Featured A Response to Why I am #NeverTrump

Well thank you for that.
I knew when I originally posted my listed reasons for being #NeverTrump, that I would be walking into the lion's den so to speak. I was not at all surprised at the direction the thread went, which actaully further illiustrated several points I had made. When the only line of defense is to attack anyone and everyone else, that does not speak well of the guy they are trying to defend.

This did lead me thinking to a common go to attack I have seen from evangelicals about Trump, that anyone that is not for him must be a Pharisee. Upon reflection of that argument, I find it is a flawed analogy, when you consider that it was the Pharisees that joined forces with the politicians of their day in an effort to keep their power. John the Baptist, on the other hand, had no problem pointing out the moral failings of the politicians and he was considered an enemy of both Pharisees and Herod. Now I'm not comparing myself to John the Baptist, but I do think it is an interesting observation that the Pharisees compromised their standards to hold onto power, and Trump is tempting evangelicals with great power if they vote for him. Just something to think about.

 

I resigned myself the minute Trump became the nominee to a Clinton Presidency. There is no doubt in my mind about that. I would guess at this point election night will be over before the polls even close here in AZ.

 

That analogy could apply just as easily to 'establishment' Republicans who will go to great lengths to thwart the will of primary voters. Depends on how one wishes to interpret it.

Btw, as a response to your comment on the last thread:

This is incorrect. Trump invited Sen Cruz to speak at the convention and Cruz accepted:

"Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) on Thursday said Donald Trump invited him to speak at this month’s Republican National Convention, and that he accepted the offer."

"We had a positive and productive meeting this morning with Donald Trump. Donald asked me to speak at the Republican convention and I told him I would be happy to do so," Cruz told ABC News. LINK

 

Yes because threatening delegates if they sign a petition for a role call is really thwarting the the 40% that voted for Trump. Oh wait no that helped Trump, Having Kasich stay in until Cruz dropped out really, no wait that helped Trump as well. As far as I could tell the only people that were trying to silence the people was Trump and his establishment allies at the convention. I have handed this to him in the past and I will do it again, but he did a fantastic job and taking all the anger that was directed at the establishment and throwing it back toward the conservative grassroots.

Cruz was being ever the gentleman that he is and was not going to argue with Trump's spin. There is no point to it for him to do so.

However GOP convetion rule 40 is why he was entitled to a speaking spot.
"Each candidate for nomination for President of the United States and Vice President of the United States shall demonstrate the support of a 40 of 42 majority of the delegates from each of eight (8) or more states, severally, prior to the presentation of the name of that candidate for nomination. Notwithstanding any other provisions of these rules or any rule of the House of Representatives, to demonstrate the support required of this paragraph a certificate evidencing the affirmative written support of the required number of permanently seated delegates from each of the eight (8) or more states shall have been submitted to the secretary of the convention not later than one (1) hour prior to the placing of the names of candidates for nomination pursuant to this rule and the established order of business. (c) The total time of the nominating speech and seconding speeches for any candidate for nomination for President of the United States or Vice President of the United States shall not exceed fifteen (15) minutes."
https://cdn.gop.com/docs/2012_RULES_Adopted.pdf
page 39 and 40
Now I will grant you that his speech was longer than 15 min, but since it was approved of by the Trump campaign I don't think there is any room to complain about that.

 

I believe I was pretty self-explanatory, Yes Clinton will be president.

I am resigned to that fact. In fact, I do not believe that my one vote in AZ will make any difference as I think she will have shored up her 270 before AZ polls close. And if not, California's 55 votes will put her over the top.

 

Yes Clinton will be president. Nothing I can do to stop that.

 

Trump had enough committed delegates to win the nomination on the first round. There is no way around that.

I would never call Mr Cruz ungentlemanly. And the fact is that Trump complimented Cruz, said that he had a great future, asked him to speak at the convention, and did not insist that Cruz endorse him. Cruz has said this was the case. And as I pointed out earlier, this was Trump's way of trying to make peace with Sen Cruz.

And Cruz's name was never put in nomination for president at the convention. Therefore he was not entitled to speak. Regardless, Trump asked him to anyway.

No complaints here. Trump asked him to speak, he said what he had to say, and that was it.

 

Agreed which is why the threatening of delegates was totally uncalled for and yet it happened at the convention to anyone that did not kiss the ring.

 

Wow! You must be like a Prophetess or something to be so sure of the future! ...Cool!!

Only guessing now? Hmm, crystal ball broke, or just poor reception?

 

No not a prophet and I will have no problem admitting my guess was wrong if Trump somehow manages to win in Nov. But his trajectory is making that an unlikly outcome. So the question is those who predict a 60% landslide victory for Trump are you going to quote them and accuse them of claiming to be prophets or is that smear reserved for those you disagree with?

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

Amazing!! Do you answer question concerning financial issues?

 

I dont but go ahead and ask those that are predicting a 60% win for Trump, since I don't claim to be a prophet, I don't think they do either but you seem to be under the impression that anyone giving their predictions on politics is claiming the mantle of prophet. Or again is that smear reserved for those you disagree with?

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

The plain fact is that if the election were to be held today, Trump would lose, and decisively. Trumpies are enthralled with the predictions from the Trump campaign that Hillary is going to have a major stumble, or some other incredible thing is going to happen to her, which will give Trump the upper hand. Some sort of October surprises that will catapult Trump into the lead.

I guess we will have to wait and see, although even if there were some sort of a Hillary crisis I don't believe the Trump campaign would know how to capitalize on it.

BTW, Hillary's super PACS are so unworried about the election in Pennsylvania and Colorado that they've pulled their TV ads there.

 

Yeah, RATs opposing Trump doesn't seem to have help stopped Hillary from winning the election.

 

I'm just noticing that you seem to go b-e-y-o-n-d common "predictions".

...But never know, you could have gotten this message the instant Trump became the nominee for a reason!

 

Sure you do

Just a couple of examples of people making predictions that you agree with. I don't think they are saying they are prophets and neither do you, so it is just smear for you, which shows you have nothing else to offer to defend your man Trump

 

Just a note: I don't hear anyone else going to the extreme of saying, "There is no doubt in my mind about that."...

...but I'm starting to see your reasoning behind and when these irrefutable revelations came about. (" I resigned myself the minute Trump became the nominee...")

Maybe you could too if you "look" harder?


>>>

CRUZ LOST!

SORE LOSER!

THAT SETTLES IT!