Posted on 02/22/2016 10:12:52 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
I am, says Erick Erickson, and he's not alone. One of the chief coping mechanisms from righties on social media this weekend upon surveying the destruction in South Carolina was to swear they'll never be a Trumpist, even if the heavens fall. I believe Erickson, but I'd also bet cash money that 90 percent of the people saying "HELL NO NEVER HAPPEN" today will grudgingly come around over the next eight months upon being reminded, not on a daily but on an hourly basis, that Hillary Clinton is a pathological liar who'd be in prison if not for her status as the creme de la creme of Washington's elites.
I'm not saying conservative revulsion at Trump isn't real. It is, and I think when it all shakes out in November that Trump will have seen more Republicans stay home for him than stayed home for either Romney or McCain. But I don't think there'll be a third party and I also don't think that some sliver of conservatives staying home will doom Trump's candidacy. Given Hillary's weakness and his own appeal to independents and Reagan Democrats, it's possible that he'd find the votes he needs to win in the center. That would be the final indignity to the conservative movement after having its impotence laid bare for more than a year -- staging a mass boycott of Trump on election day and discovering that Trump can win anyway...
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
You'll last as long as Erickson would on this forum if you sing his tune once Trump gains the nomination.
I am tempted, but then again I live in a state where the GOP nominee whomever it is is very very likely to win. The real test is whether one sits it out in a swing state.
Disagree until the cows come home; you’re damned dead wrong and blinded by your own irrational biases. LOL
I will vote against the democrat regardless of whatever leftover dregs we get for a Republican candidate.
I love a 2013 threatening me. Thanks, I needed the laugh.
>>So are you voting for Hillary or Bernie?
Ah, primary? Cruz.
You?
I won’t vote unless Trump is the nominee. Time for the GOP to fracture and reform as the two diametrically opposed parties it has been of recent years.
Then you are posting to the wrong person, no hypocrisy here. I have voted in ALL elections I was of legal age to do so. No ONE has the right tell me what is right with me and my decisions. I held my nose to vote for Romney because at least he was a decent human being. Not so with Trump. That’s the diff.
Not a Trump supporter here, but I will vote for him in the general. I didn’t like the purist line against Romney, and I don’t like it against Trump if he’s the nominee. In the General, you always go with the lesser of two evils. Those who stay home can suck up another eight years of an America-hating Marxist in the White House with either shrill Hill or Bolshie Bernie. And yes, there is a difference between Trump and the latter two. One has to be able to make fine distinctions.
I was laughing with you.
Trump can do without my vote anyway. 60% negative, that's a WOW, Hillary wins as planned by Trump. He knows he can't beat her, my one vote won't matter."""
You carry him over the line all by yourself sir/mam. I won't help...he is going to lose to her why should I bother.
Then please do, so far I have not seen it. Logic comes in many shapes and forms.
Logic, if you don't stand for your principles, then candidates don't value your principles.
Logic, there is no perfect person. You have to compromise some or never contribute at all at any time.
The problem isn't necessarily voting for the "lesser evil," per se. In any dichotomous choice, there will always be two choices that can be presented as a greater and lesser evil, but that doesn't mean that both are evil or we can never choose either. The question is whether we are actually supporting evil or merely getting less good than some ideal.
In a choice between Jesus and the Apostle Paul for your pastor, would it be accurate to describe Jesus as the lesser of two evils just because he's the better option? Clearly not. Yet some take every choice between two options, label it a choice between evils and refuse to choose either. This is faulty reasoning.
On the other hand, in a choice between Hitler and Stalin, both are so evil that you must choose neither. It's not because you can't choose the "lesser evil" but because you cannot support evil.
We must be careful not to let an unattainable ideal become the enemy of the real good we can achieve now. Imperfection and flaws don't necessarily constitute evil that we can't support. If we refuse to support anyone unless we get everything we want, we are contributing to the greater evil by refusing to stand against it where we have a chance of stopping it.
But on the other hand, whoever we support must have some redeeming quality and not be of such horrible moral character that we would contributing to evil in supporting him, even if he is less evil than the alternative. There has to be some minimum standard in place, not merely that we will support anyone as long as the alternative is worse. Sometimes you have to take a stand even when the odds are against you because to do otherwise is to collude with evil. Wisdom is knowing where to draw the line.
I like Cruz too, but we were talking about the hypothetical of a Trump vs Hillary or Bernie final.
Don’t chicken out on me. :)
In 2012, the number of white voters went down about 4 million compared to 2008.
In 2012, Obama lost 5.5 million white voters compared to 2008.
In 2012, Romney gained 1.5 million white voters compared to McCain in 2008.
Bottom Line - the 4 million white voters who stayed home in 2012 voted for Obama in 2008.
I’m not chickening out. I’m fighting like the dickens avoid having to choose between being hung and being shot.
“I think Trump should run with Cruz”
I used to favor that pairing, until I found out that Ted was born in Canada to a Cuban father and an American mother.
If Ted wound up on the November ticket in either position, the chances of the Democrat party suing because of the eligibility question are 100%.
With the stakes as high as they are, and the Supreme Court split as it currently is, we’re looking at a nightmare scenario like none this country has ever seen.
For that reason alone, Ted must be stricken from consideration.
You are the one who posted a direct reply to me, to my general observation.
Apparently I hit a nerve, even though I didn’t target you in my original post. Otherwise you wouldn’t have bothered to tell me, in essence to ‘shut up’.
My choice is morality alone, and I will not be swayed from that, when there is a clear choice for the Better, imo.
I hate to have to do this, but my decision is I can not vote for Trump under any circumstances. He already has 60% un-favorability, why should I interfere with the people choice. Trump is leading America right up to that line of failure, nothing I can do about it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.