Considerations: The selfishness of #NeverTrump

[theDoctorisIn]

Didn't you tell me recently that you don't consider yourself a Republican?

Yes, and I'm not. I officially de-registered from the Republican Party in 2012. I'm just watching all of this from the outside.

I just think anyone who calls himself a Republican, who swears fealty to his party, and turns on his party to vote for someone who represents the very antithesis of his values, is a traitor. I value loyalty. That isn't. That is one of the many reasons why I left the Republican party. Too much division and betrayal.

Brett Baier asked all the Republican candidates in the March 3 debate:

"Can you support the nominee, even if that nominee is Donald Trump?"



Each and every one of them pledged that they would support the nominee. Trump wound up reversing and making the same pledge. But now that he's basically the nominee, they are one by one going back on their words. Betrayal is an inconceivable concept to me. Not only did they not pledge to run an independent campaign, they pledged to support the nominee.

But there is word circulating that there is an effort

Maybe you guys do things differently, but I'm pretty sure there's no "fealty oath" required to register with a party.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

So you're not telling anyone how to vote, but you are trying to shame them for not voting the way you want?

Am I missing something?

As the First Amendment protects his right to do.

N ext you are going to tell me that liberals here always make 100% complete sense?

Obviously kormac is just trying to get these loser morons to assplain how they can be so freaking stupid, but it isnt amatter of stupidity; these so-called conservatives were never anything more than posers and frauds in the first place as there is nothing 'conservative' about unenforced free trade agreements or being anti-nationalist in trade and other economic issues.

I hope to God that people like Kormak fail completely to talk any sense into these losers so we can get rid of them.


Hell, who knows, if it works I might start thinking of myself as a Republican again, lol.

There's nothing "conservative" about nationalist trade policies, either.

There sure as hell isn't anything liberal and progressive about them though. "Free trade" is a globalist scam. When one nation finds freedom from slavery and injustice, they just enslave another. The way globalists currently operate, they have the blessing of Satan.

Yeah, I've heard all about the horrors of Globalization from all my hippie friends.

You know what I haven't heard yet? A convincing argument for how the world would be better off if we stopped "globalization" tomorrow.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Maybe you guys do things differently, but I'm pretty sure there's no "fealty oath" required to register with a party.

Then why did the RNC ask all the candidates to sign a pledge not to run third party?

I still have the card in my wallet. I was registered, and a donating member, of the Republican Party from 2010 to 2012.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Maybe you guys do things differently, but I'm pretty sure there's no "fealty oath" required to register with a party.

Then why did the RNC ask all the candidates to sign a pledge not to run third party?

I still have the card in my wallet. I was registered, and a donating member, of the Republican Party from 2010 to 2012.

Because the RNC wants to win the election. That's their whole point for existing.

You didn't make an oath to the Republican Party when you were a member, did you?

 

[TemplarKormac]

You didn't make an oath to the Republican Party when you were a member, did you?

No.

Well... I take that back. I would think registering and donating money to them would have been something like an oath. I think the same concept applies to any elected Republican who takes money from Republican donors.

"I hold Republican values"

If you voted against your party based on spite alone, a Republican you aren't. Those values were nothing but a facade.

I don't use the term "RINO" much, but I would think that kind of behavior would qualify this person as one. And that's why I'm no longer in the party.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Because the RNC wants to win the election. That's their whole point for existing.

Okay, so why are members of the party threatening to run third party now that Trump is the nominee? I see. If that's their whole point for existing, then they will essentially commit suicide.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Because the RNC wants to win the election. That's their whole point for existing.

Okay, so why are members of the party threatening to run third party now that Trump is the nominee? I see. If that's their whole point for existing, then they will essentially commit suicide.

Noooo...

Members of the party aren't the RNC. The RNC is a non-profit organization that exists to provide support and financing to Republican candidates for various offices.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The RNC is a non-profit organization that exists to provide support and financing to Republican candidates for various offices.

Taking aid from the RNC essentially binds you (I would think) to them and their cause.

And since almost every Republican elected official as candidates conceivably took aid from the RNC to fund their campaigns, the Republican party is bought and paid for by the RNC itself. Thus my point. There is no delineation between the two. And that's why I think they will commit suicide if they actively fund an independent third party run by a different candidate from their party.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The RNC is a non-profit organization that exists to provide support and financing to Republican candidates for various offices.

Taking aid from the RNC essentially binds you (I would think) to them and their cause.

Well, it doesn't.

And since almost every Republican elected official as candidates conceivably took aid from the RNC to fund their campaigns, the Republican party is bought and paid for by the RNC itself. Thus my point. There is no delineation between the two. And that's why I think they will commit suicide if they actively fund an independent third party run by a different candidate from their party.

I believe that the RNC is prohibited from contributing to any campaigns other than post-convention Republican races. They're not allowed to interfere in primaries, either.

But that doesn't stop any individual members of the Republican party from doing so.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I believe that the RNC is prohibited from contributing to any campaigns other than post-convention Republican races. They're not allowed to interfere in primaries, either.

But that doesn't stop any individual members of the Republican party from doing so.

Interesting... I need to do more research on campaign financing. Even still, the Republican Party, RNC or no, will commit suicide if they decide to run a third party candidate.

 

[TemplarKormac]

On that note, it is bed time for me. Got an early start to the day today. Good night and take care, Doc.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

On that note, it is bed time for me. Got an early start to the day today. Good night and take care, Doc.

'Night.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Maybe you guys do things differently, but I'm pretty sure there's no "fealty oath" required to register with a party.

Couldnt tell by watching Democrats. These people will spin on a dime if their party leadership farts the wrong way.

The whole point to having a party is to agree on core principles then to STICK TO THEM. GOP leadership LIES and LIES about what they stand for in order to dupe the GOP rank and file then they deliver NOTHING AT ALL. Republicans got so sick of it that they chose an amateur to lead the party instead of a professional because these bastards cannot be trusted.

So whether there is some universal principle of supporting your party or not, the GOP leadership does not support their membership, so screw the GOP elites and vote for anyone BUT those bastards from here on out.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Yeah, I've heard all about the horrors of Globalization from all my hippie friends.

You know what I haven't heard yet? A convincing argument for how the world would be better off if we stopped "globalization" tomorrow.

Globalization demeans the real differences people have from each other based on national culture and ethnicity. If you see any value to maintaining the culture of Amerindian tribes, why can you not see the value of maintaining the culture of Bulgaria, Romania, France, Scotland, England, Germany, Poland, etc?

And the way globalization is set up right now, we have no mechanisms to support wage scales in the USA and this creates a gradual race to the bottom for working class people as even Europe's middle class will see austerity measures imposed to reduce them as well.

We need to revise globalization policies to raise the middle class across the globe instead of cutting the legs out from under them.

 

[MisterBeale]

So you're not telling anyone how to vote, but you are trying to shame them for not voting the way you want?

Am I missing something?

As the First Amendment protects his right to do.

N ext you are going to tell me that liberals here always make 100% complete sense?

Obviously kormac is just trying to get these loser morons to assplain how they can be so freaking stupid, but it isnt amatter of stupidity; these so-called conservatives were never anything more than posers and frauds in the first place as there is nothing 'conservative' about unenforced free trade agreements or being anti-nationalist in trade and other economic issues.

I hope to God that people like Kormak fail completely to talk any sense into these losers so we can get rid of them.


Hell, who knows, if it works I might start thinking of myself as a Republican again, lol.

There's nothing "conservative" about nationalist trade policies, either.

There sure as hell isn't anything liberal and progressive about them though. "Free trade" is a globalist scam. When one nation finds freedom from slavery and injustice, they just enslave another. The way globalists currently operate, they have the blessing of Satan.

Yeah, I've heard all about the horrors of Globalization from all my hippie friends.

You know what I haven't heard yet? A convincing argument for how the world would be better off if we stopped "globalization" tomorrow.

Simple, make the rules fair.

Obviously those making the rules are making it to benefit themselves only. You don't actually believe the MSM is telling you the truth about what is going on do you? I thought you were smarter than that.

Unless you are here as their spokesperson?

Haven't you ever heard of John Perkins and Confessions of an Economic Hit Man?



This is a GREAT article. It completely breaks down how unfair the rules of globalization are, and how they have only benefited the rich western nations. It also lays bare how it will spell the coming collapse of our own civilization and our own "too big to fails" are sure to collapse very soon if something is not done. Millions, if not billions stand at the precipice of doom.

Getting used to Life without Food
Wall Street, BP, bio-ethanol and the death of millions
http://www.globalresearch.ca/getting-used-to-life-without-food/25483
Since 2000 the totality of dollars invested in various commodity index funds –Goldman Sachs’ GSCI being the largest — has risen from some $13 billion in 2003 to a staggering $317 billion during the oil and grain speculation bubble in 2008. This was documented in a study by Lehman Brothers shortly before Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson made them a sacrificial lamb in order to bail out his Wall Street cronies.[12]


Since 2008 with some fluctuation, investor funds have continued to pour into various commodity funds, keeping food prices high and rising. From 2005 to 2008, the worldwide price of food rose 80 percent — and has kept rising. In the period from May 2010 through May 2011 the price of wheat rose again some 85%. “It’s unprecedented how much investment capital we’ve seen in commodity markets,” said Kendell Keith, president of the National Grain and Feed Association, in a recent interview. [13]


The Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN estimates that since 2004, world food prices on average have soared by an unprecedented 240%. The offering of food commodities as a speculative alternative by the large banks and hedge funds exploded in 2007 when the US sub-prime financial tsunami first hit. Since then, speculation in food commodities has only gathered more momentum as other investments in stocks and bonds became highly dangerous. One result has been a predictably rapid rise in starvation, hunger and malnutrition in poorer populations around the world.


The FAO calculates that food-deficit countries will be forced to spend fully 30% more on importing food — with a world value of a staggering $1.3 trillion. Three decades ago, that international market was tiny; today it is overwhelmingly dominated by a small handful of US agribusiness giants. Agribusiness, like military exports, is a core US strategic sector, long supported to extraordinary lengths by Washington. It is part of a larger and rather private agenda shaped decades ago under the aegis of the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations and their eugenics advocates. [14]


Importing food is today the rule rather than the exception as cheap, globalized agribusiness products, often under IMF pressure, are being forced onto populations across the developing world, including formerly self-sufficient food-producing societies now rendered dependant on imported food. This is done in the name of ‘free trade’ or what is often called ‘market-oriented agriculture.’ Left unsaid is that the so-called ‘market’ is colossally inefficient and unhealthy, literally and financially. Imported food dependency is artificially created by huge multinational conglomerates such as Tyson Foods, Smithfield, Cargill or Nestle, corporate giants whose last concern seems to be the health and well-being of those of us who must consume their industrial food products.


The cheap agribusiness imports often undercut the prices of locally grown crops, driving millions from their land into overcrowded cities in desperate search of jobs.


Today the price of wheat derivatives, or ‘paper wheat,’ controls the price of real wheat as speculators like Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, HSBC, Barclays or numerous offshore hedge funds — with little interest in grains other than as a profit source — now outnumber bona-fide agriculture industry hedgers four-to-one.


That is a complete reversal of the situation that dominated grain prices for the past hundred years or more. For some 75 years, the CFTC had imposed limits on how much of certain agricultural commodities — including wheat, cotton, soybeans, soybean meal, corn, and oats — can be traded by non-commercial players who are not part of the food industry. So-called ‘commercial hedgers,’ like farmers or food processors, previously could trade unlimited amounts in order to manage their risk. Not so with pure speculators.


Those limits were designed to prevent manipulation and distortion in what are relatively small markets. With the passage of the Summers-Geithner Commodity Modernization Act of 2000 and the infamous ‘Enron Loophole’ — allowing exemption from government regulation — the fast and loose trading in energy derivatives was rapidly expanded to include food commodities. The dam broke in 2006 when Deutsche Bank asked for and was granted CFTC permission to be exempt from all trading limits. The regulatory authorities assured them that there would be no penalties for exceeding the limits. Others followed, lemming like. [15]


For some two billion people in the world who spend more than half of their income on food, the effects have been horrifying. During the speculation-driven grain price explosion in 2008, more than a quarter billion people became what the UN terms “food insecure,” or a total of one billion human beings, a new record. [16]


5 Key Takeaways From the World's Widening Wealth Gap
The top percentile of earners holds more wealth than the rest of the world combined, according to a new inequality report.
5 Key Takeaways From the World's Widening Wealth Gap

IOW, the rules that the rule makers are making benefit themselves only, and are bleeding the population of the planet steering it toward an apocalyptic demise.

Pretty much like they always have.

 

[Pogo]

First off I'm going to start with this disclaimer: let it be clear that I'm not telling anyone who to vote for, or demanding that anyone vote at all. This thread is intended to compel the reader to consider the ramifications of their decision to stay home or vote third party, whichever it may be. Once again, do whatever the hell you want, I'm just stating my personal opinion on the subject. Sure, it will sound condescending to some of you, but don't take it personally. I'm not angry with you. If you think it's funny, feel free to press the funny button.

But I want you NeverTrumpers to think about something. Before Hillary ever came along, most of you were preaching of the horrors of what would come to pass if she became president. Then, out of nowhere, Donald Trump began his rapid rise to the top of the GOP presidential field. And then, in a sudden reversal, you began preaching the horrors of what would come to pass if he became the nominee. You wrote him off repeatedly, as a flash in the pan or the like. You kept reassuring yourselves that he would never, ever succeed in his campaign. Suddenly, it became a campaign against Trump, not a unified campaign against Hillary as it should have been.

As the inevitability of Trump's victory began to strike home, more and more of you vowed never to vote for Donald Trump, be it a conflict of values or matters of conscience, out of a fit of anger, or perhaps no matter what. For that, I think you're being selfish, and I'll tell you why. Consider what the future of America would be like if Hillary Clinton were elected president, also consider the possibility that your abstinence could put her there. Is selfishness moral? Is it a virtue, a value you hold dear to your heart? No? Then why? Why would you be so righteously indignant that you're willing to risk the future of America to preserve your own values or conscience? This isn't a noble act, this isn't sending a message, it's downright selfish.

You are all no doubt aware of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's untimely demise earlier this year, as a result, that leaves his seat vacant, ripe for the picking for the next president to fill. You also have four other aging Justices on the bench right now. Over the next decade, there is a likelihood that those four other seats could become vacant. In addition to appointing a successor for Scalia, a president Hillary Clinton could appoint five liberal justices to the bench. Think about that. There could be seven liberal justices on the bench, redefining the conscience of America, and changing her identity.

From then on, on issues of gun rights, religious freedom, freedom of speech, or abortion, the rulings could be 7-2 against the conservative arguments. Seven to two. Consider this: In an effort to preserve your values and conscience, by voting third party, or staying home out of a sense of righteous indignance, you're willing to risk a future where a majority liberal Supreme Court would be allowed to redefine your values for you. The would be given free reign to twist the Constitution to liberal ideals, essentially erasing the conservative brand from the face of America. You must realize that under a Supreme Court with seven liberal justices,there would never be another conservative victory at the Supreme Court level for at least a generation to come. You would be ensuring in your selfishness, an end to your values amid an ill advised attempt to preserve them.

Now, you all also value individual rights. In one case, Hillary made herself clear that she will use the Supreme Court as a weapon to radically alter Americans rights to bear arms. In essence, using our highest court as a weapon against religious freedom or freedom of speech and every other conservative value we all hold dear. You want to help America, yet you are willing to go about precipitating her destruction. You may hate Trump's guts, and I do understand where you're coming from. But Hillary wouldn't give a damn about you or your beliefs, your faith, or your vaunted values and conscience. Because in her presidency, you may not have the right to any of those things again. Do you want that on your conscience? So if Hillary ultimately wins, don't complain. You put her there.

In sum, and in my own personal opinion, you #NeverTrumpers are being selfish, and you need to grow up and consider the wider ramifications of a Hillary Clinton presidency. If you truly love America, you would do whatever it took to preserve as much of the country you love as you possibly could, to ensure that you maintain an atmosphere that is tolerant of your beliefs, values or conscience, even if that meant holding back a gag reflex in order to vote for Donald Trump in the general election. The ball's in your court. Don't screw this up for the rest of us.

From what I have seen of the Trump campaign, his supporters are voting against the status quo, the party, and the establishment. They are not voting for anything, just against most everything. Trump is a symbol of their discontent.

You might say, he's the Winner of Their Discontent

And I suspect by the time the GE comes around, if he's still in play as a candidate that contingent will have figured that they made their point and go vote for a real candidate, who in effect runs unopposed.

Which is a damn shame.

By the time the election rolls around, Trump will have split the party so badly, That Hillary will need only one slogan, "I'm not Trump".

Ironically the same position Warren Harding found himself in in 1920 -- "I'm not Wilson".

I say 'ironically' since Wilson himself benefited from a similar party split on his way in, where a vociferous New York candidate (TR) ran as a third party after the RP denied him the nomination despite his dominating the primary season, which split the vote three ways, pushing Taft to third place and handing Wilson the Presidency with less than 42% of the vote populi.

 

[NYcarbineer]

First off I'm going to start with this disclaimer: let it be clear that I'm not telling anyone who to vote for, or demanding that anyone vote at all..

That's being a bit full of yourself isn't it, to assure people they should not feel compelled to obey your commands?

lol

 

[Pogo]

There's a lot of people that just don't feel comfortable with his finger on The Button, because they don't know what he could do.

Hmmm. Call me cynical, but I believe nobody can reap any substantial gains by not taking a risk. And before we go any further, I need to clarify that my OP was referring specifically to members of the Republican party, other conservatives, not to the entire electorate.

Clinton is entirely predictable. She'll do things that you guys don't like, sure. But the status quo will remain... she's pretty much a known quantity.

I would view that as a negative. That's another thing, I hear lots of conservatives expressing how disillusioned they are with the "status quo" and voting for Trump would guarantee a disruption to this "status quo." Yet they think he's the devil.

I think election of Trump would guarantee a status quo. Practically everything Trump has promised requires a strong support of congress. His lack luster support and outright opposition from Republicans in Congress are a pretty good indication that he isn't going to get much support as president.

Precisely. Rump is sui generis -- he has no coattails. A Rump Administration would basically be an endless Twitter whine fest about how the "losers" and "pigs" and whatever fresher adolescent terms "aren't giving me what I want", in between railing about the existing enemies of America such as Rosie O'Donnell and the Chicago Cubs.

Deputy Dan has no friends. Persuading Congress is way different from persuading a TV audience that thinks WWE is culture.

 

[JimBowie1958]

That's being a bit full of yourself isn't it, to assure people they should not feel compelled to obey your commands?

lol

Yeah, he is talking like a Democratic party Royalty, lol, how dare he?

 

[Pogo]

Are you trying to use a "no true scotsman" fallacy here? Because I know of many conservatives who not only can "conceive" of it, but believe it.

No...

And any Republican who states his loyalties to the party, who expresses Republican values, and subsequently practices them on a regular basis, and turns around and threatens to vote for Hillary Clinton is practically inconceivable to me. I view that as betrayal.

In that case you've locked yourself into the dungeon of what I call the RINO Fallacy --- the value that believes the primary goal of politics is to push a political party's interests, as if it were a sports team, and it's all about how many "points" you can put on your imaginary scoreboard, and that's all it is.

Unfortunately for that juvenile fantasy, elected representatives are there to represent the interests of their constituents -- not those of whatever political party. When those interests differ, the former prevails. For the latter to prevail makes a mockery of the entire structure.

I don't know why you lemmings don't get that our Constitution identifies its voice as "We the People of the United States" ---- not "We the Political Parties of the United States". This isn't a game of rugby.