sombear said:
Mothra said:
sombear said:
MT_Bear said:
historian said:
Yes, Trump is weak & a coward! Here is those characteristics on display recently:
He's a whiny ***** that some one here claim has "guts" because he found the bravery to answer some journalists' questions. He's a coward who ducked the military with bone spurs. He's a snowflake who can't take the tiniest criticism without having a full-on meltdown.
You want to vote for him, do so. I support you. But this worshipping of a man with absolute dog**** for character isn't the example we should be setting for our kids.
You're on a roll, and I love it. Truth. And now that he sees he's losing (again) it will only get worse.
MT's absolutely correct. But what you NT's fail to see is the forest through the trees.
What's your alternative, if you are an actual conservative? Stand on "principle," which will lead to 4, and potentially 8 years of a Harris admin? 8 years of disastrous policies? Losing the Supreme Court? Foreign wars, and potentially war with Russia? Open borders? Racking up trillions in debt? 4 to 8 years of woke social policies? Legislation mandating the right to an abortion?
Can't stand Trump. But when the alternative for conservatives is to put a gun to their head and pull the trigger, I'll take DT every time.
Yes, the principle argument is a strong one.
But, more for me is the faster we move past Trump the faster we'll be a serious party and earn back some credibility and moral stature. My family and I will be fine; my Company will be fine; Christians will be fine; and heck, the Country will be fine under another 4 years of a Dem - especially with either a GOP House or Senate.
The damage Trump is doing and will continue to do will have more long term damage to the conservative cause.
If it is a strong argument, you've done a very poor job of making it. Your principled position isn't actually all that principled when one considers the other viable alternative. An easy argument could be made that your position is even less principled, given that you're perfectly fine with 4-8 years of Harris. You'd prefer to burn down the house than to work with the people inside it. Respectfully, that type of incalcitrant position is not very principled.
Like it or not, Trump has changed the party permanently, IMO - in some ways for the better, in some ways for the worse. Sorry, but I think you're living in a fantasy world if you believe the party is going back to the days of George Bush, John McCain, or Mitt Romney, if that is your fancy. That kind of Republican hasn't won an election since 2004.
And is that what we really want as conservatives? Endless interventionism and wars abroad? A war footing with all of our enemies? Doing next to nothing to stem illegal immigration? Failing to put actual conservatives on the bench? Shipping our jobs abroad? Spending like liberals? And being milquetoast on conservative positions that matter? Nah, no thanks. That isn't winning any elections anytime soon.
While I am no fan of Trump's spending habits, and don't agree with all of his protectionist policies, I do think he has added an element to the party that wasn't there before - the blue collar worker. There is something to be said about expanding the populist aspects of the party to include a much broader swath of people than traditional conservatives. Those are good things. And the Republicans need those people desperately, if we are ever going to have a chance at winning future elections. Mitt Romney isn't going to cut it.
As for the country the next 4 to 8 years, if your argument is simply "I will be fine," then respectfully, I don't think you're up on current events. Great damage has been done the last 4 years. The good news is we were only 4 years removed from a Trump presidency. But another 4-8 years? Kiss the Supreme Court goodbye. Say hello to endless conflicts abroad and a potential war with Russia. Say hello to illegal immigrants continuing to flow through our borders.
If by fine you mean the country will not end, well sure, I suppose unless we end up in a nuclear conflict with Russia which, just FYI, we are closer to than at any point since the Cuban missile crisis.
Your arguments are less than convincing.
