WSJ: The Cheap Moralizing of Never Trump

[Suppressed]

    Well @Weird Tolkienish Figure, Your GOP has done such a remarkable job, just keep going.

Sure, Einstein.* 

With that attitude, nobody would find his way to Carnegie Hall!



Goebbels pointed out that one theory of propaganda (the "English" one) was that repeating a lie gets it believed.  How could that be true if repetition didn't yield different results?



Or how about the butterfly effect, where a small change in initial conditions of a deterministic nonlinear system can result in a large change at a later state.  So if you are operating in such a system, your input may be identically repeated, but a small difference in the system parameters can yield very different results.



In other words, it's not necessarily insane to be persistent.  The Dems have successfully advanced agendum after agendum via incrementalism.  Sure, it's more difficult to enact retrograde (reactionary) incrementalism, but abandoning it for hopes of miracle "resets" is very risky.  Maybe we're at the point where there's no hope for America but a "Hail Mary," but I don't think so.

*Yes, I recognize the quote is actually from Narcotics Anonymous, not Albert Einstein, but it just really irritates me. 

[Suppressed]

Motives don't mean a thing when the end result is the same.

@Norm Lenhart

Is this a guiding philosophy of yours?

I'm not looking to argue nor agree...I'm just curious and trying to understand your thought.

[r9etb]

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.

Actually, Norm, I think you have something to bring to the table, which is why I'm making the effort. 

The problem is, you simply refuse to consider any viewpoints other than your own.  I know for a fact that some have put you on "ignore" for that very reason. 

Which is fine, if your goal is to be completely ineffectual.  However, if you want to make a difference, you're going to need to learn a little humility.

[Norm Lenhart]

@Norm Lenhart

Is this a guiding philosophy of yours?

I'm not looking to argue nor agree...I'm just curious and trying to understand your thought.

My guiding philosophy and understanding why I believe what I believe... "Look before you leap, think before you act".

As TBR isn't my first rodeo and my actual job was largely though not exclusively connected to political people and issues, I have had many, many years to consider my positions and have them challenged by countless people. And over those years I have seen the exact same excuses repeated over x1,000,000.

We do this every 2/4 years. Same people. Same arguements. Same excuses for the same mistakes.

it's time to stop playing Ring around the Rosie and settle this mess. People that want to stand on principle should go one way and those that don't should go another. All we do is fight each other, not Democrats or the leftist establishment.

We do not agree when it matters or on what matters. So lets go our seperate waus in philosophy and the better philosophy will then have a chance to succeed.

[Suppressed]

I believe in the Reagan vision of conservatism.  . . .  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.

Sorry, but President Reagan made compromises.  He worked with Tip O'Neill to get things passed that weren't exactly how either would have preferred.  You would have excoriated him.  As he said in his autobiography:

When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn’t like it. “Compromise” was a dirty word to them and they wouldn’t face the fact that we couldn’t get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don’t get it all, some said, don’t take anything.

I’d learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with  FDR, who said in 1933: “I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.”

If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that’s what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it.

                                               --Ronald Reagan, An American Life (1990)

[Norm Lenhart]

Actually, Norm, I think you have something to bring to the table, which is why I'm making the effort. 

The problem is, you simply refuse to consider any viewpoints other than your own.  I know for a fact that some have put you on "ignore" for that very reason. 

Which is fine, if your goal is to be completely ineffectual.  However, if you want to make a difference, you're going to need to learn a little humility.

Thats where you are sorely mistaken. I have considered your viewpoints long before you presented them. And rejected them. Whether I'm ineffectual or not is not for me to decide. or consider. I explained why earlier.

[Norm Lenhart]

Sorry, but President Reagan made compromises.  He worked with Tip O'Neill to get things passed that weren't exactly how either would have preferred.  You would have excoriated him.  As he said in his autobiography:

Reagan compromised twice on major issues. He later admitted that both were mistakes. In both cases the Dems had flatly lied and he mistakenly took them at their word.

Abortion as Gov. Amnesty as Prez.

[Suppressed]

We do this every 2/4 years. Same people. Same arguements. Same excuses for the same mistakes.

Sadly, that's true.

it's time to stop playing Ring around the Rosie and settle this mess. People that want to stand on principle should go one way and those that don't should go another. All we do is fight each other, not Democrats or the leftist establishment.

We do not agree when it matters or on what matters. So lets go our seperate waus in philosophy and the better philosophy will then have a chance to succeed.

Maybe I'm hoping for unicorns and rainbows, but I'd prefer to find a way to work together, just redirecting our fight.

[jpsb]

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

If Trump is a liberal he is a classical liberal, a classical liberal is very close to an American conservative. Hillary on the other hand is a full blown Marxist with strong fascist tendencies. Since survival is one of my high priorities I'm for Trump. War with Russia over Syria, does not strike me as a good idea.

[Norm Lenhart]

Sadly, that's true.

Maybe I'm hoping for unicorns and rainbows, but I'd prefer to find a way to work together, just redirecting our fight.

I would too. No joke. But if we cannot agree that situational ethics are bad then is there hope? I don't think so. Thats core. That underpins the whole idea of Principle.  If we cant agree on the core, than there is no getting along anywhere because we will always be at war with each other.

It's the ugly truth.

[jpsb]

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.

Cruz had no choice, either endorse Trump or die (politically) Cruz did the only thing he could. Prior to Cruz endorsing Trump he was dead to me. Now I might vote for him in the primary unless he  is up against Abbott or Patrick.

[Norm Lenhart]

If Trump is a liberal he is a classical liberal, a classical liberal is very close to an American conservative. Hillary on the other hand is a full blown Marxist with strong fascist tendencies. Since survival is one of my high priorities I'm for Trump. War with Russia over Syria, does not strike me as a good idea.

No, he's a classical idiot. He's a regular liberal as his record shows.

[r9etb]

Thats where you are sorely mistaken. I have considered your viewpoints long before you presented them. And rejected them.

Ah, well.  I'll make one final effort.

Read what you just said, and pretend that somebody else wrote it.  Doesn't it sound like a fellow who's just a bit too sure of himself? 

Whether I'm ineffectual or not is not for me to decide. or consider. I explained why earlier.

You're wrong.  Whether or not you're ineffectual depends a great deal on the way you behave.

I mean, if you want to be typing long rants that nobody reads, I guess that's your choice.  But damn, that's a lonely way to live.

[Norm Lenhart]

Cruz had no choice, either endorse Trump or die (politically)

Then he should have stepped aside.

[Norm Lenhart]

Ah, well.  I'll make one final effort.

Read what you just said, and pretend that somebody else wrote it.  Doesn't it sound like a fellow who's just bit too sure of himself? 

You're wrong.  Whether or not you're ineffectual depends a great deal on the way you behave.

I mean, if you want to be typing long rants that nobody reads, I guess that's your choice.  But damn, that's a lonely way to live.

That ignore button is your best option. I'm not changing anything.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

If Trump is a liberal he is a classical liberal, a classical liberal is very close to an American conservative. Hillary on the other hand is a full blown Marxist with strong fascist tendencies. Since survival is one of my high priorities I'm for Trump. War with Russia over Syria, does not strike me as a good idea.

Except for his policy on taxes, minimum wage, bailouts, the national debt, the first amendment, and the second amendment. Trump is a classic liberal if your pattern is Ted Kennedy.

[corbe]

Cruz had no choice, either endorse Trump or die (politically) Cruz did the only thing he could. Prior to Cruz endorsing Trump he was dead to me. Now I might vote for him in the primary unless he  is up against Abbott or Patrick.

   WoW, sometimes your utterance's are so absent of logic and rational I just have to think @jpsb means Just Post $hit Because.

[Hoodat]

If Trump is a liberal he is a classical liberal

Uh, no.  He is nothing like a classical liberal.  His view on property rights (Kelo) should have tipped you off.  Think 'NSDAP' liberal instead.

[r9etb]

I'm not changing anything.

Of course you're not.   

[Suppressed]

Reagan compromised twice on major issues. He later admitted that both were mistakes. In both cases the Dems had flatly lied and he mistakenly took them at their word.

Abortion as Gov. Amnesty as Prez.

But you seem to dismiss people out of hand when they (in your eyes) err, without regard for them possibly redeeming themselves by recognizing a mistake.

And Reagan compromised on a whole host of other issues.  While you might find multiple tax hikes or increases in social spending "minor," many conservatives wouldn't have agreed, but even if they were minor, I have to say that you come across as holding any transgressions as "major."

Perhaps you don't care how you come across.  I'm just letting you know what I see.

[driftdiver]

Then he should have stepped aside.

@jpsb

Yeah that old losing as a winning strategy still doesnt work @Norm Lenhart

Cruz is one of the most conservative members of the Senate and you want him to step down?   Opening the door for some uber liberal to take over.

wow

[Norm Lenhart]

Of course you're not.   

Nope. I'm not. No remorse about it either. NONE.

[corbe]

Now I might vote for him in the primary unless he  is up against Abbott or Patrick.

  With all the Ethical Charges against Patrick, He'd be Lucky to be Elected Dog Cather in his County next go round. 

   Abbott will break Perry's record of consecutive terms if he so desires, he has no desire to be a senator, as I believe neither does Perry.  IMHO

[Suppressed]

If Trump is a liberal he is a classical liberal . . .

 

Is that meant as a joke?

[Norm Lenhart]

@jpsb

Yeah that old losing as a winning strategy still doesnt work @Norm Lenhart

Cruz is one of the most conservative members of the Senate and you want him to step down?   Opening the door for some uber liberal to take over.

wow

No point in a man you can't trust being there.