RightNation.US
News (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

RightNation.US: Things the NeverTrumpers must believe (in no particular order) - RightNation.US

Jump to content

Things the NeverTrumpers must believe (in no particular order) Rate Topic: -----

#1 User is offline   pepperonikkid 

  • Trucker
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 12,950
  • Joined: 03-September 03

  Posted 26 May 2019 - 07:23 AM

Things the NeverTrumpers must believe (in no particular order)



https://www.americanthinker.com
By Thomas Lifson
May 25, 2019


Article:


An online friend who must remain anonymous has been musing about what those ostensible conservatives who despise President Trump must now approve of, if they seek to defeat his re-election bid, and thereby hand the presidency to the Democrats' nominee.

This is the implicit set of values and goals that they must now embrace:

1) Abortion on demand is a good thing;

2) Infanticide is a good thing;

3) Letting Iran get a nuclear bomb is a good thing;

4) Higher tax rates are a good thing;

5) More regulation on businesses, big and small, is a good thing;

6) Restricting gas, oil and coal exploration and extraction is a good thing;

7) Open borders is a good thing;

8) China stealing our intellectual property is a good thing;

9) Turning over a significant amount of our uranium supply to Russia is a good thing;

10) Turning our back on Israel is a good thing;



Short Story
0

#2 User is offline   MontyPython 

  • Pull My Finger.....
  • View gallery
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 57,163
  • Joined: 28-February 03

Posted 26 May 2019 - 09:09 AM

Exactly. I don't care how much you might dislike Trump personally; I wouldn't wanna be his "drinkin' buddy" either. But there's just no denying what a great job he's doing as president, nor what a catastrophe it would be to elect a Democrat. Any "Republican" (:rolleyes:) who refuses to vote for Trump might as well just go ahead and switch parties.

<_<
0

#3 User is offline   Natural Selection 

  • Decrypt the truth
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 17,972
  • Joined: 31-December 03

Posted 26 May 2019 - 09:51 AM

View PostMontyPython, on 26 May 2019 - 09:09 AM, said:

Exactly. I don't care how much you might dislike Trump personally; I wouldn't wanna be his "drinkin' buddy" either. But there's just no denying what a great job he's doing as president, nor what a catastrophe it would be to elect a Democrat. Any "Republican" (:rolleyes:) who refuses to vote for Trump might as well just go ahead and switch parties.

<_<


Agreed.

If you listen to these NeverTrumpers complain it's never about anything important like policy. They are like progressives in that regard. It's all about how someone makes you feel.
0

#4 User is offline   GrimV 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 8,657
  • Joined: 08-May 06

Posted 26 May 2019 - 09:54 AM

Ooh, can I play?

I’ve always loved False Dichotomies. Here’s a few favorites: “If you didn’t vote for Obama you’re a foaming racist who clearly hates black people”.

“If you didn’t vote for Hillary you don’t support women’s rights”.

“If you don’t support kneeling football players you obviously hate Puerto Ricans”. (heard that one at work last year...and yeah, “WTF”? I work in Boulder, so you can imagine the stupid sh*t that comes out of those people’s mouths)

“If you didn’t spit on returning Vietnam vets you clearly approved of the My Lai massacre”.

“If you don’t support tax increases you obviously want a world filled with uneducated children”.

“If you think ‘Loading the Dishwasher’ means getting your wife drunk, you might be a redneck”.



Point being, if your opening salvo is a logical fallacy, you’ve already lost the argument.
0

#5 User is offline   zurg 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 27,832
  • Joined: 19-October 09

Posted 26 May 2019 - 10:25 AM

I’ll just state a mathematical fact.

If you choose to not vote for Trump because you dislike his personality/tweeting habit/something, BUT you agree with most of his policies and agenda, AND you would never vote for a democrat (especially an obvious socialist), THEN you keep Trump from getting a vote that you normally would have cast. Thus you are helping the other side. (Not as much as switching your vote for the other side, but half as much.)
0

#6 User is offline   GrimV 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 8,657
  • Joined: 08-May 06

Posted 26 May 2019 - 11:18 AM

View Postzurg, on 26 May 2019 - 10:25 AM, said:

I’ll just state a mathematical fact.

If you choose to not vote for Trump because you dislike his personality/tweeting habit/something, BUT you agree with most of his policies and agenda, AND you would never vote for a democrat (especially an obvious socialist), THEN you keep Trump from getting a vote that you normally would have cast. Thus you are helping the other side. (Not as much as switching your vote for the other side, but half as much.)


“Moving Goalposts” is also a logical fallacy.

In other words, the shaming attempt went from this “the implicit set of values and goals that they must now embrace” to this “you are helping the other side”. So how does this logic play out? Unlike Other_Posters, who erroneously believe their abstention played no role in electing Trump, I’m fully aware of the consequences. But that’s a far cry from “This is the implicit set of values and goals that they must now embrace:

1) Abortion on demand is a good thing;

2) Infanticide is a good thing;

3) Letting Iran get a nuclear bomb is a good thing;

4) Higher tax rates are a good thing;

5) More regulation on businesses, big and small, is a good thing;

6) Restricting gas, oil and coal exploration and extraction is a good thing;

7) Open borders is a good thing;

8) China stealing our intellectual property is a good thing;

9) Turning over a significant amount of our uranium supply to Russia is a good thing;

10) Turning our back on Israel is a good thing;”


Not voting for Trump doesn’t magically force me into embracing that list any more than seeing a Christmas tree on the White House lawn magically forces me into a religion.
0

#7 User is offline   Noclevermoniker 

  • Wire Dachsies Matter
  • Group: +Silver Community Supporter
  • Posts: 16,962
  • Joined: 13-November 03

Posted 26 May 2019 - 11:29 AM

View PostGrimV, on 26 May 2019 - 11:18 AM, said:

“Moving Goalposts” is also a logical fallacy.

In other words, the shaming attempt went from this “the implicit set of values and goals that they must now embrace” to this “you are helping the other side”. So how does this logic play out? Unlike Other_Posters, who erroneously believe their abstention played no role in electing Trump, I’m fully aware of the consequences. But that’s a far cry from “This is the implicit set of values and goals that they must now embrace:

1) Abortion on demand is a good thing;

2) Infanticide is a good thing;

3) Letting Iran get a nuclear bomb is a good thing;

4) Higher tax rates are a good thing;

5) More regulation on businesses, big and small, is a good thing;

6) Restricting gas, oil and coal exploration and extraction is a good thing;

7) Open borders is a good thing;

8) China stealing our intellectual property is a good thing;

9) Turning over a significant amount of our uranium supply to Russia is a good thing;

10) Turning our back on Israel is a good thing;”


Not voting for Trump doesn’t magically force me into embracing that list any more than seeing a Christmas tree on the White House lawn magically forces me into a religion.

Agreed it doesn’t imply your embrace of those values. However, it does imply an ambivalence regarding the implementation of those policies, would you agree?
0

#8 User is offline   That_Guy 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 20,170
  • Joined: 02-September 06

Posted 26 May 2019 - 11:33 AM

View PostGrimV, on 26 May 2019 - 11:18 AM, said:

Other_Posters, who erroneously believe their abstention played no role in electing Trump


FYI — His opponent carried my home state by some 2,000,000 votes.

This post has been edited by That_Guy: 26 May 2019 - 12:01 PM

0

#9 User is offline   zurg 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 27,832
  • Joined: 19-October 09

Posted 26 May 2019 - 12:12 PM

View PostGrimV, on 26 May 2019 - 11:18 AM, said:

“Moving Goalposts” is also a logical fallacy.

In other words, the shaming attempt went from this “the implicit set of values and goals that they must now embrace” to this “you are helping the other side”. So how does this logic play out? Unlike Other_Posters, who erroneously believe their abstention played no role in electing Trump, I’m fully aware of the consequences. But that’s a far cry from “This is the implicit set of values and goals that they must now embrace:

1) Abortion on demand is a good thing;

2) Infanticide is a good thing;

3) Letting Iran get a nuclear bomb is a good thing;

4) Higher tax rates are a good thing;

5) More regulation on businesses, big and small, is a good thing;

6) Restricting gas, oil and coal exploration and extraction is a good thing;

7) Open borders is a good thing;

8) China stealing our intellectual property is a good thing;

9) Turning over a significant amount of our uranium supply to Russia is a good thing;

10) Turning our back on Israel is a good thing;”


Not voting for Trump doesn’t magically force me into embracing that list any more than seeing a Christmas tree on the White House lawn magically forces me into a religion.

I don’t understand why you quoted my post to make this point. I had in no way endorsed the author’s statement. All I did was to make a factual observation. I stand by that mathematically valid statement.
0

#10 User is offline   JerryL 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 12,238
  • Joined: 06-October 03

Posted 26 May 2019 - 12:28 PM

Two things.

1. By the original premise of the article, flawed or not, despite what some may believe I am not a “Never Trumper.” I hit 0 out of 10 on the list.
2. By the second set of criteria, I still don’t fit. No secret that I don’t like a lot of his tweets but I voted for him, do not regret it, and will vote for him again based on his success in 2020.

And a bonus,

3. Wow! So one state accounted for the margin in votes between HRC and DJT. Gotta love that Electoral College in actions. California leftists tend to think that the sun shines out of their asses, but most people don’t want to live in that bat<censored> crazy state.

This post has been edited by JerryL: 26 May 2019 - 12:29 PM

0

#11 User is offline   That_Guy 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 20,170
  • Joined: 02-September 06

Posted 26 May 2019 - 01:46 PM

View PostJerryL, on 26 May 2019 - 12:28 PM, said:

So one state accounted for the margin in votes between HRC and DJT.


FYI - Trump’s opponent’s margin of victory in California was in excess of 4,000,000 votes.

This post has been edited by That_Guy: 26 May 2019 - 01:46 PM

0

#12 User is offline   Squirrel 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 846
  • Joined: 24-September 18

Posted 26 May 2019 - 01:50 PM

FYI- still your president
0

#13 User is offline   Dean Adam Smithee 

  • School of the Cold Hard Facts
  • View gallery
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 20,761
  • Joined: 11-December 04

Posted 26 May 2019 - 04:37 PM

View Postzurg, on 26 May 2019 - 10:25 AM, said:

I’ll just state a mathematical fact.

If you choose to not vote for Trump because you dislike his personality/tweeting habit/something, BUT you agree with most of his policies and agenda, AND you would never vote for a democrat (especially an obvious socialist), THEN you keep Trump from getting a vote that you normally would have cast. Thus you are helping the other side. (Not as much as switching your vote for the other side, but half as much.)


This would be true *IF* the popular vote mattered.

But if a conservative doesn't like Trump AND is in a state that's either already so Red that their vote isn't needed, or so Blue that their vote doesn't count, then it doesn't necessarily mean that not voting for Trump equates to embracing ANY of the values on the author's list.
0

#14 User is offline   satellite66 

  • No more RHINOs!!!
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 5,508
  • Joined: 27-November 03

Posted 26 May 2019 - 05:05 PM

So the never trump response is turn a blind eye because I live in a blue state or red state, or is it I won't vote for Trump because he can be obnoxious and his accomplishments don't outweigh his Tweets?
0

#15 User is offline   Natural Selection 

  • Decrypt the truth
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 17,972
  • Joined: 31-December 03

Posted 26 May 2019 - 05:31 PM

View PostThat_Guy, on 26 May 2019 - 11:33 AM, said:

FYI — His opponent carried my home state by some 2,000,000 votes.



View PostThat_Guy, on 26 May 2019 - 01:46 PM, said:

FYI - Trump’s opponent’s margin of victory in California was in excess of 4,000,000 votes.



Nationally, the conservative advantage in ideological identification is nine percentage points

(source)
0

#16 User is offline   Dean Adam Smithee 

  • School of the Cold Hard Facts
  • View gallery
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 20,761
  • Joined: 11-December 04

Posted 26 May 2019 - 05:33 PM

View PostThat_Guy, on 26 May 2019 - 01:46 PM, said:

FYI - Trump’s opponent’s margin of victory in California was in excess of 4,000,000 votes.


And in California, Gary Johnson got 478,500, Jill Stein got 278,657, and Bernie Sanders got 79,341 (write-ins). If I assume that every vote for Johnson was a #NeverTrump vote and every vote for Stein or Sanders was a #NeverHillary vote and give those votes back to either Trump or Hillary, it STILL wouldn't have changed anything.

My state of Georgia was flip side of this. Gary Johnson got 125,306 votes. I would presume that most if not all were from #NeverTrumpers. But, so what??? Trump won anyway. Likewise West Virginia where 23,000 #NeverTrumpers voting for Johnson weren't enough to 'spoil' it for Trump.

YES, it DOES matter in SOME states.

Consider New Hampshire. Hillary won the state by only 2,701. Meanwhile, Johnson got 30,694 and Stein got 6,465. Give all of Johnson's votes back to Trump and all of Stein's votes back to Hillary, and Trump would have won the state. Likewise Minnesota: Give Johnson's votes back to Trump and Stein's votes back to Hillary, and Trump would have won by 31,222 rather than losing by 44,765.
0

#17 User is offline   zurg 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 27,832
  • Joined: 19-October 09

Posted 26 May 2019 - 05:50 PM

View PostDean Adam Smithee, on 26 May 2019 - 04:37 PM, said:

This would be true *IF* the popular vote mattered.

But if a conservative doesn't like Trump AND is in a state that's either already so Red that their vote isn't needed, or so Blue that their vote doesn't count, then it doesn't necessarily mean that not voting for Trump equates to embracing ANY of the values on the author's list.

I didn’t say anything about the author’s list. I didn’t say whether the additional vote or its withholding would be critical. Please re-read what I wrote and pretend it’s an engineering spec.

I tried to make it simple and factual, nothing more nothing less.

This post has been edited by zurg: 26 May 2019 - 05:50 PM

0

#18 User is offline   GrimV 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 8,657
  • Joined: 08-May 06

Posted 26 May 2019 - 06:19 PM

View Postzurg, on 26 May 2019 - 05:50 PM, said:

I didn’t say anything about the author’s list. I didn’t say whether the additional vote or its withholding would be critical. Please re-read what I wrote and pretend it’s an engineering spec.

I tried to make it simple and factual, nothing more nothing less.


It's natural to assume you were adding to the thread's topic. If you weren't "say[ing] anything about the author's list", why post in the first place. Was it simply a random attempt to shame Never Trumpers into voting the way you want?
0

#19 User is offline   zurg 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 27,832
  • Joined: 19-October 09

Posted 26 May 2019 - 06:36 PM

View PostGrimV, on 26 May 2019 - 06:19 PM, said:

It's natural to assume you were adding to the thread's topic. If you weren't "say[ing] anything about the author's list", why post in the first place. Was it simply a random attempt to shame Never Trumpers into voting the way you want?

No. I made that post just to simplify the premise, from my viewpoint. I have read people stating that they’re against Hillary and for conservative goals, but can’t stand Trump. I’m only saying that IF that is the case, THEN such voters cannot claim that withholding doesn’t matter.

I’m making that statement with the intention of staying away from the author’s list.
0

#20 User is offline   gravelrash 

  • I wish they all were punk rock girls
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 15,074
  • Joined: 24-June 03

Posted 26 May 2019 - 06:58 PM

View PostDean Adam Smithee, on 26 May 2019 - 05:33 PM, said:

And in California, Gary Johnson got 478,500, Jill Stein got 278,657, and Bernie Sanders got 79,341 (write-ins). If I assume that every vote for Johnson was a #NeverTrump vote and every vote for Stein or Sanders was a #NeverHillary vote and give those votes back to either Trump or Hillary, it STILL wouldn't have changed anything.

My state of Georgia was flip side of this. Gary Johnson got 125,306 votes. I would presume that most if not all were from #NeverTrumpers. But, so what??? Trump won anyway. Likewise West Virginia where 23,000 #NeverTrumpers voting for Johnson weren't enough to 'spoil' it for Trump.

YES, it DOES matter in SOME states.

Consider New Hampshire. Hillary won the state by only 2,701. Meanwhile, Johnson got 30,694 and Stein got 6,465. Give all of Johnson's votes back to Trump and all of Stein's votes back to Hillary, and Trump would have won the state. Likewise Minnesota: Give Johnson's votes back to Trump and Stein's votes back to Hillary, and Trump would have won by 31,222 rather than losing by 44,765.


Exactly why the emphasis on the polls that Biden would win Wisconsin and Pennsylvania today not 19 months from now. The effort is to sway the protest write-ins to vote Biden. I have never trusted polls or "popular opinion".

Heck, look what Newseek did with its "Conventional Wisdom" analysis. Dumbed down so far as to be condescending and even insulting. The Democrats will insist on more harassment investigations when PRESIDENT Donald J. Trump wins reelection. They keep shooting themselves in the foot. I wish they would in the mouth.

This post has been edited by gravelrash: 26 May 2019 - 06:58 PM

0

Share this topic:


  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users