WSJ: The Cheap Moralizing of Never Trump

[Sanguine]

He sold out. His speech "Let me tell you what I think of Donald Trump" is every bit as binding as they are the words he himself spoke.

You are persistent; I'll give you that.   :smash:

[Norm Lenhart]

No, it's not.  Your "entire point" is that Norm knows all, and nobody else's ideas or motives matter.  You're more a symptom of the problem -- this unquenchable need to excommunicate conservatives who don't agree with you on every single point.  That's why "conservatism" -- individually defined -- has resulted in toxic factional posturing.

Whatever...

[Norm Lenhart]

You are persistent; I'll give you that.   :smash:

Well you tell me then. Which Ted Cruz statement was true and which was not. They cannot both be.

[corbe]

   Not pointing fingers or mentions names BUT

   Some of us are more 'unpure' than others of us, obviously.

 

[Sanguine]

   Not pointing fingers or mentions names BUT

   Some of us are more 'unpure' than others of us, obviously.

 

 ^-^

[r9etb]

Actually no it's not 'whatever'. How can you with a straight face talk about first principles and then blow off the very heart of them? Do you think conservatism is an ends/means philosophy? Or do think it is principle based? If it is principle based then the ends never justify the means. Principled action justifies the means.

What this comes down to is you don't like the messenger so you discount the message.

On the contrary.  I'm sure you're a very nice person.  It's your message that I discount.  You're propounding an utterly rigid ideology that permits no variation in belief or behavior.  It is a philosophy that requires you to fully know the particulars of every situation.

As a result, everybody is, to you, a potential enemy.

You, sir, need to lighten up.

[Norm Lenhart]

On the contrary.  I'm sure you're a very nice person.  It's your message that I discount.  You're propounding an utterly rigid ideology that permits no variation in belief or behavior.  It is a philosophy that requires you to fully know the particulars of every situation.

As a result, everybody is, to you, a potential enemy.

You, sir, need to lighten up.

Why is it rigid? We havent even GOTTEN to a coherent philosophy yet. this entire branch of the conversation is predicated on the fact that conservatives can't agree on anything.

I am asking one core thing. What do we believe? Thats it. Tear everything else away. The personalities, the memes, the emoticons...what do we believe?

Now. Before we establish that, the rest is moot. I believe in the Reagan vision of conservatism. The guy that said 'We arent going to hand the party over." The guy that didn't make quantum shifts in his beliefs depending on who his opponent was or abandon his base for pledges he should never have made to begin with. A man that admitted mistakes but fought like a demon for his principles and what he KNEW to be right because he thought them through.

Now is that wrong? Is it WRONG to stand on what we believe and fight for it? Thats what I'm doing. Thats what a lot of people refuse to and get 6 ways of torqued about. I know what I believe. Do you? Then fight for it instead of 'whatever-ing' and complaining about demonization and purity.

Convince me of your position like Reagan convinced people of his. Because THAT is what we have to do. But we can't as a group until we know and agree on something.

[r9etb]

Why is it rigid?

I couldn't say why it's rigid -- you'll need to explain to us why that's so.  All I know is, you've labeled everybody who doesn't adhere to your standards concerning Trump to be "evil."  Pretty rigid.

We haven't even GOTTEN to a coherent philosophy yet. this entire branch of the conversation is predicated on the fact that conservatives can't agree on anything.

I am asking one core thing. What do we believe? Thats it. Tear everything else away. The personalities, the memes, the emoticons...what do we believe?

No, Norm, that's not what you're doing.  Your part in this conversation has been to tear into anybody who doesn't agree with you.  To call them evil, to call them "sellouts."  Because apparently you know what's right, and they're not doing it.  You don't listen; and you don't consider other points of view, except to reject them.

It's not a way to gain agreement, it's a way to guarantee that conservatism will continue to splinter.

Convince me of your position like Reagan convinced people of his. Because THAT is what we have to do. But we can't as a group until we know and agree on something.

It's become quite evident that nobody can convince you of anything that you don't already believe. 

[Norm Lenhart]

I couldn't say why it's rigid -- you'll need to explain to us why that's so.  All I know is, you've labeled everybody who doesn't adhere to your standards concerning Trump to be "evil."  Pretty rigid.

No, Norm, that's not what you're doing.  Your part in this conversation has been to tear into anybody who doesn't agree with you.  To call them evil, to call them "sellouts."  Because apparently you know what's right, and they're not doing it.  You don't listen; and you don't consider other points of view, except to reject them.

It's not a way to gain agreement, it's a way to guarantee that conservatism will continue to splinter.

It's become quite evident that nobody can convince you of anything that you don't already believe.

So as I said, this is about personalities for you.

Trump is evil. You want to deny that?

you don't want to fight for your position and just complain that someone does? Fine.

If you can't get someone to agree with something as basic as 'situational ethics is not conservative' to begin with without an emotion based response, then what sort of conservatism do you suppose is going to come out of the kumbaya meeting of the tribes? I'll tell you. 'The GOP' that just blew up with megaton force because you are laying the groundwork for a full historical repeat.

[jpsb]

He sold out. His speech "Let me tell you what I think of Donald Trump" is every bit as binding as they are the words he himself spoke.

We Trump supporters kept telling Cruz was a sellout but you wouldn't believe us. Well know you know we were right and you were wrong. Enjoy 40 years of wandering in the political wilderness.

[jpsb]

And yet the words "I endorse Donald Trump" have never come out of his mouth.

[Norm Lenhart]

We Trump supporters kept telling Cruz was a sellout but you wouldn't believe us. Well know you know we were right and you were wrong. Enjoy 40 years of wandering in the political wilderness.

As long as you and your fellow travelers travel somewhere other than the wilderness, that sounds like a fantastic idea.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

On the contrary.  I'm sure you're a very nice person.  It's your message that I discount.  You're propounding an utterly rigid ideology that permits no variation in belief or behavior.  It is a philosophy that requires you to fully know the particulars of every situation.

As a result, everybody is, to you, a potential enemy.

You, sir, need to lighten up.

Yeah. What a lot of conservative ideologues call "principles" is just another word for being dogmatic.


Libertarians have the same issue. Some will fight to death to defund public libraries and such without any variation in thought.


Mindless adherence to any dogma is bad IMO.

[r9etb]

So as I said, this is about personalities for you.

In a sense -- it's about your personality, and your inability to play well with others. 

There's simply no point in trying to discuss anything with you.  You immediately dive into absolute condemnations of anybody who doesn't fully agree with your point of view.  You've been doing it on this thread, as you've tended to do pretty much everywhere.

[jpsb]

As long as you and your fellow travelers travel somewhere other than the wilderness, that sounds like a fantastic idea.

We sure as heck don't want you in our tribe that's for sure. So yeah where ever you are we will be far far away. Unless, that is, you come to your senses and help us elect Trump so we can save the country, the constitution and unborn Americans, then you would be welcome to join us.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

In a sense -- it's about your personality, and your inability to play well with others. 

There's simply no point in trying to discuss anything with you.  You immediately dive into absolute condemnations of anybody who doesn't fully agree with your point of view.  You've been doing it on this thread, as you've tended to do pretty much everywhere.

It's this black and white, all or nothing viewpoint that a lot on the right have IMO. I have mentioned this in another thread, most conservatives just aren't deep thinkers.

[Norm Lenhart]

In a sense -- it's about your personality, and your inability to play well with others. 

There's simply no point in trying to discuss anything with you.  You immediately dive into absolute condemnations of anybody who doesn't fully agree with your point of view.  You've been doing it on this thread, as you've tended to do pretty much everywhere.

Then put me on ignore. It's that simple. You obviously want to fixate on me the person, not my points as you continually avoid them all. So do us both a favor and ignore me henceforth. Neither of us has any use for the other.

[Norm Lenhart]

It's this black and white, all or nothing viewpoint that a lot on the right have IMO. I have mentioned this in another thread, most conservatives just aren't deep thinkers.

Then by all means refute my/our/the binary world view we have with your deep thought that does not involve more repeats of things already done that got us here. I welcome it. 100%

[Norm Lenhart]

We sure as heck don't want you in our tribe that's for sure. So yeah where ever you are we will be far far away. Unless, that is, you come to your senses and help us elect Trump so we can save the country, the constitution and unborn Americans, then you would be welcome to join us.

There is no sense involved in electing a liberal. Only liberalism.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

And yet the words "I endorse Donald Trump" have never come out of his mouth.

He said he would vote for him, which is the same conclusion that a lot of thoughtful Patriotic folks around here came to. Unless Cruz was ready to lead an Exodus to a 3rd party I don't see what else he could have done. 

[Sanguine]

When one gets the same/similar feedback from multiple sources, it might behoove one to at least consider it.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Then by all means refute my/our/the binary world view we have with your deep thought that does not involve more repeats of things already done that got us here. I welcome it. 100%

That is exactly what I am doing.

[Sanguine]

He said he would vote for him, which is the same conclusion that a lot of thoughtful Patriotic folks around here came to. Unless Cruz was ready to lead an Exodus to a 3rd party I don't see what else he could have done.

There has been some discussion of exactly that.

[Norm Lenhart]

When one gets the same/similar feedback from multiple sources, it might behoove one to at least consider it.

Depends on the source doesn't it. From what I see, most of it is coming from the very type of people I rail against. People that make excuses instead of stand on principle. From where I sit it looks like those people like the system as it is and are damn upset about having their complacency challenged.

Now if you'd like to challenge my own ---positions--- instead of trying to brigade this like a Tumblr/Reddit thread, by all means, do so.

[Norm Lenhart]

That is exactly what I am doing.

Lets simplify this for everyone:

___________________________________

Trump and his ilk is/are whats wrong not the solution. Y/N

Situational ethics are not conservative. Y/N

We should take a big tent approach and get along with all people claiming to be conservative. Y/N

We should stand on Principle. Y/N

Principle is more important than winning with evil/liberal candidates. Y/N