One conservative’s argument for a Harris vote

[Aloha Hoosier]

Well, Aloha’s premise is that somebody living in a swing state has to vote for one or the other. And that’s obviously not true.

Many people in the swing states will be voting for somebody other than Trump or Harris. I don’t even understand why he said that.

It’s obviously true for what many like me would do. The most important thing is Trump loses IMO. A very widespread opinion. If I lived in GA or WI I’d be voting for Harris. Would vote for Republicans down ballot. Have to say I’m not keen on Moreno here in OH. Way too MAGA. I’ll send in my ballot tomorrow.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

View embedded media

I actually was interested in hearing why a conservative would vote for Harris. In that spirit I listened. I bailed after a few minutes because Frum started talkin about Trump .

We are up to our eyeballs in Trump
Is a piece of shit arguments. They are not persuasive. They are substantially vapid nothings based on 1. J6 or 2. He’s an asshole. Neither would cause me to have Harris be President.

I can make the case why Trump, with all faults, should be president and never mention Harris in that argument. I’m yet to hear a similar argument for Harris, with the possible exception of those who simply want any woman in office.

 

[BradStevens]

I'll listen to an hour of conservative explaining why they won't vote for Trump. I'm not gonna listen to an hour of a "conservative " explaining why they're voting for Harris though. That ain't a conservative. That's a person responsible for why we're in this situation.

His argument is a negative one against Trump. Obviously

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Your opinion doesn’t matter. You voted for Biden. There are plenty of Cheney types who are nothing more than rent seeking cronies who suck off the teat of Government.

As for myself, elect a majority of people like myself and find out. Half the military will be gone, I’ll cut regulations equal to the amount of Purdue titles, and @UncleMark will be working 3 jobs after I slash SS. And because I have great taste, it will be legal to hit all cyclists in roads wearing tights @outside shooter.

Oh, and we’re buying a shittttttt ton of Bitcoin. I’d have this f#cking country humming right along. You liberal nannies would be crying yourselves to sleep after my first month in office.

Luckily you’re even more irrelevant than I am as a twice retired civilian.

 

[hookyIU1990]

In some states you either have to vote for Trump or Harris because it’s close. I’d vote for Harris if I was in one of them. Other opinions are other opinions. At some point, the conservatives among us have to figure it out.

You don't 'have to vote' for either one of them. How about you "have to choose" between a kick in the nuts or a punch in the face, which will it be?

Only having a choice between those two is such a stupid premise.

 

[hookyIU1990]

His argument is a negative one against Trump. Obviously

So bad headline?

 

[mcmurtry66]

You don't 'have to vote' for either one of them. How about you "have to choose" between a kick in the nuts or a punch in the face, which will it be?

Only having a choice between those two is such a stupid premise.

Well she did get Beyoncé’s endorsement tonight. Maybe she’ll get p Diddy’s too

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

It’s obviously true for what many like me would do. The most important thing is Trump loses IMO. A very widespread opinion. If I lived in GA or WI I’d be voting for Harris. Would vote for Republicans down ballot. Have to say I’m not keen on Moreno here in OH. Way too MAGA. I’ll send in my ballot tomorrow.

Well, Aloha, of course you can do whatever you want to do.

But you wrote “In some states you either have to vote for Trump or Harris because it’s close.”

It’s not at all true that somebody who lives in a swing state must vote for one or the other. That’s absurd. Of course somebody can decide they aren’t going to vote for either one, wherever they live or however close the election is in their state.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Conservative Aloha hates Trump so much he’s fine risking two liberal socialists running this country and democrats controlling the House and Senate. That’s total irrational and irresponsible thought in my conservative humble opinion.

Stoll, they aren’t actually socialists. There is a definition of that word and Harris isn’t a socialist. She’s a straight stick liberal and I don’t agree with her policies. However, she and the Democrats aren’t enemies, they’re Americans of a different party. Do some reading about the political discord of our early years embodied by Adam’s and Jefferson. They worked it out and even died in the same day. It happened to be July 4th.

 

[BradStevens]

So bad headline?

No, he says he's voting for Harris because he doesn't want Trump to win.

 

[snarlcakes]

This is so, so true. It absolutely is people like Frum who paved the way for a populist demagogue like Trump to ascend within the party.

They knew there was a schism between the party electeds and the party voters. I’ve heard them discuss it. Stuart Stevens has talked about it.

But they were operating off the flawed premise that Republican voters had nowhere else to turn to in their frustration.

They were thinking Democrats were the only alternative. They were…wrong.

Ding ding ding. And what do people like Cheney and Frum do when they lose power and control? Cry like babies and join the liberals. The truth is power and control is what drives them, rather than deeply held conservative values.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

That’s certainly not a rational thing for a conservative to do as far as I am concerned. It would be 100% against everything this conservative believes.

Well, we could get together and let you kick my ass at golf 72-90. I’d still think I was rationally right and you’d think the opposite. 😎

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

No, he says he's voting for Harris because he doesn't want Trump to win.

Yeah, but he was also trying to sell Harris to Trumpophobic conservatives (as opposed to simply doing what I’m doing in throwing off).

On that part, he made a poor argument. There’s a fine case to be made for conservatives to not vote for Trump — starting with the fact that he isn’t a conservative.

But I’ve never heard a good case for a conservative to vote for Harris. She was one of the left-most members of the Senate. May as well argue in favor of voting for Sanders…if he was Trump’s opponent.

Voting 3rd party (or not voting at all) is always an option.

 

[BradStevens]

I actually was interested in hearing why a conservative would vote for Harris. In that spirit I listened. I bailed after a few minutes because Frum started talkin about Trump .

We are up to our eyeballs in Trump
Is a piece of shit arguments. They are not persuasive. They are substantially vapid nothings based on 1. J6 or 2. He’s an asshole. Neither would cause me to have Harris be President.

I can make the case why Trump, with all faults, should be president and never mention Harris in that argument. I’m yet to hear a similar argument for Harris, with the possible exception of those who simply want any woman in office.

I don't think J6 is a "vapid nothing."

The interviewer asks Frum quite clearly at the beginning of the interview whether his case is a positive one for Harris or a negative one against Trump holding office again, and he clearly says the latter. I don't understand why that would cause you to bail.

I don't think it's realistic to say in an election between two people you can make the case for one without comparing them to their opponent.

 

[hookyIU1990]

No, he says he's voting for Harris because he doesn't want Trump to win.

So he's not really committed to conservative principles, just a tribe. Small thinking.

I need to find a matt Haarts interview with Rogan. He hits the nail on the head about how some people come along in the course of history and unite all the tribes to destroy the larger population.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I don't think it's realistic to say in an election between two people you can make the case for one without comparing them to their opponent.

Why would you say that? You don’t think that “neither” is a valid choice?

I think it’s a perfectly valid choice. In fact, for me, it’s easily the best choice in this election.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

His argument is a negative one against Trump. Obviously

All the negative arguments about trump would be more persuasive if there weren’t so much lies and dishonesty imbedded in the arguments. And the litigation. Now the Hitler/Fascist/Nazi message from the mouth of the Democratic Candidate and her media sycophants about Trump and his voters will make political divides permanent. No matter who wins that crap can’t be easily walked back.

Politics is no longer fun to talk about.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

I actually was interested in hearing why a conservative would vote for Harris. In that spirit I listened. I bailed after a few minutes because Frum started talkin about Trump .

We are up to our eyeballs in Trump
Is a piece of shit arguments. They are not persuasive. They are substantially vapid nothings based on 1. J6 or 2. He’s an asshole. Neither would cause me to have Harris be President.

I can make the case why Trump, with all faults, should be president and never mention Harris in that argument. I’m yet to hear a similar argument for Harris, with the possible exception of those who simply want any woman in office.

I honestly do not understand that you do not understand that Trump is supremely unqualified for the office. You and I have been pretty much lockstep on GOP politics for something like 25 years, Trump just doesn’t fit into what I/we previously would ever consider as a Republican candidate for President. Am I wrong, or has one of us changed? I very strongly don’t think I have.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

You don't 'have to vote' for either one of them. How about you "have to choose" between a kick in the nuts or a punch in the face, which will it be?

Only having a choice between those two is such a stupid premise.

Which one are you choosing?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I don't think J6 is a "vapid nothing."

It has zero effect beyond J7

I don't think it's realistic to say in an election between two people you can make the case for one without comparing them to their opponent.

I’m really tired of the whole lesser of evils argument. We’ve heard that for decades. I think it would be very therapeutic for our sick politics if we can make a positive case for a candidate.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

I don't think J6 is a "vapid nothing."

The interviewer asks Frum quite clearly at the beginning of the interview whether his case is a positive one for Harris or a negative one against Trump holding office again, and he clearly says the latter. I don't understand why that would cause you to bail.

I don't think it's realistic to say in an election between two people you can make the case for one without comparing them to their opponent.

EXACTLY.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

All the negative arguments about trump would be more persuasive if there weren’t so much lies and dishonesty imbedded in the arguments. And the litigation. Now the Hitler/Fascist/Nazi message from the mouth of the Democratic Candidate and her media sycophants about Trump and his voters will make political divides permanent. No matter who wins that crap can’t be easily walked back.

Politics is no longer fun to talk about.

Speaking of this, I listened to a bit of Tim Miller and Bret Stephens - and they were having a very similar discussion.

They were responding to Dan Crenshaw saying that nobody should worry about awful things Trump would do in a 2nd term because he didn’t do them in his first term.

Their basic argument was that Trump was inhibited in his first term by people like Pence, Kushner, Priebus, Kelly, etal and that he would no longer be inhibited because these kinds of people would not be there in a 2nd term.

It’s a fair point, theoretically. But there’s also a key flaw in this argument. And that is that the people sounding the alarm bells now about Trump were sounding the very same alarm bells in 2016.

So why weren’t they saying, in 2016, “You don’t have to worry about Trump. He has responsible people around him and they will inhibit Trump from doing awful things.”?

There’s a little bit of “The Boy Who Cried Wolf” in what they’re saying.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

It has zero effect beyond J7

I’m really tired of the whole lesser of evils argument. We’ve heard that for decades. I think it would be very therapeutic for our sick politics if we can make a positive case for a candidate.

I agree. Making a positive case for a candidate isn’t going to happen this year.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Speaking of this, I listened to a bit of Tim Miller and Bret Stephens - and they were having a very similar discussion.

They were responding to Dan Crenshaw saying that nobody should worry about all these awful things Trump would do in a 2nd term because he didn’t do them in his first term.

Their basic argument was that Trump was inhibited in his first term by people like Pence, Kushner, Priebus, Kelly, etal and that he would no longer be inhibited because these kinds of people would not be there in a 2nd term.

It’s a fair point, theoretically. But there’s also a key flaw in this argument. And that is that the people sounding the alarm bells now about Trump were sounding the very same alarm bells in 2016.

So why weren’t they saying, in 2016, “You don’t have to worry about Trump. He has responsible people around him and they will inhibit Trump from doing awful things.”?

There’s a little bit of “The Boy Who Cried Wolf” in what they’re saying.

Mark my words. This term he’ll be inhibited by relief, gerd, gout and attendant restless sleep, golf, and the accelerated aging process

 

[BradStevens]

There are plenty of good arguments for a conservative not to vote for Donald Trump. But there’s not a good argument for a conservative to vote for a Kamala Harris.

That's bad logic. Harris is the only candidate who can win other than Trump. If you believe your vote counts, and you believe Trump would do more damage to the US than Harris, then you vote Harris. That is a rational argument and position to take assuming the premises. I'm not saying its logically required, only rational.

Re false premises, its basic logic that an argument's logical structure (rationality or validity) isn't affected by the truth value of the premises, only its internal consistency. I think this is even more evident when the premises can't really be verified by the voters, but are based on guess work and probabilistic inferences.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Speaking of this, I listened to a bit of Tim Miller and Bret Stephens - and they were having a very similar discussion.

They were responding to Dan Crenshaw saying that nobody should worry about awful things Trump would do in a 2nd term because he didn’t do them in his first term.

Their basic argument was that Trump was inhibited in his first term by people like Pence, Kushner, Priebus, Kelly, etal and that he would no longer be inhibited because these kinds of people would not be there in a 2nd term.

It’s a fair point, theoretically. But there’s also a key flaw in this argument. And that is that the people sounding the alarm bells now about Trump were sounding the very same alarm bells in 2016.

So why weren’t they saying, in 2016, “You don’t have to worry about Trump. He has responsible people around him and they will inhibit Trump from doing awful things.”?

There’s a little bit of “The Boy Who Cried Wolf” in what they’re saying.

Actually, they were saying that Trump would be surrounded by smart people to control him in 2016. Search it here.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I honestly do not understand that you do not understand that Trump is supremely unqualified for the office. You and I have been pretty much lockstep on GOP politics for sometime like 25 years, Trump just doesn’t fit into what I (we previously) would ever consider as a Republican candidate for President. Am I wrong, or has one of us changed? I very strongly don’t think I have.

Maybe we can have a beer summit someday about this.

I’ve made it clear that Trump was not my first choice in this election. Based on his record of his first term, I think he’d be pretty good. The middle East would be more peaceful. Energy would be better. The border would be better. Crime would be better. I could go on.

I’m with the majority who believe America is on the wrong track. Trump gives us a good chance to get on the right track.

 

[hookyIU1990]

That's bad logic. Harris is the only candidate who can win other than Trump. If you believe your vote counts, and you believe Trump would do more damage to the US than Harris, then you vote Harris. That is a rational argument and position to take assuming the premises. I'm not saying its logically required, only rational.

Re false premises, its basic logic that an argument's logical structure (rationality or validity) isn't affected by the truth value of the premises, only its internal consistency. I think this is even more evident when the premises can't really be verified by the voters, but are based on guess work and probabilistic inferences.

What conservative who holds their nose, would do so to vote for Harris? They would hold it to vote for Trump as they did to vote for Dole, McCain, both Bushes, Romney, etc

 

[BradStevens]

Speaking of this, I listened to a bit of Tim Miller and Bret Stephens - and they were having a very similar discussion.

They were responding to Dan Crenshaw saying that nobody should worry about awful things Trump would do in a 2nd term because he didn’t do them in his first term.

Their basic argument was that Trump was inhibited in his first term by people like Pence, Kushner, Priebus, Kelly, etal and that he would no longer be inhibited because these kinds of people would not be there in a 2nd term.

It’s a fair point, theoretically. But there’s also a key flaw in this argument. And that is that the people sounding the alarm bells now about Trump were sounding the very same alarm bells in 2016.

So why weren’t they saying, in 2016, “You don’t have to worry about Trump. He has responsible people around him and they will inhibit Trump from doing awful things.”?

There’s a little bit of “The Boy Who Cried Wolf” in what they’re saying

Re the Boy Who Cried Wolf, what happened to the people who didn't believe the boy because of getting it wrong in the past? The story doesn't end well for them.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

It has zero effect beyond J7

Hmm, I’ll have to think about that one. I think I can see what you’re saying. But it’s also true that a line was crossed that day (and I don’t just mean in the sense of the nutcases storming the Capitol) that, to my knowledge, had never been crossed before.

And there is absolutely something to be said for preserving norms — especially something as sacred and foundational as the peaceful transfer of power.

Now, I’ve said for a long time that I don’t think we were in any real danger of Trump taking power in January 2021 rather than Biden….even if the House had failed to certify the electors. I think that threat has been exaggerated. And that is because I firmly believe that our institutions are strong enough to withstand such an odious and illicit lunge for power.

But that doesn’t change the fact that it was an odious and illicit lunge for power….the likes of which we’ve never seen.

What Trump tried to do there was unforgivable.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Maybe we can have a beer summit someday about this.

I’ve made it clear that Trump was not my first choice in this election. Based on his record of his first term, I think he’d be pretty good. The middle East would be more peaceful. Energy would be better. The border would be better. Crime would be better. I could go on.

I’m with the majority who believe America is on the wrong track. Trump gives us a good chance to get on the right track.

I’m all good with a beer summit. There is no chance we’ll agree in the major points concerning Trump, but that’s OK. I like beer. 😎

 

[BradStevens]

What conservative who holds their nose, would do so to vote for Harris? They would hold it to vote for Trump as they did to vote for Dole, McCain, both Bushes, Romney, etc

Those who think Trump represents "a unique threat" to the United States. Someone, for example, like Frum or Goat (who is not a conservative, but sounds like has more conservative foreign policy values) who think the world is safest with a US-led alliance system. If you think that issue is important enough, for example, that it is the best system to prevent nuclear war and the apocalypse, then you want to use your vote best to keep Trump out of power (again, this all assumes your vote actually matters).

 

[snarlcakes]

So he's not really committed to conservative principles, just a tribe. Small thinking.

I need to find a matt Haarts interview with Rogan. He hits the nail on the head about how some people come along in the course of history and unite all the tribes to destroy the larger population.

Also, from a conservative perspective it’s painfully obvious Trump was a much better President than Biden and Trump is a better candidate than Harris. Frum sold out to support a terrible candidate who even liberals don’t like🤣 All because he wants to throw a hissy fit like a child.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

That's bad logic. Harris is the only candidate who can win other than Trump. If you believe your vote counts, and you believe Trump would do more damage to the US than Harris, then you vote Harris. That is a rational argument and position to take assuming the premises. I'm not saying its logically required, only rational.

Re false premises, its basic logic that an argument's logical structure (rationality or validity) isn't affected by the truth value of the premises, only its internal consistency. I think this is even more evident when the premises can't really be verified by the voters, but are based on guess work and probabilistic inferences.

I don’t beleive Trump would do more damage than Harris would. I think they’d both be unacceptably bad for the country.

Which one would be more bad, I can’t say. But neither of them clear the bar.

As such, it’s perfectly rational to vote for neither one.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Re the Boy Who Cried Wolf, what happened to the people who didn't believe the boy because of getting it wrong in the past? The story doesn't end well for them.

But we don’t know how this one would turn out.

My point is that this is why this particular argument doesn’t seem to be swaying many people. They made it before…and this time are only left to argue “I know we said the same thing last time. But we really mean it this time.”

 

[snarlcakes]

Those who think Trump represents "a unique threat" to the United States. Someone, for example, like Frum or Goat (who is not a conservative, but sounds like has more conservative foreign policy values) who think the world is safest with a US-led alliance system. If you think that issue is important enough, for example, that it is the best system to prevent nuclear war and the apocalypse, then you want to do use your vote best to keep Trump out of power (again, this all assumes your vote actually matters).

People are free to think that way, but it didn’t happen his first term. It’s based more on one’s emotions than logic though.

 

[BradStevens]

It has zero effect beyond J7

Strongly disagree.

 

[LifelongIU77]

You don’t get to tell me what I am

No...your actions tell everyone what you are.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Ding ding ding. And what do people like Cheney and Frum do when they lose power and control? Cry like babies and join the liberals. The truth is power and control is what drives them, rather than deeply held conservative values.

What they’re doing is willingly giving up power. They’re Republicans, not Democrats. Think rationally and logically.

 

[BradStevens]

Also, from a conservative perspective it’s painfully obvious Trump was a much better President than Biden and Trump is a better candidate than Harris. Frum sold out to support a terrible candidate who even liberals don’t like🤣 All because he wants to throw a hissy fit like a child.

That's an unfair summary of his argument on the linked podcast. And he gives Trump his due for various accomplishments while in office.