For NeverTrumpers: An appeal to not vote Hillary over Trump

[Vort]

7 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Are you willing to consider the possibility that you are wrong about Trump?

Sure. But you have to show me the evidence. From all I have seen, the guy is an unremitting, unrepentant, unreformed sack of scum.

[Guest MormonGator]

3 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Anyone who votes for Trump yet critcized anyone for voting for Bill Clinton because "Character Matters" is a hypocrite.

In fairness you can agree with someone politically and find them personally unappealing. It's a different skill set. Trumps personal drama is sad but that's between him and God. It should be obvious I don't like him. 

[Guest MormonGator]

3 minutes ago, Vort said:

Sure. But you have to show me the evidence. From all I have seen, the guy is an unremitting, unrepentant, unreformed sack of scum.

 Other than that, Vort LOVES the guy 

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Vort said:

Sure. But you have to show me the evidence. From all I have seen, the guy is an unremitting, unrepentant, unreformed sack of scum.

As LP said, don't beat around the bush, Vort.  Just tell us how you really feel.

[Just_A_Guy]

32 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

First paragraph:

You have not (or refuse to) see what is happening in this election cycle.  Trump voters - and I have named several prominent ones in Vort's thread - do not see Trump as a dirtbag nor did they vote for him because they think he is a dirtbag and they are not trying to persuade anybody to vote for a dirtbag.

That's really beside the point.  We were talking about Cruz's tactics, which involved failing to see just how far Trump and his followers would go in negativity, in acceptance of obvious double-standards, in wholesale abandonment of conservative principles, and in rank dishonesty.  I will freely concede that most dirtbags don't see themselves as dirtbags--and their friends, family, and admirers don't see them as such, either. 

Quote

Second paragraph:

Same thing.  Now, if you think that elections are won without engaging in emotion, then I don't know what you've been looking at in elections.  Great rousing speeches has been a critical component of every campaign.  Cruz's and Kasich's exit speeches was as emotionally heavy as all get.  What you have dismissed simply by your belief that Trump is nothing more than a dirtbag is the logic and reason that went with the Trump campaign.  The media and many others dismissed him right out of the gate as a joke.

The problem isn't the presence of emotion in campaigns; it's when the emotion supersedes all else and becomes the campaign's driving force at the expense of intellectual or policy discussions, which become relegated to second fiddle.  You yourself gloried in the paucity of specifics that accompanied Trump's policy proposals--which were generally accompanied by an eschewing of theory, an ignorance of the status quo, and often a callous disregard of conservative principles. 

Quote

Trump achieved what other Republicans have not.  He busted through the albatross of political correctness that has provided cannon fodder for Democrats to bury Republicans... you can't say All Lives Matter because that's racist... You can't say Binders of Women because that's sexist... etc. etc. which has successfully painted Republicans in the minds of the general voting public as racists, sexists, bigots who will push grandma off a cliff.  Republicans have walked within the Democrat-imposed PC rules for fear of being rejected so much so that they have become willing to give in to Amnesty to prove that they're not racists.  That's finally in the coffin.  Trump has proved that voters don't just swallow Democrat-and media-imposed societal rules.  Now, from what I see... people are still in a state of shock that PC died in this election cycle and the Republicans can't quite grasp that you can say we are going to put a temporary ban on Muslim immigration or I want to punch him in the face and not die.  Now, if you believe that elections should be run by robotic campaigns who strips away every single personal quirk out of a candidate to polish him up for a perceived set of qualities that is "electable"... then yeah, you're going to not like this change.

This is one area where I agree that Trump needs to be given a lot of credit.  I am still unsure to what degree any other Republican candidate--let alone a mere Republican-leaning citizen--could get away with echoing his statements; but there's an enormous window of opportunity here if only the right can learn to take it.  I do think, though, that it remains to be seen whether Trump can get rank-and-file Democrats to see what a sucker's game the whole PC trap is. 

But all in all, that aspect of the way Trump has changed American campaigning does excite me.  I just don't think that alone qualifies him for the White House.

Quote

Another thing that Trump achieved in this election cycle is that a Republican can put a shackle on the media.  It has always been that the Democrat-controlled media has the power to MAKE news... not just report news.  The media in this election cycle has had a very limited influence on shaping public opinion.  This is a Trump gift to Republicans - showing one and all that they can get through to the people by USING the media instead of AVOIDING the media.  The norm has been - if you're a Republican, do not go on MSNBC, they will bury you.  If you're a Democrat, don't go on Fox, they'll bury you.  That's something nailed shut in the coffin now too due to Trump's ability to shackle the media to cover his every move while at the same time pointing out their "badness".  He will interview with anybody - MSNBC, CNN, Fox, anybody.  When they try to eliminate him, he just blasts right through.  That is another Trump gift to the Republican party.

I'm a little more cautious about giving Trump credit for this.  Certainly he made buffoons out of the conservative media.  But Trump was the guy the Dems wanted to have the nomination, and the fact that the Daily Beast's story about Trump allegedly raping Ivana hasn't gotten more play makes me think that the mainstream media is pulling their punches.  They were able to find a grandma who claimed Romney--Romney, for crying out loud!!!--ruined her life; and I think Trump's commercial activities have cut a much broader swath of destruction than Romney's have.

But yes, I do hope Trump can break them.  But again, not convinced that qualifies him for the White House.

Quote

Now, if you think that Supreme Court Judges, $21 Trillion in debt and rising, Obamacare, the state of our economy is worth it just so we can't have another Trump-like campaign (I still don't understand how you can say it is devoid of reason and logic with people like Jeff Sessions solidly behind him)... all I can really tell you is once again to ask the question... "Are you willing to consider the possibility that you are wrong about Trump?".

Anatess, with all due respect . . . how closely did you read what you just wrote?

You say that the Trump campaign has been eminently reasonable and logical, and how do you try to support that statement?  By an appeal to authority--the authority of Jeff Sessions (who--for what it's worth--is barely even a blip on my radar).  You just tried to deploy a classic logical fallacy, in order to prove that your arguments have been logically sound!

No, Anatess.  No more personality cults.  And if it takes four years of Hillary to persuade you and the rest of the Republicans to quit shilling for manure-sandwich candidates . . . like I've said, there are worse things that could happen. 

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.

Edited May 5, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[unixknight]

Please forgive me if this has already come up.  I took a quick look and didn't see much about it.

 

@anatess2 I'm not sure why you seem so concerned about non-Trump supporters when Trump himself doesn't seem to be...

From this article

Quote

Trump himself makes no bones about his distaste for conservatives who oppose him – he said today that he doesn’t need them. “I am confident that I can unite much of it,” Trump said of the Republican Party, “some of it, I don’t want. There were statements made about me that those people can go away and maybe come back in eight years…But honestly, there are some people I really don’t want. I don’t think it’s necessary.”

 

[NightSG]

[Guest MormonGator]

For me it's the most depressing election in my life. The NeverTrumpers and Trumpers are the same person. Both are already convinced and won't listen to reason. The people like me who want to vote against Hillary because she truly is the greater evil are the most torn. We despise Trump-but the alternative might be worse. Anyone who thinks it's an easy decision isn't paying attention  

[tesuji]

Apologies if someone has already posted this, but you all might find the following summary of polls interesting. So far Clinton is leading Trump by +6.5. It will be interesting to see how this changes over the next few months.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - General Election: Trump vs. Clinton
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

Edited May 6, 2016 by tesuji

[Guest MormonGator]

7 minutes ago, tesuji said:

Apologies if someone has already posted this, but you all might find the following summary of polls. So far Clinton is leading Trump by +6.5. It will be interesting to see how this changes over the next few months.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - General Election: Trump vs. Clinton
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

Hillary will win in a popular vote and electoral vote landslide .

[tesuji]

Hi, Trump-despiser here.

Folks, please list for me the reasons why Hillary is so bad.

I mostly hang out in liberal echo chambers, and I don't hear what the conservative echo chambers say. That last part was a joke - I think most people are in some sort of echo chamber these days. Present company excluded, I'm sure...

But I would like to see the list

Edited May 6, 2016 by tesuji

[Guest]

35 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

For me it's the most depressing election in my life. The NeverTrumpers and Trumpers are the same person. Both are already convinced and won't listen to reason. The people like me who want to vote against Hillary because she truly is the greater evil are the most torn. We despise Trump-but the alternative might be worse. Anyone who thinks it's an easy decision isn't paying attention  

Gator, my friend, my brother.  I've spent some time thinking about the "anyone but Hillary" camp.  Although I agreed with the overall sentiment, I just didn't get the feeling it was right. Then I got it. 

It's time to shrug.

Edited May 6, 2016 by Guest

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

Gator, my friend, my brother.  I've spent some time thinking about the "anyone but Hillary" camp.  Although I agreed with the overall sentiment, I just didn't get the feeling it was right. Then I got it.  It's time to shrug.

Here is what will happen: 

NeverTrumpers continue their tantrum, staying home. Hillary wins. More supreme court justices die or retire. She appoints liberal ones. NeverTrumpers whine (see a trend? Tantrums? Whining?) about it. I say "But who did you vote for?" "Oh, I was too busy feeling morally superior to both of them, so I didn't vote". If you (Not you meaning Carb) want to be "those people" fine. But I don't want to be those people. 

On the other hand is voting for Trump. Which is repulsive. 

And therein lies the issue. 

[Vort]

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, but in his own way, Trump is as much of a corrupt liar as Clinton. I have no confidence in him at all. He is certainly not a conservative or even a Constitutionalist.

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute 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, but in his own way, Trump is as much of a corrupt liar as Clinton. I have no confidence in him at all. He is certainly not a conservative or even a Constitutionalist.

We don't know he wouldn't. But we know Hillary would appoint nightmares. It's very obvious.  

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

NeverTrumpers continue their tantrum, staying home... Tantrums? Whining...Oh, I was too busy feeling morally superior

...
On the other hand is voting for Trump. Which is repulsive. 

This is one reason why I'll never be swayed.  The tendency is to accuse those like myself of "throwing a tantrum, whining, and feeling morally superior."  It has nothing to do with any of that.

I see the benefits and dangers of government from quite a different lens than you do.  I see what you see and I get it.  And I even understand why you believe there is really a difference between them.  But the lens through which I look says they're both the same as far as where government will go. 

Edited May 6, 2016 by Guest

[Guest MormonGator]

Just now, Carborendum said:

This is one reason why I'll never be swayed.  The tendency is to accuse those like myself of "throwing a tantrum, whining, and feeling morally superior."  It has nothing to do with any of that.

 

 It actually does. In life you can't always get what you want. That goes times five in politics. It's why the right wingers stayed home in 2012. The other issue that NeverTrumpers have is that they don't "dirty their hands", so they can feel really good about themselves-even noble. 

But I'm still not sure I'm voting for Trump. So for thinking people, it's a struggle. It's not easy. 

[NeuroTypical]

16 minutes ago, tesuji said:

Folks, please list for me why Hillary is so bad.

For me, better to ask "What are Hillary's top accomplishments?"  Here's the answer:

- Tried to get Obamacare going before Obama.
- ...

 

That's basically it.  In all her decades of public office.   My echo chamber is full of snark about her failures (of which there are many).  Here's a challenge, go ask the liberals and democrats what Hillary has done.  They will give answers that don't hold up to rational scrutiny like "no new wars" or "at least she's not Trump" or "she's been one of our best Secretaries of State ever".  

Edited May 6, 2016 by NeuroTypical

[Guest]

Just now, MormonGator said:

 It actually does. In life you can't always get what you want. That goes times five in politics. It's why the right wingers stayed home in 2012. The other issue that NeverTrumpers have is that they don't "dirty their hands", so they can feel really good about themselves-even noble. 

But I'm still not sure I'm voting for Trump. So for thinking people, it's a struggle. It's not easy. 

Again, my brother, you're assuming a lot about me.  It isn't about not getting what I want.  I'm resigned to the fact I'll get one of them.  I've accepted my fate.  Why would I spend the energy on an election?  It's like spending all the wealth of all the nations on earth to combat global warming.  Why would we do that?

[Guest MormonGator]

Just now, Carborendum said:

Again, my brother, you're assuming a lot about me.  It isn't about not getting what I want.  I'm resigned to the fact I'll get one of them.  I've accepted my fate.  Why would I spend the energy on an election?  It's like spending all the wealth of all the nations on earth to combat global warming.  Why would we do that?

Like I said before, it's not you meaning "Carb". Universal usage of the word. 

My Facebook status today summed up my views. "The Trumpers and NeverTrumpers are the same person. A pox on all their houses!" 
 

[tesuji]

11 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

For me, better to ask "What are Hillary's top accomplishments?"  Here's the answer:

- Tried to get Obamacare going before Obama.
- ...

 

That's basically it.  In all her decades of public office.   My echo chamber is full of snark about her failures (of which there are many).  Here's a challenge, go ask the liberals and democrats what Hillary has done.  They will give answers that don't hold up to rational scrutiny like "no new wars" or "at least she's not Trump" or "she's been one of our best Secretaries of State ever".  

Thanks

Keep em coming, please

[Guest MormonGator]

5 minutes ago, tesuji said:

Thanks

Keep em coming, please

 Benghazi. Her Supreme Court nominees will be disastrous if you care about gun rights and abortion. She'll continue the policies of the last eight years and perhaps make things worse. 

[Guest Godless]

16 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

For me, better to ask "What are Hillary's top accomplishments?"  Here's the answer:

- Tried to get Obamacare going before Obama.
- ...

 

That's basically it.  In all her decades of public office.   My echo chamber is full of snark about her failures (of which there are many).  Here's a challenge, go ask the liberals and democrats what Hillary has done.  They will give answers that don't hold up to rational scrutiny like "no new wars" or "at least she's not Trump" or "she's been one of our best Secretaries of State ever".  

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.

[Guest Godless]

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

 Benghazi. Her Supreme Court nominees will be disastrous if you care about gun rights and abortion. She'll continue the policies of the last eight years and perhaps make things worse. 

I think you give her too much credit. Yes, her Court nominees will most likely be left-leaning. But it's very hard for me to view Hillary as the far-left activist president that Obama has been. As far as Democrats go, I actually find her to be very moderate. I think she's going to be pretty neutral on social issues, and I think her Court nominees will be liberal, but not radically so. Absolutely nothing about her says "radical liberal" to me. 

[Guest MormonGator]

Just now, Godless said:

I think you give her too much credit. Yes, her Court nominees will most likely be left-leaning. But it's very hard for me to view Hillary as the far-left activist president that Obama has been. As far as Democrats go, I actually find her to be very moderate. I think she's going to be pretty neutral on social issues, and I think her Court nominees will be liberal, but not radically so. Absolutely nothing about her says "radical liberal" to me. 

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.