For NeverTrumpers: An appeal to not vote Hillary over Trump

[anatess2]

If Cruz was leading in the Republican primaries this thread would not be needed.  The Republican Party will be in good hands with Cruz.  Or even Kasich.  But, as it stands right now, Donald Trump has a higher chance of winning the nomination.

If Donald Trump becomes the Republican Nominee, the only thing that can make him lose in the general election is the Republican NeverTrumpers - he's basically gonna be eaten by his own.  This will be like the Republicans getting handed the football on the 10-yard-line in the Superbowl and they stop running and hand the ball back to the Democrats and guided them to the end zone.  There's a reason Trump is resonating with a lot of people including ultra-conservative Tea Partiers like Jeff Sessions, evangelists like Jerry Falwell, etc.  It's easy to dismiss them as stupid and angry, etc., but that's not the case.  It's good to point out that the people that are closest to him and know him best - the people of New York and Florida where he is a homeboy - solidly support him.

Please take a few minutes to watch this Town Hall from April 12.  It's the Donald Trump that I know.

Minute 1-11 is the usual Trump stump statements... on Colorado/Cruz/RNC stuff... on details on his plans, etc.

Minute 11:30 his family joins him.  Each kid plus Melania answers how they felt about Trump announcing his candidacy.  Don Jr., explains why this is the best time for Trump to run.

Minute 15 Ivanka and Eric answers the reason why they can't vote in New York Primary.

Minute 19 Audience starts asking questions to Trump and his family starting with Eric and what bond he has with Trump.

Minute 22 Audience question about Trump's tone in the campaign trail and what his family thinks about it.

Minute 26:30 Audience question to Ivanka on her friendship with Chelsea Clinton and another question about Trump's relationship with Women.

Minute 30:  Question to Melania on her views on kids and social media.  And additional question on Trump's use of social media in the campaign.

Minute 35:30 Question to Don Jr. about Trump's divorces.  Eric also chimes in.

Minute 38:  Question to Melania about being a Mom.  Ivanka chimes in.

Minute 40:  Question to Ivanka and her conversion to Judaism.  Segwayed into a question on Trump's relationship with his in-laws.  Tiffany chimed in about introducing her boyfriend to the family.  My favorite part of this interview is on 43:38 when Eric quickly touches Tiffany's knee after the 2 older brothers pulled some "he'll have to go through the older brothers" muscle.  Tiffany reaches to touch Ivanka's shoulder.  It's a very natural expression of support from the brothers to signal that they're just ribbing her and a natural reaction of Tiffany reaching to her sister for female solidarity.  I found this special because Tiffany didn't grow up with the 3 older kids as she grew up with her mother in California yet it is evident that she is still quite close with the other siblings.

44:  Question to Don Jr. about what he learned from Trump on how to run a business and how tone is important (honey versus vinegar).

46:  Question about alcoholism and how Trump instilled personal responsibility in his kids and what he says to parents with kids struggling with addiction.

49:20 Question about top 2 financial advice he gave to his children (this gives Trump's answer to a thread we have here about Education).

50:30 Question to each kid and Melania about what new thing they learned about Trump in the election cycle.  Also question to Trump about what he learned.  Trump answered that he learned about how his family gives him the balance that he needs in politics.  Minute 54 is special - Trump says the most important thing in life is Family and how the most happy people are those with good families.

54:20 Question on which is tougher - business or politics.  Minute 56 delves into delegates.

 

 

[Guest]

I wonder if I should be surprised by a show of support by Mr. Trump's current wife, and four of his children. I would expect (and have seen) similar solidarity from other candidates' families. It doesn't move me to vote one way or another.  But I am interested that you mentioned, "There's a reason Trump is resonating with a lot of people including ultra-conservative Tea Partiers like Jeff Sessions, evangelists like Jerry Falwell, etc." Is it a reason aside from the title of the thread?

[Just_A_Guy]

You know, we're going to have five months to deal with the #NeverTrumpers if he gets the nomination.  And that contingency is by no means certain.  If Trump doesn't get a supermajority of remaining states, we're going to a contested convention where the odds are that staggering numbers of Trump delegates will defect after the first or second ballot.

So, it's fascinating to me that the pro Trumpers want us to be confronting this issue now.  But I understand that a common negotiating strategy is to talk as if the deal has already closed; and I suppose the electoral equivalent of that strategy is to campaign as if your guy has already clinched the nomination.

Edited April 15, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

I suppose I'm interested because until recently a thread such as this would have been off limits insofar as I understood the forum rules. So I'm interested in learning more of the OPs viewpoint.

[David13]

3 hours ago, UT.starscoper said:

I wonder if I should be surprised by a show of support by Mr. Trump's current wife, and four of his children. I would expect (and have seen) similar solidarity from other candidates' families. It doesn't move me to vote one way or another.  But I am interested that you mentioned, "There's a reason Trump is resonating with a lot of people including ultra-conservative Tea Partiers like Jeff Sessions, evangelists like Jerry Falwell, etc." Is it a reason aside from the title of the thread?

Does it matter?

I talked to a fellow today and he (a Latino) said he doesn't care if Donald Trump does hate Mexicans, he will vote for him.

I will too.

(Not that we believe that Donald Trump does hate Mexicans, we know he doesn't)

And the reason he stated is that all of the candidates are the same.  There basically is little or no difference in a Rep or Dem any more.  The Reps are the "Me Too" party today.

Whatever the Dems propose (higher taxes, more spending, more government give-aways) the Reps chime in, oh, we want that too.

More laws, oh yes, we want that too.

Some of them even one up the Dems and propose more of whatever the evil is.

So Trump is like a refreshing breath of fresh air.  Something different.

You know what you get with all the others.  Something bad.

There are no guarantees with Trump.  But at least he proposes something totally different.

dc

And the more the "Establishment", both left and right attack him, the more I believe there must be something really good about him.

 

Edited April 15, 2016 by David13

[Guest MormonGator]

46 minutes ago, David13 said:

Does it matter?

 

I guess it doesn't, really. Certain people will vote for him no matter what, certain people won't. 

[David13]

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

I guess it doesn't, really. Certain people will vote for him no matter what, certain people won't. 

Well, more specifically, I mean does it matter if they vote for him because they think he's a great guy, or whatever, or just that they don't want the hella beast?  I don't think it matters. 

dc

 

[anatess2]

7 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

You know, we're going to have five months to deal with the #NeverTrumpers if he gets the nomination.  And that contingency is by no means certain.  If Trump doesn't get a supermajority of remaining states, we're going to a contested convention where the odds are that staggering numbers of Trump delegates will defect after the first or second ballot.

So, it's fascinating to me that the pro Trumpers want us to be confronting this issue now.  But I understand that a common negotiating strategy is to talk as if the deal has already closed; and I suppose the electoral equivalent of that strategy is to campaign as if your guy has already clinched the nomination.

No JAG, we don't have 5 months to deal with NeverTrumpers.  We have 5 months to deal with Hillary.  When the nominee leaves the convention, it will be too late by then to have to convince Republicans to vote Republican when you need all the Republicans to batten down on the attacks from Hillary and bring independents and blue conservatives to your camp.

In the entire history of the Republican Party, this is the first time that non-candidate Republicans waged an open war on their own front-runner.

[Just_A_Guy]

32 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

No JAG, we don't have 5 months to deal with NeverTrumpers.  We have 5 months to deal with Hillary.  When the nominee leaves the convention, it will be too late by then to have to convince Republicans to vote Republican when you need all the Republicans to batten down on the attacks from Hillary and bring independents and blue conservatives to your camp.

Translation:  "We won't have that time to convince Republicans he's a conservative, because we'll be too busy trying to convince non-Republicans he's a liberal."  What a notion!  And particularly ironic to see it deployed on behalf of a candidate whose appeal supposedly comes from his straight talking and his refusal to pander . . . 

You don't need "all Republicans" to make the campaign function.  You need an infinitesimal portion of them--even smaller than usual, in Trump's case, since he prides himself on not needing donors and has been positively cavalier about his lack of a ground organization.  The party-at-large, he'd only really need to show up on Election Day.

No, Anatess; this pseudo-conciliatory schtick has but one purpose:  to create an aura of inevitability about a singularly unpopular candidate whom nearly two thirds of the Republican electorate has already rejected.

Edited April 16, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[anatess2]

10 hours ago, UT.starscoper said:

I wonder if I should be surprised by a show of support by Mr. Trump's current wife, and four of his children. I would expect (and have seen) similar solidarity from other candidates' families. It doesn't move me to vote one way or another.  But I am interested that you mentioned, "There's a reason Trump is resonating with a lot of people including ultra-conservative Tea Partiers like Jeff Sessions, evangelists like Jerry Falwell, etc." Is it a reason aside from the title of the thread?

Issue Positions that Trump and Cruz agree on:

individual Rights

• Abortion is a woman's unrestricted right:  DISAGREES
• Legally require hiring women and minorities:  DISAGREES
• Same sex marriage is ok:  DISAGREES
• EPA regulations are too restrictive:  AGREES
• Keep God in the public sphere:  STRONGLY AGREES

Domestic Issues

• Strict punishment reduces crime:  STRONGLY AGREES
• Absolute right to gun ownership:  STRONGLY AGREES
• Repeal Obamacare:  AGREES
• Vouchers for school choice:  STRONGLY AGREES
• Prioritize green energy:  STRONGLY DISAGREES
• Marijuana is a gateway drug:  DISAGREES

Economic Issues

• Stimulus is better than market-led recovery:  STRONGLY DISAGREES 
• Pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens:  STRONGLY DISAGREES
• Privatize Social Security:  AGREES

Foreign Policy

• Beef up the military:  STRONGLY AGREES
• Support American Exceptionalism:  STRONGLY AGREES
• Increase Border Patrol which includes a wall on the Southern Border:  STRONGLY AGREES
• Migrate Syrian Refugees into US:  DISAGREES

 

Issues they disagree on:

• Progressive Income tax with higher taxes for the wealthy:  Cruz Disagrees (Cruz is for flat tax), Trump Agrees
• Support and expand free trade:  Cruz Agrees, Trump Disagrees (Trump is for Free trade only if it is relatively balanced trade)
• Avoid entanglements with foreign governments as much as possible:  Cruz disagrees (Cruz agrees with W Bush), Trump agrees (Trump disagrees with W Bush)

 

As you can see, Cruz and Trump have only a very few things they disagree on.  Cruz voters and Trump voters would have generally the same high-level objectives.

Edited April 16, 2016 by anatess2

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Translation:  "We won't have that time to convince Republicans he's a conservative, because we'll be too busy trying to convince non-Republicans he's a liberal."  What a notion!  And particularly ironic to see it deployed on behalf of a candidate whose appeal supposedly comes from his straight talking and his refusal to pander . . . 

You don't need "all Republicans" to make the campaign function.  You need an infinitesimal portion of them--even smaller than usual, in Trump's case, since he prides himself on not needing donors and has been positively cavalier about his lack of a ground organization.  The party-at-large, he'd only really need to show up on Election Day.

No, Anatess; this pseudo-conciliatory schtick has but one purpose:  to create an aura of inevitability about a singularly unpopular candidate whom nearly two thirds of the Republican electorate has already rejected.

Okay.., this is what you're saying:  I don't believe your intentions Anatess.  You're just doing a pseudo-conciliatory schlick.

I think between the both of us, I would know better what my intentions are.  But I don't want to waste my time trying to convince you of it.

One thing I'm sure of, Trump is not a Conservative.  He can't even properly define what that is.  Trump is not a Liberal either.  He can't define that either.  Trump doesn't look at things in the prism of Conservative, Liberal, Republican, or Democrat.  He is just not an ideologue in any way, shape, or form.  He simply looks at things as Right or Wrong, Agree or Disagree, according to his world view.  He's a Republican because he has more in common with the Republican platform than the Democrats.  So he calls himself a Common Sense Conservative.  But when he's dealing with deBlasio or Cuomo or Rick Scott, or the city council of Palm Beach,he doesn't  see them as Democrat or Republican.  He sees them as individual people he needs to work with to get things done. 

Ben Carson said it quite succinctly when defending his and Falwell's endorsement of Trump to a conference of evangelicals.  God sends prophets to support non-believing Kings in the building of his Kingdom, just as Joseph and the King worked together to prepare for famine.  I can't find the exact quote.  I'll post it if I find it.

In any case, if you want a conservative, Ted Cruz is your man.  If you want a liberal, vote for the Democrats.  If Ted Cruz doesn't make it to the general election, you have a choice between not-really Conservative versus Blooming Liberal.

Romney, by the way, is not really Conservative either.  And neither was McCain nor both Bushes.  Nor Kasich.  And I think you will agree Kasich is a pretty good governor regardless of his not-quite-conservative credentials.

Edited April 16, 2016 by anatess2

[anatess2]

On Conservatism:

Okay, we all can agree that Cruz is the gold standard for conservatism, right?  I posted the issues comparison between Trump and Cruz above.  Here's Kasich and Cruz to measure Kasich's conservatism.  It will show that Trump has more in common with Cruz than Kasich does.  So, if you think Kasich is conservative enough to vote for, then Trump would even be more so:

Issues Cruz and Kasich disagree on:

• Legally require hiring women and minorities:  Cruz disagrees, Kasich agrees
• Same sex marriage is ok:  Cruz disagrees, Kasich agrees
• Marijuana is a gateway drug:  Cruz disagrees. Kasich agrees
• Progressive Income tax with higher taxes for the wealthy:  Cruz Disagrees (Cruz is for flat tax), Kasich Agrees
• Beef up the military:  Cruz agrees, Kasich disagrees

Kasich is not quite clear on Syrian Refugees and the wall on the southern border.  He was for accepting Syrian refugees but recently changed his position on this after Belgium.  He believes the US has the right to build the southern border wall but thinks it's not feasible.

Edited April 16, 2016 by anatess2

[Guest]

18 hours ago, David13 said:

Does it matter?

If you are asking whether the reason (someone gives for supporting Mr Trump) is likely to change another forum member's mind, then I would say it is unlikely.  If you're simply asking me whether (or why) it matters to me, then I would say it matters to satisfy my curiosity and to educate me.  It also matters because in some cases it might be worthwhile to offer a counter-point if I think an interesting (or mutually beneficial) conversation may result.  So, yeah it matters to me.

[David13]

My concern is the result.

No beast in the White House.  (After the current one leaves, I mean.)

dc

[prisonchaplain]

At this point I remain #NeverTrump. I disagree with HRC on most issues. However, she strikes me as competent. She will choose her battles, and she will deal with foreign enemies intelligently. Trump strikes me as vindictive and short-tempered. Such is dangerous for the leader of the US. I'm still praying that the brokered convention will give us a better option. One columnist suggested a longshot (though with great certainty, as pundits are prone to do): Kasich/Rubio. The theory is that most Republicans in office hate both Trump and Cruz. Also, Kasich nearly always bests HRC in national polls. Rubio would shore up conservative support. I might grimace at that scenario, but I could vote for Kasich. He's a liberal Republican. He has the advantage of being sane, though.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/john-kasich-will-be-the-r_b_9638598.html

Note that there is a National Review article with a similar theme, so this isn't just liberal "advice" for their opponents.

Edited April 16, 2016 by prisonchaplain
add link

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

At this point I remain #NeverTrump. I disagree with HRC on most issues. However, she strikes me as competent. She will choose her battles, and she will deal with foreign enemies intelligently. Trump strikes me as vindictive and short-tempered. Such is dangerous for the leader of the US. I'm still praying that the brokered convention will give us a better option. One columnist suggested a longshot (though with great certainty, as pundits are prone to do): Kasich/Rubio. The theory is that most Republicans in office hate both Trump and Cruz. Also, Kasich nearly always bests HRC in national polls. Rubio would shore up conservative support. I might grimace at that scenario, but I could vote for Kasich. He's a liberal Republican. He has the advantage of being sane, though.

I've been really torn on this issue, and this gives it some clarity for me. Thanks. 

[Guest MormonGator]

6 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

At this point I remain #NeverTrump. I disagree with HRC on most issues. However, she strikes me as competent. She will choose her battles, and she will deal with foreign enemies intelligently. Trump strikes me as vindictive and short-tempered. Such is dangerous for the leader of the US. I'm still praying that the brokered convention will give us a better option. One columnist suggested a longshot (though with great certainty, as pundits are prone to do): Kasich/Rubio. The theory is that most Republicans in office hate both Trump and Cruz. Also, Kasich nearly always bests HRC in national polls. Rubio would shore up conservative support. I might grimace at that scenario, but I could vote for Kasich. He's a liberal Republican. He has the advantage of being sane, though.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/john-kasich-will-be-the-r_b_9638598.html

Note that there is a National Review article with a similar theme, so this isn't just liberal "advice" for their opponents.

 She'll also nominate very liberal supreme court justices. So when she does, and I ask you "Who did you vote for?" and you respond "Hillary" it makes it hard to argue "But I didn't think it through that she would put lifelong liberals on the court, so I'm against her nominating "X". I'm not saying "you" as in "PrisonChaplin" Just the universal usage of the word. 

This is not easy. It's the most difficult election of my life. So I'm torn. I despise Trump and Trumpers more than anyone else here. But I love my gun rights and low taxes.

Edited April 17, 2016 by MormonGator

[David13]

15 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

 

So I'm torn. I despise Trump and Trumpers more than anyone else here. But I love my gun rights and low taxes.

Then get on the bandwagon.  It's the only possible hope we have.

dc

[Guest MormonGator]

8 minutes ago, David13 said:

Then get on the bandwagon.  It's the only possible hope we have.

dc

No, it's hardly like that thank you. It's not over until the convention, and Trumpers fail to comprehend that. 

[prisonchaplain]

Hillary will nominate liberal Supreme Court justices. That is her most terrible threat. However, Trump may do the same. He's an unpredictable, loose canon.  Further, Trump may so enrage his opponents that they will vote Democrat all the way down the ticket. Then HRC will have no check on those nominees. On the other hand, if Republicans repudiate Trump now, even if his supporters bolt the GOP, we may save the House and Senate, and be able to stymie HRC';s actions. In other words, saving the party may cost us the presidency, but may allow us to curb her power, and win the fight another day.

[Guest MormonGator]

19 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

Hillary will nominate liberal Supreme Court justices. That is her most terrible threat. However, Trump may do the same. He's an unpredictable, loose canon.  Further, Trump may so enrage his opponents that they will vote Democrat all the way down the ticket. Then HRC will have no check on those nominees. On the other hand, if Republicans repudiate Trump now, even if his supporters bolt the GOP, we may save the House and Senate, and be able to stymie HRC';s actions. In other words, saving the party may cost us the presidency, but may allow us to curb her power, and win the fight another day.

I actually agree with you totally, and that's what makes it so difficult. To me, both the nevertrumpers and the trumpers are the same person. They are letting emotion cloud judgement. The country is at stake here. It's time to think, not emote. 

[mirkwood]

Maybe God will smite us in October and we don't have to worry about the election.

[David13]

What on earth do you mean, save the house and senate?  The house and senate were lost long ago.

Does the term RINO mean anything to you?

dc

[prisonchaplain]

David13...depends on how conservative one is. So far those RINOs have prevented Obama's SCOTUS nominee.  They could reject HRC's liberal nominees.  I'd have more hope with them than the clean sweep Democratic House/Senate/Executive that Obama enjoyed his first two years.

[Guest MormonGator]

13 hours ago, mirkwood said:

Maybe God will smite us in October and we don't have to worry about the election.

 Really sad/depressing/darkly amusing when that's the best option .