb]

This isn't gender studies here and we're not talking about some "women's issue."  It comes down to basic decency.  I will be damned before I give any quarter to men (or women) who expect me to be tolerant of someone who views me as a piece of meat to be groped and felt up.

It would be interesting to correlate the identities of those who defend Trump now, against their positions on Bill Clinton's transgressions, some of which fall into the same category of groping and worse.

Of course, the truth is that they're not actually defending Trump's groping activity, so much as they're defending their own support of Trump's candidacy.  And, more than that, I think for most of them it's not so much support for Trump, as it is a visceral feeling about the importance of defeating Hillary Clinton. 

So the question is not, "how can you defend Trump's groping?"

Instead it's, "How much and what kinds of bad behavior are you willing to overlook so that you can still support Donald Trump against Hillary Clinton?"

The answer is, apparently, "I'm willing to excuse and overlook a lot."

If that's not an exercise in soul-selling, I don't know what is.

[Norm Lenhart]

It would be interesting to correlate the identities of those who defend Trump now, against their positions on Bill Clinton's transgressions, some of which fall into the same category of groping and worse.

Of course, the truth is that they're not actually defending Trump's groping activity, so much as they're defending their own support of Trump's candidacy.  And, more than that, I think for most of them it's not so much support for Trump, as it is a visceral feeling about the importance of defeating Hillary Clinton. 

So the question is not, "how can you defend Trump's groping?"

Instead it's, "How much and what kinds of bad behavior are you willing to overlook so that you can still support Donald Trump against Hillary Clinton?"

The answer is, apparently, "I'm willing to excuse and overlook a lot."

If that's not an exercise in soul-selling, I don't know what is.

I assure you that Trump is not their first foray into lesser evil/situational ethics. You need only look at their raft of excuses for empowering a liberal and defending a sexual abuser.

The absolute best thing you can say for them is that they are situational ethicists. -Best.- It degenerates from there. They are not to be trusted, to be believed and any sane person would expunge them from their lives as a matter of safety for themselves and their families. You simply cannot be sure their ethics on any issue will not change on a dime. they have proven they can and do with the right payoff.

[Suppressed]

Nor does it need to.  You're responding to selective parts of my post, so I'll ask again---if he didn't ask before he kissed them, do you think he asked, "Can I grab your p-word?"

Do you really think that happened?

@CatherineofAragon

There have been times in my life when I've touched a woman intimately.  And I don't ever recall asking for permission.  You sound like these SJWs who want a consent form filled out, when in the real world consent is often granted without a form or verbal request.

If no non-verbal consent was granted, then it was sexual assault.  But the only bit of information pro-or-con that we have about consent was that he said that they let him do it.  So there's no evidence that he was saying, "I force myself on unconsenting women."

He was bragging that they DO consent!

Now you're assuming he was leaning in and testing the waters; he neither said nor implied it.

No, I don't assume anything.  This is exactly where the difference is.  I'm saying we can't assume a specific meaning to what he said, since it's ambiguous.  It could have been either.

On the other hand, you're making the assumption of the worst-case scenario.

Seriously?  Kissing is not the sexual assault---it's the grabbing of the crotch.  The genitals, the private area, whatever.  You didn't miss that part, did you?

So it's okay to grab a woman and kiss her without consent, but grabbing the crotch is where the line is drawn?  Interesting worldview you have.

Yes, intimate areas are required for sexual assault, but that doesn't mean that one can grab a woman off the street and forcibly kiss her (unless it's V-E Day).

Rudy Giuliani, the former prosecutor, admitted it was assault, but you conveniently edited out that part of my post.

And you left out that he said that he questioned whether Trump had done things.

But that would ruin your narrative that Giuliani is claiming Trump admitted to sexual assault.  Let's remember, that was your original contention...that Trump had admitted to sexual assault.

And I questioned it.  He did no such thing.  He gave an ambiguous statement that you choose to interpret one way.  If there was consent to the touching, it is not sexual abuse (NYS legal term for sexual assault), by statute.  (Note, I'm not a lawyer.)

[r9etb]

The absolute best thing you can say for them is that they are situational ethicists. -Best.- It degenerates from there. They are not to be trusted, to be believed and any sane person would expunge them from their lives as a matter of safety for themselves and their families. You simply cannot be sure their ethics on any issue will not change on a dime. they have proven they can and do with the right payoff.

It's definitely true of some, especially those of the Hannity/Limbaugh class who hold themselves out as "thought leaders."  That sort of person must and should be held accountable for their views, and their publicly-stated views deserve the presumption of being thought-out beforehand.  They have a duty to the truth, and for cynical reasons have failed to do it.

But I think it's not true in general.  I think a lot of people are so focused on the awfulness of a Hillary Clinton victory -- and it will be awful -- that they feel they must vote for Trump, regardless.  Up to a point (which may never be reached for some), the end justifies the means.

It's a form of moral weakness that most of us have fallen prey to at various times in our own lives.  I know I have.

[Suppressed]

Because I'm no feminist, and because I've always liked men and defended them, I never expected to find myself having to deal with conservative men who bend over backward to excuse a sexual predator.   This isn't gender studies here and we're not talking about some "women's issue."  It comes down to basic decency.  I will be damned before I give any quarter to men (or women) who expect me to be tolerant of someone who views me as a piece of meat to be groped and felt up.

No excuses for sexual predation.

But you're the one who is saying that Donald Trump is admitting to being an abuser.  I say he admits no such thing. 

[r9etb]

[/b]And I questioned it.  He did no such thing.  He gave an ambiguous statement that you choose to interpret one way.  If there was consent to the touching, it is not sexual abuse (NYS legal term for sexual assault), by statute.  (Note, I'm not a lawyer.)

You're using an awful lot of words.

Let's just cut to the chase, shall we? 

If somebody did to your daughter what Trump admits doing to women against their will, how would you react?

[Norm Lenhart]

It's definitely true of some, especially those of the Hannity/Limbaugh class who hold themselves out as "thought leaders."  That sort of person must and should be held accountable for their views, and their publicly-stated views deserve the presumption of being thought-out beforehand.  They have a duty to the truth, and for cynical reasons have failed to do it.

But I think it's not true in general.  I think a lot of people are so focused on the awfulness of a Hillary Clinton victory -- and it will be awful -- that they feel they must vote for Trump, regardless.  Up to a point (which may never be reached for some), the end justifies the means.

It's a form of moral weakness that most of us have fallen prey to at various times in our own lives.  I know I have.

If your ethics change it really does not matter why. By definition the change was based on a situation that caused that change. Thus situational ethics.

Fear voting is a supreme example of situational ethics.

[r9etb]

If your ethics change it really does not matter why. By definition the change was based on a situation that caused that change. Thus situational ethics.

Fear voting is a supreme example of situational ethics.

And of course you've never, ever, ever done anything that smacks of "situational ethics."

C'mon, Norm.

[Norm Lenhart]

And of course you've never, ever, ever done anything that smacks of "situational ethics."

C'mon, Norm.

Not for a long time. I'm as human as you are. I also learned my lesson from the bad results it incurred. You cannot tell me that abandoning conservative principle out of fear is not situational when the very people doing it still claim to be conservatives.

[r9etb]

Not for a long time. I'm as human as you are. I also learned my lesson from the bad results it incurred. You cannot tell me that abandoning conservative principle out of fear is not situational when the very people doing it still claim to be conservatives.

I learned my lesson about this in a situation that was similar to this one, in a lot of ways.  One thing it taught me, is that it's necessary to be more forgiving than you are apparently willing to do.

People support Trump for a lot of different reasons, a big one being a justified opposition to Hillary Clinton. 

When it comes to people's motivations, it's not really a question of "abandoning conservative principle" -- not on a conscious level, at any rate.  To many, it's a matter of trying to maintain what one believes to be the correct position in the face of two intolerable choices.

I'm sorry, Norm, but on this matter you're coming across like a Pharisee. 

Imagine the state of today's church if Jesus would only accept those disciples who had no sin.... it wouldn't exist.

And if you're only going to accept as political allies those who are without sin (as you define it), you're going to have a convention with one delegate.  Or zero, if you're honest with yourself.

[txradioguy]

But you're the one who is saying that Donald Trump is admitting to being an abuser.  I say he admits no such thing.

Sorry...but you're wrong.

[Norm Lenhart]

I learned my lesson about this in a situation that was similar to this one, in a lot of ways.  One thing it taught me, is that it's necessary to be more forgiving than you are apparently willing to do.



I'm sorry, Norm, but on this matter you're coming across like a Pharisee. 

I'm good with that. It doesn't change the fact that situational ethics are what they are. I'm not perfect and don't claim to be.

But NO ONE should be forgiven for A: intentionally and knowingly flushing their supposedly deeply held beliefs for a serial sex abuser. liar and fraud and B: they arent asking for it anyway.

[r9etb]

I'm good with that. It doesn't change the fact that situational ethics are what they are. I'm not perfect and don't claim to be.

No, you're just claiming to be more perfect than they are.

But NO ONE should be forgiven for A: intentionally and knowingly flushing their supposedly deeply held beliefs for a serial sex abuser. liar and fraud and B: they arent asking for it anyway.

Yes, but.

We can acknowledge that the likes of Newt Gingrich and Sean Hannity should know better. 

But they're not representative of most people who are faced with the intolerable choice between Trump and Clinton -- of whom Clinton seems worse. 

The truth is that there are a whole lot of good people who are trying to find a way to justify a vote for Trump that is not too morally compromised.  I happen to believe they can't do it, as do you.

The difference between you and me seems to be that I do understand and sympathize with their situation, whereas you, apparently, refuse to do so. (I will give you the benefit of the doubt as to your capacity for understanding.)

[Norm Lenhart]

No, you're just claiming to be more perfect than they are.

Yes, but.

We can acknowledge that the likes of Newt Gingrich and Sean Hannity should know better. 

But they're not representative of most people who are faced with the intolerable choice between Trump and Clinton -- of whom Clinton seems worse. 

The truth is that there are a whole lot of good people who are trying to find a way to justify a vote for Trump that is not too morally compromised.  I happen to believe they can't do it, as do you.

The difference between you and me seems to be that I do understand and sympathize with their situation, whereas you, apparently, refuse to do so. (I will give you the benefit of the doubt as to your capacity for understanding.)

Isn't anyone that stands on principle and who does whats right in the face of whats wrong in a better position than someone that does whats wrong in the face of whats right? Isn't that what we are supposed to do as people? Strive to morality and not make excuses why we can't?

The problem is that people are so afraid to do whats right they will excuse whats wrong lest they be seen as arrogant, purist, holier than thou or whatever. I'm not. I don't care what anyone thinks of me. I only care about the truth of the matter. Nor is forgiveness mine to give in the first place. I don't see why anyone that thinks me an idiot cares whether I forgive them or not. So thats not really even an issue.

[r9etb]

Isn't anyone that stands on principle and who does whats right in the face of whats wrong in a better position than someone that does whats wrong in the face of whats right? Isn't that what we are supposed to do as people? Strive to morality and not make excuses why we can't?

Sure.  But the fact is that everybody stumbles.  Everybody.  And in the case of Trump vs. Clinton, "trying to do what's right" can be difficult to discern.

The problem is that people are so afraid to do whats right they will excuse whats wrong lest they be seen as arrogant, purist, holier than thou or whatever.

And again: while there are those who may meet that description, most do not.  They're trying to do the right thing in a situation where "right" is hard to figure out.  You're apparently lumping everybody into the same hole, regardless of how they've arrived at their position.

I'm not. I don't care what anyone thinks of me. I only care about the truth of the matter. Nor is forgiveness mine to give in the first place.

That sounds like a recipe for a very sterile life.  And the Norm Lenhart Political Party will have at most a single member.

I don't see why anyone that thinks me an idiot cares whether I forgive them or not. So thats not really even an issue.

What if they don't think you're an idiot?  What if they just disagree with you about something?