↓
 
Home » Further thoughts on this election and my vote

Further thoughts on this election and my vote

The New Neo Posted on by

You may notice that I’m posting today, something I don’t usually do on Sundays.

Well, first of all, I’m sick. I have a nasty cold. So my energy level for doing other more fun things (although what could be more fun than posting on a blog?) is low.

But more importantly, I’ve been thinking. And once I do that, a post is usually not far behind.

Since James Comey announced the possibility of new emails relevant to the Clinton investigation, I’ve held to the idea that it won’t make a difference in the election outcome, despite the enormous brouhaha about it in the press. I think most committed Hillary and most committed Trump supporters demonize the opponent so deeply that nothing could change their minds, literally nothing. So the only question is how many true “undecideds” there are, and will they care enough about the Comey announcement for it to change the result.

I have no idea, although I still don’t think so. But I’ll be watching the polls. And if Trump ends up winning, I will be fairly certain it was because of this announcement.

As for what I plan to do in terms of my own vote, I’ve said many times that I won’t know till I go into that voting booth, and maybe not even then. That is still the case as of this writing. The situation is in flux, and changes on a daily basis.

To many of you the voting dilemma this year has been hard, but resolvable. You have decided who is the lesser of the two evils, and you are at peace with that. Or, you may have decided you can’t vote for either, and you are at peace with that.

I haven’t found any peace with any of it, and I’m not at all sure I will by Tuesday, November 8, 2016. I do know that when I perform a thought experiment and first imagine Hillary Clinton winning, and then imagine Donald Trump winning, each prospect fills me with a sense of overwhelming dread and horror. The details of the two horrors are different (I’ve gone into that at great length already, so no need to reiterate it here), but the depth of the horror seems the same. For me, it’s not “cancer or flu” or some other facile, simplistic, reductionistic, unknowable, and IMHO incorrect analogy. For different reasons, I see both Hillary and Trump as disastrous for the country, and since I love this country I see both as tragic.

So, what will I do on November 8? The only two things I know are that (a) I won’t be voting for Hillary Clinton, and (2) I plan to vote for Republicans for offices other than the presidency. Of these two things I can pretty much assure you.

On a personal level, there are people near and dear to me on both sides who would be angry at any vote I cast, whether for Trump, for Hillary, or for someone else. I’ve been open here about my point of view on both candidates; it’s no secret how negative I am on both, and why. But right now, while I still honestly don’t know who I will be voting for (if either), I have been wrestling with the idea of exercising my right to keep my ultimate vote a secret and never disclose it.

That’s the way I’m leaning at the moment, however I decide to vote on that day. There’s a reason we have the secret ballot in this country. Since any vote of mine will make some people I love angry (and although I love you guys, I’m not talking about you), there’s no reason I am obligated to disclose my vote and give myself that aggravation and strife.

My views on these candidates are open and transparent, and have been fully and honestly expressed here. I plan to continue to do that. My vote is mine alone.

Comments

Further thoughts on this election and my vote — 93 Comments

  1. They call it a secret ballot for a reason, neo. I have already voted, and it was easier than I’d anticipated.

  3. mezzrow introduces a subject I’ve heard broached more frequently these days and therefore about which I’ve found myself thinking more often than formerly, though I have long been opposed to the general trend: namely, what we have come to call early voting.

    Merciful heavens!, I cry out to the merciless heavens, let us get us rid of this terrible device “early voting” and let Mrs. Clinton’s FBI investigation travails be the spark to that salutary change.

  4. mezzrow:

    Thanks for your good wishes. And I guess I won’t ask you who you voted for 🙂 .

  6. It may not change minds but it could certainly affect the propensity to vote – turnout.

  7. It is difficult for me to accept casting a vote for President that will improve in whatever tiny fashion the evil Hillary’s ascent to the White House.

    The Kennedy-Nixon vote was decided by less than one vote per precinct.

    Much of that was Democratic vote fraud, in TX (for and by LBJ) and Chicago (the Daley machine), for example.

    A little flicker of guilt after the returns will do precious little good.

  8. You are right, Neo – the choices in this presidential election are horrible. One reason for this is too much democracy in the primaries. I think we got better candidates back in the days “of smoke filled rooms”.

    As I have harped before, democracy in the hands of an ill informed electorate is a dangerous thing.

    We only have this electorate to blame for this terrible choice.

  10. On the early voting…

    It wasn’t really planned, and I’m as opposed as you are to the whole thing philosophically. However…

    I was already at the library, and there it was. My wife wanted to get it over with I thought “I could have a stroke/get hit by a bus/fill in blank”. So I voted.

    Done.

  11. Have you considered Evan McMullen? I faced your dilemma and have decided to write him in. He is the only conservative running.

  13. Stu:

    There is always the write in Frog/Brittian or is it Brittian/Frog ticket? 🙂

    I had to write in MucMullin/Finn in WA.

  14. mezzrow:

    Oh, I didn’t mean to suggest I was being critical of you personally for voting early. I just don’t think it’s a good policy.

  15. I believe that it is wise to keep one’s vote secret unless there is some reason, unforeseen at the moment, for revealing it.

    I am against early voting in principle; iIt does not escape notice how easy it would be for someone to intercept ballot forms and vote illicitly. Still, I did take advantage of the opportunity. Now that I am in Southern California, I have no idea where the local polling place might be, or what it might be like. In rural Virginia it was a pleasure to go in and cast my ballot, after handing out propaganda at the outer edge of the restricted zone. That too may have changed as has Virginia as a whole; and quite possibly my peaceful enclave just beyond the creeping DC sprawl.

  16. This is by far the most important election I have ever voted in. The choices are horrible no quarrel there, but the thought of Clinton choosing Supreme Court justices has sealed the deal for me. I will not waste my vote on a third party candidate, certainly not in this election, there is too much at stake.

  19. Frog,

    There will be many states in which a vote for neither djt or hrc will not matter when it comes to the EC. You make it otherwise, but that is the simple truth. Voting in California, for example, by writing in Donald Duck will not prevent djt from gaining California’s EC votes. It is not for you (and many others) to pass judgment on how others choose to vote. If one does not vote their conscience one fails in their duty as a citizen

  20. What I’ve been saying about this election, which seems largely to have fallen on deaf ears here…

    A little flicker of guilt after the returns will do precious little good….

    Frog: No one is deaf here. We have heard the NeverHillary arguments from you and others a million times.

    The deaf people in this discussion seem to be your side, who never seemed to hear the reluctant Trump side. You just ignored what we said and rebooted the same stale NeverHillary stuff at the next opportunity. You’re still doing it.

    Now that it’s looking all-she-wrote for Trump, you are adding little putdowns to the mix.

    I will feel bad on November 8 when Hillary wins like I felt bad when Comey wouldn’t indict, but I will not feel guilty.

    As far as I’m concerned, the people who ensured Hillary’s election will be everyone who supported and enabled Trump from start to finish.

  21. Neo, I too share your pain. I have decided not to vote for either and have already mailed in my ballot with a write-in I feel would make an excellent president. But it doesn’t end there. My wife and I have been invited to an election night party hosted and attended by our conservative/Republican friends who have for all the cussed and discussed reasons, decided to vote for Trump. They know I don’t like him and months ago, I declared I could not vote for the guy. I’m always the most vocal against him which has strained many close relationships. They are horrified I could do such a thing.

    We know all these people well and love them all. I know they will ask if I voted for Trump in somewhat of a teasing manner but serious nonetheless. This is the quandry. What do I say? Tell the truth? That’s easy but destructive to relationships…seriously.

    I never thought I would be at this juncture with people we love so much. Make up some story? They will all see through it in a New York minute. My one saving grace is we live along the Central Coast in California and our votes as Republicans mean nothing. I am thinking of formulating a response along these lines…my vote doesn’t mean much anyway.

    I welcome any suggestions in this most crazy year.

  22. DonKeyhoti:

    Well, my suggestion would be to tell them that you decided in advance, in this very contentious year, to not say who you voted for, and that the secret ballot is a bulwark of our republic, one you are eager to defend. And that if they are champions of liberty, they will defend it, too.

    They may not buy it, but I don’t see any other solution for you.

  23. I voted yesterday – took our youngest son. It was his first time to vote. On my first time to vote, 32 years ago, I voted for Ronald Reagan. Boy things have changed.

    Good luck making your decision, Neo!

    So glad this election is almost over.

  24. Say neo-neocon, have you tried popping a couple of candy corns for that cold you’ve got? Might make a half-way decent pick-me-up, mightn’t it.

  25. One must oppose Hillary, and a vote for a McMullin, Stein or Johnson just ain’t gonna cut it.

    Frog: Nor will a vote for Trump in my book. In fact I think a vote for Trump will make it harder to oppose Hillary after she becomes President.

    The worse Trump loses, the harder it will be for this horrible man to stomp around later, making trouble and keeping Republicans at each others’ throats.

    Obama’s current Gallup approval rating is 55%. It’s not because his policies are working like a dream. It’s not because people look forward to Hillary. It’s not even because he’s black — his average rating to date is only 47%.

    It’s because next to wacko Trump, Obama looks like a president and a statesman.

  26. So glad this election is almost over.

    Bill: Me too.

    But look out. God knows what happens this week. Russia invades Ukraine. More Trump recordings. Cyberhacks black out the US. Wikileaks releases sexting emails between Hillary and Huma. Radical Muslims release anthrax in Times Square.

    The sky’s the limit!

    I believe we can expect more surprises. Certainly some anti-Trump stuff from the Hillary team to distract from the FBI uproar.

    Smoke ’em if you got ’em.

  27. I am so sorry about your cold. I am slowly recovering from one, which must have been a hum-dinger virus, because, at my age, I rarely get them any more. It even overcame Cold Eze. I hope it was not a computer virus, and I sent it to you. Wife and daughter have it, now, or maybe Ebola, or Zika, or whatever, according to their loud laments.Do get well. Hot baths and real chicken soup will bring some comfort, if not exactly a cure.

  29. “I haven’t found any peace with any of it, and I’m not at all sure I will by Tuesday, November 8, 2016. I do know that when I perform a thought experiment and first imagine Hillary Clinton winning, and then imagine Donald Trump winning, each prospect fills me with a sense of overwhelming dread and horror.”

    Hmm – do you want to be killed by the vampire, or the werewolf? Decisions, decisions, decisions —

    I think you are totally on-target with your two “givens” (1) no vote for Clinton under any circumstances; (2) vote for all the Republicans you can. As for the top of the ballot: that’s your business and no one else’s.

    Early voting is one of those “conveniences” that comes back to bite us. I’m sure it sounded like a good idea at the time.

    Kind of like income taxes and the direct election of Senators.

    Not sure about the “smoke filled rooms” – in Colorado, the smoke would be of a different kind — but some rationality in primaries would be nice (only registered party voters AND candidates, to start with).

  30. I admit some speculation but it is reasoned speculation. Of course I hope for the best outcome with the Clintons totally destroyed. But recall Nixon was totally destroyed and he didn’t steal millions.

    Trump is right. This is bigger than Watergate.

    And good for ratings. Zucker at CNN is new. He will turn on the Clintons for ratings. Fire Don Lemon. Hire Greta.

  31. Cornhead:

    Nixon was brought down by Watergate because it was a long time ago, a very different world, and because in particular the Republicans in Congress abandoned him.

    The Democrats didn’t turn on Bill Clinton, and that’s why he persevered despite the impeachment.

  33. Cornhead,

    In all seriousness, think thrice about crossing over to the dark side. Because, well, its dark over there. I understand reluctantly voting for djt because the Shrew Queen, but there is no virtue or nobility in doing so. Trump is never going to keep a promise or show good faith when it comes any of his ‘policies’. “Only a fool would say that.”

  35. “The worse Trump loses, the harder it will be for this horrible man to stomp around later, making trouble and keeping Republicans at each others’ throats.”

    You don’t really believe that Trump is the reason that Republicans are at each others throats, do you? The problem won’t go away when he does.

  36. This site continues to be where I find my feelings and thoughts most clearly echoed this election cycle – and not in an echo chamber way – but rather in an uncomfortably accurate way. I’ve voted early because I have to – I live in Australia, vote in Florida. So Rubio got my vote for Senator with good feeling and strong conviction. And so did all the other down ballot Republicans – even Dog Catcher.

  37. It seems to me that if Trump loses he will have the same influence in the party that he had before he started his run…zero! I can’t imagine him stomping around causing trouble and keeping republicans at each other’s throats. The only trouble he might cause is various factions of the party blaming other factions for the loss for not supporting the party’s candidate. It would be hard to blame that on him.

    As far as being unhappy with our choices; I’ve been unhappy with our choices in every election since Reagan. To me he was the last philosophically conservative candidate to get the nomination. But I still voted for the least bad candidate in each election. Occasionally the least bad won (both Bushes) but mostly they lost.

    Even when the least bad won their performances in office were as bad as I was afraid they would be. They weren’t as bad as the alternatives but they were still bad. Their political histories were clear evidence as to how they would govern.

    Trump has no political history to judge by. It’s hard to judge what he would do in serious political situations by looking at what he’s done in his personal and business life. They just aren’t analogous. I understand that character is important but the situations are so different that it’s hard to predict for sure.

    I’m convinced that there’s at least a chance that he might live up to many of the things he says he wants to do, especially in regard to the Supreme Court, and that he would be severely constrained from doing them and others in too destructive a manner.

    I’ve listened to all the anti-Trump arguments and so many of them seem to be speculative of his motives and his intentions. Regardless of how valid the arguments may be, I’m convinced that, even at his worst, he wouldn’t be as destructive to the country as Clinton.

    I don’t mean to trivialize or deny the evidence against him, I just don’t see that it rises to anywhere near Clinton’s level. Her history bears exactly on the presidency since her whole past has been involved in politics and in office. We’ve seen exactly how she would perform. Not only is she corrupt, but she corrupts everyone around her. She seems to have a reverse Midas Touch!

    While there may be very very little doubt in your mind about Trump and what he would do, I can’t imagine there to be any doubt in your mind about her.

  38. “Smoke ’em if you got ’em.

    Heh, Huxley.

    This election has been like climbing up Mordor’s Mount Doom. Except Sauron** will take the ring before we get a chance to destroy it, torture us for fun, and then get on to the business of covering all the lands in shadow.

    ** “Sauron” = Trump or Clinton, take your pick. For me either works just about as well.

  39. For those who are still unsure about voting for Trump, you should at least know this about Evan McMullin. His parents were divorced some time ago, and his mother, Lanie McMullin, then became a lesbian and is now married to another woman.

    That’s a big psychological indicator right there. Evan McMullin is either a fruitcake, or else this is a vanity run on his part to set himself up for 2018, when the U.S. Senate race may be open when Orrin Hatch steps down.

    A vote for Egg McMuffin, the former CIA guy, is a wasted vote, especially in light of the revelations from the other federal agency, the FBI, about Hillary Clinton’s dishonesty and corruption.

    The best way to help the country is to vote for Trump. Anything else just mathematically increases the odds that Hillary Clinton may be elected. And with what we have just learned from the FBI, her scandals and corruption can’t be covered up forever. Defend the country by taking the positive action to vote for Trump.

  40. The Trumpian horde sure does seem nervous about McMullin.

    I voted for him because he’s the only conservative running, isn’t a hopelessly corrupt pol and doesn’t rape little girls.

  41. Yankee:

    Pretty desperate indeed. I remember many of the charges made by Trump cultists regarding Ted Cruz’s religion, character, father, and wife. Fortunately they didn’t have to attack his children. Was that was being saved if Cruz won in Indiana (the “Damian” – children of Satan meme)?

    Of course all those attacks on Cruz were true (National Enquirer) and justified. /S Desperate and despicable.

  42. ‘The best way to help the country is to vote for Trump.’

    Voting for that authoritarian potentially proto-fascist is wrong and when it all turns out badly, which it will, you will have to live with that decision for the rest of your life. The sad thing is, so will the rest of us.

    BTW, who cares that McCullin is a former CIA guy? What possible relevance is that? He and Johnson are the only two candidates who meet the minimum standards for president. I happen to like Johnson’s ideas better but given the other horrible choices we have, either one is fine with me.

  43. You don’t really believe that Trump is the reason that Republicans are at each others throats, do you? The problem won’t go away when he does.

    Randy: True, the current Republican tensions have been mounting since Obama was elected. However, there is nothing so bad that it can’t be made worse, and Trump has done so since he began running in 2015.

    I can’t imagine Trump supporters, howerver angry they were about Republican leadership, would have headed straight out off a cliff into “burn it down” nihilism, “how cares about character, principles and Constitution,” had not Trump made himself available as a battering ram to tear down Obama and the GOP.

    Trump loves attention and has a demonstrably huge appetite for vengeance. Unless he is beaten decisively, and maybe not even then, you can bet Trump will be stomping around, complaining about “rigged elections,” and how sad and weak Republicans are who didn’t support him as he felt he should have been.

    Trump is not the sort who quietly fades away. He will be full of “stab in the back” talk and you can bet some Trump supporters will eat that up.

  44. It seems to me that if Trump loses he will have the same influence in the party that he had before he started his run…zero! I can’t imagine him stomping around causing trouble and keeping republicans at each other’s throats. The only trouble he might cause is various factions of the party blaming other factions for the loss for not supporting the party’s candidate. It would be hard to blame that on him.

    Irv G: See my response to Randy above.

    I sure can imagine Trump stomping around causing trouble. That’s been the essense of his campaign. (It’s sure not setting up a crackerjack team to build a great campaign organization then raise the bar on the ground game as Obama did.)

    As usual I find your characterizations of Trump to be naive and disconnected from reality.

  45. Also, unless Trump manages to win, he is going to take a serious bath finanically as a result of this election

    Much of his net worth is tied up in the Trump brand and that has been damaged. Already people staying in Trump buildings are petitioining to have the Trump name removed. How many professional conventions are going to be held in luxury Trump hotels post-2016?

    When Trump says red ink leaking all over his bottom lines, he will not be philosophical about it. He will snort, roar and rampage like a wounded bull. He will try and take it out on his enemies — moderate Republicans.

  46. Huxley:
    “He will be full of “stab in the back” talk…
    Yes he will. You know where this could go if we have a financial crisis, don’t you?

  47. Neo, sorry about the cold. You say that you might vote and never tell anyone who you voted for. Have you considered taking a bunch of Sudefed and casting a vote that you won’t even remember? That way no one will be troubled by it, not even you. I’m not saying it’s a good idea, but I have the feeling that a lot of people did something similar in the primaries.

  49. The argument against a Trump presidency seems to be a moving target.
    I’ve tried to process Neo-neocons arguments against voting for Trump, and to me his accusations against George W. Bush are the hardest to reconcile. How could the Republican candidate for President believe that Bush lied to get us into the Iraq War, that he’s responsible for 9-11 because it happened on his watch, that he called for Bush’s impeachment, and found Pelosi to be “terrific”.
    That’s quite a lot to process. But I think Neo-neocons distate for Trump goes deeper and that’s why we often get the response that he can’t be trusted to keep his word, since he appears to have held contradictory views at various times.
    But his calls for Bush’s impeachment even stick in my craw, although if you look at the testimony from that time it doesn’t give you a lot of confidence in our decision to invade Iraq. I’m not talking about the legaility, but rather the prudence of it.
    I’ve argued that he was strategically appealing to democrat blue collar workers who I suspect hold that view to gain their support. Couple that with his free trade/job loss position and tough illegal immigration stance, he has a good chance of a new generation of Trump democrats.
    In an interview in 1989, the interviewer said he was a Rockefeller republican and Trump responded very casually that he hadn’t thought about it, but guessed maybe he was.
    I think that was because Trump is first a businessman and not particularly driven to the Republican party by conservative philosophical arguments like most of us here, but as Irv has said a “pragmatist”. He’s no doubt heaped praise on both Democrat and Republican politicians (though mostly Democrats given his relationship with NYC). They’re all terric people, because that’s how you win friends– or should I say that’s how you get your development built.
    So we’re voting for a Democrat with Republican leanings.
    But I’ve tried to engage people here about his policy proposals and all I get is “you can’t believe anything he says”– but never objections to his policies. As a neo-conservative I suspect you would be very much against his policies as relates to immigration, trade and foreign policy and may even align more with Hillary on foreign policy which creates a dilemma. Voting for Trump means you not only overlook his character flaws but vote for policies you disagree with.
    But the choice is Hillary, so the rationalization is it’s not a binary choice.
    Trump appears to have been revived from death with the Comey announcement, and now Bill ups the ante from “sexual predator” to “rapist of a 13 year old”. Seriously. One would think one of the Bill’s is a Hillary plant.

    If anyone thinks Trump would be a nasty president seeking revenge, think LBJ, Nixon, Clinton. I think it’s part of those character flaws we despise but seem to attract politicians to positions of power.

  50. I think the problem with the neo-conservative philosophy of interventionism and democracy planting is it is not relevant to the countries we are dealing with.
    During the height of the Cold War, the strategy may have made sense, especially as it related to eastern Europe.
    Muslim countries that have no framework with western civilization as well as Asian countries with a communal social structure aren’t going to be particularly successful.

  51. Trump is re-districting the political landscape. I don’t think this is his master plan as some sort of authoritarian demagogue, but then I could be wrong.
    As the conservative movement regroups- or fractures further, figuring out the coalitions necessary to govern will be a challenge.
    The coalition that elected Bush may not exist any more. If Hillary is elected, we can be sure it won’t exist.

  52. Huxley – What I said was that Trump would have zero influence after the election if he loses. I wasn’t commenting on what he would do because I don’t think anyone will pay any attention to him. Remember, for the vast majority of the party Trump is the only choice remaining after their candidates failed. We support him because he’s our only chance to get rid of the criminal Clintons and because we think he just might do some of the things he says he will do even if he has to be forced to by congress.

    I really have no response to your finding my “characterizations of Trump to be naive and disconnected from reality” other than to say I feel the same about yours.

  53. Brian E:
    “But his calls for Bush’s impeachment even stick in my craw, although if you look at the testimony from that time it doesn’t give you a lot of confidence in our decision to invade Iraq. I’m not talking about the legaility, but rather the prudence of it.”

    It was prudent. More so when evaluated in the context you raise – in Bush’s shoes at the decision point for OIF – the alternatives to OIF weren’t better.

    In fact, the Saddam regime was evidentially in categorical breach of the Gulf War ceasefire in Iraq’s red-line “final opportunity to comply” (UNSCR 1441).

    Saddam’s UNSCR 687 breach re WMD is confirmed. Beyond the UNMOVIC findings of “about 100 unresolved disarmament issues” that by procedure triggered enforcement with OIF, ISG was able to confirm despite significant evidentiary gaps that Iraq was reconstituting its WMD program with intent, a clandestine active IIS program, and ready production capability.

    Even more alarming than Iraq’s reconstituting WMD program in breach of UNSCR 687, Saddam’s “regional and global terrorism” (IPP) in breach of UNSCR 687, which included “considerable operational overlap” (IPP) with the al Qaeda network, was evidently underestimated by the intelligence community before OIF.

    (Which helps explain why the rapid rise of the organized terrorist insurgency caught the US so badly off guard. It wasn’t new. Rather, the significantly underestimated Saddam regime terrorism was quickly converted to insurgency.)

    Saddam’s breach of the UNSCR 688 humanitarian mandates, which included terrorist practices in Saddam’s governance, was also underestimated before OIF.

    Knowing what we know now, the OIF decision was justified. President Bush was right on Iraq.

    And regarding Bush’s decision, Trump’s position is based on blatant false premises.

  54. I’m listening to Trump giving testimony before Congress in 1991 concerning the effects of the 1986 Tax Reform Act.
    Just heard Congresswoman Helen Bentley R, Maryland say ‘there’s been so much talk about free trade instead of fair trade and as a result we’re feeling the effects of exporting jobs overseas…and someday I’d like to pursue your thoughts on manufacturing further”.
    Trump was respected and was supporting conservative economic policies as Congress was trying to revive the economy following the S&L crisis.
    Not all Republicans were on board with the agenda of free trade.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rksd80-FCAw

  55. SteveD:
    “BTW, who cares that McCullin is a former CIA guy?”

    Russians to begin with, but basically anyone whose primary motive is competing for dominance against the US in the global arena.

  56. Brian E:

    By the way, don’t forget that Trump also called Bush “evil” and said that he could not imagine a worse president.

    Here’s the post where I describe this and give some transcripts (if you follow the links there, you can listen to some of the audio, too):

    BLITZER: [What do you think of] Nancy Pelosi, the speaker?

    TRUMP: Well, you know, when she first got in and was named speaker, I met her. And I’m very impressed by her. I think she’s a very impressive person. I like her a lot.

    But I was surprised that she didn’t do more in terms of Bush and going after Bush. It was almost – it just seemed like she was going to really look to impeach Bush and get him out of office, which, personally, I think would have been a wonderful thing.

    BLITZER: Impeaching him?

    TRUMP: Absolutely, for the war, for the war.

    BLITZER: Because of the conduct of the war.

    TRUMP: Well, he lied. He got us into the war with lies.

    And, I mean, look at the trouble Bill Clinton got into with something that was totally unimportant. And they tried to impeach him, which was nonsense. And, yet, Bush got us into this horrible war with lies, by lying, by saying they had weapons of mass destruction, by saying all sorts of things that turned out not to be true.

    (CROSSTALK)

    BLITZER: Their argument is, they weren’t lying, that that was the intelligence that he was presented, and it was not as if he was just lying about it.

    TRUMP: I don’t believe that.

    BLITZER: You believe that it was a deliberate lie?

    TRUMP: I don’t believe it. And I don’t think you believe it either, Wolf. You are a very, very intelligent young man. I don’t think you believe it either.The fact is that he lied. And he got us into a war that was a horrendous mistake. And, any way you take it, that war was a mistake.

    In a September of 2007 interview Trump also said that if Giuliani ran against Hillary Clinton for president in the 2008 election, he doesn’t know who he’d support because “They’re both terrific people, and I hope they both get the nomination.” This is the sort of thing he said about Hillary quite often in those days.

    Later in the same interview:

    TRUMP: Oh, [Bush has] been a terrible president.

    BLITZER: You think he’s the worst in the history of the United States?

    TRUMP: I don’t think you can get much worse. Why? I mean, who is worse? Give me a couple of names. Who could be worse?

    BLITZER: Well, because, in the last interview we did in March, you said he was the worst.

    TRUMP: Well, at least I’m consistent.

    BLITZER: But – and the reason you think he’s the worst is?

    TRUMP: Well, just look at this country.

    We have gone from this tremendous power that was respected all over the world to somewhat of a laughingstock.

    This wasn’t just Trump now and then, it was Trump consistently for many years. I maintain that we have every reason to believe it’s the real Trump.

    He is an amoral, unprincipled, ignorant sociopath. I don’t mean that as hyperbole. Someone who says these things is not okay, and is no conservative or even a Republican. He is not to be trusted. Period. I think it’s obvious.

    A person might still choose him over Hillary. A person might still hope (as I do) that if he were elected he would be better than I think he would be. But I don’t believe he would.

  57. I respect conservatives who choose to vote either against Trump or against Clinton. Both candidates are manifestly unfit for the Presidency of the United States. The case against either candidate is compelling and obvious.

    While a vote is practically worth the same whatever its motive, I think it’s less justifiable for conservatives to vote for either candidate … even if they do in deed vote for one of them against the other.

    Both candidates are inimical to conservatives. Whichever one wins, conservatives have already lost the 2016 election.

    With that perspective, the collective political priority for conservatives should be establishing a permanent insurgent social activist movement that will zealously compete for social dominance against all rivals throughout the spectrum of participatory politics that subsume electoral politics.

  58. Brian E — The US strategy of planting democracy after the Second World War was based on a long-time occupation and gradually lessening control over the defeated powers. It hasn’t worked in the Middle East because it wasn’t tried. I don’t fault Bush for invading Iraq. I fault him for not follwuing up.

  59. Neo-neocon,
    We’ve spent 50 years reliving the Vietnam War and it will probably be the same with Iraq.
    History is linear. If we do one thing we aren’t doing another.

    But looking at the cost, I don’t think it was worth it. I had a son who came back physically whole, but took him several years to recover emotionally.
    Had the war been fought with Vietnam era medical technology, the death toll would probably been 30,000- not 4500.

    I can’t defend Trump on this point. While I’ve come to the conclusion is wasn’t prudent, doesn’t mean the decisions weren’t made in good faith. I’ve come to the decision that being wrong here doesn’t mean he’s wrong on illegal immigration or the economy.
    As to illegal immigration, I live in an area that relies on migrant farm labor. But as a country we have every right, even obligation to know who every person that enters our country is. What risks they pose and what they may contribute.

    As to the economy, the hole we’ve dug with the debt and looming entitlement explosion is going to require drastic action. We can’t save our way out of it. We need to have a robust economy growing at a greater than historical average. That’s more likely to happen with Trump. I know it won’t happen with Hillary.

  60. Brian E

    “That’s quite a lot to process. But I think Neo-neocons distate for Trump goes deeper and that’s why we often get the response that he can’t be trusted to keep his word, since he appears to have held contradictory views at various times.”

    Some of his policies I like, and some – like his promise to nominate conservative SCOTUS judges – I dearly hope prove true if he’s nominated.

    But others I don’t – and if you think all the Trump-cautious and never Trump people haven’t given good reasons on a policy level against Trump, you haven’t really been reading.

    I don’t like protectionist/isolationist trade policies

    His bull in a china shop pronouncements about the economy are pretty scary when you consider the power we may be giving him.

    He’s proposed deporting muslims, killing terrorists’ wives and children, torture, all sorts of things.

    Finally – I don’t know if you’ve noticed but he lies all the time. And says crazy things (right now in he’s saying Hillary will let in 650 million immigrants in one week. He said no one respects women more than him. He said no one reads the Bible more than him. He has talked about abandoning our NATO allies at the exact time that Russia is starting to throw their weight around (and don’t get me started on his cozy relationship with Putin).

    So I disagree with him profoundly on a number of economic and foreign policy issues, and he has not demonstrated the ability to be honest.

    You also wrote: “Trump appears to have been revived from death with the Comey announcement, and now Bill ups the ante from “sexual predator” to “rapist of a 13 year old”. Seriously. One would think one of the Bill’s is a Hillary plant.”

    Yeah, one would think that. Actually two or three here think that. I don’t care what you think of me, so if it makes you feel better to just disregard what I say because I’m a “Hillary Troll” go for it. I prefer to debate with people without impugning their motives (although I’m sure I’ve failed at that her in this space more than once).

    I’ve posted on the charge of the violent rape of a 13 year old Epstein sex-slave before the Comey announcement. No ante being upped.

    Of course Trump may be completely innocent, even though he was friends with Epstein and has stated many times that he prefers younger women. There are plenty of things about this case that may lend themselves to believing the Trump side (the characters involved are shady). Believe it or not, I *hope* he didn’t do it. But it’s still working its way through the courts in NYC. But we are facing the prospect of a President-elect going to court for a “status session” (December 16th) on what is considered at lease somewhat credible charge that he raped a 13 year old girl 22 years ago. I posted the Snopes link on that earlier, and I’ve read the affidavits, both the one from the plaintiff “Jane Doe” and one from someone claiming to be an employee of Epstein’s back in the day who recruited Jane Doe (this person’s name is “Tiffany Doe”). You can read them both here: https://www.scribd.com/doc/316341058/Donald-Trump-Jeffrey-Epstein-Rape-Lawsuit-and-Affidavits

    As a voter, I don’t have to have court-proven guilt to determine if I want to vote for someone. Trump has a long, documented history of verbal and – depending on who you want to beleive – sexual abuse of women. He appears to like the younger kind (he tends to jettison wives when they quit looking so good), he’s made disgusting and lecherous comments about his own daughter.

    Believe what you want and vote your conscience.

  62. Neo quoting Blitzer and Trump interview:

    BLITZER: Impeaching him?
    TRUMP: Absolutely, for the war, for the war.
    BLITZER: Because of the conduct of the war.
    TRUMP: Well, he lied. He got us into the war with lies.

    Answers to “Did Bush lie his way to war with Iraq” & “Was Operation Iraqi Freedom legal”.

    Contra Trump’s disinformation-based call for impeachment over the Iraq intervention and Blitzer’s assumption for that matter, President Bush’s decision for OIF demonstrably was substantively and procedurally correct.

    [Trump:] We have gone from this tremendous power that was respected all over the world to somewhat of a laughingstock.

    Rebuttal to Trump’s remark is this excerpt (sans links) from A problem of definition in the Iraq controversy: Was the issue Saddam’s regime or Iraq’s demonstrable WMD?:

    President Clinton was conscious that the US-led enforcement of the Gulf War ceasefire’s “governing standard of Iraqi compliance” (UNSCR 1441) was the defining UN enforcement of the post-Cold War. From Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait at the outset of the UNSCR 660 series, Saddam proved repeatedly that the “spiral” model of defusing conflict encouraged his malfeasance. For the duration of the Gulf War ceasefire enforcement, only firm application of credible threat with the “deterrence” model could draw out even a limited measure of Iraq’s mandated compliance.

    Holding Iraq to the terms of the UNSCR 660-series resolutions mattered beyond pacifying Saddam. The world was judging whether American leadership possessed the resolute integrity required to effectively enforce mandates with rogue actors like Iraq, Iran, and north Korea. In his remarks to Pentagon personnel on February 17, 1998, Clinton warned against the broader consequences of tolerating Saddam’s noncompliance:

    If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program.

    However, by the late 1990s, in spite of Saddam’s belligerence and persistent noncompliance, UN Security Council permanent members Russia, China, and France had turned against the strict US-led enforcement of the Gulf War ceasefire. While acknowledging Iraq’s noncompliance, they sought to disable the military threat that was necessary to drive Saddam to comply. Their advocacy for Iraq was motivated by a combination of the desire to avoid brinkmanship with Saddam, dedication to a multi-polar realist rather than US-led liberal world order, separate grievance with US-led international enforcement, and Saddam’s bribery with the Oil for Food scandal.

    Excerpt (sans links) from the answer to “Did Iraq failing its compliance test justify the regime change”:

    The UN had been unreliable during the Clinton administration, and President Bush endeavored to reform the UN as a credible enforcer for the 9/11 era. If the US had backed down when Saddam declined his “final opportunity to comply” (UNSCR 1441) with the Gulf War ceasefire, then UN enforcement of international norms with rogue actors and WMD proscription would have been undermined, perhaps beyond recovery.

    The US stood firm and on December 15, 2010, Vice President Biden welcomed UNSCRs 1956, 1957, and 1958 on behalf of the UN Security Council, which formally recognized Iraq’s compliance with UNSCR 687 and related resolutions and lifted enforcement measures that had been imposed on Iraq since UNSCR 660 (1990).

    The nations that propagandized the US as Trump’s “laughingstock” in fact had for years opposed US leadership with Iraq and other matters and were complicit in Saddam’s breach of the Gulf War ceasefire versus the US-led enforcement.

    Contra Trump, bringing Iraq into the mandated compliance with the UNSCR 660 series via OIF was a vital restoration of the integrity of American leadership of the free world which had been damaged during the Clinton administration, particularly by Saddam’s “intransigence” (Clinton) against the US-led UNSCR 660-series enforcement.

  63. Neo –

    My sympathies – I hate colds. I recommend Zinc (cold eze and not the competitors) and perhaps kicking up your Vit D for several days. It may be too late for the zinc.

    I love early voting since I’m a dual single-issue voter (pro life and pro-2A). Other topics mean little to me – not that I don’t care, but one has to make the cut somewhere. Hillary – no way could I vote for her. The 3rd parties running? Trump is good on the 2 issues and more likely to win, so I voted for him.

    However, my choice was finalized in the voting booth and I’m betting that will be how a lot of people do it. What nailed it for me that voting for Trump (my state of IL will go for Hillary I’m sure) was the biggest “FU” statement I could make to the powers that be.

    As mentioned above, our unfunded entitlement obligations are mind-numbing. We’re in for a world of hurt relatively soon, and only God can save us now. We don’t deserve being rescued, so I won’t hold my breath, but it seems to me that there’s very little a president can do that will change the economic pain we’re in for.

  64. Neo, whether or not to skip the President line on your ballot depends on your location, I know it’s New England. If MA, CT, or RI, don’t bother voting, Hillary gets those electoral votes. If VT, why are you even voting at all? If ME, only the Second District is in question, First will go for Hillary. That leaves NH, the only competitive state. There a Trump or Clinton vote might have some slight effect on the outcome.

    Otherwise, leave that line blank, and only vote the down-ticket races. Or just check the R party line and rationalize to yourself that you never actually voted for His Orangeness.

  66. Richard Saunders:
    “I don’t fault Bush for invading Iraq. I fault him for not follwuing up.”

    We’ve covered this issue before. Answer to “Was the invasion of Iraq perceived to be a nation-building effort”.

    In fact, President Bush followed up the OIF major combat operations with peace operations like the WW2 peace ops in accordance with US law and policy and UN mandates.

    Answer to “Was Operation Iraqi Freedom a strategic blunder or a strategic victory”.

    However, following Bush, Obama deviated from the Eisenhower precedent that’s cornerstone of US leadership of the free world. President Obama disengaged the OIF peace operations by contravening the conditions-based Strategic Framework Agreement, which overarched SOFA.

    Before Obama’s deviation, recalling the WW2 peace ops, the OIF peace ops with Iraq were succeeding per the December 2010 UNSC assessment of Iraq’s progress.

  67. Thanks Brian E – I’ll read that.

    National Review has gotten a lot of flack for their “Against Trump” issue, but they have, in my opinion, been one of the least hackish publications out there this election season, and have endured a lot of cr@p from the alt-right frogs. I can’t imagine what Jonah Goldberg’s life is like reading the river of anti-semitic flame he gets every day.

  68. Eric, I think it’s an LIV thing. People don’t remember the other arguments for the war. The Bush administration made the valid points that Saddam had been working toward WMD’s and was denying the UN promised access. People remember that as “Bush said Saddam has WMD’s”. The Bush administration made the point that Saddam had supported terrorists. People remember that as “Bush said Saddam was responsible for 9/11” (although the administration walked into that one by using the words “Saddam” and “9/11” near each other so often). They definitely don’t remember the other ways that Saddam didn’t comply with the terms of the cease-fire in a legal war.

  69. Thanks Bill for responding to Trump’s policy proposals.

    As to me accusing you of being a Hillary plant, there’s plausible deniability in what I said. 🙂

    I’m not surprised that many here would object to his trade stance. And as I linked to in another comment, he’s held that position for decades, so you can put that on the consistent side of the ledger.

    I was initially in favor of NAFTA, and free trade principles in general. I work for a company that has manufacturing plants in Europe and China, but still exports up to 40% of the machines manufactured in three US plants, so I’m somewhat conflicted by Trump’s position.

    But I think trade will continue– most of it without tariff wars– though possibly with some skirmishes, especially with China. American companies leave the US to be competitive against cheap imports that rely on low wages and poor environmental laws.

    And while a quality product can be manufactured in China, we’re seeing a pattern of Chinese manufacturers using substandard or potentially dangerous chemicals in their manufacturing processes. American companies manufacturing can guard against that with stringent QA standards and testing, but does every company do that?

    I think China will make concessions, since they have more to lose IMO.

    The same with Mexico. If you remember Trump went to visit with Mexican president Nieto and it seems to have gone reasonably well. Fox, of course, was rather critical, but he can be the bad cop, since he’s not in office.

  70. 1. Regarding my earlier post about Lanie McMullin at 8:00 AM, that was something I just learned myself this morning. If you’re going to vote for a guy, don’t you care to know a little more about him? And I used that phrase “psychological indicators” on purpose. It means that we should be extremely wary of a person whose motivations for running all are based on vanity.

    2. Evan McMullin is only on the ballot in eleven states (not counting write-in options in some others). He has no chance of winning the election, and only a slim chance (at best) of winning his home state, Utah. He claims that he wants to offer a conservative option, but his effective purpose will be to enable Hillary Clinton’s election and Presidency.

    3. How do we know this? Because Evan McMullin said so himself back in an interview on October 6th, where he would be happy just to be able to stop Trump. This doesn’t sound very conservative to me.

    4. And the fact that I, as a Trump supporter, can find out real information about Mr. McMullin with a little research, while other people, who say that they are voting for Evan McMullin, don’t know anything about him. They just know that he’s not Trump, and that he says he is conservative, and that’s apparently enough for them.

    5. That’s vanity. And there is something wrong with that, when such actions will enable the other candidate (the non-conservative one, by the way) to win. At least Gary Johnson and Jill Stein are trying to build political parties (the Libertarian and Green, respectively).

    6. It’s a free country, and you can vote for whoever you like. But with all that we know, there will be only two results:

    A. Donald Trump, with his flaws, but the possibility of improvement, and a return to normalcy.
    B. Hillary Clinton, with open corruption, and the significant possibility of Watergate 2.0

    So next Tuesday, just go to the voting booth, and make your choice based on the result that you want to have (and no, there are no other attainable results or outcomes. For fans of “The Walking Dead”, do we need Negan with his baseball bat to make that point clear?)

  71. Steve:

    Actually, for what it’s worth, I don’t think any of the New England states will be competitive for Trump.

    But I’ve always voted, even when I lived in places where the outcome was a foregone conclusion and I didn’t vote for the winner. However, this year I might abstain and make an exception to my rule of always voting in presidential elections. Or I might write someone in, which would be close to the same thing.

  72. Brian E:
    “We’ve spent 50 years reliving the Vietnam War and it will probably be the same with Iraq.”

    Indeed, the intensive propaganda campaign waged against the Vietnam War was the enemy’s hallmark active measure, perhaps even more critical than the physical contest on the ground in SE Asia.

    You’re correct the enemy’s successor intensive propaganda campaign against the Iraq intervention was the purposeful heir to the enemy’s propaganda campaign against the Vietnam War.

    However, your inclination seems to be to yield to the enemy’s hallmark active measure. That’s surrender.

    The solution isn’t to surrender to enemy propaganda. Appeasement only encourages them. The solution is to win on all fronts, including and especially the activist front, to defeat the enemy, including their propaganda.

    Unfortunately, President Obama’s choices consistently seem to act in concert to validate enemy propaganda, especially with his radical alteration of the Iraq intervention, which has been the defining manifestation of US leadership in the post-Cold War era.

    Brian E:
    “But looking at the cost, I don’t think it was worth it. I had a son who came back physically whole, but took him several years to recover emotionally.
    …
    I can’t defend Trump on this point. While I’ve come to the conclusion is wasn’t prudent, doesn’t mean the decisions weren’t made in good faith.”

    All wars – good, bad, forgotten – take a physical and/or psychological toll on their veterans who cross the threshold of intensity.

    If your son is an OIF veteran, he deserves at least to know the Iraq war – and its peace – was honorably, humanely, and justifiably undertaken.

    Was OIF “worth the cost”?

    Obama’s deviation with Iraq radically affects that consideration. If Eisenhower had disengaged the WW2 peace ops like Obama disengaged the OIF peace ops, and the expected consequences in Europe and/or Asia had happened, then it’s most likely WW2 would no longer be considered to have been worth the cost.

    In other words, securing the peace is essential to winning a war, even factoring the proximate benefit of deposing a Hitler or Saddam. Peace on our terms is worth the cost. The US was successfully building peace on our terms with Iraq before Obama threw it away.

    Was OIF “prudent”?

    Knowing what we know now, I believe OIF was prudent. Iraqi Perspectives Project report author Jim Lacey, who analyzed captured regime materials on Saddam’s terrorism, assessed the Iraqi regime change was “not a moment too soon”.

    You disagree for some reason.

    A view of prudency is necessarily subjective. But based on the controlling law, policy, and precedent that defined the operative enforcement procedure for the “governing standard of Iraqi compliance” (UNSCR 1441) and determinative facts that confirmed Saddam’s breach of ceasefire, Bush’s decision for OIF objectively was correct on the law and justified on the policy. The US case versus Saddam is substantiated.

    The alternative wasn’t better.

  73. Bill – Your statements of Trump’s policies take his statements and use the most extreme interpretation of what he meant. Just a couple of examples:

    He has said over and over he’s not a protectionist. He believes in trade. He faults the U.S. for not making harder bargains. He mentions tariffs as a negotiating strategy, not as a policy, and he has said such.

    As to NATO, he says that if the other members don’t fulfill their obligations under it, we should take action to ensure they do. If they take their militaries down to levels that they can’t participate in their own defense then our taxpayers are subsidizing theirs. Trump is not one to allow us to be taken advantage of.

    On immigration he says seal the borders, deport CRIMINAL illegal immigrants and then have a national conversation on what to do with the rest of them. As to mid-easterners he says stop immigration from places where we can’t vet them until we are able to.

    As to a 22 year old rape charge that’s conveniently brought up during an election, I’ll give him the presumption of innocence until he’s convicted. I have no way of knowing the truth or falsity of the charge.

    I’ve previously commented about his statements that some women will allow powerful men to have their way with them. I see bad taste but I didn’t hear him admit to assault.

    Trump has enough problems, both personal and professional, without assigning to him extreme positions on things where a reasonable reading would see otherwise.

    I’m sure he has a lot of policies you don’t agree with but it’s unfair to misstate his positions so extremely.

  74. Yankee: “It means that we should be extremely wary of a person whose motivations for running all are based on vanity.”

    It’s a little, well, weird to hear a strong Trump supporter wary of a candidate running a vanity campaign.

    You have no way of knowing that McMullin’s campaign is based upon vanity. And the thing about his psychology based upon his mom being a lesbian seems to be really spurious.

    Trump continues to act upon two conflicting notions: a) McMullin is a nobody and absolutely irrelevant and b) Kill the mormons! (just kidding about that last part, although I have heard that, seriously, from a couple of his more, um, excitable followers.

    Just like NeverTrump – either a) totally, irrelevant, what a bunch of LOSERS or b) if Trump loses, it’s NeverTrump’s fault! Kill the NeverTrump! (just kidding about that last part).

  75. “He has said over and over he’s not a protectionist.”

    This is frankly farcical: the man has made himself a posterboy for hatred of comparative advantage, else why threaten Ford executives as just a few days ago?

  76. For may part, I’d prefer carrots rather than sticks when it comes to keeping business here. Trump has proposed high punitive taxes (and the way he talks it appears he thinks he can just slap those on whatever company he wants unilaterally) for leaving the country.

    I’d like to hear about lower corporate tax rates, to increase the incentive to stay here. It wouldn’t surprise me if he has proposed those, but I haven’t heard it yet.

  77. Vanity refers to not just Evan McMullin, but also to those who have taken the “NeverTrump” position.

    I highly recommend taking a few minutes to listen to Peter Thiel’s speech on why he is supporting Donald Trump.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfYLEPRiIyE

    Hopefully, the co-founder of PayPal can help change a few minds.

  78. Yankee:

    One of the most offputting, pernicious, and downright repulsive things about many pro-Trumpers is the way they speak of NeverTrumpers.

    It’s perfectly okay to disagree with NeverTrumpers profoundly, thinking they are making a grave error, that sort of thing. But to say they are acting out of vanity is morally repulsive in itself.

    For the most part they are acting because they think what they are doing will avoid an even more disastrous possibility or even probability. There is nothing vain about that. What is vain is thinking—as many pro-Trumpers do—that people who disagree with your assessment of a difficult-to-assess situation and a difficult-to-predict future are acting out of some sort of puffed-up vanity.

  79. “I’d like to hear about lower corporate tax rates, to increase the incentive to stay here. It wouldn’t surprise me if he has proposed those, but I haven’t heard it yet.” – Bill

    Trump has proposed 15% corporate tax and repeal of the AMT.

    He has also proposed a one-time 10% tax on overseas corporate earnings.

    https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/tax-plan

  80. Neo – The case you make is true of both sides. You could reverse the terms pro-Trumpers and NeverTrumpers and the statements would be just as true.

    Each side thinks it’s more true of the other side but I think a fair reading of all the comments would come close to balancing out.

    That’s one of the things I like the most about your blog.

  81. Irv Greenberg:

    False. I have always maintained I understand the motives of pro-Trumpers, and I have never criticized anyone or said they are vain merely for supporting him. Nor have most people here.

    And yet a great many do that regularly from the other side, here and on many other blogs. I have gotten rid of most of the commenters who used to come to this blog to insult people. They would have overwhelmed the blog with their insults had I not done so.

    It does not balance out at all.

  82. Neo:

    1. Does reality even matter anymore? The problem with the NeverTrump crowd (which is not to be understood as just a few people at your website) is that they seem to prefer Hillary Clinton as President, regardless of what that would do to the country, so long as they can make a stand on what they call “principle” or what they call “conservatism.”

    2. Mark Steyn has made some very critical comments about the NeverTrump people. Is Mark Steyn also morally repulsive?

    3. The use of the word “vanity” was a deliberate choice of mine, and its purpose was to make those who are opposed to Trump reconsider their positions. In such a case, one should ask oneself, “Is this about my narrow interests, and personal feelings, or is it about the greater good of the country?”

    4. Like I have said earlier, there are two (and only two) outcomes to this upcoming election.
    A. Donald Trump may be elected President. He has his flaws, and he is imperfect, but there is the possibility of improvement, of getting some of what you want, of changing things for the better.
    B. Hillary Clinton may also be elected President. But she is stunning in her level of dishonesty and corruption. The odds of her gravely damaging the country are very significant.

    5. And did we not just learn on Friday, October 28th, of the FBI renewing its investigation? Things are at the stage where all of what Hillary Clinton has concealed may come out. Too many people are looking into her affairs, and too much information is already out there. That’s why I used the phrase “Watergate 2.0” in earlier posts. Do we want to take the chance on putting the country through that again?

    6. On a historical note, it would be nice if there were more anti-corruption Democrats around—like Grover Cleveland. And when thinking of American historical figures, from Franklin to Jackson, I think they would be more comfortable with a Trump than with a Clinton.

    7. I have been posting comments here since the beginning of this year, with the Republican primaries, and I have been consistent with my position of supporting whoever the Republican nominee is in the general election. I like Trump, and I am well aware of his flaws, and I expect him to blunder around and make mistakes, if he is elected. Trump’s issues (nationalism, reform, etc) may also do a lot of good. They may also change the Republican party, and the “conservative” movement, in a good way.

    8. With where we are right now, the wisest, most prudent course of action, and the one that will most likely yield the greatest long-term good for the health of the country, is to vote for Donald Trump. It is also indisputably, logically, and rationally the most effective way to stop Hillary Clinton. (On a side note, the problems won’t end there, since the Democrats may go mad if she is elected, and may go mad—but in a different way—if Trump is elected. It’s a shame that there hasn’t been a normal prominent Democrat since Joe Lieberman.)

    9. I’m guessing that the major third parties, like the Libertarians and the Greens, will be close to their historical averages this time around. If someone sincerely supports the principles of those parties, and wants to see them grow over time, and become an alternative to the traditional two-parties, then that is a sincere, understandable choice.

    10. It sounds like some people may still choose to abstain, or else vote for someone else who is closest to their principles, even if that person has no chance at all of winning, and even if that choice increases the odds, however slight, of Hillary Clinton going on to win the general election. I feel sorry for those who choose to do such a thing, because they will have wasted their vote.

    11. Again, I suggest listening to what Peter Thiel has to say on supporting Donald Trump:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfYLEPRiIyE

    12. We shall all see what the results are next week, with perhaps a little discussion following the events of November 8th, 2016. In the meantime, let’s all have a Happy Halloween, and everyone is invited to Neo’s house for free candy, apple cider, and pizza, and then stay up all night to watch scary movies (humor break).

  83. Yankee:

    I’ll try to respond to your thoughtful questions.

    (1) You write that “the problem with the NeverTrump crowd…is that they seem to prefer Hillary Clinton as President, regardless of what that would do to the country, so long as they can make a stand on what they call ‘principle’ or what they call ‘conservatism.'”

    My response is that the number of NeverTrumpers who would prefer Hillary is relatively small, although some are quite vocal. But those NeverTrumpers who support her don’t take that stand of being pro-Hillary “regardless of what that would do to the country.” This group takes that stand because they think Trump would be as bad or even worse for the country than Hillary.

    I think that’s hard for you and many others to wrap your mind around, because you disagree so vehemently and think the truth—the opposite, that Hillary would be worse—is so obviously true.

    It’s not so obviously true. They don’t think it’s true. They’ve done their best to study the situation, and that’s the conclusion they’ve come to, and whether you agree or disagree is not the issue.

    They also believe that Trump’s election would be worse for conservatism. So he’s a lose/lose proposition.

    Now, I can’t vouch for every non-Trumper on earth. But I’ve read the work of quite a few, and I believe that’s their point of view, and I believe they are sincere. I believe it’s insulting when people accuse them of some sort of surface objection to Trump’s manners or the fact that he doesn’t crook his little finger when he sips a cup of tea. Or that they are vain and self-interested. They are patriots; they just disagree on a very difficult question.

    2. “Mark Steyn has made some very critical comments about the NeverTrump people. Is Mark Steyn also morally repulsive?”

    Give me a link to the essay and the quotes you’re talking about, and I’ll tell you. I generally like Steyn, but I have no hesitation to call something he has said—or something anyone else has said—morally repulsive if I think it is.

    3. You write: “The use of the word ‘vanity’ was a deliberate choice of mine, and its purpose was to make those who are opposed to Trump reconsider their positions. In such a case, one should ask oneself, ‘Is this about my narrow interests, and personal feelings, or is it about the greater good of the country?’”

    I think I have already responded to this in my response to #1. I would add that your question seems to presuppose that they haven’t asked themselves that question yet, and that their original position wasn’t based on that very question. That’s an incorrect assumption to begin with, IMHO.

    4. You write: “Like I have said earlier, there are two (and only two) outcomes to this upcoming election.
    A. Donald Trump may be elected President. He has his flaws, and he is imperfect, but there is the possibility of improvement, of getting some of what you want, of changing things for the better.
    B. Hillary Clinton may also be elected President. But she is stunning in her level of dishonesty and corruption. The odds of her gravely damaging the country are very significant.”

    My response here is similar to my other responses: your premises and conclusions seem logical and inevitable to you. But they are only one possible interpretation of the same set of facts.

    For example, I have immersed myself for over a year in learning about Donald Trump, and I can safely say that my conclusions and yours are not the same. In fact, I could easily say of Trump “he is stunning in his level of dishonesty and corruption. The odds of his gravely damaging the country are very significant.” Those statements work very well for Trump, and all I had to do was change the pronouns.

    In fact, some days I think they work better for Trump than for Hillary.

    5. You write: “And did we not just learn on Friday, October 28th, of the FBI renewing its investigation? Things are at the stage where all of what Hillary Clinton has concealed may come out. Too many people are looking into her affairs, and too much information is already out there. That’s why I used the phrase “Watergate 2.0” in earlier posts. Do we want to take the chance on putting the country through that again?”

    You are assuming there’s a smoking gun there. I am agnostic on that issue; we simply don’t know. Many many times I have assumed that evidence had come out that would sink her (or Obama for that matter), and it hardly made a dent. So I do not assume this will be anything but another tempest in a teapot.

    I don’t know how old you are, but I was an adult during Watergate and I remember it well. It was not that traumatic; it was more exciting than traumatic. Maybe I was naive, but neither I nor anyone I knew felt that the country was in danger. Things were being uncovered, Nixon resigned, Ford became president, and things went on in their merry way. I’m sure it was traumatic for some people, but I didn’t experience that and neither did those around me. The country seemed quite secure, actually (particularly after the turmoil of the late 60s).

    I actually thought the Clinton impeachment and trial caused more turmoil. That’s because the Democrats didn’t prevail on him to resign, as the Republicans had with Nixon.

    In short, I just don’t buy that argument. However, as I’ve said many times, I certainly am not planning to vote for Hillary anyway.

    I’ll skip number 6, which is irrelevant to me, and 7 and 8 and 9, which don’t require responses.

    As for 10, I disagree that they’re wasted their votes. First of all, if they live in a state which is very strongly blue or strongly red, it really doesn’t matter how they vote as an individual. But secondly, and more importantly, you are failing to take into consideration the very same thing you ignore in many of your other points: these people do not see Trump as superior to Hillary. They do not see Hillary as worse than Trump. They see them as equally bad (although of course bad in different ways). So they literally cannot vote for either.

    As for #12, I only wish I could have a party and invite you all. And I have little doubt there will be a LOT of discussion both before and after November 8.

  84. huxley wrote:

    “Randy: True, the current Republican tensions have been mounting since Obama was elected. However, there is nothing so bad that it can’t be made worse, and Trump has done so since he began running in 2015. ”

    My sense is that conservatives began to sense GOP contempt for them during Bush 43. At least I did. Much of my world view changed then. I have voted for my last Rockefeller Republican. I now feel that progress will be made on the ashes of the GOP party.

  86. Huxley, I agree. I was very politically naive in the 90s. I thought all of us conservatives were conservative, the way people like me were conservative. What changed during 43’s administration was the way I interpreted everything that happened since Reagan was elected. Now it all seems to me like that scene in Braveheart were the “country club” nobles decide how to handle Wallace and decide that they must “kiss his ***” with an unsaid but audible “just for now.”

  87. Huxley, from the article:

    “Can Bush, a proper product of Eastern prep schools, find a way to turn it around, to convince a broad spectrum of middle-class voters that he, too, knows what trouble is like?”

    This is how I saw Bush back then, he was just misunderstood because he didn’t emote for the voters. Well, to be honest, that was a plus in my book. But since then I’ve come to undertand that his class holds mine in contempt.

  90. “I use the word class loosely, for lack of a better word.”

    You’ve got some good company with James Madison (Fed. 10), who uses the term “classes” when describing faction, factions of interest, interested types (“landed”, “maunfacturing”, “mercantile”, “moneyed”, “lesser”), classes of legislators, etc.

    We’ve also got those other (possibly vaguer) terms, such as sort, type, group, kind, genus, ilk, and so on.

  91. “Survey: 27% of Gov’t Workers Might Quit If Trump Elected” – Brian E

    Now you are tempting me. 😉

  92. Trump’s position on Healthcare reform.

    I agree with most of it. HSA’s should be encouraged. Lots of people don’t understand how it works and what a great option it is, especially for younger people.

    1. Completely repeal Obamacare. Our elected representatives must eliminate the individual mandate. No person should be required to buy insurance unless he or she wants to.

    2. Modify existing law that inhibits the sale of health insurance across state lines. As long as the plan purchased complies with state requirements, any vendor ought to be able to offer insurance in any state. By allowing full competition in this market, insurance costs will go down and consumer satisfaction will go up.

    3. Allow individuals to fully deduct health insurance premium payments from their tax returns under the current tax system. Businesses are allowed to take these deductions so why wouldn’t Congress allow individuals the same exemptions? As we allow the free market to provide insurance coverage opportunities to companies and individuals, we must also make sure that no one slips through the cracks simply because they cannot afford insurance. We must review basic options for Medicaid and work with states to ensure that those who want healthcare coverage can have it.

    4. Allow individuals to use Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). Contributions into HSAs should be tax-free and should be allowed to accumulate. These accounts would become part of the estate of the individual and could be passed on to heirs without fear of any death penalty. These plans should be particularly attractive to young people who are healthy and can afford high-deductible insurance plans. These funds can be used by any member of a family without penalty. The flexibility and security provided by HSAs will be of great benefit to all who participate.

    5. Require price transparency from all healthcare providers, especially doctors and healthcare organizations like clinics and hospitals. Individuals should be able to shop to find the best prices for procedures, exams or any other medical-related procedure.

    6. Block-grant Medicaid to the states. Nearly every state already offers benefits beyond what is required in the current Medicaid structure. The state governments know their people best and can manage the administration of Medicaid far better without federal overhead. States will have the incentives to seek out and eliminate fraud, waste and abuse to preserve our precious resources.

    7. Remove barriers to entry into free markets for drug providers that offer safe, reliable and cheaper products. Congress will need the courage to step away from the special interests and do what is right for America. Though the pharmaceutical industry is in the private sector, drug companies provide a public service. Allowing consumers access to imported, safe and dependable drugs from overseas will bring more options to consumers.

  93. @Brian E – as I’ve said before, trump’s campaign has (lately) produced some interesting details on what trump would do (e.g. first 100 days).

    The problem, the core issue, is that trump has not consistently campaigned on these (in fact, one can point to cases where trump was on the opposite side across many issues), and where he has, he lacked a credible level of detail in explaining them.

    Add to this that he lies on big things and on small, “unnecessary” things, and we have to take an incredible leap of faith to believe him on any of it.

    So, the point is not, “Wow, what great and agreeable things he is promising!”

    It is, “Why should I believe this version of what trump is saying?”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

↑