For Nashvillegoldenflash

[bigbadjohn45]

Flash,

I'd like for you to consider something here. I've read a few of your recent posts in which you've stated that you have no intention of voting for Donald Trump in the general election if he's our nominee. Although I respect your opinion and understand where you're coming from, I'd like for you to consider some of your own words (paraphrased) from four years ago--back when it became apparent that Mitt Romney would become our nominee.

If you'll remember, I was staunchly against Romney and even had a degree of animosity against him because of his squishy, moderate, milk toast, RINO-esque positions on many issues.

However, you made a post at the time that greatly influenced my thinking and persuaded me to vote for Romney in the general election. And, even though Romney lost, I still don't regret my decision to vote for him--largely, thanks to your great advice.

Below is a slightly-edited version of what you wrote to me. It made sense then and it makes sense now. Give it a read, my friend, and get back with me with your thoughts.

--BBJ

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You’re exactly right; the conservative “purists” who will not vote for anyone that they don’t largely agree with are doing far more damage than they realize. An “I won’t vote for anyone who’s not a true conservative” philosophy of a conservative voter plays right into the hands of Democrats, and is a huge reason why Obama was re-elected.

Was I a big fan of Romney? NO! Did I agree with him most of the time? NO! But I still voted for him. Why? Because I felt I had to do everything in my power to keep the radical, leftist, Godless Obama from being re-elected.

I’ll give you a good example of what I’m saying:

Let’s suppose you have cancer and you knew of a doctor out there who could offer a 60-70% chance for recovery. On the other hand, there’s another doctor who offers a 0% chance for recovery. Which doctor would you choose? Quite obviously, you’d choose the doctor that offered the best chance for recovery, right?

It’s the same way with politics. You’re most likely never going to find a candidate that you agree with EVERYTHING they say or believe. You ultimately vote for the one who MOST CLOSELY says and believes as you do.

The time to pick-out your favorite candidate, i.e., the one that most closely says and believes what you do, is in the primaries. However, as we all know, our “favorite” doesn’t always make it to the general election.

It’s at that point that you, again, vote for the candidate who MOST CLOSELY says and believes as you do.

In my previous example of the cancer doctor, I mentioned that your choice of a doctor would hinge upon choosing the one who gives you the best chance for recovery. With politicians, you choose the one who gives our country the best chance for success.

In the case of Romney, even though I personally wasn’t a big fan of the man, I still voted for him because, quite obviously, he gave us a much, much better chance for success than Obama. In other words, I voted for Romney–who I might only agree with 60-70% of the time–opposed to Obama who I agree with 0% of the time.

Does this make sense to anyone out there?

 

[nashvillegoldenflash]

BBJ, you remember well my friend. I knew it would be just a matter of time when someone used my own words against me. Although that argument could possibly be used again this November, I will attempt to use Ben Shapiro's argument against it. Shapiro states the following:

"Now is the time to say no.

“No” is a useful tool. If conservatives don’t say “no” to Nelson Rockefeller in 1964, there is no Ronald Reagan. If conservatives don’t say “no” to Gerald Ford in 1976 and George H.W. Bush in 1980, there is no Ronald Reagan. And if we don’t say “no” to Donald Trump now, we will continue drifting ever further left, diluting conservatism into the vacillating, demagogic absurdity of Trumpism. Conservatism will become the crypto-racist, pseudo-strong, quasi-tyrannical, toxic brew leftists have always accused it of being.

And we will have been complicit in that.

I will not be complicit in that. I stand against the establishment that sowed the seeds of Trumpism. I stand against the Republican Party that insists that victory matters more than principle, because victory without principle isn’t just meaningless, it’s counterproductive to my belief system."

To expound on Shapiro's use of the words crypto-racist, pseudo-strong, quasi-tyrannical, and toxic, let me point out the stereotypical behavior of many Trump supporters and suggest how Trump appeals to the lowest common denominator in people. This morning, I first heard of the pastor in Idaho who was shot in the parking lot of his church. This pastor delivered the invocation at a rally for Sen. Cruz on Saturday, but so far, police do not have any information indicating that the shooting was politically motivated.

When I first read this story, I immediately thought the shooing was politically motivated given the number of white supremacists who live in Idaho and support Trump. Perhaps the shooting is completely unrelated to Trump, but when you consider that so many people will make that assumption, what does that say about Trump's campaign and the level of incivility he tends to foster. If you don't believe many of the Trump supporters are racist rednecks, just go to YouTube and type in stereotypical Trump supporters and see for yourself. Also type in "Idaho pastor shot" and read all the hate-filled comments from the demented Trump supporters or take a look at the link below.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/david-duke-trump-219777

Now let me ask you this. What if Bill de Blasio switched to the Republican Party like Trump. Would you vote for him if he ever became a Republican nominee? Probably not. So there is a matter of principle in this argument as Shapiro suggests.

I understand why you would vote for Trump if he is the nominee but for me, Trump is beyond the point of acceptance.

 

[bigbadjohn45]

Flash, as always, I respect your opinion. Let's pray that the American people will rise up before it's too late and elect a true, Constitutional conservative such as Ted Cruz! God bless you, brother.

 

[nashvillegoldenflash]

Here is another example of appealing to the lowest common denominator.

Michelle Fields: In Her Own Words

I never sought to be part of the story.

On Tuesday night, I went to cover Donald Trump’s press conference at the Trump National Golf Club in Jupiter, Florida. I was looking to cover the event like I have covered many live political events for Breitbart News, including an uneventful Trump press conference in Palm Beach the week before.

Addressing the gathered reporters and the nation at large, Trump was in an especially jovial mood Tuesday night. The networks just declared he had won the Mississippi Republican primary and, during his speech, that he won Michigan Republican primary as well.

I wasn’t called upon to ask a question during the televised press conference, but afterwards Trump wandered around, stopping at every reporter to take their questions. When he approached me, I asked him about his view on an aspect of affirmative action.

Trump acknowledged the question, but before he could answer I was jolted backwards. Someone had grabbed me tightly by the arm and yanked me down. I almost fell to the ground, but was able to maintain my balance. Nonetheless, I was shaken.

The Washington Post’s Ben Terris immediately remarked that it was Trump’s campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, who aggressively tried to pull me to the ground. I quickly turned around and saw Lewandowski and Trump exiting the building together. No apology. No explanation for why he did this.

Even if Trump was done taking questions, Lewandowski would be out of line. Campaign managers aren’t supposed to try to forcefully throw reporters to the ground, no matter the circumstance. But what made this especially jarring is that there was no hint Trump was done taking questions. No one was pushing him to get away. He seemed to have been happily answering queries from my fellow reporters just a moment before.

Many people have been asking me on Twitter and in emails what exactly happened Tuesday night. I hope this article answers those questions and I can get back to reporting the news, not being a part of it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So Mr. Trump, do you approve of your campaign manager manhandling conservative reporters this way?

Don't you DARE preach about unity when your campaign manager is out there jerking conservative reporters to the ground.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/03/10/3276486/

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-me...gn-manager-breitbart-reporter-220472?lo=ap_c3

 

[bigbadjohn45]

Flash, I read about that incident. Pathetic. Current Trump supporters need to seriously reconsider their choice before it's too late.

 

[nashvillegoldenflash]

BBJ, when reporters are manhandled, protesters attacked, and senators threatened, just imagine a Trump presidency.

 

[bigbadjohn45]

BBJ, when reporters are manhandled, protesters attacked, and senators threatened, just imagine a Trump presidency.

Flash, this type of arrogant, bullying behavior by Trump is evident during the debates. Have you noticed how he talks over/interrupts those who disagree with him? He can't argue on substance, so he resorts to name-calling and personal insults ("Little Marco," and "Lyin' Ted")! Real piece of work there....

 

[nashvillegoldenflash]

BBJ, click below to see why I don't want to be part of Trump's America.

http://gawker.com/trump-supporter-sucker-punches-protestor-at-north-carol-1764017993

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/03/donald-trumps-angry-america/

 

[nashvillegoldenflash]

So how would Trump's thug America be any different than Obama's thug America?
Obama's Thug America
Ben Shapiro| Jan 02, 2013

Progressivism in America has always been a thuggish ideology. It rests on the notion that laws require no evidence to support their implementation, that intentions are all that matter and that those who oppose "change" of the sort progressives like are morally deficient. Progressivism requires Americans to separate off certain groups in American life as evil -- the rich ("greedy!"), gun owners ("hooligans!"), traditionally religious people ("sexists!"), Constitutional government advocates ("bigots!"). It requires that certain Americans be cast as good -- racial and ethnic minorities, low income earners and women ("victimized!"), irreligious people ("rationalists!") and big government advocates ("experts!").

Progressivism in America is actually regressivism. Progressivism sends us back to a time when philosophical differences were seen as rebellion against God-given monarchic authority. It sends us back to a time when the law of the community invariably outweighed the rights of the individual, rather than building government on the basis of protection of individual rights.

And most of all, progressivism prevents any possibility of real progress. The goal of the progressive agenda isn't to allow people to live more prosperously, more happily, better. Progressivism has achieved none of that. In capitalist countries, today's poor live better than yesterday's rich; tomorrow's poor will live better than today's rich. In progressive countries, the goal is to obliterate the very categories of rich and poor. In practice, today's poor aren't as poor as yesterday's poor, but they live no better than yesterday's middle class. And the next generation's poor will live the same as today's poor. Stagnancy is the theme of progressivism in material terms.

But material progress isn't their goal. The progressive goal is "progress" in generating a new version of human nature. That is why progressivism embraces and promotes false distinctions between human beings. Progressivism cannot accept the premise of voluntary commitments between human beings -- that would imply that the current state of affairs is relatively ideal since it is based mostly on consent. Capitalism means that the rich aren't rich because of greed -- after all, all human beings are greedy. They're rich because they engage in more voluntary transactions that help both sides. People are people, and they make agreements. There is no possibility of change in human nature.

But this is anathema to progressives. Instead, progressivism must create enemies, opponents to the beautiful change in human nature that must result if we can only excise the evil in our midst. And so progressivism casts certain Americans as the others, who if curbed or eliminated, can be converted into wonderful human beings -- as defined by the left.

Barack Obama is the best messenger of this ideology. His philosophy on the fiscal cliff has been simple: condemn the rich for their greed, cast them out as lepers. Will falling off the fiscal cliff make us more prosperous? Of course not. Even Obama acknowledges that. But he insists that the rich must be taxed, for they are greedy. After all, he is only "asking them" (read: compelling them) to "pay their fair share" (read: foot all the bills associated with reshaping human nature). Republicans believe that prosperity cannot be accomplished by the IRS. But Obama instead casts them as representatives of those greedy rich, and thus fit for excision from the public debate, too.

On the gun control debate, Obama and his allies set up the same dichotomy between good and evil. Those who want more laws confiscating guns -- laws unsupported and unsupportable by evidence in decreasing violence and murder -- are good people. Those who don't are unconcerned about the slaughter of innocents in Sandy Hook. On religion, too, Obama promotes that dichotomy: the religious hate women, and therefore don't provide birth control to their employees. The irreligious love women and want them to have everything they need.

The left's thug ideology finds its ultimate spokesperson in President Obama. True material progress pays the price for implementing his vision of the universe. So does the Constitutional order, which is based on checks and balances designed to preserve rights in the face of non-altruistic human nature. The Constitutional order is an obstacle to progressives like Obama, who believe that government can change human nature if left unchecked.

But if left unchecked, it is the audacious self-righteousness of those like Barack Obama that will destroy the possibility of a better tomorrow for our children and grandchildren.

http://townhall.com/columnists/benshapiro/2013/01/02/obamas-thug-america-n1476732/page/full

 

[nashvillegoldenflash]

Breitbart’s Shapiro on Fox: Lewandowski a Thug and ‘Trump Is a Thug for Backing Him’

Breitbart Editor-at-LargeBen Shapiro joined Megyn Kelly tonight to continue trashing Donald Trumpcampaign manager Corey Lewandowski for allegedly assaulting Breitbart reporter Michelle Fields.

Shapiro, who earlier today called on the Trump campaign to fire Lewandowski, told Kelly, “Corey Lewandowski’s a thug, and Donald Trump is a thug for backing him.” He said that if this had been anyone on Team Clinton, there would have been a very different response.

He expressed his disgust with how the Trump campaign keeping “play[ing] this game” with violent rhetoric.

Trump supporter David Wohl expressed some serious doubts about the accuracy of the story, asking why there’s no video and accusing the eyewitness––a Washington Post reporter––of having “an axe to grind” with Trump. Kelly asked him if he honestly thinks that the audio corroborating what happened was somehow staged.

Wohl asked why she didn’t file a police report. Shapiro responded, “This is disgusting, how repulsive are you people?”

He said the suggestion that anyone at Breitbart is “out to get Trump” is ludicrous.

(click link below)

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/breitbar...i-a-thug-and-trump-is-a-thug-for-backing-him/