There are a lot of people that claim that the only way to save our country is to prevent a President Hillary Clinton by voting for Donald Trump. While I personally think that Republicans lost the election the moment the Republican Party nominated Trump, it seems fair to consider their argument. A couple of recent articles on the subject caught my eye.
The first was printed in the Wall Street Journal by Yale Computer Science Professor David Gelernter:
Trump and the Emasculated Voter
Some conservatives have watched their evaluations of Donald Trump’s character drop so low in recent days that on this vital question they no longer see a choice between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Accordingly, they are forced back onto politics and policy; and naturally Mr. Trump wins in a walk. If conservatives who argue that Mr. Trump is worse than Mrs. Clinton had a case, it would be a relief to vote for Mrs. Clinton or for no one. But they don’t, and one is therefore forced for the good of the nation to vote for Mr. Trump.
…
I’ll vote for Mr. Trump—grimly. But there is no alternative, no shadow of a responsible alternative.
Mr. Trump’s candidacy is a message from the voters. He is the empty gin bottle they have chosen to toss through the window. The message begins with the fact that voters hear what the leaders and pundits don’t: the profound contempt for America and Americans that Mrs. Clinton and President Obama share and their frightening lack of emotional connection to this nation and its people.
And our favorite uncle, Unca Darrell, says basically the same thing:
Unca Darrell will vote for . . .
. . . one of the worst human beings and presidential candidates in American history, Donald John Trump. Here’s why:
The short answer is Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton. She’s even worse.
More important than stopping her, however, is to fight back against the swarm of cultural, economic, political, and civilizational locusts she brings with her. They’re called progressives. And they are already well advanced on their hellish project of fundamentally transforming our sweet Republic.
Mrs. Clinton may already have won the election. Her campaign, the media (a branch of her campaign, for the most part), and the loutish Mr. Trump have cooperated (he, unintentionally) to swing the election to her.
It may also be too late in a more profound sense. Even if she can be defeated, the progressive project is so well advanced, its advocates so deeply entrenched in government, academia, and the media, that a Trump victory would neither stop nor reverse the decline. It’s not even clear that he would, if he could, though “Make American Great Again” is a rough approximation of what is needed.
How can a well-educated, reasonably sane man such as I vote for Mr. Trump?
So, how can a well-educated, reasonably sane man vote for Trump? Hey, this isn’t OfftheKuff.com, we don’t take credit for other people’s work. Go read them and find out! And maybe they can convince you to vote for Trump!
Sorry, they didn’t convince me
I’ve made it clear that I’m not voting for Trump and why. Even Unca Darrell admits that Trump isn’t going to change anything. I say take the opportunity to vote for a third party candidate that is at least sane and honest, be it Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, or one of the many official write-in candidates such as Evan McMullin. You can’t start a revolution by voting for the status quo.
Lastly, if you hinge your argument for Trump on the Supreme Court, you might want to read this:
Constitutional Originalists Against Trump
Why do they oppose Trump? Here’s what they have to say:
Trump’s long record of statements and conduct, in his campaign and in his business career, have shown him indifferent or hostile to the Constitution’s basic features—including a government of limited powers, an independent judiciary, religious liberty, freedom of speech, and due process of law.
But what about the Supreme Court?
We also understand the argument that Trump will nominate qualified judicial candidates who will themselves be committed to the Constitution and the rule of law. Notwithstanding those he has already named, we do not trust him to do so. More importantly, we do not trust him to respect constitutional limits in the rest of his conduct in office, of which judicial nominations are only one part.
Fat Albert says
Trump is a horrible candidate. literally, any one of the other potential Republican nominees would have been a better choice. (Even Bush!) But, for reasons best explored post Nov 8th, what we have is Trump. The problem is, we really have no idea what he will do. He’s all over the place. Maybe he’ll be conservative, maybe not. The one thing he will almost certainly NOT be is self-controlled. But really, at best he’s a crap-shoot.
On the other side we have Hillary Clinton. She too is a horrible candidate – but for very different reasons. She is the antithesis of everything that conservatives espouse. And, one could make a solid case for throwing her into prison for security violations and (in my opinion) treason. The oath that a President takes is to “preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States.” Hillary has shown by her actions that she has no inclination or intention to do so.
So, where does that leave us? Contrary to David, I don’t feel like wasting my vote and encouraging fools like Jill Stein, or Gary Johnson, not to mention the unwashed pack of wanna be’s following behind. If there we a serious 3rd party candidate that actually espoused conservative ideas then I’d be of a different mind, but that option isn’t available.
I feel a bit like Butch and Sundance standing on the edge of a cliff looking down at the river far below, and then turning to look at the rapidly approaching posse full of men with murderous intent. The fall might kill me, and I can’t swim, but if I wait for the posse it’s curtains for sure.
So, David, with all due respect, I will with the greatest reluctance cast my vote for Donald Trump with the prayerful hope that he won’t be as bad as it appears he might be.
Greg Degeyter says
None of the third parties are wholly conservative. The closest is the American Solidiarity Party which is socially conservative, fiscally likely moderate though they have a radically different economic scheme which makes it difficult to assess, moderate to left on foreign policy, and far left on immigration and the environment.
What makes them interesting is their immigration and environmental policies along with traditional social conservative values would appeal to the so called “conservative” democrat voter. If you are opposed to war outside the just war theory and socially conservative then that’s the best 3rd party candidate.
lorensmith says
Yes, yes, Fat Albert, but will you welch on our $100 bet? If you don’t pay up when she wins you are worse than Hillary, so don’t bloviate about what conservatives espouse. What’s it gonna be Fat? Pay up when Trump loses, which he will, or forever be known as a welcher.
Fat Albert says
Dude,
You’re gonna get to wait for a few weeks before worrying about how to come up with a C-note.
If we really do elect a politician who’s so corrupt she makes Richard Nixon look like Mother Teresa, then frankly, paying off a $100 bet will be the least of my worries, and getting a hundred bucks won’t really help you a lot.
Not to worry Loren, I don’t welch on bets. Do you?
lorensmith says
Haha! Good on ya Fat. You right guys have more to be concerned about than just losing to Hillary. The Senate is looking like it will change as well. I don’t think the House will change but stranger things have happened. Here is the conundrum Repubs find themselves lost in: Trump will have considerable influence in 2018 and 2020. If candidates don’t kiss Trump’s ring he could sway voters away. If they do heel to his whistle, common sense Repubs are less likely to vote for them. The Frankenstein that Trump is will live on.
Fat Albert says
Well Smitty, it’s indeed possible that Trump could lose, even against the worst candidate ever fielded by the Democrat party. I suspect however that if he does lose, he’ll be done in politics. I doubt he’ll carry much weight going forward.
As for the Senate – it’s possible, but latest data seem to indicate a loss of perhaps 4 seats – which would yield a 50-50 split. Hardly disastrous. And, losing the House? Not a chance.
David Jennings says
FA, you don’t think a 50-50 Senate is a disaster? Really? With Tim Kaine as the tiebreaker? I’d say it is a disaster because Chuck you Schumer will be in charge.
Fat Albert says
David,
Given the fact that the current leadership seems disinclined to exhibit anything resembling a backbone, I’m really not sure what your point is. The Senate rules allow any party with at least 40 votes to bog down the system, so the Republicans will still be able to block the most egregious excesses of Democrats, if they are so inclined.
Frankly, with Hillary Clinton in the White House continuing the imperialist policies of her predecessor, the Senate will be a minor issue.
Given the revelations of the last week, with evidence of the Clintons inciting violence at Republican events, e-mails detailing the Clintons suborning and corrupting the Justice department, continuing evidence of Hillary’s collusion with multiple foreign entities, and details about the on-going cooperation between Democrats and a non-neutral mainstream media, it’s getting harder and harder to give any credence at all to those who claim that “Trump is just as bad.”
Kevin Whited says
** The short answer is Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton. She’s even worse. **
At the risk of being called a RINO, cuck, or other nasty things: 1) I’m not convinced that is true, and 2) I’m not voting for her or Trump or perhaps for anyone.
On 1: As bad as she is — and she’s very very very bad — she has not threatened to jail her opponents or asserted that our form of republican government is now so damaged that this election is “rigged” and that our usual transition of power after elections may somehow be illegitimate this time.
I share Krauthammer’s view that this is disqualifying.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/its-not-the-locker-room-talk-its-the-lock-her-up-talk/2016/10/13/9dd5fbea-9172-11e6-9c85-ac42097b8cc0_story.html?utm_term=.a31fff2896a2
Others may think elements of Clinton’s record disqualifying. So be it.
This is a most unfortunate result of an election between two lifelong Dems (one of whom changed his brand at the last minute and appealed successfully to the “I want my wall and to teach everyone else a lesson, damnit!” crowd). I can’t muster enthusiasm for participating in what feels like a Dem primary. But my best to all who can!
I wonder what Kevin W thinks?
Fat Albert says
Kevin:
I might make this one observation – Trump SAYS a lot of really bad things. Jailing opponents, misogyny or the most puerile type, promises he has no ability to keep, etc.
On the other hand Hillary Clinton, both by herself and in league with Pres. Obama, has DONE even more really evil things, subverting the IRS to target political opponents, corrupting the Justice system (apparently from the AG down to individual investigators), completely politicizing the State Department, and colluding with foreign governments (some of whom are opposed to US interests). Not to mention the more mundane offenses of willful destruction of evidence, lying under oath, conspiracy and violating national security.
Trump is a reprehensible schmuck, but to equate him with the calculating evil that is Hillary Clinton is to ignore reality.
If you don’t want to vote – by all means don’t. If you want to call Trump a nasty, brutish lout, I’ll second the motion. But to equate Donald Trump with the most corrupt U.S. politician in the last century (maybe ever!) is not a realistic assessment of the available facts.
Don Hooper says
I will be voting for Trump.
Warren Fawcett says
Don,
Finally, we agree on something!
Neither Here Nor There says
In the past I have chosen to not vote for either candidate for president. Once in a run-off with only one race, both candidates in my opinion were both so disgusting that I went in to vote only to show that I was there and that I vote. There is always a choice.
bob42 says
“You can’t start a revolution by voting for the status quo.” ~David Jennings