This is from a private Facebook thread, so I can’t cite others (too bad), but I wrote a lot there, and so would like to preserve it on my blog. It may be regarded as follow-up comments to my article, “David French’s Hit-Piece on Franklin Graham & Trump” (4-28-19).
I’m only describing what we see every day, and only one aspect of the Never Trumper: how they view Trump. It’s pretty much 100% negativity. That’s not judging the whole person (as Trump is judged by them).
Yeah, I supported Cruz, Rubio, and Kasich [during the primaries]. I didn’t vote in the primaries, but I was gonna vote for Kasich. Then when Trump got it, it was a no-brainer to select him over Hillary Clinton: Planned Parenthood’s crowned “Champion of the Century.” This is how democracies and republics work. Political candidates are not saints. But I don’t vote for babykillers.
Trump’s pro-life record while in office has been nothing short of breathtaking.
It’s amazing how you can conclude that [a lack of concern for the pro-life cause] by someone voting for a pro-lifer over against a rabid babykilling advocate.
It was not St. Hillary vs. St. Donald. Pro-life Democrats (the few that even exist anymore) always say they’re not really voting for the pro-abortion policies of their Dem folks that they want to vote for. Likewise, we are not voting for anything we disagree with in Trump, in his personal life. We’re voting for his policy over that of the alternative. I would have loved to have someone like a Rick Santorum. But when he ran, Romney divided him against Gingrich and won, in 2012.
[How could we vote for Trump?] Because he was willing to fight the radically secular babykilling advocate liberals and enact the policies we want: the exact opposite of McCain and Romney. We were so sick of losing that we chose the candidate who would win, even though he was highly flawed. We were tired of voting for RINOs.
He was my second-to-last choice in the beginning (only pro-abort Pataki was lower), and my 4th during the primary, but when he got it, he had my vote because I am a pro-lifer.
And it has been a spectacular record since he took office.
[turning the tables on another’s critical comments — using their phraseology — directed towards Trump voters] I am always baffled when people claim to be pro-life but don’t fathom the absurdity of supposedly voting pro-life by voting for a babykiller who habitually treats preborn children badly. It’s as if the human products of “crisis” (or any) pregnancies are irrelevant to them….
I think it depends on who is winning the primaries as it goes along. At a certain point, folks decide that it looks like it is going a certain way and so they get on that bandwagon. He won primary elections. That’s it. This is not rocket science. We were tired of wimps and RINOs.
He started winning, and we knew he would stand up to the liberals, in a way that we have rarely seen. This perception has been amazingly verified by his behavior in office. And that’s what we wanted.
Usually, we don’t get our first choice. Mine was Gingrich and Santorum in 2012. We got Romney instead. I voted for him as infinitely superior to Obama. But he’s a RINO. It’s far more objectionable voting for him than for Trump. And he was not a Christian at all, to boot.
Yeah, I liked Carson and Fiorina too [and many others, too]. It was an amazing field of GOP candidates in 2016.
[on being totally pro-life and pro-woman] Sorry to hear of your [pregnancy] troubles. It’s not unknown to us, either. My wife Judy had six miscarriages and four successful births: serious bed rest for the last one. Our third almost died during delivery. He had colic for two years and she also developed serious post-partum depression (up to being suicidal at times) after our third. She was unsuccessfully on Zoloft for seven years due to that. We only resolved that when I came up with a simple natural remedy for her depression (with the approval of our doctor). She has had no depression since then (2000).
My good friends Al & Sally Kresta started crisis pregnancy centers in the Detroit area in the early 80s. We’ve always had a high concern for women in the pro-life movement here.
Trump is anti-abortion, Hillary was pro-abortion (up till birth). Pro-lifers vote for the ones who will lower the numbers of abortions. Duh! It’s not rocket science. Many thousands of babies are alive today who would not have been because of that choice we made. If that is not pro-life, I don’t know what is.
I don’t see many positive appraisals from [Never Rational Never Trumpers]. Instead, they can’t admit that they were dead-wrong about things like his pro-life record in office.
I’ve been through all this 100 times:
Trump & Reagan: Shocking Similarities [1-15-16]
Trump is a Slimeball, Moron, & Scumbag [5-27-16]
“How Can a Catholic Vote for Trump?!!?” [5-28-16]
On Trump & the “Supreme” Pro-Life Cause [8-16-16]
“Lessen Evil” Votes for Hillary? (vs. Mark Shea) [4-7-17]
I agree that a President’s moral character is a highly relevant issue. So does Franklin Graham. But we also were forced to make a choice between Trump, with all his faults, including likely much sexual sin, and the radical pro-abort with a long string of dubious [il]legal activities, Hillary Clinton. That choice was very clear for any Christian voter (I submit). Personally, I never ever vote for childkillers, if there is a pro-life choice on the ballot. It’s a dealbreaker, in the way that being a Nazi or KKK member also would be. On the other hand, votes do not suggest or imply absolute approval of everything in a candidate’s policies or life. Anyone who thinks they do is an unthinking idiot.
Lastly, one can take different views as to how much to probe a President’s personal life. In JFK’s and LBJ’s times (no saints: either of them) it simply wasn’t done at all. Democrats are the ones who blasted into public consciousness the notion (during the Clinton Monica Lewinsky fiasco) that one’s (even a President’s) private sexuality was absolutely irrelevant. And so the public largely now applies that empty-headed libertarian approach to President Trump. If Clinton’s sexual sins were irrelevant, so are Trump’s, whatever they may be (so they reason). I do not think they are irrelevant, in either case. But that is the societal norm the Democrats blessed us with. You make the bed you lie in . . . [bolding added presently]
What Trump said and what it implies is indefensible. I agree with all criticism of it along those lines, and with what Jonah Goldberg, conservative and longtime Trump critic wrote: . . .*Now the question is (I can just hear it), “how can you support such an immoral man for President?” Glad to answer it: it depends on what one means by “support.” My position has been perfectly consistent all along. I support the GOP candidate, whoever it is, over against the Democratic candidate, and primarily (but not solely) due to the life issue, which is the paramount ethical issue of our time. . . .
It’s beyond naive (flat-out simplistic) to believe that we are talking about holy, saintly people at this high of a level in the political arena.
Often, given this reality, in voting it comes down to “the lesser of two evils”. My friends on the Catholic left (legion at Patheos, where I blog) are well aware of this, since they routinely justify voting for pro-abort candidates as morally superior to the alternative. We even see (what I regard as utterly ludicrous) opinions that the pro-abort candidate is, in fact, more pro-life than the stated pro-life candidate.
My immediate point is that those who are now saying any Trump “supporter” is a rank hypocrite, engage in the same sort of “lesser of two evils” approach all the time in their own political votes.
That is how someone (like myself) can plan on voting for Trump, as the lesser of two evils. We were never deluded at any time (at least I wasn’t) into thinking that he was a saint. We’re fully aware of his past. This new “tape” doesn’t fundamentally surprise me because I knew that Trump was a Clinton and JFK type in that respect. The particulars of it are highly disturbing, but we all knew that Trump is not a choirboy. We all know that Billary Clinton is not a choirgirl, either, but nobody gives a damn about that. Democratic candidates are always given a pass. They can do anything (even commit felonies) and no one cares.
All I’m doing is what all but two (Kasich and Jeb Bush) of the original 17 Republican candidates did: pledge to support whomever was on the eventual ticket as the nominee. I did so based on the life and Supreme Court issue. And I’ve also liked most of the policy positions that Trump has laid out (rightly understood). . . .
When folks are disgusted over Trump’s remarks and behavior in 2005, I’m with them 100%. I’m not with them, however, if there is any hint that Clinton is morally or politically superior to Trump. She’s no canonized saint, either.
I think if God made an eternal covenant with King David, knowing that he was to commit murder and adultery, we can vote for a candidate who has committed adultery, since the alternate is a bloodthirsty childkilling advocate, who favors killing children at full term.
Those who vote for Democrat pro-aborts while saying they (i.e., the voters) are pro-life do exactly the same. They are voting for reasons other than abortion. Or they say (ridiculously, in my opinion) that a pro-abort will actually lower rates of abortion more than a pro-life candidate. But they overlook the stated pro-abortion position of the candidate.
Why the double standard? How come a liberal can vote for a candidate and not agree with everything in their views (or personal life: even up to and including the grave sin of advocacy of abortion), but conservatives can’t?