#NeverTrumpers, You Are In Fact Morally Responsible

[jimnyc]

Direct, indirect... Not looking to fight. Regardless, friends/family, and "even if", it wouldn't change anything to me. But I do think, indirectly let's say, that it does in fact help the opponent. Just like Johnson running takes votes away somewhere. The argument has been around forever, but most recently with Perot and Nader. But the fact is, simple math shows how it works out. That doesn't mean to play the blame game, but just pointing out the facts. 500 people stay home, and someone loses by 200 votes. Of course "indirectly" the race could have changed.

This writer is rude, that is NOT my intent towards anyone else. Same thing for Hillary. If the "never hillary" Sanders folks stay away because they don't like Hillary, or stay home or vote Stein or whatever - of course those votes could have went in her direction and of course they could have helped. And also, the Sanders camp supporters, the continual disparaging they do of Hillary, of course that harms her. I'm just being realistic.

And another portion is true, even though I don't see much of it here, it's all over the place. And that's folks of course holding the Trump supporters responsible for their vote. Some state things like "well, you vote in someone like that and you are responsible for....".

So don't anyone take it the wrong way. I would say the same to my wife. I would still be best friends with any of my friends here regardless.
-----

Sorry, I was on Twitter. I felt it was necessary to dispel the widely-held myth, adored by #NeverTrumpers, that somehow attacking Trump relentlessly does not aid Hillary Clinton, and that they are not choosing Hillary Clinton by choosing to be NeverTrump.

All choices have consequences. By supporting Trump, I am responsible for the consequences of a Trump victory -- and those consequences could indeed be dire.

But a childish morally-unserious fantasy has infected the #NeverTrump not-so-intellgentsia, that they can agitate for Hillary Clinton -- by relentlessly disparaging Trump -- and somehow, they are not responsible for the consequences of the Hillary presidency they are bucking for.

They've dreamed up this self-pleasing, responsibility-evading dreamscape in which those who plump for Trump are responsible for the outcomes of a Trump presidency, but, for no explanation thusfar discoverable, they are not responsible for the outcomes of the Hillary presidency they're agitating for.

I tried to explain to them that there is no such thing as a consequence-free choice -- all choices have consequences, both on the upside and the downside -- and both the upside and downswide consequences must be considered by any adult, intellectually-serious person in making his choice.

But they like this idea that, like little children, they are free to gambol and play in the fields and this does not even perturb the leading edge of a butterfly's wing, and so they just keep teling me "No you're wrong" without saying why I'm wrong.

Which, seriously, is a rather important part of any argument beginning with the words "You're wrong."

I ask people: When you knocked Obama in 2012, and wrote posts and comments noting his flaws, did you think you were doing nothing to improve Mitt Romney's chances of winning the presidency?

If so-- why the fuck did you bother?

Of course, this is silly; everyone knows that when one buys ads attacking a candidate, one is helping that candidate's opponent win.

The #NeverTrumpers are filling their blogs, magazines, and Twitter timelines with nonstop political advertising (free) against Trump, and maintain, just because they say so and because it pleases them to think so, this does exactly nothing to help Hillary, and they are therefore not responsibe for her election.

Or let me put it this way: I am not hoping for Trump to get into some serious international snafu by supporting him. Yet I know that is a very real possibility if he's president.

Should this happen, I can't just say "But I didn't want trump to screw up so badly."

People would say -- no, but you knew the risks in supporting him, and you supported him anyway; you are therefore morally responsible for this.

Yet the #NeverTrumpers claim that the obvious, inescapable outcome of their position -- that Hillary Clinton will be the president -- is not their responsibility, just because they didn't intend that as a pirmary matter.

No, but they were completely aware it was the natural and inevitable consequence of their position.

So why would a Trump supporter be responsible for a foreign policy catastrophe he didn't even know for a fact would happen, when a #NeverTrumper claims to be innocent of the Hillary Presidency they know beyond a shadow of any doubt is the direct and inescapable consequence of the NeverTrump posiition?

They're responsible for it. They don't want to be, but they are.

Rest here - http://ace.mu.nu/archives/364874.php

[Kathianne]

No offense taken. I never thought I'd find myself going 3rd party, it's so unlike me.

I do have a question though to pose. Given the 16 folks that ran and lost to Trump, nearly any of which would be slaughtering Hillary, why do you think Trump is where he is in the contest? He should be running double digits against her. Instead, it's like a tie.

Now those that voted for Trump, slamming those that wouldn't get on his 'train' are now blaming those same people. All over the net, on boards, FB, comments in new media/MSM they alternate between blaming those that just won't do what they've already done, support someone they feel they can't.

I'm not going to spend the time why I will not vote for him, I've done so for near a year, for the most part I see no reason to, with the exception of new reasons, (like today his slamming Cruz and once again bringing up the National Enquirer's suggestion that Cruz's father was complicit or something in the JFK assassination).

As I said, I personally thought Cruz should have stayed home from the convention, if he hurt his future, that's on him. I do agree though that we have the right, perhaps obligation, to vote our conscience. When push comes to shove for me, neither of the two party candidates are acceptable for me.

[hjmick]

Good thing I'm not a #NeverTrump-er...

[Elessar]

Kathie, Jim....I respect you both immensely.

Gotta tell you what I feel about a vote, though.

We are not Russia, Iran, Syria, China, or any other dominated society where votes
are pre-rigged for a desired outcome. We are a Democratic Republic.

We have, by the grace of our founders, the Right and Privilege to choose what we
each and all see as the presently (each election) best course for this Nation.

To sit out a vote just due to not liking a choice, to me, is avoiding a probable disaster.
Going to a minor Third Party is not exercising the right to stand up tall and decide
which of the top two are more palatable. I held my nose when I voted for Gore...
Lo and behold, he was the worst vote I ever cast.

Regards...EL

[jimnyc]

I'm not sold on others would have been slaughtering her, when they couldn't beat the person running against her now. If they could do that to her, they should have handily beaten Trump.

I don't see any reason to think that he should be up by double digits. Most had Hillary winning this election from the get go, and especially against Trump. So most are actually surprised that he made it that far, that he got the nomination, and more so that he is pulling up along side her in the polls. Personally, I think she should be in jail, or disqualified, but out side of that, I really don't see any reason to believe that any of the candidates would/should/could have been up by double digits at this stage of the election. That's my take anyway.

I don't slam anyone. I just try to face the facts of this election, and third parties, and folks staying home this year. That's just looking at the reality of the potential numbers. There is no doubt at all in my mind, that if those supporting a 3rd party made a concerted effort to support Trump, to preserve the SC for example... and if those planning on staying home, made a concerted effort to support Trump, to preserve the SC and the 2nd... then it makes sense to also say that voting 3rd or staying home indirectly takes votes away. It doesn't make those folks bad, wrong, to blame or anything like that - I'm just pointing out the facts of how it effects the election.

And that's why I mention the preservation of the supreme court, which we know Hillary would for sure place a lefty in there, or 2, or scary to think even a 3rd. Herself and Chelsea both spoke during the campaign of either changing things with the 2nd, or whatever it is they have to do in order to regulate guns, or strip some rights away. NO ONE is to blame should that happen, so that's not what I'm saying. But it is possible that the numbers can be there to beat her, but yet she doesn't get beaten. It's possible that those "indirect" votes that refuse to vote for him might have been able to put him over the top and potentially prevent those things from happening.

Cruz, no doubt in my mind that he harmed himself, and perhaps irreparable damage. And if so, and from his decision at the convention, then karma is a bitch on him. :)

[jimnyc]

Good thing I'm not a #NeverTrump-er...

Hey, might see you sometime this year!! Another subject for another thread.... gotta find out more about that nice Marriott in Charleston. :) My sister works there, as ya know.

[hjmick]

Hey, might see you sometime this year!! Another subject for another thread.... gotta find out more about that nice Marriott in Charleston. :) My sister works there, as ya know.


Well I know now! Let me know man, I look forward to it.

[Kathianne]

I'm not sold on others would have been slaughtering her, when they couldn't beat the person running against her now. If they could do that to her, they should have handily beaten Trump.

I don't see any reason to think that he should be up by double digits. Most had Hillary winning this election from the get go, and especially against Trump. So most are actually surprised that he made it that far, that he got the nomination, and more so that he is pulling up along side her in the polls. Personally, I think she should be in jail, or disqualified, but out side of that, I really don't see any reason to believe that any of the candidates would/should/could have been up by double digits at this stage of the election. That's my take anyway.

I don't slam anyone. I just try to face the facts of this election, and third parties, and folks staying home this year. That's just looking at the reality of the potential numbers. There is no doubt at all in my mind, that if those supporting a 3rd party made a concerted effort to support Trump, to preserve the SC for example... and if those planning on staying home, made a concerted effort to support Trump, to preserve the SC and the 2nd... then it makes sense to also say that voting 3rd or staying home indirectly takes votes away. It doesn't make those folks bad, wrong, to blame or anything like that - I'm just pointing out the facts of how it effects the election.

And that's why I mention the preservation of the supreme court, which we know Hillary would for sure place a lefty in there, or 2, or scary to think even a 3rd. Herself and Chelsea both spoke during the campaign of either changing things with the 2nd, or whatever it is they have to do in order to regulate guns, or strip some rights away. NO ONE is to blame should that happen, so that's not what I'm saying. But it is possible that the numbers can be there to beat her, but yet she doesn't get beaten. It's possible that those "indirect" votes that refuse to vote for him might have been able to put him over the top and potentially prevent those things from happening.

Cruz, no doubt in my mind that he harmed himself, and perhaps irreparable damage. And if so, and from his decision at the convention, then karma is a bitch on him. :)

That he 'beat' the other 16 is a reflection on the schism within the GOP, not on the general election. That is what I was referring to 6 months ago that this past primary season was likely to lead to a real split within the GOP and likely a 3rd party rise. I said then, it would not happen for this election, it won't. A few will vote for someone other than Trump or Hillary, but most that are disgusted will stay home.

The real problem is within what was the GOP and is now, as I put it with Cruz's defeat and Manafort the other day, Trump's Party.

There's a significant percentage of folks that were/are in the GOP that are for small federal government, less regulations, more community/state control, etc. They lost in this election, neither party comes close to representing what they hold important. It seems that they need a party that will.

[Elessar]

That issue of the SC is paramount in this election. We, as a Nation, cannot be stood
up against a wall and have our Rights be dictated by leftists and socialists.

Dictated is the KEY WORD here! It has fomented ever since people blindly allowed
an unqualified and inexperienced racist into the White House. It will get no better,
and likely worse if Hillary is allowed in again to that Manse - the People's Property.

[Kathianne]

That issue of the SC is paramount in this election. We, as a Nation, cannot be stood
up against a wall and have our Rights be dictated by leftists and socialists.

Dictated is the KEY WORD here! It has fomented ever since people blindly allowed
an unqualified and inexperienced racist into the White House. It will get no better,
and likely worse if Hillary is allowed in again to that Manse - the People's Property.

I would suggest those concerned that Trump needs more votes, to get out there and get 'em. I'm pretty sure that your arguments about SC, her corruption, her lies, have all been heard and even strongly agreed with. I know I've said my part on why Trump is unacceptable to me, I'm not going to change minds here, so I try to avoid that now.

[Kathianne]

Think this is how Trump should be spending his time, thinking, money? How his spent the day after accepting the nomination, bashing Cruz and going after Kasich, popular governor of a swing state. Reminds me of the enemy lists of Nixon and Clinton:

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-07-22/trump-would-fund-super-pacs-aimed-at-taking-down-cruz-kasich-iqybu9m1


Trump Would Fund Super-PACs Aimed at Taking Down Cruz, KasichSnub of Trump's convention could generate payback.
Donald Trump plans to create and fund super-PACs specifically aimed at ending the political careers of Ted Cruz and John Kasich should either run for office again, after both snubbed the Republican nominee during his party's convention this week, a source familiar with Trump’s thinking told Bloomberg Politics on Friday.

The plan would involve Trump investing millions of his own money --perhaps $20 million or more -- in one or two outside groups about six months before their respective election days if Texas Senator Cruz or Ohio Governor Kasich stand for office again. The source said Trump is willing to set up two separate super-PACs – one for Cruz and one for Kasich – and put millions into each.

...

[aboutime]

Think this is how Trump should be spending his time, thinking, money? How his spent the day after accepting the nomination, bashing Cruz and going after Kasich, popular governor of a swing state. Reminds me of the enemy lists of Nixon and Clinton:

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-07-22/trump-would-fund-super-pacs-aimed-at-taking-down-cruz-kasich-iqybu9m1


Kathianne. What you call bashing of Cruz, and the Ohio Gov...then putting his words in a class with Nixon and Clinton? Can't say I'm surprised about that.
I believe the Gov. should have at least shown up, as the Gov. of the state where the convention took place. As for Cruz. Trump gave him the opportunity, and he betrayed not only Trump, but himself. If I am still around, and alive in 2020 for the next election. I WON'T FORGET WHAT CRUZ DID.

[Kathianne]

Think this is how Trump should be spending his time, thinking, money? How his spent the day after accepting the nomination, bashing Cruz and going after Kasich, popular governor of a swing state. Reminds me of the enemy lists of Nixon and Clinton:

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-07-22/trump-would-fund-super-pacs-aimed-at-taking-down-cruz-kasich-iqybu9m1

Related: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/07/22/trump-kasich_feud_has_gop_worried_about_ohio_131283.html

From before Trump threatened to establish a PAC against Kasich. Like Cruz, Kasich was one of the very last I would have voted for in the primary, but the Trump groups are making huge mistakes in fighting with those they 'vanquished' including those that attack folks that normally would vote R.

They aren't trying to sell his policies or ideas, they are selling 'responsibility for electing Hillary.' Which is a farce, since they are the ones that chose the opponent to Lucifer. Geez.

Trump himself seems to be telling anyone who isn't supporting him that if elected, there will be retribution-good reason to vote for him? Obama did similar and used the IRS to implement the threat. Real reason not to repeat.


Trump-Kasich Feud Has GOP Worried About Ohio


CLEVELAND — Donald Trump will leave Ohio after a week-long convention without the support of its Republican governor, an integral figure within a state that can determine who wins the presidency.

John Kasich has refused to support Trump or attend the convention in his home state, and instead engaged in counter programming around Cleveland that was decidedly non-Trumpian. At one of his many events within walking distance from the convention arena, he told an audience at a think tank on Tuesday that he was “very, very concerned” about the “stew of growing nationalism, growing isolationism, anti-immigration and anti-trade.”

...

“We’re going to work hard for him to carry the state. But if he or his campaign keeps criticizing John Kasich, he’s going to lose. So that’s something that needs to stop,” Ohio Republican Party Chairman Matt Borges told RCP. “We’re the people who have been doing nothing but winning elections in this state for 25 years. He knows he needs to listen to people who know what they’re doing.”

The feud could create trouble for the Trump campaign’s hiring in Ohio. The Cincinnati Enquirer reported (http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/blogs/2016/07/20/donald-trump-feud-john-kasich-loses-him-staff-ohio/87351646/) that one veteran Republican and close Kasich ally turned down an opportunity to join the campaign.
...

Polls show Ohio to be one of the most competitive battleground states this cycle. No Republican has won the presidency without Ohio. “Ohio is middle America, but Ohio really is the determiner of where this nation goes,” House Speaker Paul Ryan said this week at the Buckeye State delegation breakfast. “As Ohio goes, so goes America.”

The Trump campaign believes the candidate’s populist appeal could attract support beyond traditional Republicans. Hosting the convention in Cleveland was considered an effort by the party to win back Ohio, a state that has been elusive since the Bush years. The campaign hired Republican veteran Bob Paduchik, who ran George W. Bush’s Ohio operation, to head up the Trump efforts there.

“You win battleground states by addition, by building coalitions. The onus is on Mr. Trump and his campaign to win Ohio,” Kasich’s top strategist, John Weaver, told RCP. “I think the anti-Clinton message is important, but we’re just talking to each other. So, for the disaffected Republicans and Independents and disaffected Democrats, what’s the positive message about bringing people together?”

But the Ohio Republican Party remains resolute about its potential this November.

“Paul Manafort made a mistake this week. Everybody makes mistakes. Sometimes really stupid ones. But we will recover from this and lay our sabers down and move forward to win Ohio,” said Borges. “I think the message was delivered.”

[Abbey Marie]

Kasich is an ass. Trump would be doing us a favor.

[Kathianne]

Kasich is an ass. Trump would be doing us a favor.

You know I agree with you on Kasich, but losing Ohio doesn't strike me as a good idea.

[Abbey Marie]

You know I agree with you on Kasich, but losing Ohio doesn't strike me as a good idea.

Well, shoot, that's a given. :salute:

[Kathianne]

Well, shoot, that's a given. :salute:

That was the point. He should be focusing on the election, not the primary losers. Revenge doesn't play well for the winner.

[Abbey Marie]

That was the point. He should be focusing on the election, not the primary losers. Revenge doesn't play well for the winner.

Are you comfortable with the whole article being based on one unnamed source?

If it is true, I think it is showing Trump's lack of experience in playing political games. Others like the Clintons do same and far worse, but keep it on the down-low much better.

As for Cruz, I will never forget what he did to Carson. He can claim no moral high ground, and deserves what he gets.

[Kathianne]

Are you comfortable with the whole article being based on one unnamed source?

If if it is true, I think it is showing Trump's lack of experience in playing political games. Others like the Clintons do same and far worse, but keep it on the down-low much better.

As for Cruz, I will never forget what he did to Carson. He can claim no moral high ground, and deservrves what he gets.

Listen to his 'farewell thank you to Cleveland" this morning. It's there.

Very much like Bush not taking on the MSM after 9/11 good feelings wore off. Big unforced errors.

I don't like Trump, but it seems he may win in spite of himself.

As for Cruz, I don't care. I don't think he's whom the focus should be on the day after Trump accepted the nomination though.

[revelarts]

I won't vote for Trump or Hillary.

It's always odd to me that people talk about how we have a democratic right to vote for who we consider the best candidates.
But then out of the other side of the mouth they say you can ONLY choose one of these 2 horrific people or you're neigh on a traitor.
And you're helping bring Armageddon to the country.

Don't step out of party lines or we'll all die. That's always sounded like a sales pitch for the major parties to me.
It's been my belief that the parties need the people not the other way around.
It seems to me that it'd only take a 3rd of the VOTING public to shake the 2 parties to the core and really change the country.

IMO the 2 main party candidates are the most frightening i've seen in my lifetime.
I'm slightly less concerned about Trump. There are some real things I agree with that I think he may in fact be sincere about.
But that fear based, restoring "Law and Order", speech he gave was disturbing in a lot of ways to me.
Nothing really about restoring the constitution... except by SCOTUS appointments. Why? because i doubt he's read it much (at all?) or that he sincerely cares about it that much.
SO anyway I'll have no part in adding my support to any dangerous people. My stomach turn just imagining voting for either Trump or Hillary

Frankly I'm not sure I can vote for Johnson either. He's far to left wing socially for me. But it seems that may just be a sign of the times.
Looks like I'll vote constitution party candidates.

[Kathianne]

I won't vote for Trump or Hillary.

It's always odd to me that people talk about how we have a democratic right to vote for who we consider the best candidates.
But then out of the other side of the mouth they say you can ONLY choose one of these 2 horrific people or you're neigh on a traitor.
And you're helping bring Armageddon to the country.

Don't step out of party lines or we'll all die. That's always sounded like a sales pitch for the major parties to me.
It's been my belief that the parties need the people not the other way around.
It seems to me that it'd only take a 3rd of the VOTING public to shake the 2 parties to the core and really change the country.

IMO the 2 main party candidates are the most frightening i've seen in my lifetime.
I'm slightly less concerned about Trump. There are some real things I agree with that I think he may in fact be sincere about.
But that fear based, restoring "Law and Order", speech he gave was disturbing in a lot of ways to me.
Nothing really about restoring the constitution... except by SCOTUS appointments. Why? because i doubt he's read it much (at all?) or that he sincerely cares about it that much.
SO anyway I'll have no part in adding my support to any dangerous people. My stomach turn just imagining voting for either Trump or Hillary

Frankly I'm not sure I can vote for Johnson either. He's far to left wing socially for me. But it seems that may just be a sign of the times.
Looks like I'll vote constitution party candidates.
I agree with the thinking in most ways, it took these two though for me not to be practical enough to go the path of voting for someone who doesn't have a chance, at least in this election cycle.

Ultimately the only way to shake up the elite is to threaten to show they have no clothes.

[hjmick]

I agree with the thinking in most ways, it took these two though for me not to be practical enough to not go the path of voting for someone who doesn't have a chance, at least in this election cycle.

Ultimately the only way to shake up the elite is to threaten to show they have no clothes.


Great. Now I have a mental image of Trump and Clinton sans clothing...


I'll never be able to scrub that from my mind...

[Kathianne]

Great. Now I have a mental image of Trump and Clinton sans clothing...


I'll never be able to scrub that from my mind...

Oh that is ugly! LOL!

[Black Diamond]

That was the point. He should be focusing on the election, not the primary losers. Revenge doesn't play well for the winner.

I have to agree

[Abbey Marie]

Listen to his 'farewell thank you to Cleveland" this morning. It's there.

Very much like Bush not taking on the MSM after 9/11 good feelings wore off. Big unforced errors.

I don't like Trump, but it seems he may win in spite of himself.

As for Cruz, I don't care. I don't think he's whom the focus should be on the day after Trump accepted the nomination though.

I think the day after was the only good time to address the two guys who did not honor their pledge. If he keeps it up, I'm with you.