For NeverTrumpers: An appeal to not vote Hillary over Trump

[NeuroTypical]

4 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Here's the speech:

I really encourage you to watch the entire speech but if you just can't then here are the highlights:

http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/04/27/video-trump-delivers-foreign-policy-speech-we-must-put-america-first

 

Well, I disagreed with elements of that speech less often than I thought I would.

[Vort]

6 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Here's the speech:

I really encourage you to watch the entire speech but if you just can't then here are the highlights:

http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/04/27/video-trump-delivers-foreign-policy-speech-we-must-put-america-first

The good news: That was not a humiliating speech.

The bad news: Anyone can sound good if they're criticizing the astounding havoc wreaked by President Obama.

[Vort]

7 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Here's the speech:

 

Listened to the whole speech. Not overly impressed. His main thrust appeared to be "America First!" I do not necessarily disagree with that, especially for a prospective US president. His criticisms of Obama and Clinton were, in my opinion, fully justified, though rather obvious to anyone who lacks the particular Democrat style of brain damage. Other than that, his speech was basically telling us how much better off America would be with him as the President.

To be fair, few campaign speeches give specifics, and those that do are inevitably torn apart. (Anyone read Bernie Sanders' web site and his specifics for funding his endless welfare? It's hilarious, or it would be if so many people didn't buy into his empty promises without bothering to research them.) So fine, I give Trump credit for making a decent campaign speech. This does precious little to change my opinion of the man. If my vote counted for anything, I would (probably) vote for him over anything the Democrats scrape up. But that is saying pretty much nothing. Seeing as how my vote will not count, I will not be voting for Trump. So if he wins the Repub nomination, I will be writing in my favorite candidate. How does President Dallin H. Oaks sound? I like it.

[anatess2]

7 hours ago, Vort said:

Listened to the whole speech. Not overly impressed. His main thrust appeared to be "America First!" I do not necessarily disagree with that, especially for a prospective US president. His criticisms of Obama and Clinton were, in my opinion, fully justified, though rather obvious to anyone who lacks the particular Democrat style of brain damage. Other than that, his speech was basically telling us how much better off America would be with him as the President.

To be fair, few campaign speeches give specifics, and those that do are inevitably torn apart. (Anyone read Bernie Sanders' web site and his specifics for funding his endless welfare? It's hilarious, or it would be if so many people didn't buy into his empty promises without bothering to research them.) So fine, I give Trump credit for making a decent campaign speech. This does precious little to change my opinion of the man. If my vote counted for anything, I would (probably) vote for him over anything the Democrats scrape up. But that is saying pretty much nothing. Seeing as how my vote will not count, I will not be voting for Trump. So if he wins the Repub nomination, I will be writing in my favorite candidate. How does President Dallin H. Oaks sound? I like it.

What was more a thing of note is the different direction this takes from the Foreign Policies of the past 30+ years... Republican and Democrat alike.  Making Putin an ally?  That would have been a Republican self-implosion speech just 4 years ago.  This is the thing about The Donald - he is such an outsider that he can put out fresh ideas for the Republican party and be strong enough not only to stand up to the demagoguery that comes with it but also to make Republicans talk about the possibilities and even sway a lot of them to his side.

Back in 2003,  I called into the Sean Hannity Radio Show and gave him a piece of my mind about going into Iraq among other things contained in this speech... he called me a liberal.

 

[yjacket]

I said I would say this (I just didn't think it would be so soon) but:

Told you so.

Now, if the Ted Cruz delegates are smart at the National Convention they could help elect a Tea Party/Liberty individual as a VP, not a Rubio or Cruz (he screwed himself out of being VP), someone like a Rand Paul might work to bring in the Tea Party, hard core conservative vote. The VP vote is not bound on the first ballot.

Edited May 4, 2016 by yjacket

[Guest MormonGator]

24 minutes ago, yjacket said:

Told you so.

 

1) that is why many of us don't like Trumpers. 

2) it doesn't matter what anyone says if you don't win in November. 

3) You didn't tell many of us. We knew he would win. Still doesn't mean we'll vote for him. 

Edited May 4, 2016 by MormonGator

[Just_A_Guy]

Why should I care about having a conservative on the ticket to lick Trump's boots?  Trump openly rejects conservatism in favor of populism.  The only reasons for him to get a conservative on the ticket are 1) you know you need us after all, after months of saying you didn't or 2) you know you're doomed in the general, and you want a conservative to take the fall (think Palin in 2008).

Trumpkins hitched their wagons to a despicable candidate on a vaguely populist platform.  Don't come crying to us conservatives now that you see the mud flats up ahead and realize you can't make it through the muck without help.  We were the ones telling you from the get-go that your jackass was incapable of pulling the wagon.  

You can go talk to all those "independent" voters you boasted would flock to Trump's banner, if you think you need someone to save your bacon. But as far as I, as a conservative, am concerned--you're on your own now.  Which, I note, is precisely where you threatened to leave us, in the event of a non-Trump nomination.

Edited May 4, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest MormonGator]

18 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Why should I care about having a conservative on the ticket to lick Trump's boots?  Trump openly rejects conservatism in favor of populism.  The only reasons for him to get a conservative on the ticket are 1) you know you need us after all, after months of saying you didn't or 2) you know you're doomed in the general, and you want a conservative to take the fall (think Palin in 2008).

Trumpkins hitched their wagons to a despicable candidate on a vaguely populist platform.  Don't come crying to us conservatives now that you see the mud flats up ahead.  We were the ones telling you from the get-go that your jackass was incapable of pulling the wagon.  

You're on your own now.

 I'm torn JAG. I want to vote for Trump because the alternative is so much worse -but to me both the hardcore NeverTrumpers and Trumpers are obnoxious. The NeverTrumpers act morally superior to those who us who consider dirtying our hands voting for Trump-and the Trumpers are so rude and inconsiderate that it makes it hard to even consider voting for him.  

[LeSellers]

18 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I want to vote for Trump because the alternative is so much worse

Indeed.

I do not want to vote for Trump, at least I have no serious reason to vote for him, but I will certainly vote against any Democrat, and especially against either of the Democrats who might win their own carnival. One is an economic illiterate, the other a consummate liar, a self-seeking wicked witch. Her only accomplishments in life have been to bear a daughter and hide her husband's dalliances, or, at least, to destroy the women whom he either raped or bought off.

At this point the reasons to vote for Trump are limited to his rhetoric, and his actions from the past are suspect. But he is neither Hillary nor Bernie, and that may be enough.

Alas for my people!

Lehi

Edited May 4, 2016 by LeSellers

[Guest MormonGator]

5 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

Indeed.

I do not want to vote for Trump, at least I have no serious reason to vote for him, but I will certainly vote against any Democrat, and especially against either of the Democrats who might win their own carnival. One is an economic illiterate, the other a consummate liar, a self-seeking wicked witch. Her only accomplishments in life have been to bear a daughter and hide her husband's dalliances, or, at least, to destroy the women whom he either raped or bought off.

At this point the reasons to vote for Trump are limited to his rhetoric, and his actions from the past are suspect. But he is neither Hillary nor Bernie, and that may be enough.

Alas for my people!

Lehi

 Yup, totally. The third party neverTrumpers are useful idiots in some ways. More damaging to the cause they "love" then the other side. 

[Colirio]

If only there was a "lesser" of these evils to choose from...

 

Hillary should be in jail.

 

Sanders' policies, if actually implemented, would collapse what is left of our economy through runaway inflation. 

 

And I dread the day "President Trump" would be faced with September 11 type obstacles where we all have to rely on his judgment  and sound logic to get us through the crisis... 

 

How can I, in good conscience, vote for any of them? 

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

 Yup, totally. The third party neverTrumpers are useful idiots in some ways. More damaging to the cause they "love" then the other side. 

Depends on what the end game is.  You're absolutely right, if the end game is just to get someone with an "R" after their name into the White House.  

On the other hand, the "end game" could be to have conservatives free to advance their agenda and their preferred candidates in a dedicated (admittedly smaller) political party without being perpetually muzzled by the fear of a revolt of that party's populist wing.

Or, it could be to prevent all future campaigns from adopting Trump's current tactics--thus preserving (or at least slowing the decline of) semi-substantive electoral discourse by making it crystal clear that you can't win the White House playing those games.

If Trump's supporters were willing to break the Republican party and give Hillary the White House for the sake of Trump's own little personality cult (which, his supporters here have conceded, they clearly were); then surely it's acceptable for conservatives to break with the Republican party for the long-term good of the conservative movement and (as we believe it to be) the country-at-large.  Hillary's bad--maybe worse than Trump--but she's not worse than Obama; and given Sanders' broad (minority) appeal she's likely to be the closest thing to a moderate that the Democratic Party will produce during any of our lifetimes.  If the Republican party is going to fracture, then let it be now.

Edited May 4, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[Vort]

26 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Hillary's bad--maybe worse than Trump--but she's not worse than Obama

I almost never disagree with you, but I cannot agree with the above.

[mirkwood]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

  Hillary's bad--maybe worse than Trump--but she's not worse than Obama;

Negative ghostrider.  She is much worse.  Much much worse.

[Just_A_Guy]

Vort and Mirkwood, I'd be interested you flesh that out.  

[prisonchaplain]

3 hours ago, MormonGator said:

 I'm torn JAG. I want to vote for Trump because the alternative is so much worse -but to me both the hardcore NeverTrumpers and Trumpers are obnoxious. The NeverTrumpers act morally superior to those who us who consider dirtying our hands voting for Trump-and the Trumpers are so rude and inconsiderate that it makes it hard to even consider voting for him.  

I am a softcore #NeverTrumper.  No moral superiority here.  It's just that, in the past, "the lesser of two evils" was not really evil...just weak, or lame, or too moderate.  This time around I really see both candidates (Clinton or Sanders & Trump) as really really bad.  Clinton is much worse on policies, but Mr. Trump just disgusts me.  Those who see hope of him being a moderate, or a populist, who will actually negotiate and lead well...vote for Trump.  You'll get no judgment from me.

I remain to be convinced. If Trump puts a seasoned, semi-conservative VP on his ticket AND says he'll put Cruz up as his first SCOTUS nominee--that would probably do it for me. 

[yjacket]

9 hours ago, MormonGator said:

2) it doesn't matter what anyone says if you don't win in November. 

3) You didn't tell many of us. We knew he would win. Still doesn't mean we'll vote for him. 

#3 is just flat out mostly false. I went round and round saying look guys this is the political reality like it or not and very, very few listened.  Hey let's elect Cruz at the convention over Trump? People throw out the numbers, blah, blah, blah look at how many people didn't vote for Trump. The political reality of actually doing so would have destroyed the Republican party (if that was the aim of some then more power to them). Unfortunately, some people couldn't see 2 steps in front of their face to recognize the reality of the situation.  Some people just don't want to eat their own crow and admit they were wrong.

Take Cruz, brilliant tactician but miserable strategist. Playing the delegate game was brilliant as a tactic, but unless you have some other end-game besides being President a horrible strategic decision. Now Cruz has many hundreds of delegates, many of whom are relative political neophytes who are going to spend thousands of dollars to be involved in a convention in Cleveland (ugh), who are "true believers" or #NeverTrumpers or whatever. If Cruz is a smart strategist he can use the delegates that are faithful to him to gain some hard-core conservative concessions at the National Convention.

To point #2, that is what I've said all along. If Trump does not reach out to those who were for Cruz he won't win; and the same for #NeverTrumpers.

[yjacket]

9 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Why should I care about having a conservative on the ticket to lick Trump's boots?  Trump openly rejects conservatism in favor of populism.  The only reasons for him to get a conservative on the ticket are 1) you know you need us after all, after months of saying you didn't or 2) you know you're doomed in the general, and you want a conservative to take the fall (think Palin in 2008).

Trumpkins hitched their wagons to a despicable candidate on a vaguely populist platform.  Don't come crying to us conservatives now that you see the mud flats up ahead and realize you can't make it through the muck without help.  We were the ones telling you from the get-go that your jackass was incapable of pulling the wagon.  

You can go talk to all those "independent" voters you boasted would flock to Trump's banner, if you think you need someone to save your bacon. But as far as I, as a conservative, am concerned--you're on your own now.  Which, I note, is precisely where you threatened to leave us, in the event of a non-Trump nomination.

I'm not sure who you are talking to, b/c it ain't me. I'm always claimed Trump needs the hard-core Cruz voters. So I don't know who you are talking about for #1. As for hitching their wagons . . . Cruz's last days weren't exactly a shining knight either, the guy wore Religion on his sleeve

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/278520-ron-paul-i-wouldnt-vote-for-cruz

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/ron-paul-ted-cruz-libertarian-218822

As for Trump, I don't know but what is more conservative than saying America First, we are going to take care of and conserve the US first, take care of our own needs first. It is the conservative world-view.  At home we say, 1st we need to take care of our family, each individual is responsible 1st to their family. Social welfare is a no,no. Yet on the global scale those same people say conservatism is world welfare, or corporate welfare?

I don't like Trump, I will most likely vote 3rd party, but I remain open-minded enough that depending on what he does I'd vote for him.  While I don't like him, nor did I vote for him nor will I vote for him (unless I see some good things and a foreign policy of not getting involved in other counties mess might do it), I understand and understood the political realities of the primary season.

JAG, if you really want to make a difference, the Presidency isn't it. Elect good conservative people to your local offices, build up your local area, hold your congressmen feet to the fire; b/c I can guarantee unless you have a Thomas Massie, of Flake or someone of their ilk as your congressman they are selling you down the river.

Unfortunately, that takes more work than most people want to put into it.  They get their kicks every 4 years by screaming and hollering that if we just had xyz for President everything would be different. xyz happens nothing changes and then the next 4 years they do the same thing. It's the hard work of being involved monthly by advocating causes to local reps. by calling, writing, etc. that makes the difference, by really researching your local candidates and holding them accountable b/c very, very few of them are good moral people who are incorruptible.

Edited May 4, 2016 by yjacket

[unixknight]

Well I guess that's it then.  I'm voting for Gary Johnson.

I'm a registered Libertarian but I was going to vote Cruz.

[Guest]

12 hours ago, yjacket said:

I said I would say this (I just didn't think it would be so soon) but:

Told you so.

I heard you say that the first time.  I'm reading it now.  I still don't know what it was that you told us that we denied.  That Trump would get the nomination?  I never denied it.  I really hoped it would not be so.  But I saw the polls and the direction and saw the real possibility and even the probability.  So did many others.

So, what is it that we're supposed to praise your prognostication skills for?

[Guest MormonGator]

3 hours ago, yjacket said:

#3 is just flat out mostly false. I went round and round saying look guys this is the political reality like it or not and very, very few listened.  Hey let's elect Cruz at the convention over Trump? People throw out the numbers, blah, blah, blah look at how many people didn't vote for Trump. The political reality of actually doing so would have destroyed the Republican party (if that was the aim of some then more power to them). Unfortunately, some people couldn't see 2 steps in front of their face to recognize the reality of the situation.  Some people just don't want to eat their own crow and admit they were wrong.

 None of what you said implies that we didn't know Trump would win. 

[NeuroTypical]

Math even children can understand:

Usually, we have 100 people vote.  48 usually vote for the democrat, 48 usually vote for the republican.  Everyone fights to win the last 4 people.   Usually, the last four vote as follows: 
1 vote for Floobian Humblestein, the enviro-weirdo who thinks trees have feelings and furrows his brow disapprovingly when he sees an SUV.
1 vote for Hurmphord Smudge, the guy who wants to dismantle the EEOC, forest service, post office, IRS, and UN.
1 vote for Yayhoo McTotallyBizarre, who has no coherent position on anything.  This vote is made in crayon, and misspells the candidate's name.
1 vote for either the dem or republican, and this vote decides whether the US gets 8 years of dem or republican rule.

But this time, things are different.

100 people will vote.  Of the democrat voters, 45 go Hillary, and 3 actually go Trump .  The last 4 will do what they usually do.  Of the republican voters, 30 of the 48 go Trump.  The other 18 have a decision to make.  They can:
- Vote for one of the three weirdos, which means Hillary will be elected.
- Not vote, which means Hillary will be elected.
- Write in Ryan, or Cruz, or Kaisich, or someone else, which means Hillary will be elected.  
- Vote for Trump, which means Trump will be elected.

You @NeverTrumpers have a choice.  Hillary or Trump.  There is no other viable option.  

[Vort]

9 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Vort and Mirkwood, I'd be interested you flesh that out.  

Obama is an unmitigated disaster, but he is doing pretty much exactly what he said (other than the more obvious and gratuitous lies about racial unity and such). Clinton talks out of both sides of her mouth. As far as I can tell, she is a liar to her core. In no sense can Ms. Vast-Right-Wing-Conspiracy-Tanked-My-Husband be considered fit for the job of POTUS.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

You @NeverTrumpers have a choice.  Hillary or Trump.  There is no other viable option.  

Well, now that you put it that way, I'm voting for Hillary.

[prisonchaplain]

Somebody had mentioned that Anderson was running as a Libertarian, and that he was pro-life.  I oppose the isolationism of Libertarians, but was ready to give him consideration.  Then it came out that Johnson was their guy.  He is in favor of legalizing drugs, is pro-abortion (when they give us the respect of calling us pro-life, I'll revert to pro-choice), and he is definitely and isolationist. 

NeuroTypical is right.  It's Trump or Hillary.  One temptation is just to vote down ticket, and abstain from the presidential vote.  Yes, it's a vote for HRC--but only one.  If I decide that Trump is just too despicable, and actually cast a vote for her...then you could label me a hardcore #NeverTrumper.  Personally, I am considering a first decision--to vote one way or another--to take the abstention option off my personal table.  THEN it will a vote that probably requires self-mutilation, either way.   :::sigh:::