Okay, then it seems you are completely unsure of what trump will deliver, good or bad.

You only “hope” he delivers on one thing – “decimating the media” – something you don’t deny as intending the literal meaning of, when challenged. So, one wonders if you are arguing at all from a position of shared conservative principle.
.
“There is no absolute for the future that either I, you, or anyone else here can define”
It is true that metaphysically, we cannot foresee the future, with unknown unknowns, and known unknowns, and such.

“…there isn’t any real objective basis…”
But, we can see facts on the ground to lead us to understand the range of possibilities before us. To say it is but an opinion not based on any objective fact is itself a circular cop out.

“…the entire discussion of this thread has been opinion”
Just an opinion?

It seems that it is a moral relativism you are then effectively arguing. Who’s then to say anyone’s opinion is not correct – the left can be just as correct as any one of us. Not too far from that is a might makes right argument – which seems to be where you are leaning, if “decimating the media” is what you desire.
.

“If I register an opinion (am I) duty bound to argue to change someone else’s position(?)… the discussion seems to have become pointless”
You, and anyone else, are certainly free to express whatever opinion you care to. Not sure the value in expressing an opinion here just for the sake of expressing one.

Be that as it may, however, this discussion has NOT been “pointless” whatsoever.
.

“I still haven’t quite ascertained if you are actively searching for ideas…we seem to have two different aims”

I WANT to be convinced that trump isn’t what I make him out to be.
I WANT to see if there really is a solid argument to support him.
I WANT a solid rationale to why he if FAR from being as or more harmful than clinton.

Why?

I DO see how bad clinton is and can be, and, by default, I’d MUCH rather have a GOP candidate win the race for POTUS.
.

I was rather SHOCKED at the level of support for trump out the gate, as it did seem like there was consensus on conservative principles on our side of the aisle (evidently camouflaged with all the yells of “RINO!!!” in years prior).

trump was the least conservative, pro forma, of any GOP candidate in generations, but he did have an opportunity, during the course of his campaign, to prove he’s credibly changed.

He hasn’t, on both counts.

I am rather disappointed to see that “reluctant” trump supporters seem just as willing to compromise apparently to nearly the same degree, and giving short shrift to the potential downside on trump – in short, many have no limits on what is acceptable in trump for the sake of a win over clinton.

And, if one holds conservative principles, that surely cannot be the case. And, yes, that is mho.

And, if the response to the questions I ask cannot be convincing to me, I’m betting other readers, for whom “not clinton” is not an open license for anything, may well come to the same conclusion that arguments in favor of trump just really cannot stand on their own.

Then, just maybe, they take another look at the potential downside with trump and ask themselves if it really, truly is worth the risk, especially in light of the limited upside that they may “hope” exists.

“so we have established that neither clinton nor trump will implement conservative principled policies.”

Nope. We haven’t established that at all. IMO Clinton won’t; Trump may or may not–it remains to be seen.

“There really isn’t an objective basis to judge who has the potential to be more harmful, if the limits are not defined?”

That is absolutely correct; there isn’t any real objective basis. I never said otherwise and the entire discussion of this thread has been opinion; individual opinions based upon the l”ay of the land” as our hostess and the numerous commenters see it. Predictions are hard, especially about the future. There is no absolute for the future that either I, you, or anyone else here can define. Even my own reliance on the Republican-Democrat binary allows for the possibility of a black swan event.

You say you don’t want to convince others, yet, you come here and post comments favorable to trump, justifying a vote for trump. Why?

So if my intention isn’t forensic (in the debate sense) then I should shut up? If I register an opinion I am duty bound to argue to change someone else’s position? I come here and post comments because I choose to be part of the discussion. Sometimes I debate, sometimes I do not. I have stated my position. That you adopt my position, or refute it, is not your only choice. You are free to glean ideas from it or to simply ignore it as well.

I still haven’t quite ascertained if you are actively searching for ideas, if you are being adversarial because we do not agree, or as with some leftists I’ve debated in the past, if you are nit-picking adversarial points just to see how long a circular discussion can be kept running. That we have exchanged thoughts this long is an indication that I have been giving you the benefit of the doubt in that regard, but the discussion seems to have become pointless. At the very least, we seem to have two different aims. As I said in an earlier comment, at the very least we seem to be speaking past each other.

I, for myself, have stated my position, and occasionally repeated its components in several different ways so I have nothing more to add.

What will trump deliver? Your sole hope for trump is that he “decimate the media”? Do you really mean to go that far? Hardly conservative, and has serious impact for a free society itself.
.

Limiting principle? You nicely side stepped the question on limiting principle (in supporting any candidate in opposition to clinton) by saying “one has not yet appeared – I’ll know it when I see it”.

And that is where the core problem is.

There really isn’t an objective basis to judge who has the potential to be more harmful, if the limits are not defined?

If the objective really is “decimating the media”, the limits evidently have great latitude.

Yet, curiously, there must be some recognition that trump has potential to exceed some kind of limit, given the expressed assumption that the MSM, Dems will serve as a “check” on trump, because they can move the political wind to which congress (including the feckless GOP) moves. However, if the media maintained such power, how does trump get elected in the first place?

Of course, you recognize the contradiction and caveat that by saying it would take two or several election cycles to achieve the “decimation”.

You then declare this as no contradiction!! Huh?

Short of demonstrating you have some special expertise here to go by, it is far from obvious, and rather counter intuitive how this can be.
.

You may choose to side step the limitations question and employ fanciful assumptions to convince yourself, but it is far from convincing nor comforting for anyone else who has serious questions about trump.

You say you don’t want to convince others, yet, you come here and post comments favorable to trump, justifying a vote for trump. Why?

Big Maq,

I keep responding to your comments because you seem to be asking me to clarify my positions. I make no argument or debate to change your mine, and you certainly have not changed mine. Yes, I am set on the binary. This is true. On January 20th, 2017 it will be either the Republican or the Democrat who will be sworn in barring any unforeseen and catastrophic event.

So let me respond now, working backwards from the end of your post.

. . . your arguments, with its emphasis on the value of a “street brawler”, with little recognition of the downside impact, nor defined limitations, seem more like a cathartic “revenge at all costs” oriented one than one in favor of positively getting our principles implemented.

With regard to street brawling, yes, but that ire is directed at the media. I want to see the ability of the MSM to controlling the national dialogue crushed underfoot (I won’t hold my breath). Only Gingrich, Cruz and Trump take on the MSM in meaningful ways (Fiorina had great potential, but it was never allowed to fully materialize). Trump, not Fiorina, not Walker, not Cruz, is the choice we’ve been given, and as I have said said, IMO he is campaigning against the media as much as (or more) than against Hillary at this point in time.

As for the Trump downside, I am less concerned about a Trump downside than about a Hllary downside because too many people, especially MSM, are in such opposition to Trump. As (if) he gets bolder, the MSM will act as a congressional whip to turn public sentiment against him. Even a feckless congress will find it easy to oppose him because the political wind will be at their back. Not so with Hillary; as with Obama, I can only expect that the MSM will continue to aid and abet Hillary as they have with Obama (I’m sure you saw my 11:43 comment above). Under such circumstances even a very bold and highly organized conservative congress will find it difficult offer serious opposition.

Now, you will say that on one hand I want Trump to decimate the media but on the other hand I expect them to control him. The explanation is that I don’t expect that Trump can turn the media into palace eunuchs; even if that could happen, it’s hardly something that would occur in a single election cycle or perhaps even in a generation. I see no contradiction there.

As for implementing conservative principles, I don’t see that happening this cycle at all, so IMO it’s a moot point. If Trump proves to be especially liberal as you believe, but the alternative is Clinton, well, that becomes a non-issue in my vote-casting decision.

You still didn’t answer what your limiting principle is on your support of anyone just to oppose clinton?

One has not yet appeared in this election cycle. I’ll know it when I see it.

that trump’s “calculated strategy is not ipso facto a winning strategy” (“strategy” might be attributing a bit too much to trump’s behavior, imho).

You may be correct, perhaps not. We just don’t know. I offer this except from Paul Solotaroff’s Rolling Stone article:

In all the hysteria, however, what’s often missed are the qualities that brought Trump here. You don’t do a fraction of what he’s done in life – dominate New York real estate for decades, build the next grand Xanadus for the super-rich on the far shores of Dubai and Istanbul, run the prime-time ratings table for more than 10 years and earn a third (or sixth) fortune at it — without being immensely cunning and deft, a top-of-the-food-chain killer. Over the course of 10 days and several close-in encounters, I got to peer behind the scrim of his bluster and self-mythos and get a very good look at the man. What I saw was enough to make me take him dead serious.

Link:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/trump-seriously-20150909

Remember that an antagonistic media is showing us Trump in the worst possible light that they can manufacture. Remember Romney’s giving people cancer, his “magic underwear,” the bullying haircut, the dog on top of the car? Well, they have gone exponential with Trump. But, yes, it still might be attributing too much to him to call it a strategy.

In short, I don’t know how genuine or disingenuous Trump is being at any point in this campaign. I can hope that he might govern as a Scoop Jackson Democrat which I could live with. If he were to govern as a Clinton, well no loss there because that is my only alternative.

Also, living in a swing state (Pennsylvania) I don’t believe that I have the luxury of an ideological vote.

And one final note, I subscribe to Milton Friedman’s admonition:

I do not believe that the solution to our problem is simply to elect the right people. The important thing is to establish a political climate of opinion which will make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing. Unless it is politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing, the right people will not do the right thing either, or it they try, they will shortly be out of office,

IMO that is one reason that Trump’s attempt to undermine an essentially leftist media is important. As a successful businessman, I suspect (yes it’s just a suspicion, but I am a successful businessman myself) that Trump is more open to advice than the iideologue Hillary Clinton who, tom me, embodies C.S. Lewis’ omnipotent moral busybody.

“…If that person is someone on this blog or elsewhere who is a member of the GOP and thinks of it as his/her party and supposedly wants you to “go away,” (your term; I don’t actually see anyone saying anything of the sort prior to your remark)…”

Half correct.
If Trump supporters are willing to recognize where they went wrong, I’d love to join them in a coalition against the GOPe. If not, then I absolutely want people like lynndh to “go away.”

The exchange:
You: “Do I like Trump? NO, but he is our Bastard.”

You: “Matt, your comment about not understanding history — guess your are right and I will return my two degrees in history to my former university.”

If you have two history degrees but don’t understand that bastards have a way of turning on people (their supporters, actually), then I would suggest you ask your alma mater for a refund.

BTW, notice that it was YOU who defined Trump as a bastard. You just forgot to notice what that implies.

You still characterize it as “acquiescence” – and that still overstates the case, even if less strident, as it assumes an intent rather than an ability. As mentioned, I’d ascribe it to leadership (e.g. strategy and communication) against the limits of the boundaries they must operate within. I also see incentives at play that are inherent in a government with such a large scope of power.

But, essentially, you are driving at a case that they didn’t sufficiently stand up for conservative principles in the face of a leftward push by the Dems (most recent example you highlighted – the DOE OCR budget increase). Correct?
.

So, following from those arguments, the answer at moving forward must be a candidate who embodies two qualities (among others):

1) A base of conservative principles, with the goal of implementing conservative policies.
2) An ability to provide that leadership and deliver on that/those goals.
.

Re: The first quality. You don’t mention anything on the first wrt trump. But that is critical, as it answers the “Why?”.

No matter how good a leader is, if they are not even clear that their goal is to deliver on those principles (and provide sufficient detail to be credible), then what has been gained?

What can you say it is that trump is going to deliver?
.

Re: The second quality, you diagnose the problem as the GOP behaving like “gentlemen” who lock themselves into the “Queensbury’s rules” with “one arm tied behind (their) back”.

You provide lots of discussion about how different trump is from that model – “a street brawler who is not unwilling to play the fool” who “out-Alinsky the Alinskyites … just like an activist liberal”.

This is all a slippery slope of an argument that is rather debatable, imho.

However, you do recognize that trump’s “calculated strategy is not ipso facto a winning strategy” (“strategy” might be attributing a bit too much to trump’s behavior, imho).

You still don’t mention anything about his ability to deliver on those conservative policies – is “street brawler” all there is to it?

You still didn’t answer what your limiting principle is on your support of anyone just to oppose clinton? Are all the “street brawler” tactics fair game? What is a step too far?
.

Frankly, thus far, your arguments, with its emphasis on the value of a “street brawler”, with little recognition of the downside impact, nor defined limitations, seem more like a cathartic “revenge at all costs” oriented one than one in favor of positively getting our principles implemented.

I accept that you didn’t mean to be rude and aggressive. But it puzzles me—it really puzzles me—that it is not clear to you that “choke on it” is rude and aggressive.

It is. Look up the word “choke” if you don’t think so.

Nor are people here unconcerned about Hillary appointing justices. They either don’t think Trump would appoint better ones, or they think his negatives are so very very great, and the danger he represents in terms of his unhinged temperament so large, that it overrides the Hillary danger (which is also considerable).

It would be good if you were to stop ascribing bad motives to those who disagree with you.

Sorry I do not see it as rude and aggressive. You do and are offend. How do I say this – I wished to make my displeasure known that there are some commenters dismissing Hillary and the SC appointments as meaning nothing when they say they will not vote for Trump while being Republican. That makes me angry, and I said what I said. Intent was not to offend you but I did.

As to down ballot voting, I have seen too many times that I vote for a Republican and when they get to national office seem to forget that they are the honorable opposition party. Do I wish that there was more real cooperation in Washington – Yes.

I am biased in that for me I cannot see any Democrat as being the best candidate. I used to vote a split ticket, but after Pat Schroder (may have misspelled her name) I gave up on Democrats in CO. There are certainly a lot of Republicans I don’t vote for either. I do not like the far Right. Generally, I am kind of a live and let live kind of a guy. Evidently, that has not come through in my comments. Maybe too much TV news.
Have a good day. I do like and generally enjoy your blog.
PS Yes I too hope that Trump would be better President than he might be. I do know what kind of President Hillary would be.