For NeverTrumpers: An appeal to not vote Hillary over Trump

[NightSG]

36 minutes ago, Vort said:

What makes you think that Trump would appoint significantly better (or less awful) justices than Clinton? I admit that some chance is better than no chance,

If I have a choice between jumping off a 150 foot cliff or being shot in the head, I'm going to give myself the ~3 seconds to learn to fly.

Edited May 6, 2016 by NightSG

[Guest Godless]

2 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I don't disagree with you, but since I don't share liberal values on many issues, I'm not going to vote for her. Now, that doesn't mean she's a bad person-I have liberal family members I love dearly. It just means politically I view her as someone whom I disagree with. 

 

That's fair. If I'm being perfectly honest, I think Hillary and Trump really wouldn't be all that different as president. The glaring difference is that HRC is pretty predictable, Trump is not. A large part of me thinks that his shenanigans will calm down in the event of him winning the election and that his term will be relatively uneventful, but another part of me can't rule out the possibility that he'll elect Judge Judy to the Supreme Court and declare war on Canada BECAUSE AMERICA! Clinton is a textbook politician, and as much as I don't like that, it's a far more rational choice to me than a wildly unpredictable egomaniac with zero political experience.

[yjacket]

On 5/5/2016 at 4:24 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

But in closing, I would just note that if yours and YJacket's primary-season assurances have been truthful and accurate, then we need have no fears of Hillary in the White House.  Because with Trump's broad-based appeal to the center and center-left, you don't need the conservatives to win the general election, thankyouverymuch.

JAG,

I don't get you man . . .I guess if you repeat a lie so many times you come to believe it. I have never said that Trump didn't need conservatives, in fact I said he did and he does. You want to cast me as a Trumpster/Trumpkin whatever you want to call it.  I have continually said a pox on both their houses.  I have continually said both are narcissist.  Just because I attacked your favorite guy (who is about as truthful as a 3 dollar bill) and ripped the cover off of him, does not mean I am a Trumpster (who is also about as truthful as a 3 dollar bill).

The biggest thing that I like about Trump (at this point) is that I haven't seen any connection to the globalist, the CFRs, the Rockefellers, the New World Order, etc. He isn't a globalist and that IMO is a huge plus, that is reason enough to vote for the guy (even though he might be a pompous and egotistical).  People really don't realize how badly the globalists have screwed over this country. 

Welcome to the club of being a political outcast. I've been a libertarian for years, the only time in my life I've voted for a Republican President was in 2000 (when I was a lot dumber). The political system in the US is messed up; it is a weird mix of democracy mixed with a twinge of republicanism.  Given that we are so into democracy now-it would be much better if we had a political system like european countries with a few major parties and several minor parties that can get elected.  Breaking the political spectrum into simply Republican and Democract is just dumb. The only way that is going to change is to start at the bottom, either have part of the Republican party break-off or start a new one.

Personally, I disagree with MG on 3rd parties.  IMO that is how the country goes further and further down to statism . . . each succeeding R nominee is less and less freedom oriented than the last.

Edited May 6, 2016 by yjacket

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, Godless said:

That's fair. If I'm being perfectly honest, I think Hillary and Trump really wouldn't be all that different as president. The glaring difference is that HRC is pretty predictable, Trump is not. A large part of me thinks that his shenanigans will calm down in the event of him winning the election and that his term will be relatively uneventful, but another part of me can't rule out the possibility that he'll elect Judge Judy to the Supreme Court and declare war on Canada BECAUSE AMERICA! Clinton is a textbook politician, and as much as I don't like that, it's a far more rational choice to me than a wildly unpredictable egomaniac with zero political experience.

Perfectly said. I'm a moderate on most social issues and very right wing economically. Basically a libertarian. I'm torn on this election, absolutely torn.

[Guest MormonGator]

3 minutes ago, yjacket said:

Personally, I disagree with MG on 3rd parties.  IMO that is how the country goes further and further down to statism . . . each succeeding R nominee is less and less freedom oriented than the last.

I remember someone online once saying my view on third parties was "the dumbest thing they ever heard" and calling me "stupid." Really charming. One thing to disagree, one thing to use name calling. Not saying you are using name calling, just saying that's the joy of being someone who doesn't think the third party movement is valid in 2016. 

[tesuji]

What are Trump's position on "moral" issues? I just went up to his site and didn't see anything right off.

Does he support gay marriage?

Does he support abortion?

Does he believe in freedom of religion, teaching evolution in school, and allowing school prayer?

 

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, tesuji said:

What are Trump's position on "moral" issues? I just went up to his site and didn't see anything right off.

Does he support gay marriage?

Does he support abortion?

Does he believe in freedom of religion, teaching evolution in school, and allowing school prayer?

 

http://www.ontheissues.org/Donald_Trump.htm

 

[yjacket]

5 minutes ago, tesuji said:

Does he support abortion?

Well he definitely exposed the hypocrisy in the pro-life movement. He originally came out in support of punishment if a woman has an abortion; the backlash from the pro-life movement was swift and harsh.

I actually think its the only moral position to take, if one believes abortion is murder, then both the doctor and the woman are committing murder.  It's pretty simple.

And Planned Parenthood is one of those hot-button issues that no one understands or looks at and everyone screams "DEFUND IT".  You can't "defund" it, it doesn't have a line item in the Congressional Budget to get defunded.  It's not a governmental organization.  It gets most of it's federal money from reimbursements using Medicare and Medicaid.  So there isn't a "defunding" of PP, you have to remove abortions from being reimbursed from Medicare and Medicaid in order to "defund" it. Otherwise, if PP got "defunded" there would simply be another organization who would pop up that would take PPs place.

Edited May 6, 2016 by yjacket

[tesuji]

2 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Donald_Trump.htm

 

Thanks. That's a great site.

[Guest MormonGator]

Just now, tesuji said:

Thanks. That's a great site.

Been using it since the 2000 elections. Also use Politics1.com. 

[yjacket]

10 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I remember someone online once saying my view on third parties was "the dumbest thing they ever heard" and calling me "stupid." Really charming. One thing to disagree, one thing to use name calling. Not saying you are using name calling, just saying that's the joy of being someone who doesn't think the third party movement is valid in 2016. 

I hope it wasn't me; no I understand why people don't vote 3rd parties, I just happen to disagree.

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, yjacket said:

JAG,

I don't get you man . . .I guess if you repeat a lie so many times you come to believe it. I have never said that Trump didn't need conservatives, in fact I said he did and he does. You want to cast me as a Trumpster/Trumpkin whatever you want to call it.  I have continually said a pox on both their houses.  I have continually said both are narcissist. 

In point of fact, you repeatedly said that Cruz would need the Trumpkins (see also here) and in the same post you openly said you preferred Trump to Cruz.  Moreover, over the course of the thread you have repeatedly rallied to defend even Trump's most boorish, egregious behavior. If you ever asserted the converse--that Trump needed conservatives--I'd be very grateful to your directing me to the post. 

Quote

Just because I attacked your favorite guy (who is about as truthful as a 3 dollar bill) and ripped the cover off of him, does not mean I am a Trumpster (who is also about as truthful as a 3 dollar bill).

It's not that you attacked Cruz (I even agreed with you that some of his mannerisms are off-putting); it's that you did so by repeating lies about him (I won't say that you, specifically, "lied", since I rather doubt that these lies originated with you and I trust that you, personally, believed them at the time you repeated them.  But they originated with someone, and they were lies, nonetheless).  Even more troubling is that when I showed you the truth underlying your allegations, you just doubled down on them (including a follow-up post that was thoroughly misleading, as I had to point out to you) and, in the process, started throwing out ad hominems involving my profession and my wife.

I am sick unto death of all the dishonesty and thuggery coming out of Trump and his supporters.  I'm sick of the games wherein they deny they support the guy at all even as they transparently stump for him.  I'm sick of the open glorification of sleaze, of the full embrace of political expediency, of the cavalier denial of easily-documented historical facts, of the scorn for the legal electoral processes, of the evisceration of bedrock conservative individuals and institutions, of the implicit and explicit threats of violence if they don't get their way, of the attempts to shut down commenters or forums that condemn Trump (see, e.g., Instapundit, where any anti-Trump comments are reported forthwith for abuse). 

You know what, YJacket?  Quite candidly, I could almost abide Trump the man, if it weren't for the banana-republic civic ethos of the majority of Trumpkins with whom I have had the misfortune to correspond.

Edited May 6, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[Vort]

5 hours ago, Godless said:

Absolutely nothing about her says "radical liberal" to me.

"Vast right-wing conspiracy."

[tesuji]

Experts predict economic disaster from Trump recovery idea

http://bigstory.ap.org/urn:publicid:ap.org:4cb5ff8fbe364ef58cfd6b361610ff79

[yjacket]

14 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

In point of fact, you repeatedly said that Cruz would need the Trumpkins (see also here) and in the same post you openly said you preferred Trump to Cruz.  Moreover, over the course of the thread you have repeatedly rallied to defend even Trump's most boorish, egregious behavior. If you ever asserted the converse--that Trump needed conservatives--I'd be very grateful to your directing me to the post. 

It's not that you attacked Cruz (I even agreed with you that some of his mannerisms are off-putting); it's that you did so by repeating lies about him (I won't say that you, specifically, "lied", since I rather doubt that these lies originated with you and I trust that you, personally, believed them at the time you repeated them.  But they originated with someone, and they were lies, nonetheless).  Even more troubling is that when I showed you the truth underlying your allegations, you just doubled down on them (including a follow-up post that was thoroughly misleading, as I had to point out to you) and, in the process, started throwing out ad hominems involving my profession and my wife.

I am sick unto death of all the dishonesty and thuggery coming out of Trump and his supporters.  I'm sick of the games wherein they deny they support the guy at all even as they transparently stump for him.  I'm sick of the open glorification of sleaze, of the full embrace of political expediency, of the cavalier denial of easily-documented historical facts, of the scorn for the legal electoral processes, of the evisceration of bedrock conservative individuals and institutions, of the implicit and explicit threats of violence if they don't get their way, of the attempts to shut down commenters or forums that condemn Trump (see, e.g., Instapundit, where any anti-Trump comments are reported forthwith for abuse). 

You know what, YJacket?  Quite candidly, I could almost abide Trump the man, if it weren't for the banana-republic civic ethos of the majority of Trumpkins with whom I have had the misfortune to correspond.

Lol, JAG you didn't prove anything. You'd like to think you did, but you didn't. Lol, about your wife, give me a break.  You never directly answered my question and here you are again wanting to get into it. You can't let it go.

I directly asked you a question about specific behavior, i.e. if you thought doing x was acceptable for a married individual.  Instead of directly answering the question (which would have revealed the depths to which you are willing to defend a politician who doesn't deserve your defense), you continually evade, deny, make counter-accusations.  You accuse me in essence of being a liar, being two-faced, claiming that I'm not for Trump but that I really am for Trump (i.e. that I'm a liar). you put all the blame on someone else. You can't or won't answer a simple question, which is quick frankly "is having a private meal with someone of the opposite sex at 2am in the morning acceptable?" You refuse to answer that question. You are a divorce lawyer and you won't answer that question. That tells me you are the one who is being not on the up and up, not me. I never accused you or your wife of impropriety, I simply said I guess you think that behavior is acceptable and that's fine if you do.  I don't think it is acceptable.

You are the one with the problem, not me.. So many people have a reading comprehension problem. I am sick and tired of people putting words in my mouth and deliberately misconstruing what I post in order to suit their own agenda.

Not being for Cruz is not the same thing as being for Trump.  You continually refuse to accept the fact that I have continually said both are not very good people. You continually deny the fact that I have said they need each other.  You want to read something what you want to read and the actual words that I type do not matter to you.

[yjacket]

15 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

In point of fact, you repeatedly said that Cruz would need the Trumpkins (see also here) and in the same post you openly said you preferred Trump to Cruz.  Moreover, over the course of the thread you have repeatedly rallied to defend even Trump's most boorish, egregious behavior. If you ever asserted the converse--that Trump needed conservatives--I'd be very grateful to your directing me to the post.

I'm not going to look through 15 pages, you can pull up all these links to attack me, but can't find the one where I said Trump would need them . . . give me a break.  Saying one has a preference on candidate over the other does not a Trumpkin make, nor does it mean someone is for that person.  A preference of being shot vs. being hung does not mean I'm for being shot.  You again reading into things what you want to read.  You've got all these links, but where did I defend Trump's most "boorish" behavior.

Where did I say that it was perfectly fine for him to do some of the things he did? I said what he did was brilliant/impressive (from a strategic standpoint), i.e. an art of war standpoint. Just b/c I say that it was impressive doesn't mean I think it is morally good. There is quite a difference in understanding and admiring someone's psychological strategy and saying you think it is a morally good thing to do. If one can never learn to give their enemy credit they will never know how to beat them. Which is why no one else could beat Trump-they were too busy seeing him as this "evil, boorish" guy to actually understand what he was doing.  Everyone thinks Trump is an idiot, boorish, evil, etc. etc. etc. yet they fail to actually comprehend what he did.  And what he did, the way he did it was absolutely impressive.  We've never seen anything like it in our lifetime.  

Read the Dilbert's guys take on it.  He is dead on about Trump; whether or not you agree with Trumps positions (the foreign policy is the only one where I'm close to him on it), or agree with how he does things (which I don't), it is still impressive.  People think he is this idiot, this buffoon, etc. regardless the way he operates is impressive. If you fail to comprehend what and how he did what he did, you will always be angry about this election and angry at anyone who disagrees with you.

For example, Megan Kelly even made peace with Trump and that's after he called her a bimbo.  And that is why Cruz people lost, they seriously underestimated what Trump was doing, they thought everyone would be for their guy, but when it came down to it more people were anti-Cruz than anti-Trump.

But, yes, yes please go ahead and make the attack that I'm a Trumpster, simply b/c I have the where with all to be impressed with what someone does.  I'm impressed with Cruz, his delegate strategy was executed very well, tactically it was brilliant and how Cruz executed it was brilliant. Strategically he was dumb about it, it's one of the reasons why he lost. For example, Cruz is going to go into the convention with at least 500 hard-core supporters. If the guy was smart, he would use those supporters for leverage, get something on the platform, advance the cause, it. People seem to think it's all about the presidency. It's the Presidency or Bust and that's not the way it works. Cruz can have a good amount of leverage, if he plays it right; he can get some of the Tea Party issues front and center. But if all he and his supporters want to do is whine and moan and complain about how "evil, boorish" etc. Trump is then good luck on pushing any of those issues.

Let's see, Bush I, Bush II, Jeb, Graham, Ryan and Romney all refuse to endorse Trump . . .I'd say that's pretty good company-all of those people are part of the globalist insider cabal neo-con CFR network.  If I were running for President I wouldn't want their support anyways.  And most of the country couldn't care about them giving their support to Trump either (Republicans widely rejected the Bush's and Graham)..

Edited May 7, 2016 by yjacket

[LeSellers]

37 minutes ago, yjacket said:

Bush I, Bush II, Jeb, Graham, Ryan and Romney all refuse to endorse Trump

One could say that these (and a host of others), being "establishment", are precisely those Trump and his supporters would not want to have "on his side".

(Please recall that I am not a Trumpist/Trumper/Trumpkin. If I end up supporting him, it'll be for one or more of the following reasons: this country is a failing business–we need a turn-around expert; the likely Democrat is Hillary, and she is absolute poison [this applies only if my vote for Trump had a reasonable chance of affecting the outcome in my state]; his plan for, e.g., securing the border gets more fleshed out.)

We are where we are because USmerica has become a welfare/warfare state and the costs of being the world's policeman and supporting one in three people in a manner I'd like to become accustomed to vastly outstrips our capabilities. Eliminating all welfare would be a good first step to keeping my great-grand children from being in debt beyond their earning capacity. We also need to stop financing the militaries in half the world's countries. Trump has spoken to both issues, and I find that helpful.

Yes, if Trump is a closet progressive, we'll continue along the highway to destruction at 30 mph, but if Hillary (or Bernie) moves intpo the White House next January, the road won't change, but the speed will increase to 60 (or 75).

Finally, while neither I nor anyone else is excited about choosing the lesser of two evils, it may very well be that not voting for him would be the equivalent of choosing the greater of two evils. That's even lower on the list of things I want to do with my vote.

Lehi

[NeuroTypical]

18 hours ago, Godless said:

Listing accomplishments (or lack thereof) isn't the same as listing cons to a HRC presidency. I, too, would be very interested to see a list of ways Hillary would be so much worse than Trump.

Consider something - she has had a very long career in public office.  She's been secretary of state and visited world leaders to forward the agenda of the United States.  She has had ample opportunity to have some accomplishments.  

The fact that she has squat to show, gives us reason to believe that same squat is what she'll produce for America.  She can't point to legislation she has spearheaded.  Or treaties she's negotiated.  How has she helped our allies or hurt our enemies?  What, actually, has she actually done in elected office?

From where I'm standing, when you consider someone for a job, you look at their resume, because it gives a little insight into the sorts of things they'll be able to accomplish in their new job.

[tesuji]

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

What, actually, has she actually done in elected office?

If as president she faces a GOP congress, they won't let her accomplish anything then too. She'll be perfectly prepared! ;D

[mirkwood]

Donald Trumps new plan is to DEFAULT on our national debt.

1. That trashes the entire world economy. We are no longer the world reserve currency. Remember when Iceland couldn't afford to buy meat and all the McDonald's closed? That is us times 18 trillion.

2. Why would anyone loan is money now knowing that this is his plan?

3. Why would anyone not divest themselves of our debt and currency now because this might be the best it gets for them if he is president.

We are not a casino DJT. We are the hope of the world. You cut spending and lower taxes to grow your way out of debt.

This would bring millions of jobs back to America and spur investment in our country.

We must be the safe haven for investment NOT more unstable.

This is insanity.

Batten down the hatches if the world even thinks he may win the presidency.

[LeSellers]

17 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

Donald Trumps new plan is to DEFAULT on our national debt.

It's happened in the past. Why should this time be different?

Okeh, actual nominal default hasn't happened, but the wholesale default through inflation (which means the $100 you had can only buy $50 worth of stuff) is absolutely the same thing. And this has happened repeatedly since 1775. The dollar Brother Joseph had would buy nearly $100 worth of goods and services in 2016.

Trump's way (which is not technically default, but repurchase at the calculated discount rate, and then refinancing the cash needed for the discounted bonds) is more honest, and it does not inflict its hardship on the honest man who saved his money for the future. Inflation is a cheat's way of doing the smae thing, but harming the honest while protecting the elite.

The average (and many of the above average) USmerican has been cheated by his lack of education in real economics. We can blame the schools owned and controlled by the very ones who benefit most by this scam: the bureaucracy and political class.

Lehi

[Guest]

47 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

Donald Trumps new plan is to DEFAULT on our national debt.

And I'm just the moron who thought it relevant that he's filed bankruptcy in business more than once. 

But hey! He speaks his mind! 

[LeSellers]

40 minutes ago, Eowyn said:

And I'm just the moron who thought it relevant that he's filed bankruptcy in business more than once.

What do his business bankruptcies have to do with the issues? Bankruptcy is a necessary and beneficial part of every investment program. Most of his businesses have been very profitable. Some have failed. But his percentage of successes is five-to-eight times better than the average, so that alone makes his record sunshine in a rainstorm.

And let's not forget that his investors are not moms'n'pops putting up their nest eggs. These are sophisticated money men who knew the odds. They were prepared for the worst, even while hoping for the home run.

This bankruptcy mirage is nothing but political smoke.

Lehi

Edited May 8, 2016 by LeSellers

[Guest MormonGator]

14 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

 

This bankruptcy mirage is nothing but political smoke.

 

Would his creditors say the same? If you invested in his casinos and he stiffed you-how would you feel? 

Ironically though you are correct-his bankruptcies don't mean much, but neither do his business successes. Except in rare cases the skill set you need in politics is quite different than the skill set you need in business. In business you can fire your employees who don't do what you ask them too. The president can't fire congress if they refuse to do what he says. 

Now, that doesn't mean all the skills in business aren't political. Negotiation is important in business and politics, and there are other skills that are interchangeable. But not every skill is, even negotiation is different.

 It's almost like being a college football coach and an NFL coach. 

 

  

[LeSellers]

6 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Would his creditors say the same? If you invested in his casinos and he stiffed you-how would you feel?

Please re-read this:

25 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

Bankruptcy is a necessary and beneficial part of every investment program. …

And let's not forget that his investors are not moms'n'pops putting up their nest eggs. These are sophisticated money men who knew the odds. They were prepared for the worst, even while hoping for the home run.

Happy about it, no. But they knew the odds. Every sophisticated investor knows that some opportunities will not work out. They build that into their interest rates and other calculations.

Lehi

Edited May 8, 2016 by LeSellers