WSJ: The Cheap Moralizing of Never Trump

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Probably that guy in your avatar had an inkling, but nobody else, lol.

That guy probably would have done better against Hillary than Trump. :P

[EasyAce]

"Grabbing genitals".


In Summer of 2015 who would have thought this would be the hot-topic issue of the 2016 election?

Something related to that was part of the hot topic issues around Bill Clinton's impeachment, too. (OK, so he was
impeached for the crimes he committed trying to cover up his White House flings and the Republican Senate
caved on trying and convicting him, but let's not get technical.) And Droopy-Drawers's supporters tried to make
that much ado about nothing but his junk, too.

[chae]

Anyone still supporting Trump owes Bill Clinton a huge apology. 

[Sanguine]

"Grabbing genitals".


In Summer of 2015 who would have thought this would be the hot-topic issue of the 2016 election?

Well, we did know there would be a Clinton in the race.

[Suppressed]

Here's the tenth woman to come forward against Trump.  He walked up to her, grabbed her arm and her breast, and when she recoiled, said, "Don't you know who I am?

@CatherineofAragon

Deflection yet again.

Where did he admit he grabbed her breast?

Remember, that's the statement of yours that I'm questioning, regardless of how many times you try to change the topic and pretend I'm arguing something else.

Please provide the statement where he admits he grabbed her breast without consent, if you think that's relevant.

The creep has admitted nothing.

[Norm Lenhart]

Anyone still supporting Trump owes Bill Clinton a huge apology.

Oh no! they will invent all new excuses as to why it's different just so they can do what they have decided to no matter what. They would have to admit they were wrong and we clearly see they'd sooner die than do that.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

@musiclady

2016....the year which found conservative women forced to stand up for their honor to conservative men.   

Sean Hannity and Tammy Wynette sure sound a lot alike these days.

[Axel]

400 posts of cheap moralizing hasn't done anything to help protect the constitution, the rights of the unborn, religious freedom, or the borders. So much for conservatism.

[Norm Lenhart]

400 posts of cheap moralizing hasn't done anything to help protect the constitution, the rights of the unborn, religious freedom, or the borders. So much for conservatism.

Better than actively destroying it by promoting a liberal candidate like you did.

[Norm Lenhart]

400 posts of cheap moralizing hasn't done anything to help protect the constitution, the rights of the unborn, religious freedom, or the borders. So much for conservatism.

I should add since it is destroyed, you should shake the dust from your shoes and move on to a better philosophy. Leave us wretches to suffer in our ashes. We will go one better for your absence.

[HonestJohn]

I've done the most powerful thing I can.

I voted.

[roamer_1]

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

While your statement is unfounded (not a soul here is 'helping elect Hillary Clinton'), more importantly, whether Clinton or not, the statement has nothing to do with the definition of Conservatism or Conservatives.

Conservatives stand upon certain and definable principles. Conservatives vote for those who advance those principles. That they will not vote for your boy, who embodies not a single ONE of those principles, is not only predictable, but was predicted from the very start of things. We TOLD you so. You were warned. Continuously and at volume.

Again, give Conservatives someone to vote *FOR*, and you will win.

Yours is nothing but a modified claim toward the lesser evil argument, and is of no merit.

[Sanguine]

I've done the most powerful thing I can.

I voted.

I know you didn't mean it this way, but, damn, that's a sad statement!  That's all we've got at this point, and to misquote Mark Twain: "If voting worked, they wouldn't let us do it."

[Norm Lenhart]

While your statement is unfounded (not a soul here is 'helping elect Hillary Clinton'), more importantly, whether Clinton or not, the statement has nothing to do with the definition of Conservatism or Conservatives.

Conservatives stand upon certain and definable principles. Conservatives vote for those who advance those principles. That they will not vote for your boy, who embodies not a single ONE of those principles, is not only predictable, but was predicted from the very start of things. We TOLD you so. You were warned. Continuously and at volume.

Again, give Conservatives someone to vote *FOR*, and you will win.

Yours is nothing but a modified claim toward the lesser evil argument, and is of no merit.

Oh they absolutely were. We made no secret of it. What convinces me (one of many things these are liberals is that after Romney, they were well aware it was not an idle threat. But consider...

* After Romney, the GOP lost a lot of members. But they still did not listen and pushed for the very people that gave Obama the store. Mitch, Bhoner etc. They lost more members and funding.

* Bhoner was run out of office on a rail. Their response was to ignore the very reasons Bhoner was rejected and they replaced him with Ryan. Who then did his best to help Mitch give Obama the rest of the land around the store. They lost even MORE members and funding.

* Then they torpedoed Cruz before the election began and hamstrung him in the primary. They lost yet more funding.

* Then they ran a guy to the left of Mitt Romney.

And they think we will play along? Let them burn.

[Silver Pines]

That guy probably would have done better against Hillary than Trump. :P

@Weird Tolkienish Figure

I'd vote for him.

[Silver Pines]

Sean Hannity and Tammy Wynette sure sound a lot alike these days.

@Idaho_Cowboy

We were watching the debate last night, and out of the blue an image of Hannity popped into my mind.  He was sitting on a couch, but with really short toddler-sized legs, and he was bouncing up and down and pointing at the TV and crowing, "There's my daddy!"

[Silver Pines]

400 posts of cheap moralizing hasn't done anything to help protect the constitution, the rights of the unborn, religious freedom, or the borders. So much for conservatism.

@Axel

An amoral big-government statist with a history of sexual assault won't do it, either.

[roamer_1]

Oh they absolutely were. We made no secret of it. What convinces me (one of many things these are liberals is that after Romney, they were well aware it was not an idle threat. But consider...

Oh, I very much agree. It goes back further than that (McAin't was a sworn enemy of Conservatives out of his own mouth), but you are absolutely right.

There was a time that, after a wholesale loss, Republican leadership would step down. Voluntarily in most cases. That hasn't happened across the last three losses (to include this one).

There will be no change in direction until those with a death-grip on the levers of power are forcibly removed from their positions. I had high hopes when Bhoner was forced out... but here we are again, sommore.

And they think we will play along? Let them burn.

Indeed.

[Smokin Joe]

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.

Let her. She can't take the Right away, and 80,000,000 gun owners with enough firearms to put one in the hands of every man, woman, and child in the USA aren't just going to meekly hand them over to her or anyone else.

[Smokin Joe]

@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.

Basic advice to the fellow working with women: Don't hand her no lines and keep your hands to yourself...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdpAop7gp0w

[Sanguine]

@Idaho_Cowboy

We were watching the debate last night, and out of the blue an image of Hannity popped into my mind.  He was sitting on a couch, but with really short toddler-sized legs, and he was bouncing up and down and pointing at the TV and crowing, "There's my daddy!"

That would make Sean and Milo brothers.

[Smokin Joe]

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.

Just checking, but you seemed to gloss over a specific characteristic of those disciples, there. Repentance. A change in their worldview, if you will, being genuinely sorry for having sinned and showing the intent and determination to avoid such in the future.
Now, it is impossible for one person to know another's heart, all we have to go on is their actions subsequent to their repentance.
The brutality and superficiality of the attacks on Heidi Cruz and Carly Fiorina based on appearance sure seemed to denote someone who was still objectifying women to the extent his attacks were appearance based. I'm just not seeing any change in fundamental instinctive behaviour there, and thus have little reason to believe it has occurred elsewhere, either. YMMV

[Smokin Joe]

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.

What it boils down to, is that in the end I am responsible and accountable for my actions to a higher judge, to Almighty God. It isn't because Jimmy so and so did it too I will stand before Him, or because the other option sucked that I stand there, it will be because of what I have done or not done, it's all on me.

When one takes that perspective, that four years of Hillary might suck, but this is fleeting compared to actively voting for an unknown but decidedly unacceptable alternative in preference, or voting for someone who is likely not to prevail in this contest and answering for that vote someday, I'll take the latter option in good faith that I will have cast my ballot for the person whom I think would be best for the Republic and who best reflects my moral values in their political stances and even private life.

[Smokin Joe]

And that's precisely where you're wrong, both factually and morally. 

You are stoutly refusing to allow for other people's points of view, and their rationales for decisions with which you disagree.  You have set yourself up as the sole arbiter of right and wrong, good and evil.

Pardon me for weighing in, but rationale is just a way of excusing something that might otherwise be unacceptable. I watched a friend rationalize that a particular variety of coffee was better (because it was much cheaper). It wasn't. I have seen people justify a multitude of wrongs by rationalizing that 'they started it'. And so forth.
If someone has to use Hillary as an excuse to vote for Trump, they have rationalized it.
That doesn't make Trump right or good, it only makes him acceptable because he isn't seen as being as bad.
Unfortunately, Republicans have been voting for the 'not as bad as the other guy' guy for so long, they have forgotten what it is like to vote for someone who is good.
Remember voting for Ronald Reagan the second time? Easy choice, not fraught with deep, visceral, and moral conflict. Since then, always with misgivings, always saying 'but he isn't as bad as...', or 'the lesser of two evils', or 'don't let the perfect stand in the way of the good' when the 'good' was defined simply as not being as bad as the other bad.
Yes, have the courage to be fundamentally honest enough to say it is a contest of bad versus a perceived 'more bad', and if you vote for either you will, frankly, vote for bad.

Because 'good' is really defined by a fixed set of criteria, not graded on a curve.

The alternative is that rationalization creeps in, the excuses proliferate, situation ethics takes over and 'the less bad' is relabeled as 'good', and fear wins. Or not.

If there is an absolutely good alternative, why vote for either bad? It just empowers bad to do so.

[r9etb]

Just checking, but you seemed to gloss over a specific characteristic of those disciples, there. Repentance. A change in their worldview, if you will, being genuinely sorry for having sinned and showing the intent and determination to avoid such in the future.
Now, it is impossible for one person to know another's heart, all we have to go on is their actions subsequent to their repentance.
The brutality and superficiality of the attacks on Heidi Cruz and Carly Fiorina based on appearance sure seemed to denote someone who was still objectifying women to the extent his attacks were appearance based. I'm just not seeing any change in fundamental instinctive behaviour there, and thus have little reason to believe it has occurred elsewhere, either. YMMV

I think we agree about Trump, who is morally repugnant, and for whom I'm not voting. 

Rather, I was talking to Norm about his wholesale condemnation of anybody who will vote for Trump for whatever reason.  I think many of those people view Trump very much as we do, but also see him as the least intolerable of two intolerable options.  I think they're wrong, but I don't consider them evil or stupid.