The Trump/Republican Primary/General Election Megathread

[T.Lex]

I can accept that you are a principled nonTrumper. I do, however see some of the neverTrump persuasion (mostly pundits) providing ammunition for the DNC/HiLIARy and loading mags for them. After Trump became the nominee I can only see this as petulance and not principle. If they do not want HiLIARy to win, what do they think bitter end neverTrumpism will lead to? I'm sure Chamberlain was convinced of the primacy of his principles, too

I will concede that neverTrump at this point is a bit like Neverland. Just silly.

The time for neverTrump was early in the primaries.

For me, it is now symbolic. It is an expression that the Republican nominee does not reflect my beliefs nor my choice in a nominee, a Republican, or a conservative.

Fortunately, I live in Indiana. Where I can cling to my symbols without worrying about whether my non-vote for Trump will make any difference. Meanwhile, my (probably final) tax stamp will be here before the election, so I can focus on stocking up on ammo.

 

[Tombs]

What's so bad about having principles?

If you didn't vote for Romney because you didn't think he was conservative, that's fine. Plenty of people didn't.

But saying I should vote for Trump because you voted for Romney makes as much sense as telling me to pay $3.50 for gas now because you did 4 years ago.


This is what INGO's more provocative Trump supporters can't figure out: we don't want HRC to win. Your "wet dream" projection is just bizarre.

We may expect her to win because Trump seems willing to completely screw this up. But that doesn't mean we get any excitement from his campaign's death spin.

This will sound strange, but we don't want Trump to lose to her. Speaking for myself, I don't really want him to win, either. Other than the attention whores that've made the news, I don't know any conservative non-trumper who wants HRC to win. We're just disappointed that he's the nominee and doesn't appear to respect it.

I don't want either one of them to win.

Our country will be worse of regardless which one wins.

Going from many of your-camp's posts, I continue to struggle to figure out why you even partake in discussion of the presidential election. It's clear that you have no real interest in any candidate, you're not wanting any of them to really win, but you're really wanting one to lose.

How exactly do you have a productive conversation with people who have a dog in the race and are debating against each other? It's kind of like saying you're sitting dinner out but you're criticizing everyone's menu suggestions.

 

[BugI02]

Maybe we could get papal dispensations for neverTrumpers acknowledging the veracity of their priciples but allowing a vote for Trump this one time as being in the best interest of the faith

 

[Tombs]

Maybe we could get papal dispensations for neverTrumpers acknowledging the veracity of their priciples but allowing a vote for Trump this one time as being in the best interest of the faith

Considering he wants a repeal of the johnson amendment, any religious individual who values their freedom of speech should really buckle up and get over the issues they find troubling. It could be the biggest political revolution in the country for religious folks. 4 years of tolerating some ugly stuff to be able to have a far greater voice in the next election seems like a very valuable trade off.

 

[BugI02]

Going from many of your-camp's posts, I continue to struggle to figure out why you even partake in discussion of the presidential election. It's clear that you have no real interest in any candidate, you're not wanting any of them to really win, but you're really wanting one to lose.

How exactly do you have a productive conversation with people who have a dog in the race and are debating against each other? It's kind of like saying you're sitting dinner out but you're criticizing everyone's menu suggestions.

Tombs, T . Lex deserves some slack. For me (and you, I assume) the horribleness of a HiLIARy presidency can largely cancel out the horribleness of some of Trump's actions. And we also agree with some/many of his proposed policies ( to use the term loosely ). I sense that for some, horribleness cannot be of opposite sign and is additive. I expect that for T. Lex a Trump/HiLIARy race is just twice as horrible as either candidate on their own, and without a viable alternative the dread is likely debilitating. Lex is the real thing, a principled anti-Trumper and I respect that immensely

 

[Tombs]

Tombs, T . Lex deserves some slack. For me (and you, I assume) the horribleness of a HiLIARy presidency can largely cancel out the horribleness of some of Trump's actions. And we also agree with some/many of his proposed policies ( to use the term loosely ). I sense that for some, horribleness cannot be of opposite sign and is additive. I expect that for T. Lex a Trump/HiLIARy race is just twice as horrible as either candidate on their own, and without a viable alternative the dread is likely debilitating. Lex is the real thing, a principled anti-Trumper and I respect that immensely

Not saying I don't have any respect for him. I simply wonder what the objective of most of the discussions are?

Venting I guess?

If Trump was out of the race and Cruz would have won, I wouldn't have given a care about Cruz even though I despise him. My efforts would have been focused on what ever it takes to keep hillary out of office. Tearing down Cruz would not help keep hillary out of office.

I have a goal and a dog in the fight. I want my guns and I want left the hell alone. There's 4 possible doors to walk through, 2 of them are irrelevant to my goals, and only 1 of them is relevant and has a chance of aligning most closely with my goals. I can not fathom how trying to sway people away from what has at least a 1% chance of a better outcome is rational or sane. It makes as much sense as those people who cut themselves.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Trump bends the knee.

 

[printcraft]

Romney didn't get attacked mercilessly by the press and demoncrats (i repeat myself) when he released his tax returns so I'm not sure why Trump won't.

 

[foszoe]

I will concede that neverTrump at this point is a bit like Neverland. Just silly.

The time for neverTrump was early in the primaries.

For me, it is now symbolic. It is an expression that the Republican nominee does not reflect my beliefs nor my choice in a nominee, a Republican, or a conservative.

Fortunately, I live in Indiana. Where I can cling to my symbols without worrying about whether my non-vote for Trump will make any difference. Meanwhile, my (probably final) tax stamp will be here before the election, so I can focus on stocking up on ammo.

I thoght the same way in 2008

 

[BugI02]

Trump bends the knee.

Well, there's your proof that Trump does want to win, not that I think you'll accept it as such. If I were Trump, I would give them the same tepid, pro forma endorsement they gave me and still support the challenger to Ryan's seat. I see no reason to be more pricipled than ones detractors. If Ryan wants to move on to larger issues the first move would be his

 

[Kutnupe14]

Well, there's your proof that Trump does want to win, not that I think you'll accept it as such. If I were Trump, I would give them the same tepid, pro forma endorsement they gave me and still support the challenger to Ryan's seat. I see no reason to be more pricipled than ones detractors. If Ryan wants to move on to larger issues the first move would be his

So then what's his problem? I toyed with the idea of voting for him... and then he completely went off the deep end.

 

[BugI02]

If you want the truth, have you ever seen the Peter Sellers movie Being There?​

 

[Kutnupe14]

If you want the truth, have you ever seen the Peter Sellers movie Being There?​

No, never even heard of it

 

[BugI02]

Being There (1979) - Synopsis

 

[KLB]

So then what's his problem? I toyed with the idea of voting for him... and then he completely went off the deep end.

I am in the same boat, except I haven't completely given up. He still has a couple of months to stop saying stupid and win my vote.

 

[BugI02]

Yep. The bar is set so low and yet he still can't get over it. Is it possible he believes its a limbo competition?

 

[Ericpwp]

Trump bends the knee.

Thanks for posting something positive.

I'll save the rep for when they have it fixed.

That goes for everyone.


Ryan's competition is a full blown Tumper. I could see why it would be hard for him to come to the conclusion that he did not supporting someone that is so good at stroking his ego.

Romney didn't get attacked mercilessly by the press and demoncrats (i repeat myself) when he released his tax returns so I'm not sure why Trump won't.

Why would he load their cannons?

 

[T.Lex]

Going from many of your-camp's posts, I continue to struggle to figure out why you even partake in discussion of the presidential election. It's clear that you have no real interest in any candidate, you're not wanting any of them to really win, but you're really wanting one to lose.

For one thing, I'm a politics/policy wonk. I enjoy it. I am even somewhat active in trying to shape local policy. So, I have a long-time interest in it, even if none of the candidates appeal to me.

Unlike some people, I'm not one of those that only tunes in every 4 years.

Maybe we could get papal dispensations for neverTrumpers acknowledging the veracity of their priciples but allowing a vote for Trump this one time as being in the best interest of the faith

haha

While I appreciate the opportunity to be redeemed, I find it better in the long run to avoid the sin in the first place.

Considering he wants a repeal of the johnson amendment, any religious individual who values their freedom of speech should really buckle up and get over the issues they find troubling. It could be the biggest political revolution in the country for religious folks. 4 years of tolerating some ugly stuff to be able to have a far greater voice in the next election seems like a very valuable trade off.

First, I'm not convinced he really wants that. Given what he's said about defamation, his stated goals are a net loss for the 1A.

Second, while I think the framework applied to the pulpit is contrived and inherently unconstitutional, I kinda don't mind that the priests have an external reason for avoiding some topics.

Wait. Is that dispensation thing still available?

... a Trump/HiLIARy race is just twice as horrible as either candidate on their own, and without a viable alternative the dread is likely debilitating.

"Debilitating" isn't the right word. "Liberating" is probably closer. But yes, otherwise, that captures the fundamental frustration.

Venting I guess?

I will admit to that being part of it. So sue me.

If Trump was out of the race and Cruz would have won, I wouldn't have given a care about Cruz even though I despise him. My efforts would have been focused on what ever it takes to keep hillary out of office. Tearing down Cruz would not help keep hillary out of office.

Cruz isn't a good analogy. And I've tried to come up with a better analog to help frame my problem with Trump.

The closest I can get is Bloomberg. (Not a perfect analogy, since he has actual political experience.)

What if Bloomberg ran as a Republican, admitted his mistake on gun control, and won the nomination? Given his prior stance on guns, I think most of INGO would agree he would be a terrible nominee and not a good POTUS.

For me, Trump is as vile as Bloomberg, but for different reasons... well... some of the same reasons.

If some on INGO expressed that if a Bloomberg presidency kept HRC out, would you vote for him?

I can not fathom how trying to sway people away from what has at least a 1% chance of a better outcome is rational or sane. It makes as much sense as those people who cut themselves.

My friend, persuasion is rarely the goal of discussion. At least, that's not how I was raised, or even how I am naturally. And, as I've often said, in Indiana, it doesn't matter. So, we can talk about this stuff all we want.

I thoght the same way in 2008

Which calendar are you using?

If I were Trump, I would give them the same tepid, pro forma endorsement they gave me and still support the challenger to Ryan's seat. I see no reason to be more pricipled than ones detractors. If Ryan wants to move on to larger issues the first move would be his

I am in the same boat, except I haven't completely given up. He still has a couple of months to stop saying stupid and win my vote.

Yeah, this could be a positive development. If he really is going to pivot towards unity, he could pull this off.

Maybe someone finally sat him down and explained why the polling is actually important as an indicator of his overall performance in the general.

For the primaries, he could cold read precinct by precinct, county by county, state by state, and win. It doesn't work like that in the general.

 

[Tombs]

Cruz isn't a good analogy. And I've tried to come up with a better analog to help frame my problem with Trump.

The closest I can get is Bloomberg. (Not a perfect analogy, since he has actual political experience.)

What if Bloomberg ran as a Republican, admitted his mistake on gun control, and won the nomination? Given his prior stance on guns, I think most of INGO would agree he would be a terrible nominee and not a good POTUS.

For me, Trump is as vile as Bloomberg, but for different reasons... well... some of the same reasons.

If some on INGO expressed that if a Bloomberg presidency kept HRC out, would you vote for him?

If bloomberg hadn't invested tens of millions into gun control, spent a fair portion of his life attacking gun owners, and still pushes it... No, merely turning around tomorrow and saying he's pro second amendment is not going to be believable.

Now if bloomberg had only made a statement in a magazine 16 years ago and had said nothing else negative on guns in that amount of time and decided to run as a republican today, promising to uphold the second amendment... Yes I'd take him over hillary.

Point made?

 

[BugI02]

[snip]

Cruz isn't a good analogy. And I've tried to come up with a better analog to help frame my problem with Trump.[snip]

How about Howard Stern running on a morality platform?

T. Lex, I've been running back over a few things in my head and it occurs to me you could be catholic, or at least I don't know that you aren't.

The dispensation thing was reaching for a reference to someone who could give permission to perform an action that a person was otherwise conflicted on. It wasn't meant to be a dig at a particular religion, I could have as easily used Siddhartha Gautama but the reference would be less immediate (prolly not that many Buddhists on INGO) Mea Culpa