The OFFICIAL Trump/HRC/2016 General Election Thread...

[jbombelli]

I can't speak for others, only myself. Trump isn't my first choice, but out of the THREE candidates that will be on the ballot, he's the most palatable to me, bad manners and all.

For the first time in my life I'll be voting just about all Republican. Hillary has to be stopped, and that's sadly the only way to do it.

I don't like it, but that's how it is.

 

[printcraft]

Thanks for answering. NO. I agree.

We supported romney and mclame when called upon to do so and we see where that went.
Why is it suddenly so principled to not support a candidate that was fairly chosen by the people? Just because the GOPe didn't get Jeb?
Remember, it's not so much as disavowing the candidates as not choosing to support those who are not giving their support after pledging to do so.
That's a principled decision too.
Or are they only principled when they are #nevertrump?
Are we only to elect the SSDD career politicians and expect different results? History says no. Let us not fail to learn from history.

 

[Tombs]

Thanks for answering. NO. I agree.

We supported romney and mclame when called upon to do so and we see where that went.
Why is it suddenly so principled to not support a candidate that was fairly chosen by the people? Just because the GOPe didn't get Jeb?
Remember, it's not so much as disavowing the candidates as not choosing to support those who are giving their support after pledging to do so.
That's a principled decision too.
Or are they only principled when they are #nevertrump?
Are we only to elect the SSDD career politicians and expect different results? History says no. Let us not fail to learn from history.

Because people have deluded themselves into thinking Trump is effectively a 3rd party candidate and has no chance of winning, so they have this fantasy in their head where their magic candidate will descend from the heavens just in time for the election.

 

[T.Lex]

We supported romney and mclame when called upon to do so and we see where that went.

For the record - you did that on your own. Nobody demanded that you do it.

Why is it suddenly so principled to not support a candidate that was fairly chosen by the people?

Because supporting him would violate personal principles dearer to me than "party unity."

Just because the GOPe didn't get Jeb?

No, because Donald sucks.

Remember, it's not so much as disavowing the candidates as not choosing to support those who are giving their support after pledging to do so.

I'm not following this line. I think you left out a "not" or something?

That's a principled decision too.

Yes. That's life. In life, sometimes principled grownups are forced to prioritize what principles are more valuable to them.

This is one of those times.

If it is more important to you to not vote for people who aren't loyal to your candidate because they are not loyal to your candidate, even if that ultimately ruins the country, then own it. But then you pretty much forfeit another principle: consistency.

Or are they only principled when they are #nevertrump?

I'm starting to wonder.

Actually, no. I've wondered since Trump started gaining momentum how principled his supporters were.

I guess some of the inconsistencies are becoming more obvious.

Are we only to elect the SSDD career politicians and expect different results? History says no. Let us not fail to learn from history.

Yes, because electing amateur nationalist populists has such a fine tradition?

 

[dusty88]

I don't view this Trump/Republican issue the way it is being discussed in these recent posts.

The primary system has been used as a way to get the taxpayers to pay for the party's nomination process. This time it backfired on the Republicans because the people chose someone the party powers really didn't want. The same thing might have happened to the Democrats, but the Clintons have a better handle on their party apparently.

It's no surprise the Republicans aren't supporting the candidate they didn't want. The problem I think is that we paid for a nomination process that was partisan and one that we didn't really belong in.

If you are really Republican, you should have long ago been kicking out the guys that didn't match the conservative ideals, in whatever way you see them. For me, that was fiscal conservatism and small government. Because I had no success as a voter helping get those ideals in office, I left the party. (I was never really a "member" but I leaned that way)

Now you've nominated a guy that in my view doesn't fit the conservative principles nor does he fit with the rest of the party. You are trying to make an entirely new party (of what I can't really tell) and you are surprised that the dinosaur Republicans aren't supporting it.

 

[T.Lex]

Because people have deluded themselves into thinking Trump is effectively a 3rd party candidate and has no chance of winning, so they have this fantasy in their head where their magic candidate will descend from the heavens just in time for the election.

I'm not sure who this is directed at anymore.

I don't think anyone on INGO really thought this. Maybe that guy in FL who was going to try?

Post-convention, it is all up to Donald. He was a 3rd party candidate, until he was a Democrat, then he was a Republican candidate for a few weeks at the beginning of the last couple cycles, then he became the nominee.

It is what it is.

 

[dusty88]

Because people have deluded themselves into thinking Trump is effectively a 3rd party candidate and has no chance of winning, so they have this fantasy in their head where their magic candidate will descend from the heavens just in time for the election.

I've not heard an idea that Trump is 3rd party.

The reason he is unelectable is his high negative perception. That's all over the polls and hard to deny. Hillary's negatives are almost as bad, but he just keeps making his worse.

I don't think even if Hillary murders a baby on television, that Trump will get elected. His defectors are going to third parties or not voting.

 

[T.Lex]

If you are really Republican, you should have long ago been kicking out the guys that didn't match the conservative ideals, in whatever way you see them.

There is something to this, and it relates to GP's recent question.

State and local Republicans need to do a better job of getting conservatives to run, because that'll lead to better candidates up the chain. That'll probably mean some of us do some sacrificing, suck it up, and run for office.

 

[foszoe]

I'll answer this: No. (BTW, electing Trump isn't "what's best for this country" either.)

But, this is where the lack of consistent principles by many Trump supporters is revealed. If HRC getting elected is bad, getting HRC elected with a Dem majority in the legislative branch is worse. That's a principle. Heck, that's the primary principle driving me to vote this year.

And yet, many Trump supporters are publicly disavowing the only candidates standing in the way of the Dem/HRC majority. Is that principled? Is that what's best for the country?

Fair to ask INGO Trump supporters where they stand on the more local elections. Especially those claiming to act in a principled way.

In your first sentence I see conclusions not principles. That doesn't mean they are not present. I can agree with the first conclusion. I can agree with the second conclusion. I don't see where the first condition provides sufficiency for the second.

Unless I reside in the district or state of the down ballot candidate my disavowing of any candidate may have influence but can not have any direct impact on outcome of their election. I have seen this argument made as support for not voting for Trump or speaking out against Trump in instances where the outcome is already certain.

I treat election choice as an independent event.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I'm not sure who this is directed at anymore.

I don't think anyone on INGO really thought this. Maybe that guy in FL who was going to try?

Post-convention, it is all up to Donald. He was a 3rd party candidate, until he was a Democrat, then he was a Republican candidate for a few weeks at the beginning of the last couple cycles, then he became the nominee.

It is what it is.

Right. It's not Paul Ryan's job to get Donald Trump elected. It's Donald Trump's job to get Donald Trump elected.

In my opinion... He's failed at that, and it's time to work toward maintaining a majority in congress to at least have a chance at encumbering Clinton. I can't imagine any scenario that involves attacking those remaining people that could hold that majority to be a good thing. Or in the case of INGO threads... a defensible thing. Maybe I don't have the Trump-smarts to understand why pushing for a Democrat majority out of spite somehow makes our guns and freedoms safer.

 

[T.Lex]

In your first sentence I see conclusions not principles.

That's because my first sentence was a conclusion.

I can agree with the first conclusion. I can agree with the second conclusion. I don't see where the first condition provides sufficiency for the second.

I didn't follow this part.

Unless I reside in the district or state of the down ballot candidate my disavowing of any candidate may have influence but can not have any direct impact on outcome of their election. I have seen this argument made as support for not voting for Trump or speaking out against Trump in instances where the outcome is already certain.

I think I followed this.

Here in Indiana, in the presidential context, the most important down ballot vote is for Senate. All of us in Indiana can vote in that race. To disavow Young, yet vote for Trump, is unprincipled, IMHO. At least, I can't think of a principled reason to support such a split.

I am open to being persuaded, though.

I treat election choice as an independent event.

Yet, you retain the same principles for each election, right? What are your priorities?

I will also say that, as a practical matter, the way our federal system is arranged, that is a dangerous paradigm. Senate/congressional elections matter greatly as linked to the presidential election.

 

[jamil]

I'll answer this: No. (BTW, electing Trump isn't "what's best for this country" either.)

But, this is where the lack of consistent principles by many Trump supporters is revealed. If HRC getting elected is bad, getting HRC elected with a Dem majority in the legislative branch is worse. That's a principle. Heck, that's the primary principle driving me to vote this year.

And yet, many Trump supporters are publicly disavowing the only candidates standing in the way of the Dem/HRC majority. Is that principled? Is that what's best for the country?

Fair to ask INGO Trump supporters where they stand on the more local elections. Especially those claiming to act in a principled way.

I think we're well past what's best for this country. That got shot all to hell with the nomination of these two.

 

[dusty88]

There is something to this, and it relates to GP's recent question.

State and local Republicans need to do a better job of getting conservatives to run, because that'll lead to better candidates up the chain. That'll probably mean some of us do some sacrificing, suck it up, and run for office.

Our county Republican chair left the party and started a Libertarian party in the county.

He gave up on the Republicans being small government.

Small government doesn't offer enough to the corrupt and power-hungry.

 

[printcraft]

For the record - you did that on your own. Nobody demanded that you do it.
Nobody gave me bull**** that I was trying to get obama elected and ruin the country when the business as usual, democrat lite, party elite candidate was at the top of the ticket.


Because supporting him would violate personal principles dearer to me than "party unity."
Your call.


No, because Donald sucks.
I didn’t say on he doesn’t suck, just less suck than hitlary. (bill clinton reference)


I'm not following this line. I think you left out a "not" or something?
Yes, already edited NOT added (not was added, not not added)


Yes. That's life. In life, sometimes principled grownups are forced to prioritize what principles are more valuable to them.
This is one of those times.
Ah. Ok. Thanks Dad.


If it is more important to you to not vote for people who aren't loyal to your candidate because they are not loyal to your candidate, even if that ultimately ruins the country, then own it. But then you pretty much forfeit another principle: consistency.

Nah.

“We didn't start the fire
It was always burning
Since the world's been turning
We didn't start the fire
No we didn't light it
But we tried to fight it”




I'm starting to wonder.
Actually, no. I've wondered since Trump started gaining momentum how principled his supporters were.
I guess some of the inconsistencies are becoming more obvious.


Sounds like a bunch of undisciplined rubes to me too.


Yes, because electing amateur nationalist populists has such a fine tradition?


And the final Godwin, good work.

If #nevertrump doesn't want Trump or hitlary why is there 10:1 venom for Trump?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

If #nevertrump doesn't want Trump or hitlary[sic] why is there 10:1 venom for Trump?

Can we drop this bogeyman? "NeverTrump" isn't a thing. It was an insignificantly small (Trump supporter's description) group that didn't want him chosen as the nominee in the primary. He's now the nominee. The bogeyman lost, and now you've got your candidate. No more blame can be placed on this insignificantly small, non-existent group. It's now up to Trump to win... and he can't do that because he's an awful, awful candidate. There's hate for Trump because people who saw a chance at beating Hillary lost that chance when Trump was selected. You can see that clearly, given how poorly he's polling, and how badly they're taking him down with stupid old audio clips. He was chosen by the Democrats (you saw the e-mail leak, I assume) because he's easily beaten.

Also:

1. Sabotaging Republicans down ballot
2. "We have to vote Trump to save the Supreme Court."

These two thoughts cannot co-exist in the same mind.

 

[T.Lex]

BTW, did my best to capture the right quotes, without the tags.

For the record - you did that on your own. Nobody demanded that you do it.
Nobody gave me bull**** that I was trying to get obama elected and ruin the country when the business as usual, democrat lite, party elite candidate was at the top of the ticket.

Indeed.Things are so much better now that honest disagreement is deemed disloyal betrayal by Trump supporters.

Because supporting him would violate personal principles dearer to me than "party unity."
Your call.

Thanks. I agree. Alas, few Trump supporters apparently agree with that.

No, because Donald sucks.
I didn’t say on he doesn’t suck, just less suck than hitlary. (bill clinton reference)

In this context, at a certain level, the suckification exceeds the utility.

In other contexts, that sentence doesn't make any sense.

I'm not following this line. I think you left out a "not" or something?
Yes, already edited NOT added (not was added, not not added)

I'm going to drop this one. Too much... negativity.

Yes, because electing amateur nationalist populists has such a fine tradition?


And the final Godwin, good work.

Chill, dude. I was referencing Obama. But, way to lay out your paradigm.

If #nevertrump doesn't want Trump or hitlary why is there 10:1 venom for Trump?

That estimate is 180 out of phase with what I see.

Trump supporters send 10:1 venom to non-Trump supporting conservatives/Republicans than to HRC. Much like Trump himself.

 

[Alpo]

Also:

1. Sabotaging Republicans down ballot
2. "We have to vote Trump to save the Supreme Court."

These two thoughts cannot co-exist in the same mind.

I see you're not familiar with Vonnegut:

“The waitress brought me another drink. She wanted to light my hurricane lamp again. I wouldn't let her.
"Can you see anything in the dark, with your sunglasses on?" she asked me.
"The big show is inside my head," I said.”

 

[printcraft]

Indeed.Things are so much better now that honest disagreement is deemed disloyal betrayal by Trump supporters.
No, it's #nevertrump at any cost (see hitlary as preferable)

Thanks. I agree. Alas, few Trump supporters apparently agree with that.
No problemo

In this context, at a certain level, the suckification exceeds the utility.
In other contexts, that sentence doesn't make any sense.
hitlary sucks harder and longer than Trump, 30 years worth of self-serving (when she is supposed to be serving "the people") kind of sucking.



Chill, dude.

That estimate is 180 out of phase with what I see.

Trump supporters send 10:1 venom to non-Trump supporting conservatives/Republicans than to HRC. Much like Trump himself.

Have you ever seen a single instance of me not getting in a dig at hitlary?

.

 

[dusty88]

The Joker is finishing the demolition of the Republican party on Twitter today:

 

[BugI02]

Some of these people are actually insane.

"Take a look at my Twitter analytics" may just be the new "how much do you bench, bro"

And Trump himself isn't even preaching unity. His tweets are still attacking other Republicans, threatening those up for reelection that he'll punish them if they don't support him. That's not the behavior of a nominee, it's the act of the head of a hostile takeover.

Definitely sounds like they have the future of the country in-mind:

Well, when you go all scorched earth and all, sometimes the fire gets out of hand