Speaking of conservative NeverTrumpers

American Thinker ^ | 13 Aug, 2024 | Ron Ross

[CFW]

Never-Trumpers are like a person standing in a sinking boat screaming that their pants are getting wet while the rest of the boaters are on their knees bailing out water and trying to plug the leak. They are more concerned with the aesthetics and their personal appearance than the danger to their lives.

[DiogenesLamp]

They also seem to be prissy country club types who insist on the Marquis de Queensbury rules even as the Left has no rules at all.....they’re often the type who would rather lose “nobly” (”ewwww we can’t win the way Lee Atwater won, better to lose”) than win. In short, many of them are ultimately self defeating cucks. I only wish the Left were afflicted with these attitudes.

This is exactly correct.

[nopardons]

BTTT

[enumerated]

Actually no. I don’t know anyone that doesn’t like Trump that I would call a conservative.

Maybe it’s semantics.. These political names have different meanings to different people. I still use the term “conservative” to describe the smart people who were right about everything.

If Ronald Reagan was hands-down your favorite POTUS in your lifetime, I probably consider you conservative. Reagan said government isn’t the solution to the problem - government IS the problem. Reagan wasn’t able to shrink the government or make it accountable. He didn’t win that battle, but he was telling the truth - and the truth is like a flame that must be kept burning for some future battle - and Reagan did that.

If Trump is hands down your second favorite lifetime POTUS - and giving Reagan a run for his money - I probably consider you a conservative. Trump is a lot different than Reagan - or is he? He doesn’t talk a lot about government being too big - he’s not that philosophical - but he does talk about using common sense - and he does talk about corruption and incompetence in government - and putting America First and giving the people their rightful seat at the table. Common sense and conservatism seem like they might turn out to be the same thing in the end. If so, President Trump is ultra conservative.

If George Washington was you favorite all-time POTUS I probably consider you conservative. Washington won the Revolution for us and supposedly was offered the title of king - he turned it down and that is why we have elected Presidents with term limits instead. If that story is true - it says it all.

I guess what I saying is that I have to talk with someone before I call him a conservative - and if he doesn’t love Trump he ain’t conservative in my book.

[Erik Latranyi]

It was interesting that Musk talked more about gov’t spending leading to inflation than Trump did. Of course, Trump really can’t say anything because he added to the debt as well. Trump is trying to promise things he can do with the Congress as it is instead of getting blocked like last time.

But Trump is the greatest POTUS in my lifetime after Reagan.

While the left hated Reagan and undermined him, they also worked with him on deals, something today’s Democrats will never do unless it hands them a full victory (like an assault weapons ban).

[Responsibility2nd]

You no doubt have conservative friends who strongly dislike Donald Trump. They can’t tolerate his take-no-prisoners rhetoric. His personality rubs them the wrong way — he’s abrasive, crude, and in their opinion, obnoxious.

______________________________________________________________

My thoughts exactly. I would not be friends with or associate with Trump.

But I’m glad he is standing up for America. And I’m glad to be voting for him.

[central_va]

I would not be friends with or associate with Trump.

This says more about you than it says about Trump. I do not mean this in a good way.

[cgbg]

Ever notice that the “undecided voters” are very offended by anything and everything President Trump says but are just fine when the left goes into hate and name calling mode?

Lol.

[Responsibility2nd]

I prefer to rationally explain to undecideds why Trump is the best man (only man) for the job.

You want to curse and insult them.

Somehow I think my manner is more effective in getting these “douchebags” to wise up.

[hoagy62]

Eddie = the late Eddie Van Halen, co-workers founder of the group.

[hoagy62]

Ultimately, regardless of who gets into the WH, never forget….the American People are Eddie, Michael, and Alex-a monster band that is invariant to the guy in the singer slot. WE run the nation.
*********
I hate to say this, but even though we SHOULD run the nation, it ain’t true.
In keeping with the analogy, the nation is actually run by some offstage unknown producer who’s telling the lead singer what to do....except for Diamond Dave (Trump).

[Georgia Girl 2]

My 98 year old mother was like that but she voted for Trump despite not really liking him.

[central_va]

There are about 100 regular FR posters the I consider “NeverTrumpers”

[Responsibility2nd]

May we see your list? Am I on your list?

[going hot]

It gives them cover to state they don’t like him but are going to vote for him. That way they will still be freinds with those who hate him. (they are not really frinds, they would push you into the rail cars as fast as they could)

[Reily]

His rhetoric is typical of blue-collar New York guys\gals I know. It takes some effort to get used to. My wife is from NYC and shares in some of the “in-your-face” rhetoric something I delight in pointing out!

[JonPreston]

You no doubt have conservative friends who strongly dislike Donald Trump

I stopped at this opening sentence because I don't have friends like this. But I'm not surprised some conservatives "strongly dislike Donald trump." The conservative movement is largely useless and filled with pearl clutching GOP'ers for the most part.

[enumerated]

I think Trump is a really good and honest man, and brave and a fighter. He’s extremely smart but not “philosophical”.

People who are not philosophical can’t be considered very “principled” because they don’t think that way - they don’t adopt abstract concepts (principles) and develop them into an action plan.. they try things and act based on what works.

So, since Trump is not rooted in principle, some “principled” conservatives can’t accept him as “conservative”.

But… as it turns out, conservatism is rooted in common sense - so both philosophical conservatives and common sense pragmatists - if they are honest, courageous and smart, MUST arrive at the sane conclusion: that government scope and power must be limited.

Interestingly, although Reagan was a lot more articulate about the need to limit government - he had no more success doing it than Trump. Reagan was a better teacher and that is so important - but Trump may be a better fighter, and that is just as important.

Both Reagan and Trump knew that a President doesn’t (and shouldn’t) have the power to get the government under control - only We the People can do that - and we need to awakened and inspired to fight.

Reagan and Trump offer two different types of inspiration - it remains to be seen which, if either, will have had the best success in waking the sleeping giant and get us to fight back.

I was 28 and full of fight when Reagan was elected - now I’m 72 and plenty pissed off - but unless enough other people hurry up and start fighting, I’m starting to wonder if I’ll even be around for American Revolution II.

[rlmorel]

I disagree with your characterization, so let me explain my point of view.

There are two different pathways to sharing knowledge: One is face to face or person to person in a forum to share views. The other is by investigating online, or via other media independently. When I speak to someone (specifically someone who is "undecided" in this example) to explain a given issue (either face-to-face or person-to-person in a forum like this) I do it rationally, and base my views on my observations, lessons of history, and my personal knowledge of a subject.

When dealing with individuals in discourse, civil discourse, I treat the encounter as such, whether online via electronic means in a person-to-person mode, or face to face. Exactly the same, or I try to make it exactly the same.

I try to make a rule never to say to someone online what I would not say directly to their face, and I would never say anything insulting to anyone face to face or person to person online as long as we are engaged in civil discourse.

I am human, with all the faults that go along with that, so if there is a departure from civil discourse on their part, what follows on my part will not be civil.

So, if someone asks me about my views (as occasionally does occur in my very blue state, if I encounter someone at the protests or standouts or even at my Republican Town Committee tent we put up at events) I engage in civil discourse, and this is a piece of an actual conversation I have recently had:

The conversation might go something like this:

---

UNKNOWN PERSON: Why do you support Donald Trump?

ME: Because he not only supports the important things I support, but his actions show that it is not just talk with him.

UNKNOWN PERSON: Like what?

ME: His stance on Climate Change and putting America first as his priority, not some foreign globalists in the EU. His support of Israel as shown in his move of the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. His efforts to reduce the volume of legislation that Americans are buried under, as shown in his first two years by the decrease in the size of the Federal Register. His understanding of what drives an economy, as evidenced in the increased standard of living for all Americans under his administration. His understanding that we can't have open borders and unlimited illegal immigration. His support for law enforcement. His approach to trade with China, to make it FAIR trade, not FREE trade for the Communist Chinese. Those kinds of things.

UNKNOWN PERSON: But aren't you bothered by his racist attitudes?

ME: Donald Trump is not a racist. Before he became President, he supported and associated with people of all races, creeds, and colors. And was quite liked by all. It was only after he became President that he was painted as a racist by his enemies.

UNKNOWN PERSON: He is crude, and I don't like the way he calls people names.

ME: Would you rather have someone who called people names, almost always people who attacked him first, and almost always deserving of the criticism, but who produced increases in your disposable income by cutting taxes, controlled people entering this country illegally, and kept our country out of war, or would you rather have someone who seems more "Presidential" to you but is destroying your standard of living, intentionally flooding this country with illegal aliens, and destroying our country in nearly every way possible? You have to make a choice.

---

And that is how I deal with everyone until they demonstrate they aren't interested in making choices or increasing their knowledge.

But when "undecided voters" are making up their minds by watching the news and swallowing whole what they are told, or "research" online for the pros and cons, taking what Facebook, Google, and YouTube allow them to see, is that "rational" in any way?

I just tried a search for grid to compare presidential candidates on issues and got back one that I didn't even have to expend a single second of research. But these are utterly worthless for several reasons, because they take candidate position papers and present them. If these were up-to-date, they would show Kamala Harris as being AGAINST illegal immigration and FOR cutting taxes.

And that is making the huge assumption that the suppliers of this pap aren't simply into Leftist advocacy which are playing the role of Communist Fronts from the 1930's to 1960's which had names such as Voters For A Democratic America or National Federation for Constitutional Liberties to fool people into thinking they were supporting organizations with American values.

My point is, nothing is an easy substitute in today's world for investigating on your own, and these people who are happy to get in front of a microphone and say they are undecided and haven't expended an ounce on really trying to find what is close to reality are a pox on an informed electorate.

We can't do anything about brain-damaged Leftists, and we can't do anything about people who won't even look at issues on their own, take 15 minutes to make a grid on five simple things, Economy and Taxes, Immigration, Foreign Policy, 2nd Amendment Rights, and Education and fill them in to make a choice. They won't even do that.

If a person does that and decides they are a Leftist, so be it. But if they don't do EVEN THAT, and expect people to respect them because they are "undecided", I won't be one of them giving respect.

Do you think that if Trump explains the issues in any manner as rational than he did in this conversation with Elon Musk (which I thought was completely rational) and has it filtered through NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, NYT, WaPo, PBS, Fox, and any number of online disseminators of news or opinion such as Vox, Politico, New Republic, or a multitude of "fact check" sites, do you really believe that a person can make a rational, informed decision about who they support based on that?

If you do, then we have to part ways on this, because unless someone chooses to make the effort to find the truth because it affects them, their children, and their grandchildren, the VAST preponderance of what is GIVEN to them on which to base a choice is NOT truth. Not even close, and a MAL-informed citizen is worse than a misinformed, or uninformed citizen.

Do you really think that if Trump explains the issues with the eloquence of Ronald Reagan, that it will reach target audiences like these special "undecided voters"?

[rlmorel]

Of course.

That is why I believe we should just screw pandering to these people, concentrate on un-rigging the electoral fraud from the Left, and let things fall where they may.

Talking to “undecided voters” is an exercise in futility. We have a better chance of fixing the electoral process than to get through to these people who are either too lazy to learn, unwilling to learn, or unable to learn and getting them to vote for someone who doesn’t want to destroy them.