It bears repeating: Trump is neither Dole, nor McCain, nor Romney
Commenter “K-E” wrote this today:
I know many of you on here cannot stand Trump, but I’ve felt that way about Dole, McCain, and Romney, yet I was willing to let go of my dislike and get behind these guys anyway.
K-E is not alone. I’ve read this sentiment over and over and over, on many blogs and in many comments. It makes a certain tit-for-tat sense—or at least it seems to.
But it doesn’t actually make sense to me. I pointed out why in this previous post, but it occurs to me that it might be time to reiterate the points I made there:
Many Trump supporters also write things like, “You forced me to vote for Dole, Bush, McCain, and Romney, because they were the nominees. So now you’d better vote for Trump if he’s the nominee unless you want to be called out for the hypocrite you are.” Leaving aside the fact that it’s not possible to force someone to vote for a particular candidate (short of holding a gun to the person’s head and going into the voting both with him), are there parallels here?
I don’t think so. Trump is not just a candidate with whom people differ on policy items, or think is too conservative or not conservative enough or whatever it was that people didn’t like about the aforementioned Gang of Four, he represents a hostile takeover of the Republican Party. This is no ordinary disagreement between the more moderate and more conservative wings of the party; this a difference more profound.
Here are a few reasons why Trump’s candidacy isn’t business as usual:
(1) Never having held any public office at any level, Trump has no record to look to and no experience in office-holding or governing.
(2) Trump has a history of supporting Democrats and has called himself a liberal on most issues, and if he’s a bona fide political changer he’s certainly never explained his change (unlike, for example, Reagan, who worked for conservative causes for decades after his political change, and then held office for many years at the governor level).
(3) There are multiple character issues with Trump that are well-known and dramatic and go to the heart of whether he has anything like the temperament required to be president.
(4) Trump often shows little grasp of policy issues when speaking, and is inconsistent on a host of subjects, putting out proposals and almost immediately walking them back or modifying them considerably.
(5) Trump has leveled an extremely serious charge against the previous Republican president (Bush lied!!), one that heretofore was only offered by the far left.
(6) Trump has shown a marked tendency towards strongman rule, with him as the strongman.
(7) Trump is not supported by the majority of Republican voters; he has a plurality only, and a lot of his votes seem to come in the primaries from Democrats (who may or may not actually support him in the general).These are qualitatively different objections than the objections to previous candidates and nominees. In fact, a good argument can be made that someone as far outside a particular party as Trump is would ordinarily run Independent or third-party, and that his Republican candidacy can be likened to a hostile takeover. Whether people who think that way are alarmists is unknown, but what is certainly true is that Trump is a very, very different candidate.
I will add that Trump is the first candidate in memory who is pretty open about his disdain and dislike for the party within which he’s running, and for which he wishes to become leader and standard bearer.
Or maybe I missed the part where Dole, Romney, and McCain were trying to destroy the GOP. That stated goal is the main motivation for many of Trump’s supporters, who are often quite open about it. So some sort of equation with the candidacies of Dole, Romney, or McCain seems absurd.
Now, this doesn’t mean that if Trump is nominated, no one on the right should vote for him. I haven’t made my mind up yet what I would do, because it depends on weighing one possible/probable evil (Clinton) against another possible/probable evil (Trump), and to determine which would be worse, as well as figuring out how far you’re willing to go to compromise your own principles in the deal.
There’s nothing easy about it, at least not for me. Many days I’m at least partly with Matt Walsh on this:
We should also note the staggering hypocrisy of Trump fans insisting we vote for Trump, should he win the primary, “because you have to support the nominee.” These are the same people who’ve spent months telling us the GOP needs to be “burned down.” So the Republican Party ought to be demolished, but if Trump is its nominee, we should cancel the demolition plans and obsequiously bow to the party again? No, you can’t have it both ways, friend. You want the Republican Party reduced to rubble? Well, if Trump gets the nod, you’ll get your wish. And the rest of us will remember that it was your wish, not ours, and the next decade of Democrat rule will be on your shoulders.
I say “at least partly” because I don’t think all Trump supporters are of the “burn it down” variety. But a lot are, an awful lot. And I repeat that there’s no analogy with Dole or McCain or Romney, who may have been too moderate and “establishment” for your tastes but who were not trying to destroy their own party. The GOP is not a suicide pact, when I last checked, even though it sometimes acts like one.
If its Hillary vs. Trump, I vote for Trump. Why, on a scale of bad from 0 to -10, Trump is -9, while Hillary pegs the scale at -10.
I’ve expressed some of those same sentiments myself on occasion (regarding Romney, Dole Mccain). All except the Trump part. I’m not voting for Trump. If it comes down to Trump vs. Hillary, I’ll either not cast a vote on the presidential ballot, or vote Libertarian. Unlike some people, I think Trump is a narcissistic psycho, and I’ll not have any part in putting a small, petty man like him in charge of the strongest country in the world. (The stuff about the way Kasich eats is just the latest in a long line of his childish, vengeful behavior.) I’d sooner put a 2 year old in charge, they’re more mature. I also think if damage is gonna be done, let it be done by the Democrats. I despise Hillary, and everything she stands for, but at least she’s capable of acting like a grown-up. The foreboding sense of doom continues to descend upon my world.
Why is it so frightening for you to ponder that burn it down may be the best option? You may not want to admit it, but the world is going through massive changes and the Republican party we have known shows little ability to be up to the challenge. I have as little faith in the Republican party you seem to cherish as in the Democrats. Talking like there is some magical unicorn that is going to put everything back in the bottle again if we just elect a “real” republican isn’t going to work.
McCain, that great Republican gave us the monstrosity that was McCain-Feingold. Is that something that Republicans should be upholding as a fine demonstration of supporting the party? And given the disastrous policies that have decimated the middle class in this country, who wouldn’t think it would be more of the same from a man who made part of his fortune through “restructuring” companies that threw a lot of people out of work and who took advantage of free trade agreements? And Bush did more to “save” the world from a depression by bailing out big banks than Obama ever did and has been criticized by the right for.
So what if Trump calls out Bush? That’s really a disqualification? I thought Bush was a very good President, and that puts me in the minority, but so what. That was 8 years ago. We live in a world that has dramatically changed and is changing faster every year. Frankly I can’t imagine Bush having the answer to the massive problems that face the world.
I have lots of problems with Trump (strongman tendencies, he’s quite the ass, doubt he has many answers to our problems either, etc.), but think twice before you talk about how much better the Republican party is with
“real” republicans. I don’t think the country can take another decade of more of the same. If it takes Trump to start the tear down process, so be it. At this point in time, I’d rather take an unhinged, un-pc populist who isn’t “one of the above” and who pisses everyone off over the rest of the menu presented. Frankly, the more the Republican establishment complains about Trump, the more I like him!
Alex:
It’s not the least bit frightening for me to ponder the question. And by the way, I’ve noticed that it’s a common troll technique to accuse people of being motivated by fear when the people they are accusing have actually looked squarely at something over and over, and rejected it on the merits.
I’ve pondered the burn-it-down-apocalytic-nihilism question for years, and written about it at some length. If you were interested in learning about that, you’d actually read what I’ve written.
And just to take one specific point that you attemted to make, Trump did not just “call out” Bush. He did much worse than that, and a euphemism doesn’t hide what Trump actually did.
Alex:
“And Bush did more to “save” the world from a depression by bailing out big banks than Obama ever did and has been criticized by the right for.”
FYI:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/16/bush-ended-financial-crisis-before-obama-took-office-three-important-truths.html
Tom saved me a lot of writing.
I agree that Trump is not comparable to another Dole, McCain or Romney. My support is for Cruz.
But if Trump is the nominee I will vote for him. Fully expecting that he, not only won’t make America great again, he’ll probably in many ways, make things worse.
But Hillary is NOT a “possible/probable evil”. She is on record stating her intentions to push through hate speech legislation (ala Canada/Europe) and means to eviscerate the Second Amendment. And anyone who imagines that she’ll stop there is kidding themselves. Open borders will continue, unlimited Muslim migration with its importation of radical Islamists will continue and this nation will NOT survive those threats. The American experiment will be over.
I’ve stated the reasons why I believe that to be true and those reasons have yet to be refuted.
If Trump is the nominee and a citizen lives in a contested state, a refusal to vote for Trump IS by any rationale calculus, a vote for Hillary.
I’m pretty much with Tom at this point. I don’t expect Hillary to do the country much good, but I also don’t expect her to be any worse than Obama. It would have to be a much more dire situation (like maybe Sanders, or maybe Juan Peron, as the Democratic nominee) before I would vote for someone like Trump.
I really don’t understand the nihilism that animates so many commentators. Like saying “McCain support McCain-Feingold, so I’ll vote for someone who supports even more stringent campaign finance restrictions.” Next step, good-bye nose. People who think like that (which seems to include most libertarians) are just overprivileged children, who don’t know how bad things can really be.
I read the Matt Walsh link. He is correct. If Trump is the GOP nominee, it will be a bloodbath. GOP wins fewer than 20 states.
The worst of it is that Hillary is so, so beatable.
And if Hillary is indicted I fully expect a Biden-Warren ticket.
Geoffrey Britain:
Trump is at least as bad as Hillary on free speech, and possibly worse. He has a terrible terrible record on it, which I wrote about here.
As far as the Second Amendment goes, Trump is talking a good line right now, but his record is spottier than you might think. I actually trust nothing Trump says at this point, since he feels free to lie and to change his opinions at the drop of a hat. Why would I trust him on this? Or on immigration, since he’s changed his tune many times on many aspects of it?
I actually trust Hillary more—at least, to be upfront about what she wants and what she will do. I don’t agree with her on most things, but I think she’s more predictable, and I see no particular evidence that Trump would actually be better, and as a loose cannon he could be considerably worse (particularly in foreign affairs).
“I don’t think all Trump supporters are of the “burn it down” variety. But a lot are”
I’d also add, nowadays, opportunists… those who see which way the wind is blowing first.
The extremely difficult part is being able to discern the ones who are not “burn it all down” people from the rest that are.
Sort of like the argument being made (by Trump supporters mostly) that it is too difficult to discern the regular Muslim, who respect our freedoms and laws, from the jihadists, as they “stand silently by”.
But, that would be unfair to the Muslims, as a lot of very incoherent, inconsistent, and illogical things are said by Trump supporters, but the others never do seem to come around to calling these issues out.
As Walsh noted regarding Trump
– women hate him
– young voters hate him
– Hispanics hate him.
And the oppo research isn’t even out yet.
Y81,
That you imagine that Hillary, continuing and building upon Obama’s legacy, will be “no worse than Obama”, while simultaneously chiding others as, not knowing “how bad things can be” is a breathtaking level of cognitive dissonance.
Alex:
You’ve articulated exactly what’s wrong with Trumpist thinking. You conflate “Republican” with “conservative”.
Well, guess what? Conservatives have been fighting the moderate Republican leadership for decades, and we held our noses too when we voted for Dole, McCain, Romney and even both Bushes.
We don’t want a “real Republican”, we want a real conservative. This year we had several of them – Jindal, Walker, Perry, Rubio (mostly) and Cruz. If Trump hadn’t run, I think Cruz would be on his way well past 1,237 by the convention. He would reduce Hilary to screeches and crying in the debates, and her campaign went into panic mode when Cruz appeared to be gaining momentum.
Instead, Trump crudely and coarsely sucked all the media oxygen out of the campaign. Early on, Cruz didn’t have a negative rating, but then Trump drove his negatives way up before the public even knew who he was, with all his Canadian anchor baby, NWO, pro-illegals, “lyin’ Ted” conspiracy crap without a shred of evidence.
It’s Cruz the Republican party fears, not Trump, but The Donald’s despicable and dishonest character assassination has had a big effect. We had a chance, finally, to elect a “real conservative” and take over the Republican party from the inside but Trump, and millions like you, blew it.
Now we may get a New York liberal to vote for. Whoopie.
neo,
“Trump is at least as bad as Hillary on free speech, and possibly worse.”
OK, so on that it’s a wash.
I actually trust nothing Trump says at this point, since he feels free to lie and to change his opinions at the drop of a hat. Why would I trust him on this? Or on immigration, since he’s changed his tune many times on many aspects of it?”
When did I say that he was trustworthy? I’ve stated more than once that he may well betray us and reverse himself on every issue. But we do NOT know that will happen. While we do KNOW what Hillary will do and we know… she has the full backing of the Leftist behemoth supporting her. The ONLY criticism she faces on the left is not being radical enough.
As President, Hillary will not have nearly the opposition that a Trump who reversed himself would have facing him.
“I think she’s more predictable”
We certainly agree on that, 1984 IS her goal. ALL for the greater good, of course.
“I see no particular evidence that Trump would actually be better”
Not ‘better, ultimately less destructive for the reasons already given. Caesar can be overthrown. NO country has ever internally overthrown a communist government. As the Soviets collapsed, trying to match America’s military, technological and economic progress under Reagan.
“as a loose cannon he could be considerably worse (particularly in foreign affairs).”
Perhaps, as there’s always WWIII but otherwise, how much worse can Trump be than a President Hillary with no more commitment to defending America than she demonstrated in Benghazi?
Neo:
Did you tweak the comment section recently?
Suddenly there’s actual, genuine paragraphs, easily distinguishable one from the next.
Or was it just my computer all along?
If DJT is the nominee he will struggle to win 100 votes in the Electoral College. That is called a YUGE landslide. Every vote for Trump in the primaries/caucuses has been a vote for hrc or her surrogate.
Geokstr:
I think it was your computer, because there have always been paragraphs.
geokstr:
“We had a chance, finally, to elect a “real conservative” and take over the Republican party from the inside but Trump, and millions like you, blew it.”
Not “we”. They may be blowing it for you, but they’re not blowing it for them – the Trump-front alt-Right is not conservative.
Their goal is not for conservatives to take over the GOP. Modeled on the Left’s displacement of liberals and takeover of the Democrats, they’re moving to displace conservatives (“cuckservatives”) and take over the GOP (repurposing DNW’s characterization of President Obama) as a legal platform and material infrastructure from which they can leverage and work out their ideological and political agenda.
For the alt-Right, the Trump campaign is a strategic front. They have their own plans to reify a paradigm with the legal platforms and material infrastructures of the GOP and the American nation.
Eric,
What in your opinion is the political and ideological agenda of the alt-Right?
parker,
As you know, I am not yet persuaded that, if Trump is the nominee, he will struggle to get 100 votes in the Electoral College. But if that does happen, it may have a silver lining, in that conservativism will be ‘immunized’ against any accusations of responsibility for the coming debacle.
Alex:
“So what if Trump calls out Bush? That’s really a disqualification? … We live in a world that has dramatically changed and is changing faster every year.”
Neo:
“Trump did not just “call out” Bush. He did much worse than that, and a euphemism doesn’t hide what Trump actually did.
… as a loose cannon he could be considerably worse (particularly in foreign affairs).”
What Trump actually did to “call out” President Bush, especially (though not limited to) Trump’s mischaracterization of the why of Operation Iraqi Freedom, showed Trump to be unfit on foreign affairs.
The changes for the worse in American international leadership under President Obama have followed from the cornerstone premise of Obama’s foreign affairs that the Iraq intervention was wrong when actually, on the law and the facts, the decision for OIF was correct.
When Bush passed the presidential baton to Obama, the mission was succeeding. As Obama stated on 19MAY11, “Iraq is poised to play a key role in the region if it continues its peaceful progress.”
However, Obama’s course change from Bush based on the faulty cornerstone premise that OIF was wrong has resulted in a fundamental wrong turn for American international leadership with a catastrophic ripple effect.
See the 20MAR13 New York Times article, Seeking Lessons from Iraq. But Which Ones?, about how Obama officials’ bias against OIF handicapped policymakers in the Obama administration.
And see the 30NOV15 Weekly Standard article, The Long War Continues, which describes the cascading failings of the Obama administration in the War on Terror, many of them stemming from Obama’s course change from Bush regarding Iraq.
There’s no excuse for Trump, or anyone who aspires to Commander in Chief, to misunderstand the grounds for the Iraq intervention given that the explanation for the why of OIF is straightforward based on primary sources that are easily accessed on-line. As such, Trump’s mischaracterization of the why of OIF is a disqualification to lead America the leader of the free world.
Eric:
Indeed, DJT is as bad or worse than HRC. Too plain for many to see. HRC has some knowledge of consequences of failed policy? DJT doesn’t appear to know or care to learn.
I’m a Cruz supporter, but I’m going to paste in this tweet every chance I get:
Jeff @EmpireOfJeff tweets:
“You “conservative” “pundits” still don’t get it: Trump isn’t our candidate. He’s our murder weapon. And the GOP is our victim. We good, now?
12:25 PM – 14 Aug 2015 ”
I’ve been pasting this into any thread where it seemed appropriate for the last 8 months or so. No, I don’t like Trump, and I’ll vote for Cruz in the California primary in June. It does not matter who I vote for in November. California will almost certainly go for Hillary. And on the off-chance that Hillary is so weak that one vote in California might make a difference, then Trump will have already taken the election before the CA polls close. So I can vote my conscience in November.
But the Establishment GOP has puked up a long line of non-conservative “Republicans” and urged me to vote for them, so I’m one of the people who would like to see the GOPe become GONE. We need a new Conservative party that isn’t so completely corrupt as John Boehner and Mitch McConnell and Denny Hastert have been. Newt Gingrich was the last conservative in power in the GOP, and the GOPe ran him out of town on a rail. The GHW Shrub people purged every trace of Reaganism by June 1989, and Shrub Sr. lost big time. Shrub Jr. was a pathetic candidate, but the Democrats managed to run two EVEN WORSE candidates against him.
McCain the “maverick” was nothing even close to conservative. Palin was a breath of fresh air in the stuffy GOPe, but McCain didn’t really want to win; that’s why he muzzled her. Romney proved conclusively that you can’t run a political campaign like a business, or at least, not like a business that you can IGNORE and PRAY about. Romney spent millions on the ORCA get out the vote database system, but I guess it was designed by the same buffoons who designed Obamacare; it crashed utterly on election day. I actually voted for Romney; I still have a Romney sticker on my car.
This year, I’m voting for Cruz. If I thought it might matter (it won’t…) I’d vote for Trump in the general.
Geoffrey Britain,
Russian.
OM Says: “HRC has some knowledge of consequences of failed policy? DJT doesn’t appear to know or care to learn.”
WHAT!!?!?!? Hillary’s record at State is one of unparallelled disasters; Libya, Benghazi, Syria, the “RESET” button, and Hillary is BRAGGING ABOUT THEM! Even an incompetent will occasionally do SOMETHING right, just by accident (like Shrub did, after 9/11) but Hillary is maliciously evil. The ONLY possible intention of her “private server” was to short-circuit any FOIA requests to the State Department, and was arguably treasonous in intent and execution. She and Huma ought to have adjoining cells at Fort Leavenworth, and every current employee of the State Department should be fired and have their clearances revoked.
Well, if the alt-right want to destroy the gops, DJT, who is actually a NYC values liberal, was a good choice. And, a stupid choice. All they will accomplish is a restructuring of the gop to prevent a future trojan horse candidate from seeking nomination(s) at every level. I am thinking of a minimum of ten years as a registered republican and a record of voting in every election, including primaries, for that ten year period. Works for me.
GB,
I have made a list of what states DJT might win (my private crystal ball) and I think 100 is his ceiling. But you may be right about the innoculation.
Oh, if we had a good candidate, we could make mincemeat out of the Evil Empress. Just run her “3:00 AM phone call” ad from 2008 and show her rolling over and going back to sleep when the call came in from Benghazi.
I will never vote for Trump. Never.
Matt_SE:
Completely understandable.
I don’t know what I would do. I go back and forth, back and forth. The phrase “the lesser of two evils” has always been symbolic and hyperbolic in the past, in my voting life, anyway. Now it’s probably going to be very real.
The problem with the real “lesser of two evils” situation is that it’s almost impossible to know which evil will really be the lesser. Voting for either evil makes you complicit in facilitating evil, but voting for neither evil also makes you complicit in facilitating evil (and possibly the greater of the two evils).
Geoffrey Britain Says:
But if that [getting 100 electoral votes] does happen, it may have a silver lining, in that conservativism will be ‘immunized’ against any accusations of responsibility for the coming debacle.
You must be kidding.
The FIRST people the Trumpkins will blame are the conservatives. I imagine the phrase “stab in the back” will be used quite a lot, continuing the string of similarities to pre-Nazi Germany that Trump has evinced.
Just remember, a presidential campaign is like selling a product. If a product doesn’t sell, I’ve never heard a company try to blame the consumers…but you’ll hear it from Trump supporters anyway.
Ken:
She may have learned something form being dragged before the inept Bengazzi hearings, as in a blind squirrel finds a nut every so often, but hey, you never know.
rump shows no evidence of learning about foreign policy or much of anything else.
Which poision do you want arsenic or ricin, Trump or Hillary?
Matt_SE:
I have a draft of a post already on the “stab in the back” meme I would expect from Trump’s supporters if Trump is the nominee and Hillary beats him. It is a practically a foregone conclusion that that is what they—and he—would say.
Neo-neocon,
Re: “the lesser of two evils”
I believe there’s a threshold of competence, honesty, etc. for candidates. We can even be very generous about it…very forgiving in our standards.
Even were it possible to tell which is the lesser evil, it’s still possible for both to be inadequate. That is the case with Hillary and Trump.
The only two questions are:
1) how do you stay morally clean? Voting for either one makes you partially responsible for them.
2) who will get blamed in the case of a disastrous tenure? Both may be disasters, but we’ll only ever know for sure with the one who is elected.
Neo,
There has never been a doubt in my mind/body/spirit about who I will vote for in a hypothetical djt versus hrc contest. I will vote for the Libertarian candidate.
neo @11:47,
Bingo.
Matt_SE,
Of course they’ll blame us! The liberal/left is congenitally incapable of admitting error, much less examining their foundational premises. That’s because their ideology IS their religion. They can’t question thier dogma because they know it cannot withstand examination in the light of facts, which is why they immediately default to slander, you racist, evil man… (sarc off).
Which in no way changes that if Trump loses to Hillary, it’s all on her, since she’ll be the one answering the 3am phone calls.
As for Trump supporters blaming conservatives for his loss, if enough on the right vote for him, the popular vote total will put the lie to that excuse. On the other hand, if Trump gets half the votes Romney did, then the accusation would be accurate… wouldn’t it…?
Neo, you wrote:
The part I quoted in boldface is so important. And it’s quite surprising, some of the people who don’t get that.
You made the same point several years back. I think the posting, the topic of which I forget, was the first of yours I ever read. YESSS! :>))
However, “voting for either evil makes you complicit in evil” — I can’t go along with that. There is real difficulty in telling the lesser evil from the greater, but if you’ve come to a decision, then in voting for the lesser evil you are attempting to weaken evil, rather than facilitating it. That is not evil, and it doesn’t make you complicit in evil. Because of the part in boldface.
(Although if, after observing, and doing due diligence, and giving the issue careful thought, you honestly cannot make a judgment in which you have some confidence, then sitting out the vote doesn’t in itself make you complicit in evil. In that case, it would be irresponsible to vote.)
There’s always the down-ballot.
I don’t think I’m a burn-it-down thinker. But I have no trouble sympathizing with those who are.
Examples: Kate Steinle’s murder. Every level of government colluding in it said they did exactly what they said they’d do and they’ll keep doing it.
IRS, EPA, VA. Horrible, and their response is, “We’re federal employees and there’s not a G.D. thing you can do about it, so screw you.”
Civil Asset Forfeiture.
Pick a couple of your own and consider what you’d feel like if they really, really bothered you.
Point is, for the burner types, is that there’s NOTHING anybody can do about this stuff. No recourse. Best you can do is spend every dime of your life’s savings plus mortgage the house to go to court and probably lose anyway.
It is difficult to convince some people that the usual way of doing things is going to fix the usual way of doing things.
Richard Aubrey:
Article 5 Convention of States. But it’s quicker and easier to just “burn it down” and hope things will be better in the ashes.
Hope is not a plan.
Burners just want to start fires. Statists play the long game of increasing tyranny. Burners not so much, but enable statist designs, being useful idiots.
ON Art 5 .must be “allowed” by the usual folks, practically.
Richard:
Are the “usual folks” at the state legislature level?
Or let’s just start buying matches and accelerant and selling some “hope” to the “masses.”
What’s maddening is that so many of my lefty friends this week started sharing their equivalent of “NeverHillary” memes. For them, it’s Bernie or nothing. They literally hate Hillary.
This race was so damn winnable if we’d been able to have any of several of the candidates that started off this campaign, before Trump showed up and ruined everything. I’m really not a tin foil hat type, but from one day to the next, it makes it more and more difficult to believe that Trump was not a setup by the Clintons from the start. A vote for Trump is a vote for Clinton.
Since I don’t visit here as often anymore, I didn’t realize you had made a blog post about my comment. I think you misinterpreted my words, but that’s okay.
What I am talking about is candidates insisting on continuing actively in the race, even when they are mathematically eliminated. This does not happen. Ever. The candidate drops out and gets behind the front runner at some point. And this is a huge mistake not to do so out of claims about Trump’s ‘liberal views’ (we could argue about those) and his supposed ‘unfitness’ for the role (as a very very successful businessman, I just think that argument does not hold water).
And this ‘getting behind’ the front runner also applies to Republican voters. Typically, when their candidate drops out, they also get behind the front runner as a show of solidarity. Despite the ugliness of the primary race, the differences in policy, etc.
I think there is a great disconnect between what the GOP thinks Republican voters want and what Republican voters really want. Last night shows that 60%+ of voters in four states and 50%+ voters in MD want Trump. The rest is split between Kasich and Cruz. Voters are saying that the GOP needs a hard correction in its approach. And that approach is America first. Always.
Could it be that Kasich and Cruz hard-core types aren’t the GOP anymore? That is what I’m seeing.
I listened to most of Trump’s speech this morning, and found myself agreeing with everything he was saying about how America’s course has gone in the wrong direction. Trump is 100% a Constitutionalist, because every POV he has comes from ‘what is best for America.’
Anyway, Cruz is ruining his political career right now. I feel badly for him. I donated money to him. I was excited he was in the race, but then things went sideways in January with Iowa and from there he went to this weird evangelist route…and then I didn’t like him so much anymore. He should get out of the race before he damages himself anymore. Need we forget, he only has 3 years of experience in the Senate. A fledgling career in politics. He should try to save that, rather that battle this losing fight that is just getting sad.
However, “voting for either evil makes you complicit in evil” – I can’t go along with that. There is real difficulty in telling the lesser evil from the greater, but if you’ve come to a decision, then in voting for the lesser evil you are attempting to weaken evil, rather than facilitating it. That is not evil, and it doesn’t make you complicit in evil. Because of the part in boldface.
I say vote your conscience and through choice. Those against that, are also against free will and thus are enemies of humanity, no matter what ‘politics they have’.
If stopping the Left requires the destruction of free will, people might as well start Civil War 2 up now, because elections isn’t going to solve anything at that point.