Considerations: The selfishness of #NeverTrump

[TemplarKormac]

First off I'm going to start with this disclaimer: let it be clear that I'm not telling anyone who to vote for, or demanding that anyone vote at all. This thread is intended to compel the reader to consider the ramifications of their decision to stay home or vote third party, whichever it may be. Once again, do whatever the hell you want, I'm just stating my personal opinion on the subject. Sure, it will sound condescending to some of you, but don't take it personally. I'm not angry with you. If you think it's funny, feel free to press the funny button.

But I want you NeverTrumpers to think about something. Before Hillary ever came along, most of you were preaching of the horrors of what would come to pass if she became president. Then, out of nowhere, Donald Trump began his rapid rise to the top of the GOP presidential field. And then, in a sudden reversal, you began preaching the horrors of what would come to pass if he became the nominee. You wrote him off repeatedly, as a flash in the pan or the like. You kept reassuring yourselves that he would never, ever succeed in his campaign. Suddenly, it became a campaign against Trump, not a unified campaign against Hillary as it should have been.

As the inevitability of Trump's victory began to strike home, more and more of you vowed never to vote for Donald Trump, be it a conflict of values or matters of conscience, out of a fit of anger, or perhaps no matter what. For that, I think you're being selfish, and I'll tell you why. Consider what the future of America would be like if Hillary Clinton were elected president, also consider the possibility that your abstinence could put her there. Is selfishness moral? Is it a virtue, a value you hold dear to your heart? No? Then why? Why would you be so righteously indignant that you're willing to risk the future of America to preserve your own values or conscience? This isn't a noble act, this isn't sending a message, it's downright selfish.

You are all no doubt aware of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's untimely demise earlier this year, as a result, that leaves his seat vacant, ripe for the picking for the next president to fill. You also have four other aging Justices on the bench right now. Over the next decade, there is a likelihood that those four other seats could become vacant. In addition to appointing a successor for Scalia, a president Hillary Clinton could appoint five liberal justices to the bench. Think about that. There could be seven liberal justices on the bench, redefining the conscience of America, and changing her identity.

From then on, on issues of gun rights, religious freedom, freedom of speech, or abortion, the rulings could be 7-2 against the conservative arguments. Seven to two. Consider this: In an effort to preserve your values and conscience, by voting third party, or staying home out of a sense of righteous indignance, you're willing to risk a future where a majority liberal Supreme Court would be allowed to redefine your values for you. The would be given free reign to twist the Constitution to liberal ideals, essentially erasing the conservative brand from the face of America. You must realize that under a Supreme Court with seven liberal justices,there would never be another conservative victory at the Supreme Court level for at least a generation to come. You would be ensuring in your selfishness, an end to your values amid an ill advised attempt to preserve them.

Now, you all also value individual rights. In one case, Hillary made herself clear that she will use the Supreme Court as a weapon to radically alter Americans rights to bear arms. In essence, using our highest court as a weapon against religious freedom or freedom of speech and every other conservative value we all hold dear. You want to help America, yet you are willing to go about precipitating her destruction. You may hate Trump's guts, and I do understand where you're coming from. But Hillary wouldn't give a damn about you or your beliefs, your faith, or your vaunted values and conscience. Because in her presidency, you may not have the right to any of those things again. Do you want that on your conscience? So if Hillary ultimately wins, don't complain. You put her there.

In sum, and in my own personal opinion, you #NeverTrumpers are being selfish, and you need to grow up and consider the wider ramifications of a Hillary Clinton presidency. If you truly love America, you would do whatever it took to preserve as much of the country you love as you possibly could, to ensure that you maintain an atmosphere that is tolerant of your beliefs, values or conscience, even if that meant holding back a gag reflex in order to vote for Donald Trump in the general election. The ball's in your court. Don't screw this up for the rest of us.

From what I have seen of the Trump campaign, his supporters are voting against the status quo, the party, and the establishment. They are not voting for anything, just against most everything. Trump is a symbol of their discontent.

You might say, he's the Winner of Their Discontent

And I suspect by the time the GE comes around, if he's still in play as a candidate that contingent will have figured that they made their point and go vote for a real candidate, who in effect runs unopposed.

Which is a damn shame.

By the time the election rolls around, Trump will have split the party so badly, That Hillary will need only one slogan, "I'm not Trump".

"I'm not Trump, I'm a woman! See? See?"

 

[JimBowie1958]

So you're not telling anyone how to vote, but you are trying to shame them for not voting the way you want?

Am I missing something?

As the First Amendment protects his right to do.

N ext you are going to tell me that liberals here always make 100% complete sense?

Obviously kormac is just trying to get these loser morons to assplain how they can be so freaking stupid, but it isnt amatter of stupidity; these so-called conservatives were never anything more than posers and frauds in the first place as there is nothing 'conservative' about unenforced free trade agreements or being anti-nationalist in trade and other economic issues.

I hope to God that people like Kormak fail completely to talk any sense into these losers so we can get rid of them.


Hell, who knows, if it works I might start thinking of myself as a Republican again, lol.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Where are you getting "equal threat" from?

See my previous post. First response.

But I didn't say "equal threat" - you made that up.

My whole point is that the NeverTrump people think that he's more of a threat than Hilary - not an "equal threat".

 

[theDoctorisIn]

So you're not telling anyone how to vote, but you are trying to shame them for not voting the way you want?

Am I missing something?

As the First Amendment protects his right to do.

N ext you are going to tell me that liberals here always make 100% complete sense?

Obviously kormac is just trying to get these loser morons to assplain how they can be so freaking stupid, but it isnt amatter of stupidity; these so-called conservatives were never anything more than posers and frauds in the first place as there is nothing 'conservative' about unenforced free trade agreements or being anti-nationalist in trade and other economic issues.

I hope to God that people like Kormak fail completely to talk any sense into these losers so we can get rid of them.


Hell, who knows, if it works I might start thinking of myself as a Republican again, lol.

There's nothing "conservative" about nationalist trade policies, either.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

There's a lot of people that just don't feel comfortable with his finger on The Button, because they don't know what he could do.

Hmmm. Call me cynical, but I believe nobody can reap any substantial gains by not taking a risk. And before we go any further, I need to clarify that my OP was referring specifically to members of the Republican party, other conservatives, not to the entire electorate.

Clinton is entirely predictable. She'll do things that you guys don't like, sure. But the status quo will remain... she's pretty much a known quantity.

I would view that as a negative. That's another thing, I hear lots of conservatives expressing how disillusioned they are with the "status quo" and voting for Trump would guarantee a disruption to this "status quo." Yet they think he's the devil.

Are you under the impression that any "disruption of the status quo" would be a good thing?

I can think of a lot of ways that it could be very, very bad.

The status quo is better than almost anything.

 

[MisterBeale]

More importantly, is it so hard to understand that perhaps the "NeverTrump" people fear a Trump Presidency more than they fear a Clinton one, when it comes to protecting their "values"?

That would be an open contradiction. If they both present an affront to their values, then why would they think a Clinton presidency presents a lesser affront than the other? I find such reasoning to be... odd.

How is it an "open contradiction" to think that Trump would be worse than Clinton?

Because if one views them both as an equal threat, how can they perceive one or the other to be the greater threat to their values? One would think the term "equal" leaves no difference between the two.

I agree with that.

Thus, it makes no difference who you vote for. Or just stay home. The president is a figure head. They have no real power, not anymore than the representatives. The constitution was thrown overboard long ago.




Lot's of great links in the following article.
The Deep State: The Unelected Shadow Government Is Here to Stay
The Deep State: The Unelected Shadow Government Is Here to Stay
America’s next president will inherit more than a bitterly divided nation teetering on the brink of financial catastrophe when he or she assumes office. He will also inherit a shadow government, one that is fully operational and staffed by unelected officials who are, in essence, running the country.

<snip>

Consider this: how is it that partisan gridlock has seemingly jammed up the gears (and funding sources) in Washington, yet the government has been unhindered in its ability to wage endless wars abroad, in the process turning America into a battlefield and its citizens into enemy combatants?

The credit for such relentless, entrenched, profit-driven governance, according to Lofgren, goes to “another government concealed behind the one that is visible at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue, a hybrid entity of public and private institutions ruling the country according to consistent patterns in season and out, connected to, but only intermittently controlled by, the visible state whose leaders we choose.”

This “state within a state” hides “mostly in plain sight, and its operators mainly act in the light of day,” says Lofgren, and yet the “Deep State does not consist of the entire government.”

Rather, Lofgren continues:

It is a hybrid of national security and law enforcement agencies: the Department of Defense, the Department of State, the Department of Homeland Security, the Central Intelligence Agency and the Justice Department. I also include the Department of the Treasury because of its jurisdiction over financial flows, its enforcement of international sanctions and its organic symbiosis with Wall Street.

All these agencies are coordinated by the Executive Office of the President via the National Security Council. Certain key areas of the judiciary belong to the Deep State, such as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, whose actions are mysterious even to most members of Congress. Also included are a handful of vital federal trial courts, such as the Eastern District of Virginia and the Southern District of Manhattan, where sensitive proceedings in national security cases are conducted.

The final government component (and possibly last in precedence among the formal branches of government established by the Constitution) is a kind of rump Congress consisting of the congressional leadership and some (but not all) of the members of the defense and intelligence committees. The rest of Congress, normally so fractious and partisan, is mostly only intermittently aware of the Deep State and when required usually submits to a few well-chosen words from the State’s emissaries.

<snip>

Remember this the next time you find yourselves mesmerized by the antics of the 2016 presidential candidates or drawn into a politicized debate over the machinations of Congress, the president or the judiciary: it’s all intended to distract you from the fact that you have no authority and no rights in the face of the shadow governments.

I've done enough research to trace Trump's connections to the Deep State. If you're interested, just let me know. . .

If you want a clue, just look at his stand on Edward Snowden.

 

[TemplarKormac]

My whole point is that the NeverTrump people think that he's more of a threat than Hilary - not an "equal threat".

I find such a thing inconceivable. That might be because I'm a conservative, though.

But I didn't say "equal threat" - you made that up.

I did not.

If they saw Hillary as the greater threat, then why would some of them be threatening to stay home? Doesn't that imply an equal threat?

 

[Flopper]

There's a lot of people that just don't feel comfortable with his finger on The Button, because they don't know what he could do.

Hmmm. Call me cynical, but I believe nobody can reap any substantial gains by not taking a risk. And before we go any further, I need to clarify that my OP was referring specifically to members of the Republican party, other conservatives, not to the entire electorate.

Clinton is entirely predictable. She'll do things that you guys don't like, sure. But the status quo will remain... she's pretty much a known quantity.

I would view that as a negative. That's another thing, I hear lots of conservatives expressing how disillusioned they are with the "status quo" and voting for Trump would guarantee a disruption to this "status quo." Yet they think he's the devil.

I think election of Trump would guarantee a status quo. Practically everything Trump has promised requires a strong support of congress. His lack luster support and outright opposition from Republicans in Congress are a pretty good indication that he isn't going to get much support as president.

 

[JimBowie1958]

If you want, but I think it's a pretty integral part of (or fault in) your argument.

Alright. Explain.

Well, we can start with the fact that this country is clearly not falling apart. There are problems, sure - but nothing close to the level of problems that this country has faced before, and overcome. That's the whole problem with the Trump thing.


As PJ O'Rourke said, Clinton is wrong about everything - but she's wrong with normal parameters. Hilary Clinton is no more the "end of the US" to you guys as GWB was to us.

Clinton is entirely predictable. She'll do things that you guys don't like, sure. But the status quo will remain. Trump, on the other hand, is a wildcard. There's a lot of people that just don't feel comfortable with his finger on The Button, because they don't know what he could do. Clinton, she's pretty much a known quantity.

The problem with Clinton, other than her being a habitual liar and an enabler for her philandering sexual harassing husband, is that she is going to continue the downward spiral in regard to bad trade treaties that arent enforced anyway and abusive use of the guest worker visas.

Hillarious Clinton wont blow the country up so much as she will poison it on a daily basis until she cant get any more bribers from selling us out.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Are you under the impression that any "disruption of the status quo" would be a good thing?

No. But for all the talk in the Republican party of "disrupting Washington" or "ending the status quo" I would think they would be voting for Trump in droves, not bashing him over the head.

 

[JimBowie1958]

There's nothing "conservative" about nationalist trade policies, either.

It is for REPUBLICANS who pursued such polices from about 1856 to 1988. That is a Republican conservative, not morons like Brit Hume or George Will. They are paid lap dogs for the corporate elites.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

My whole point is that the NeverTrump people think that he's more of a threat than Hilary - not an "equal threat".

I find such a thing inconceivable. That might be because I'm a conservative, thought.

Are you trying to use a "no true scotsman" fallacy here? Because I know of many conservatives who not only can "conceive" of it, but believe it.

But I didn't say "equal threat" - you made that up.

I did not.

If they saw Hillary as the greater threat, then why would some of them be threatening to stay home? Doesn't that imply an equal threat?

No, not really. You're reading things that aren't there.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Are you under the impression that any "disruption of the status quo" would be a good thing?

No. But for all the talk in the Republican party of "disrupting Washington" or "ending the status quo" I would think they would be voting for Trump in droves, not bashing him over the head.

Rhetoric doesn't trump reality.

 

[JimBowie1958]

But I didn't say "equal threat" - you made that up.

No, not really. You're reading things that aren't there.

lol

 

[JimBowie1958]

Are you under the impression that any "disruption of the status quo" would be a good thing?

No. But for all the talk in the Republican party of "disrupting Washington" or "ending the status quo" I would think they would be voting for Trump in droves, not bashing him over the head.

Rhetoric doesn't trump reality.

It does for ideologues.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Are you trying to use a "no true scotsman" fallacy here? Because I know of many conservatives who not only can "conceive" of it, but believe it.

No...

And any Republican who states his loyalties to the party, who expresses Republican values, and subsequently practices them on a regular basis, and turns around and threatens to vote for Hillary Clinton is practically inconceivable to me. I view that as betrayal.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Are you trying to use a "no true scotsman" fallacy here? Because I know of many conservatives who not only can "conceive" of it, but believe it.

No...

And any Republican who states his loyalties to the party, who expresses Republican values, and subsequently practices them on a regular basis, and turns around and threatens to vote for Hillary Clinton is practically inconceivable to me. I view that as betrayal.

Didn't you tell me recently that you don't consider yourself a Republican?

 

[MisterBeale]

So you're not telling anyone how to vote, but you are trying to shame them for not voting the way you want?

Am I missing something?

As the First Amendment protects his right to do.

N ext you are going to tell me that liberals here always make 100% complete sense?

Obviously kormac is just trying to get these loser morons to assplain how they can be so freaking stupid, but it isnt amatter of stupidity; these so-called conservatives were never anything more than posers and frauds in the first place as there is nothing 'conservative' about unenforced free trade agreements or being anti-nationalist in trade and other economic issues.

I hope to God that people like Kormak fail completely to talk any sense into these losers so we can get rid of them.


Hell, who knows, if it works I might start thinking of myself as a Republican again, lol.

There's nothing "conservative" about nationalist trade policies, either.

There sure as hell isn't anything liberal and progressive about them though. "Free trade" is a globalist scam. When one nation finds freedom from slavery and injustice, they just enslave another. The way globalists currently operate, they have the blessing of Satan.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

First off I'm going to start with this disclaimer: let it be clear that I'm not telling anyone who to vote for, or demanding that anyone vote at all. This thread is intended to compel the reader to consider the ramifications of their decision to stay home or vote third party, whichever it may be. Once again, do whatever the hell you want, I'm just stating my personal opinion on the subject. Sure, it will sound condescending to some of you, but don't take it personally. I'm not angry with you. If you think it's funny, feel free to press the funny button.

But I want you NeverTrumpers to think about something. Before Hillary ever came along, most of you were preaching of the horrors of what would come to pass if she became president. Then, out of nowhere, Donald Trump began his rapid rise to the top of the GOP presidential field. And then, in a sudden reversal, you began preaching the horrors of what would come to pass if he became the nominee. You wrote him off repeatedly, as a flash in the pan or the like. You kept reassuring yourselves that he would never, ever succeed in his campaign. Suddenly, it became a campaign against Trump, not a unified campaign against Hillary as it should have been.

As the inevitability of Trump's victory began to strike home, more and more of you vowed never to vote for Donald Trump, be it a conflict of values or matters of conscience, out of a fit of anger, or perhaps no matter what. For that, I think you're being selfish, and I'll tell you why. Consider what the future of America would be like if Hillary Clinton were elected president, also consider the possibility that your abstinence could put her there. Is selfishness moral? Is it a virtue, a value you hold dear to your heart? No? Then why? Why would you be so righteously indignant that you're willing to risk the future of America to preserve your own values or conscience? This isn't a noble act, this isn't sending a message, it's downright selfish.

You are all no doubt aware of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's untimely demise earlier this year, as a result, that leaves his seat vacant, ripe for the picking for the next president to fill. You also have four other aging Justices on the bench right now. Over the next decade, there is a likelihood that those four other seats could become vacant. In addition to appointing a successor for Scalia, a president Hillary Clinton could appoint five liberal justices to the bench. Think about that. There could be seven liberal justices on the bench, redefining the conscience of America, and changing her identity.

From then on, on issues of gun rights, religious freedom, freedom of speech, or abortion, the rulings could be 7-2 against the conservative arguments. Seven to two. Consider this: In an effort to preserve your values and conscience, by voting third party, or staying home out of a sense of righteous indignance, you're willing to risk a future where a majority liberal Supreme Court would be allowed to redefine your values for you. The would be given free reign to twist the Constitution to liberal ideals, essentially erasing the conservative brand from the face of America. You must realize that under a Supreme Court with seven liberal justices,there would never be another conservative victory at the Supreme Court level for at least a generation to come. You would be ensuring in your selfishness, an end to your values amid an ill advised attempt to preserve them.

Now, you all also value individual rights. In one case, Hillary made herself clear that she will use the Supreme Court as a weapon to radically alter Americans rights to bear arms. In essence, using our highest court as a weapon against religious freedom or freedom of speech and every other conservative value we all hold dear. You want to help America, yet you are willing to go about precipitating her destruction. You may hate Trump's guts, and I do understand where you're coming from. But Hillary wouldn't give a damn about you or your beliefs, your faith, or your vaunted values and conscience. Because in her presidency, you may not have the right to any of those things again. Do you want that on your conscience? So if Hillary ultimately wins, don't complain. You put her there.

In sum, and in my own personal opinion, you #NeverTrumpers are being selfish, and you need to grow up and consider the wider ramifications of a Hillary Clinton presidency. If you truly love America, you would do whatever it took to preserve as much of the country you love as you possibly could, to ensure that you maintain an atmosphere that is tolerant of your beliefs, values or conscience, even if that meant holding back a gag reflex in order to vote for Donald Trump in the general election. The ball's in your court. Don't screw this up for the rest of us.

From what I have seen of the Trump campaign, his supporters are voting against the status quo, the party, and the establishment. They are not voting for anything, just against most everything. Trump is a symbol of their discontent.

The problem is that their ‘discontent’ is predicated on misperceptions, lies, and subjective partisanism.

Their ‘discontent’ has more to do with losing the last two General Elections than the ‘status quo,' the 'party,’ and ‘the establishment.’

Their ‘discontent’ is about the omnibus spending package passed late last year, where Ryan, along with democrats and a few republicans who still knew how to act like adults, committed the high crime of engaging in sound, responsible governance to the benefit of the American people.

Their ‘discontent’ is the manifestation of their childish, sophomoric, and reactionary dogma completely devoid of merit.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Didn't you tell me recently that you don't consider yourself a Republican?

Yes, and I'm not. I officially de-registered from the Republican Party in 2012. I'm just watching all of this from the outside.

I just think anyone who calls himself a Republican, who swears fealty to his party, and turns on his party to vote for someone who represents the very antithesis of his values, is a traitor. I value loyalty. That isn't. That is one of the many reasons why I left the Republican party. Too much division and betrayal.

Brett Baier asked all the Republican candidates in the March 3 debate:

"Can you support the nominee, even if that nominee is Donald Trump?"



Each and every one of them pledged that they would support the nominee. Trump wound up reversing and making the same pledge. But now that he's basically the nominee, they are one by one going back on their words. Betrayal is an inconceivable concept to me. Not only did they not pledge to run an independent campaign, they pledged to support the nominee.

But there is word circulating that there is an effort by specific Republicans to launch an independent campaign in order to sabotage Trump's presidential bid. They lied on that debate stage in March. I will not be part of a party who has members who view loyalty as optional, not mandatory.