WSJ: The Cheap Moralizing of Never Trump

[r9etb]

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

It's a mistake to try to tie Trump to any particular political viewpoint.

What he is, is a shapeshifter.  He'll turn into whatever he thinks he needs to be, in order to get what he wants.

It's what you get, when you cross a demagogue with a narcissist.

[Norm Lenhart]

, without regard for them possibly redeeming themselves by recognizing a mistake.

Well thats the crux of it now isn't it. They *arent* recognizing a mistake and they are plowing ahead repeatedly with the exact same mindset they hold every year. "Lesser evil - No matter what" no matter how many times their liberals lose or how far their liberals take the country left when they win.

They just keep empowering  L I B E R A L S.

Strange that. I thought 'I was the rigid/stubborn/inflexible one.

[driftdiver]

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

@Norm Lenhart

Well since the only perfect man is Jesus and he isn't a candidate I guess you are stuck on losing.

[Norm Lenhart]

@Norm Lenhart

Well since the only perfect man is Jesus and he isn't a candidate I guess you are stuck on losing.

More of the same excuses.

[txradioguy]

  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

IMHO if Donny is serious about starting a Super PAC to try and oust Cruz in two years...Governor Good Hair (a.k.a. Rick Perry) will be the one who jumps at the opportunity to do it.

[Smokin Joe]

@Smokin Joe

You wouldn't stand a chance against a modern Army with modern weapons.  There is zero doubt in my mind that the UN would instantly grant authority to say the Chinese military or the Russian military to assist Hillary in taking the guns away.

All for he children you know.

Nope the 2cd is gone once Hillary takes office and packs the courts with Marxist judges. And you can forget about ever over turning Rode v Wade or keeping your freedom of religion.

Every conservative principle y'all claim to have is finished with Hillary as president. Gone forever.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRSuFj1Jii4

As for against a modern army with modern weapons, we have one. If no one in it has the stones to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States as they swore to do, the Country is done. Any president who permits foreign troops to attack Americans on our soil is a fair target, and should be removed from office by any means necessary. American Forces which permit that have violated their oath and lose legitimacy. Any Government which permits that to continue is a fair target, at every level.
I don't need to point out that it won't be "America" any more at that point, and that the Government will have nullified any authority it has.
Insurgent forces don't operate toe to toe with massed armies. They take out specific targets to bring down a regime, weaken it, and negate those advantages. Look at the last 50 years of warfare, and you see it more and more across the globe. If it comes to that, it comes to that.
If you aren't a fan of the UN operating troops on our shores, perhaps you should check out the Constitution Party platform.

[Norm Lenhart]

Well then why not Hillary?  I mean if character does not matter, you have no case against anyone.

Logic does not fit into his world view.

[Smokin Joe]

This is your argument from yesterday. Motives don't mean a thing when the end result is the same. Thats 100% ends justifying the means.

Yes, motives are relevant.

Man shoots man, DRT.

Police investigate.
Shooter was showing acquaintance his new pistol, had a negligent discharge with fatal result: Accident (stupidity)

Shooter did not know dead man who attacked him with a knife: self defense

Shooter knew man who came demanding money the shooter owed him: ? self defense or not?

Shooter caught the man who had been having an affair with the shooter's wife: manslaughter or more.

Shooter stalked that SOB and gunned him down for taking his girl back in High School. Murder 1

Uh huh, motive counts.

I am disappointed Cruz gave a grudging and belated "endorsement", as the fulfillment of an obligation and without apparent enthusiasm. It seemed apparent from his remarks that he was fulfilling a promise he wished he had not made. To me that is far separated from the enthusiastic and early drum-beating endorsements of Christie and Carson, just to name a couple.

So, if you look at a chart somewhere, in the first example, one shot and dead. As statistics go, checkmark in the box, that is that.
Cruz endorsed Trump, checkmark in the box. But as far as his reputation goes, Self defense or Murder 1?

I won't hold it against Cruz so much because it was the fulfillment of a promise made, and frankly, under pretty serious duress. By not fulfilling that promise, Trump could actually portray Cruz as the liar that Trump had said Cruz was throughout the primary campaign. Cruz stripped Trump of that.

[Smokin Joe]

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.

Thanks. Cruz acted under duress, with a political gun to this head. Nice to see one of your camp admit it.

[musiclady]

Well then why not Hillary?  I mean if character does not matter, you have no case against anyone.

Excellent point, @RAT Patrol !

If there is no moral case against voting for Trump, there is also no moral case against voting for Hillary.

If we decide that integrity is not something we require, we can vote for Charles Manson and feel justified, if he just yells "WALL!!" enough times.

I don't think those seeking to convince us to vote against our values have thought things through to their logical conclusion.

[Smokin Joe]

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

I doubt Cruz will let himself get painted into such a corner again. When that pledge was made Trump hadn't even started what turned out to be an unprecedented campaign of lies, personal attacks, and smears, and did not seem like a likely winner. In a normal year, with more equitable media coverage, I don't think Trump would have gone anywhere.

[Norm Lenhart]

Yes, motives are relevant.

Man shoots man, DRT.

Police investigate.
Shooter was showing acquaintance his new pistol, had a negligent discharge with fatal result: Accident (stupidity)

Shooter did not know dead man who attacked him with a knife: self defense

Shooter knew man who came demanding money the shooter owed him: ? self defense or not?

Shooter caught the man who had been having an affair with the shooter's wife: manslaughter or more.

Shooter stalked that SOB and gunned him down for taking his girl back in High School. Murder 1

Uh huh, motive counts.

I am disappointed Cruz gave a grudging and belated "endorsement", as the fulfillment of an obligation and without apparent enthusiasm. It seemed apparent from his remarks that he was fulfilling a promise he wished he had not made. To me that is far separated from the enthusiastic and early drum-beating endorsements of Christie and Carson, just to name a couple.

So, if you look at a chart somewhere, in the first example, one shot and dead. As statistics go, checkmark in the box, that is that.
Cruz endorsed Trump, checkmark in the box. But as far as his reputation goes, Self defense or Murder 1?

I won't hold it against Cruz so much because it was the fulfillment of a promise made, and frankly, under pretty serious duress. By not fulfilling that promise, Trump could actually portray Cruz as the liar that Trump had said Cruz was throughout the primary campaign. Cruz stripped Trump of that.

What about the promise he made to his supporters? That of being principled? The man went out, made the ""Let me tell you what I think about Donald Trump" comments that are 100% about why no conservative could possibly vote for such a man.

"And I will say, there are millions of people in this country who are angry. They’re angry at Washington, they’re angry at politicians who have lied to them, I understand that anger. I share that anger. And Donald is cynically exploiting that anger, and he is lying to his supporters.

Donald will betray his supporters on every issue. If you care about immigration, Donald is laughing at you. And he’s telling the moneyed elites that he doesn’t believe what he’s saying, he’s not gonna build a wall – that’s what he told the New York Times, he will betray you on every issue across the board."

There is zero wiggle room there. None. For him to go out and then endorse Trump, which he did whether or not he spoke 4 words, is a total reversal of his statement above. How does one get from "he will betray you on every issue across the board." to working actively to getting that man elected without passing squarely through "sell out"?


On Motive:

Where/at what point, if any, does motive become a disqualifying factor to an end? If one motive is noble and pure as the driven snow to get to X, and another is as vile and corrupt and evil as hell itself to get to X, then are both OK? Is that not situational ethics? Is that not the end result justifying the means of arrival?

[Emjay]

Cruz pledged to support the candidate who won the primaries.  No doubt it pained him to do so....he kept his word while all around him others lied, schemed, and blithered like the idiots they are.

Exactly.  Cruz, once again, stuck to his principles even though he certainly was aware that small-minded people would demonize him for it.

He never endorsed The Donald by name.  He simply decided to vote against Hillary for several reasons, the main one (I think) being the Supreme Court.

Cruz knows how important the Court is right now... although in a perfect world, it should have very little importance, certainly not to the extent of making law.

Cruz knows the type of people Hillary will appoint.

While he is surely aware of the defects in Trumps' character, he still thinks there is a chance that Trump would appoint a couple of decent judges.

That's why he's supporting him

[r9etb]

While he is surely aware of the defects in Trumps' character, he still thinks there is a chance that Trump would appoint a couple of decent judges.

That's why he's supporting him

As you know, I'm a  bit more cynical about Cruz's motives.  Clutching at Trump-shaped straws on judges probably was among his reasons.

But I suspect he was also protecting his political viability: Basically, "would the party support me if I didn't vote for the party's nominee?"  The answer being no -- and Cruz was almost certainly told as much behind closed doors -- he had to do what he did, grudgingly and with as little commitment or conviction as possible.

Speaking for myself, I didn't really lose respect for him, as I understand his reasoning.  But I'd have a lot more respect for him if he hadn't knuckled under.

[driftdiver]

Well then why not Hillary?  I mean if character does not matter, you have no case against anyone.

@RAT Patrol

As I've said many many times on threads you also posted on so I'd imagine you've read my posts.

We have two very deeply flawed candidates.  Both are bottom of the barrel material.   However one is less likely to nominate uber liberal supreme court justices, is less likely to push massive regulation, less likely to raise taxes and a host of other things Hillary is guaranteed to do.   For a while I thought we could depend on the GOP to fight back against Hillarys agenda, then I remembered they have failed to do that for the last 8 years so why would they start now?

One of two candidates will become the president elect in about 3 weeks.  There are no other options with a snowballs chance in hades of winning.   So you can take your toys and go home or you can try to make the best of a bad situation.  Until Conservatives gain positions of power in the GOPe this will not change.

I wish Cruz was an option, or heck just about anyone else, but they aren't.

[driftdiver]

Logic does not fit into his world view.

@Norm Lenhart

Winners make the rules.  Losers live with the rules.

[Emjay]

As you know, I'm a  bit more cynical about Cruz's motives.  Clutching at Trump-shaped straws on judges probably was among his reasons.

But I suspect he was also protecting his political viability: Basically, "would the party support me if I didn't vote for the party's nominee?"  The answer being no -- and Cruz was almost certainly told as much behind closed doors -- he had to do what he did, grudgingly and with as little commitment or conviction as possible.

Speaking for myself, I didn't really lose respect for him, as I understand his reasoning.  But I'd have a lot more respect for him if he hadn't knuckled under.

You can call it knuckling under but I call it pragmatism.  Okay?  And putting the country first.  Cruz had zero to gain by voting for Trump.  Trump will always hate him.  He's on the 'enemies list.'

[r9etb]

You can call it knuckling under but I call it pragmatism.  Okay?  And putting the country first.  Cruz had zero to gain by voting for Trump.  Trump will always hate him.  He's on the 'enemies list.'

Call it pragmatism if you'd like; they're not mutually exclusive terms.  I believe he did it under pressure, for pragmatic reasons.  He has nothing to gain by voting for Trump, but he had a lot to lose by refusing to vote for the Party's candidate.

He'd painted himself into a corner, and there was no cost-free way to get out of it.

[Norm Lenhart]

@Norm Lenhart

Winners make the rules.  Losers live with the rules.

I see leadership skills are not among your finer qualities. You basically just said "Accept what you are given or else" which curiously is what destroyed the GOP as a political force.

You also adopted Obama's "I won" mentality. Pretty readily too, come to think of it.

[Emjay]

Call it pragmatism if you'd like; they're not mutually exclusive terms.  I believe he did it under pressure, for pragmatic reasons.  He has nothing to gain by voting for Trump, but he had a lot to lose by refusing to vote for the Party's candidate.

He'd painted himself into a corner, and there was no cost-free way to get out of it.

You make a decent argument but the fact is we're gonna need Cruz if we ever re-establish the Republican Party as conservative and decent.

Or somebody like Cruz.  But since there's nobody like Cruz, we will need Cruz.

[musiclady]

I am going to try and never even think about Cruz ever again.  I don't live in Texas, so...don't have to.  Texans can do whatever they want to.  He is valuable in the Senate but I have no power to keep him there or to remove him.  I am disappointed big time that he endorsed Trump.  That will weight on my scale of big factors to consider if he ever runs for President again.

I'm leaning towards he didn't actually "endorse" Trump, but felt forced to "support" him because of political concerns.  I don't understand how he could do so after the filth that Trump threw at him and his family.  That was as dirty a personal assault as I've EVER seen from a politician (and Trump IS a politician).

It's hard to fault a politician for being political, but for me the jury's still out for me on Cruz.

We need him in the Senate, and were I in Texas, I'd vote for him.

[musiclady]

Were I in Texas, I would too.  I'm glad I'm not, though, because I feel betrayed by him on this matter.

I understand completely.

[corbe]

   I understand yall's animosity toward Cruz, though @sinkspur 's attitude is a bitter pill to swallow on this subject, that aside, people lose sight of the fact that he's only 1 in a body of a 100 and usually has 95~98 of them hating his guts on the level of the aforementioned poster.  He's only 1 Man and I believe, in spite of this Election's luke warm endorsement of the orange one, He will rise again to fight the Battles Conservatives want and expect him to fight.

[r9etb]

You make a decent argument but the fact is we're gonna need Cruz if we ever re-establish the Republican Party as conservative and decent.

Or somebody like Cruz.  But since there's nobody like Cruz, we will need Cruz.

Somebody like him, intellectually.  But I just don't trust him; never have.  He's too ambitious for my taste.

[Norm Lenhart]

   I understand yall's animosity toward Cruz, though @sinkspur 's attitude is a bitter pill to swallow on this subject, that aside, people lose sight of the fact that he's only 1 in a body of a 100 and usually has 95~98 of them hating his guts on the level of the aforementioned poster.  He's only 1 Man and I believe, in spite of this Election's luke warm endorsement of the orange one, He will rise again to fight the Battles Conservatives want and expect him to fight.

I was a strong supporter of his. I fought a lot of battles with whack job Trump cultists on his behalf because I believed in him. So for myself and many like me to get stabbed in the back as he did, That's not forgivable. Its a fundamental breach of trust. And he isn't asking anyway.