• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Erickson: I Will Not Vote For Donald Trump. Ever.

Well, that's 1 vote. What's his point again? I will vote for Trump, in-fact I already did, I mailed in my primary ballot a few days ago. Is Erickson's vote worth more than any of ours? No? Nothing to see here.

Look at the support for Trump. Look at the support for Sanders. Business as usual has come to an end. Deal with it.
 
SDET said:
I Will Not Vote For Donald Trump. Ever. | The Resurgent
Click to expand...

I agree with Erickson here: "Donald Trump has had no 'road to Damascus' conversion. He only wants to date the preacher’s daughter. Once he’s gotten in her ballot box, he’ll be back to his pro-abortion New York values self. I’ll play no part in this farce."

He says now that he'll never vote for Trump now, but I don't know about this.
 
SDET said:
I Will Not Vote For Donald Trump. Ever. | The Resurgent
Click to expand...

Erickson is wrong here. Because I listen to him often, I know, for a fact that he would never vote for the Democrat nominee. So what he is saying here, and encouraging his religious right followers to do, is not to vote at all in this election if Trump is the nominee. We can not do this. He is wrong to suggest it. Boycotting the election is just a ridiculous idea. If you can't in good conscience vote for the Republican nominee, you should revise your thinking. Instead, cast your vote against the establishment liberal. This can be done in good conscience as I have done it many times before.
 
QuadpolarNutjob said:
Well, that's 1 vote. What's his point again? I will vote for Trump, in-fact I already did, I mailed in my primary ballot a few days ago. Is Erickson's vote worth more than any of ours?
Click to expand...

An anti-endorsement from Erickson has pull. How much? :shrug:

So yes, he will have more impact than you.

Look at the support for Trump. Look at the support for Sanders. Business as usual has come to an end. Deal with it.
Click to expand...

Indeed. I blame our poor educational structure, and instant-gratification culture.
 
nota bene said:
I agree with Erickson here: "Donald Trump has had no 'road to Damascus' conversion. He only wants to date the preacher’s daughter. Once he’s gotten in her ballot box, he’ll be back to his pro-abortion New York values self. I’ll play no part in this farce."

He says now that he'll never vote for Trump now, but I don't know about this.
Click to expand...

Hillary or Bernie will wreck the Country. Only Trump will wreck the country and wreck Conservatism, ruining our ability to recover. I'll take a dark tunnel with a light at the end v a dark tunnel with none.
 
kamikaze483 said:
Erickson is wrong here. Because I listen to him often, I know, for a fact that he would never vote for the Democrat nominee. So what he is saying here, and encouraging his religious right followers to do, is not to vote at all in this election if Trump is the nominee.
Click to expand...

No he isn't. The Libertarians will run a candidate. Jim Webb (who was undersecretary of Defense under Reagan) is running. There will be third party candidates that conservatives can support.

We can not do this. He is wrong to suggest it. Boycotting the election is just a ridiculous idea. If you can't in good conscience vote for the Republican nominee, you should revise your thinking. Instead, cast your vote against the establishment liberal.
Click to expand...

Yeah. When I vote against Trump, that's what I will be doing.
 
cpwill said:
No he isn't. The Libertarians will run a candidate. Jim Webb (who was undersecretary of Defense under Reagan) is running. There will be third party candidates that conservatives can support.



Yeah. When I vote against Trump, that's what I will be doing.
Click to expand...

I follow your posts. I can't see how you would do that, seeing as though there is no chance the third party person will win. Remember Ross Perot? Third party votes are a vote for Clinton now, just like they were then.
 
I'm no fan of Donald Trump, but Erickson has done more to elect Democrats to government in the past decade than Donald Trump ever could. Erickson's bone-headed support of all things Tea Party, regardless of the almost criminally insane positions of some of his choice candidates, saw the Senate remain in Democrat hands in 2010 and 2012 when simple, sane, sensible candidates on the Republican side would have seen the Senate in Republican control 4 years prior. Erickson's condemnation of Mitt Romney in 2012 was equally destructive in helping to secure a second term of President Obama.

Erickson is a destructive idiot who should be banned from identifying himself as a Republican consultant or talking head - his support of the entirely unelectable Ted Cruz is simply further proof it.
 
kamikaze483 said:
I follow your posts. I can't see how you would do that, seeing as though there is no chance the third party person will win.
Click to expand...

Sure. I concur. But I am done voting for liberals pretending to be Republicans. I won't feel ashamed of myself for voting third party like I would if I voted for Trump or Hillary.

Remember Ross Perot? Third party votes are a vote for Clinton now, just like they were then.
Click to expand...

Yup.

Hillary will wreck the country, but leave an invigorated conservatism in place with a majority of state governorships, a majority in the House, probably a majority in the Senate, and high likelihood in 2020 of taking back the White House.

Trump will wreck the country, the GOP, and conservatism. We'll end up worse than we did after W Bush.

Given a choice of dark tunnels, Hillary represents the dark tunnel with a light at the end. Trump's tunnel ends in a drop-off and a trainwreck.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I'm no fan of Donald Trump, but Erickson has done more to elect Democrats to government in the past decade than Donald Trump ever could. Erickson's bone-headed support of all things Tea Party, regardless of the almost criminally insane positions of some of his choice candidates, saw the Senate remain in Democrat hands in 2010 and 2012 when simple, sane, sensible candidates on the Republican side would have seen the Senate in Republican control 4 years prior. Erickson's condemnation of Mitt Romney in 2012 was equally destructive in helping to secure a second term of President Obama.

Erickson is a destructive idiot who should be banned from identifying himself as a Republican consultant or talking head - his support of the entirely unelectable Ted Cruz is simply further proof it.
Click to expand...

The Tea Party's decision to take over the Republican Party saved the GOP because it stopped the Libertarian Party or a different third-party from surging, splitting the conservative vote. For every Sharon Angle there is a Marco Rubio. Erickson and others are the people who led folks like me back to supporting the GOP at all.
 
cpwill said:
Sure. I concur. But I am done voting for liberals pretending to be Republicans. I won't feel ashamed of myself for voting third party like I would if I voted for Trump or Hillary.



Yup.

Hillary will wreck the country, but leave an invigorated conservatism in place with a majority of state governorships, a majority in the House, probably a majority in the Senate, and high likelihood in 2020 of taking back the White House.

Trump will wreck the country, the GOP, and conservatism. We'll end up worse than we did after W Bush.

Given a choice of dark tunnels, Hillary represents the dark tunnel with a light at the end. Trump's tunnel ends in a drop-off and a trainwreck.
Click to expand...

Wow. I don't necessarily disagree, except in that I do think that Trump will PROBABLY be a terrible president, but Hillary definitely will. I do think that Trump has the skills to reign in the debt and fix the spending problem. He is a better economic choice than Hillary- I think. I am certainly not sure.
 
kamikaze483 said:
Wow. I don't necessarily disagree, except in that I do think that Trump will PROBABLY be a terrible president, but Hillary definitely will. I do think that Trump has the skills to reign in the debt and fix the spending problem. He is a better economic choice than Hillary- I think. I am certainly not sure.
Click to expand...

Trump has already announced that he has no intention of reforming the entitlements, which are 2/3rds of our spending, the fastest growing section of our spending, and the drivers of our national debt. His solution was "fix fraud and abuse", which is a joke among those who actually follow budget issues, because it's candidate-speak for "do nothing, but don't say that out loud". Trump also wants to institute government-funded universal health insurance, which would dramatically spike our public expenditures.

Fixing entitlements is the kind of complex, difficult, easily-demagogued policy change that would require large swathes of public good will and a mandate. Trump inspires not just opposition, but fear, hatred, and disgust from those who don't support him.

So I find roughly zero evidence whatsoever that he would be willing or able to reign in the debt and fix the spending problem.


Hillary, for all that she had to oppose it in the Democrat Primary, helped negotiate the TPP. Her husband had a lot of success with NAFTA. She is a (moderate) free trader abroad, and isn't interested in doing wrecking dramatic damage on our economy for it's own sake. She just wants power. Trump, on the other hand, thinks that starting trade wars with our major trading partners is good policy, and (more importantly) makes him look tough on TV, and builds up his personal base of support. Both Hillary and Trump are in favor of higher taxes, more intrusive regulatory government, and crony capitalism as an operating model.

So I find that not only is Trump equally likely to not reign in the debt and fix the spending problem, I find it likely that he is a worse economic choice than Hillary (gawd, I can't believe that, outside of discussing Bernie Sanders, I just uttered those words).

In the meantime, conservatism will undergo a civil war over whether or not to support the Republican President, and the Party will likely splinter. As our foreign policy falls to shambles along with our party and our economy, the Democrats will step in and sweep, and we'll be right back to 2009, where they had an unstoppable majority, except we will be starting from a position even further to the left of where we are now... just in time for the entitlements to start collapsing, for which they will be able (against all logic and evidence) to successfully blame conservatives.

No thanks. **** that guy.
 
Last edited:
nota bene said:
I agree with Erickson here: "Donald Trump has had no 'road to Damascus' conversion. He only wants to date the preacher’s daughter. Once he’s gotten in her ballot box, he’ll be back to his pro-abortion New York values self. I’ll play no part in this farce."

He says now that he'll never vote for Trump now, but I don't know about this.
Click to expand...

My concern - one that is actually not insignificant - about Trump is that, if he ever did win the presidency, he would get into office and decide after about 8 months that he was tired of the office and the associated bull**** and would just resign.
 
cpwill said:
Trump has already announced that he has no intention of reforming the entitlements, which are 2/3rds of our spending, the fastest growing section of our spending, and the drivers of our national debt. His solution was "fix fraud and abuse", which is a joke among those who actually follow budget issues, because it's candidate-speak for "do nothing, but don't say that out loud". Trump also wants to institute government-funded universal health insurance, which would dramatically spike our public expenditures.

Fixing entitlements is the kind of complex, difficult, easily-demagogued policy change that would require large swathes of public good will and a mandate. Trump inspires not just opposition, but fear, hatred, and disgust from those who don't support him.

So I find roughly zero evidence whatsoever that he would be willing or able to reign in the debt and fix the spending problem.


Hillary, for all that she had to oppose it in the Democrat Primary, helped negotiate the TPP. Her husband had a lot of success with NAFTA. She is a (moderate) free trader abroad, and isn't interested in doing wrecking dramatic damage on our economy for it's own sake. She just wants power. Trump, on the other hand, thinks that starting trade wars with our major trading partners is good policy, and (more importantly) makes him look tough on TV, and builds up his personal base of support. Both Hillary and Trump are in favor of higher taxes, more intrusive regulatory government, and crony capitalism as an operating model.

So I find that not only is Trump equally likely to not reign in the debt and fix the spending problem, I find it likely that he is a worse economic choice than Hillary (gawd, I can't believe that, outside of discussing Bernie Sanders, I just uttered those words).

In the meantime, conservatism will undergo a civil war over whether or not to support the Republican President, and the Party will likely splinter. As our foreign policy falls to shambles along with our party and our economy, the Democrats will step in and sweep, and we'll be right back to 2009, where they had an unstoppable majority, except we will be starting from a position even further to the left of where we are now... just in time for the entitlements to start collapsing, for which they will be able (against all logic and evidence) to successfully blame conservatives.

No thanks. **** that guy.
Click to expand...

The way I see it, either Hillary or Trump will be President- because I think if Trump is not nominated, he will switch over and run as third party, which will give the election to Hillary. The only way that we avoid trump taking votes from Cruz or Rubio is to make him the nominee. Which is awful.
 
kamikaze483 said:
The way I see it, either Hillary or Trump will be President- because I think if Trump is not nominated, he will switch over and run as third party, which will give the election to Hillary. The only way that we avoid trump taking votes from Cruz or Rubio is to make him the nominee. Which is awful.
Click to expand...

Then let it be Hillary. Truly the lesser of two evils; the one we can survive and rebound from, v the one that we cannot.

Though I think Trump would take Democrats from Hillary as well (though many fewer).
 
I strongly disagree based on the devil you know vs the devil you don't know argument.
 
cpwill said:
The Tea Party's decision to take over the Republican Party saved the GOP because it stopped the Libertarian Party or a different third-party from surging, splitting the conservative vote. For every Sharon Angle there is a Marco Rubio. Erickson and others are the people who led folks like me back to supporting the GOP at all.
Click to expand...

That's fair, from a narrow perspective. But the Tea Party fanatics, and I say fanatics because the good people with the good ideas were overwhelmed by the nuts who the media fed off of, destroyed the independent and moderate base of the Republican Party and it was slowly coming back in the 2014 mid-terms when the RNC recruited and secured nominations for many decent, competent people.

Trump and Cruz will ruin those gains for the next decade or more. I hope I'm wrong.
 
cpwill said:
Sure. I concur. But I am done voting for liberals pretending to be Republicans. I won't feel ashamed of myself for voting third party like I would if I voted for Trump or Hillary.



Yup.

Hillary will wreck the country, but leave an invigorated conservatism in place with a majority of state governorships, a majority in the House, probably a majority in the Senate, and high likelihood in 2020 of taking back the White House.

Trump will wreck the country, the GOP, and conservatism. We'll end up worse than we did after W Bush.

Given a choice of dark tunnels, Hillary represents the dark tunnel with a light at the end. Trump's tunnel ends in a drop-off and a trainwreck.
Click to expand...
I dont worry about Trump or Hillary in their policies. Bernie either for that matter. Congress will keep most of that in check. The greater concern is the Supreme Court.
 
clownboy said:
Try zero. The few folks that listen to this nob couldn't fit in a tea cup and weren't Trump voters to begin with.
Click to expand...

:lamo

This is Erik Erikson. Founder of RedState, syndicated talk-show-host.

You are probably correct that his listeners are less likely to be primary-trump-voters, however. :) They are conservatives.


Donald Trump Blasts Erick Erickson in Statement | National Review Online -
Click to expand...

:D I love that you think that citing Trump attacking someone is evidence of anything.
 
VanceMack said:
I dont worry about Trump or Hillary in their policies. Bernie either for that matter. Congress will keep most of that in check. The greater concern is the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

So would you rather split the GOP over whether or not to support a liberal from Trump (effectively giving it to him), or have a unified GOP that forces a moderate from Hillary?
 
CanadaJohn said:
That's fair, from a narrow perspective. But the Tea Party fanatics, and I say fanatics because the good people with the good ideas were overwhelmed by the nuts who the media fed off of, destroyed the independent and moderate base of the Republican Party and it was slowly coming back in the 2014 mid-terms when the RNC recruited and secured nominations for many decent, competent people.

Trump and Cruz will ruin those gains for the next decade or more. I hope I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

Trump isn't Tea Party, or anything close to it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom