Never is a long time. I'm not a fan of categorical statements, either. Still, I'm 100% certain of this much -- I will never vote for, or support, or otherwise aid, Donald Trump. He's a menace. He's run a low, mendacious, generally substance-free campaign. He's too lazy to learn the issues and his instincts consistently lead him in the wrong direction. He would be a disastrous candidate and, if somehow he won the general election, an even more disastrous president.
I have spent months trying to understand where Trump's support is coming from. I do believe many Trump supporters mean well -- the frustration many feel about the world is real and entirely legitimate. Still, the people around Trump and his campaign are cynics at best, nihilists at worst. At a time when we need the most principled conservative we can find to run against the utterly unprincipled Hillary Clinton, there's a good chance this process is going to deliver someone as unprincipled as she is. I can't be part of it.
To my mind, the Republican Party should do whatever it takes to stop Trump. If that means getting behind Ted Cruz or John Kasich, fine. It it requires a smoke-filled room, so be it.
51 comments:
What would a principled conservative do for the declining fortunes of the blue collar class?
A whole lot of things -- get rid of onerous regulations that make it difficult to start and/or grow a business; ensure that laws are easy to understand and consistently enforced, especially in re immigration; pare down the size and scope of the bureaucracy that encircles the citizenry and the economy; and simplify and reduce the effects of taxation that encourage corporate entities to move capital overseas. We haven't had someone who consistently pursued such policies since Calvin Coolidge.
Trump talks about some of these things, but he has no team to implement those policies; more importantly, he's a fan and beneficiary of the sort of crony capitalism that lets the state pick winners and losers.
But that's okay -- we'll just burn it down, right?
Unfortunately, if Trump is the nominee, NOT voting for him is the same as voting for Hillary. I don't want to predict what he would do as President, but I know for absolute certain that Hillary would be a disaster twice over. I still believe Trump's massive ego will require him to try to keep his "promises" and to fall in line with good Republican policy-- controlling immigration, lowering corporate taxes to draw jobs back to the US, those sorts of things. I'm hoping Cruz gets the nomination and beats Hillary, because then I think we are guaranteed to make "regress" (the opposite of "progressives").
Trump's website sounds like a lot of good, sensible policy. I don't think he has read it, himself, but it suggests where he might "learn" the job if he gets it. Cruz's website is even better. He outlines his "IRS termination" plan and the 5 major departments he will cut.
Unfortunately, if Trump is the nominee, NOT voting for him is the same as voting for Hillary.
No, it's not, especially in Minnesota. I can support conservative candidates for all other offices without giving my imprimatur to a man who should not be president.
As for Hillary, I can promise you I'll fight her candidacy every single day. One can do that without providing any explicit or implicit support to her opponent.
Re immigration: Cruz supported the open border before he was against it. Which conservative principle is the real one?
Gino asks a great question--the answer is to recognize what Pogo told us; we have met the enemy, and he is us. The biggest obstacles the poor and middle class face are generated in Washington DC and in state capitals, and include a heavy regulatory state, unfettered immigration, an oppressive tax system, and hundreds of billions of dollars for subsidies to the rich.
Reduce the price of employing people, and the rising tide will lift all boats. And yes, one other thing to do is to make sure that people are employable, but as far as I can tell from history, that has a lot more to do with getting them a first job that sucks than it does with their education.
And sort of back on topic, I oppose the Combover for the same reasons I oppose Hilliary. They both belong in jail, IMO.
I'm just not seeing the math. If the Republican and Democrat each have 50,000 "natural supporters," that is, people who always vote for that Party, and some Republican decides they just cannot vote for the Republican candidate this time around, the Democrat (Hillary) wins by 1 vote. Multiply that by thousands and say hello to President Hillary. And a Democrat-controlled Congress. I don't WANT to be forced to make that choice, but I WILL make that choice rather than let the Democrat clones determine it.
Another thought is that even if Drumpf was not a buffoon and great candidate for the federal penitentiary, and that even if the Combover was what he claims to be--a successful builder--that skill set is exactly wrong for what we need right now; someone who can manage to shut down a large portion of what our government is doing and remove disincentives to productivity that we've enshrined into law, regulations, and the tax code.
The only way the Combover shuts things down is when the bankruptcy court forces him to do so.
Cruz supported the open border before he was against it.
Open border? No he didn't. Show me proof that he supported an open border.
Trump's campaign has been dishonest from the outset. He completely misrepresented the situation in Wisconsin to hurt Scott Walker and came back with the same line of crap in the primary — thankfully, he got his butt handed to him there. He has dubbed Cruz a liar without demonstrating even one lie Cruz has told, but because he continues to repeat the charge ad nauseum and has his army of chanting monkeys (Drudge, Breitbart, Gateway Pundit, et al.) repeating the lie, it's penetrated the consciousness of people.
Lately Trump's campaign has been telling two other lies. The first is that Cruz is getting "voterless victories" in places like Colorado. That's not true — each state party makes its own rules and there is no requirement that every state needs to offer a primary election. We don't have a primary in Minnesota and in the past the delegates who go to the convention weren't necessarily bound to vote for the candidate that wins the straw poll. Rick Santorum won the caucuses in Minnesota in the last cycle, but he didn't have too many delegates at the national convention because the Ron Paul people were able to get their slate through at each step of the process. This year, the delegates are bound, at least on the first ballot, to the candidate who won the caucus, but I doubt Trump will get much help from the portion of the Minnesota delegation that is bound on the first ballot to Marco Rubio. If they switch to Cruz on the second ballot, is that "voterless?"
You see the problem? I had to use well over a hundred words to refute the one-word lie of "voterless."
Today, you hear Trump's flying monkeys out there proclaiming the Cruz has been "mathematically eliminated" from winning the nomination. That's only true if there's only one ballot. If there's more than one than one ballot, Trump is in trouble. Cruz isn't "eliminated" at all. Neither is Kasich. It's simply not true.
Trump is a dishonest man. I can't support him.
I'm just gonna enjoy watching the losing side hyperventilate. This is going to be good theater.
Many years ago, there was an election where there was a "vote swapping" movement. The premise was that I went out and found someone from the other party, and we mutually agreed to, in this case, "I won't vote for Trump if you don't vote for Hillary." Then you can salve your conscience by refusing to choose the lesser of two evils, without letting the greater evil win. Assuming, of course, you could trust a Democrat. Or that you could find one with similarly high principles to your own.
I'm just gonna enjoy watching the losing side hyperventilate.
As you wish. We won't be hyperventilating here.
Many years ago, there was an election where there was a "vote swapping" movement. The premise was that I went out and found someone from the other party, and we mutually agreed to, in this case, "I won't vote for Trump if you don't vote for Hillary." Then you can salve your conscience by refusing to choose the lesser of two evils, without letting the greater evil win. Assuming, of course, you could trust a Democrat. Or that you could find one with similarly high principles to your own.
What the Democrats do has nothing to do with what I choose to do. Conscience isn't subject to game theory.
The purpose of game theory is to win, or to at least advance your objectives. Letting Hillary win does not do that.
The purpose of game theory is to win, or to at least advance your objectives.
Right. My objectives aren't advanced by either of the candidates who are currently frontrunners.
I do not think that the totality of your objectives are not advanced better by one than by the other. For example, Hillary would doubtless continue to ignore the illegal immigration problem, while Trump would no doubt at least try to do something. My concern for Trump is that his work would be insufficiently bold or ineffective. My concern for Hillary is that she WOULD be effective, if only at maintaining the terrible status quo. As unsatisfying as both choices may be, it remains a choice.
I can list literally dozens of reasons why I'm in the "Never Trump" camp but all irrelevant behind one immutable truth: he can't win in the general against either Dem hopeful. Period.
Didn't Cruz sign on or promote an amnesty plan?
Didn't Cruz sign on or promote an amnesty plan?
You're the one who made the open border assertion up the thread, Gino.
Jerry, at this point I have two objectives:
Stop Trump
While the results in New York complicate that effort, it is still possible to stop Trump.
If I fail in the first objective, I consider the second objective:
Keeping my conscience clear
Signing on to Team Trump would violate the second objective.
Amnesty plan was Marco Rubio, one of the "gang of 8", if I remember right, not Ted Cruz. But we might be forgiven for not knowing what truth is after Hilliary and Combover have been campaigning. :^)
I'm pretty much with our gracious host here. Except for promises I consider to be worth the luminiferous aether they're broadcast on, Drumpf is Hilliary. Might cast a vote against Hilliary that looks superficially like one for Combover if push comes to shove, but maybe not. There is a penalty for a 70% lie rate.
I have been on the same plane for awhile now, Mr. D. so I am with you heart and soul on this one.
My main interest is what form the GOP will take when this is over. Will the wall Street boys be lead to the guillotine where they belong?
Will the wall Street boys be lead to the guillotine where they belong?
Not a chance. Wall Street plays on both sides of the aisle; I would remind you that Wall Street did very well when Mrs. Clinton's husband was in control. I'd like to see the Republican Party put more emphasis on Main Street, but for that to happen you need to have someone who is committed to decentralizing power and taking it away from Washington. Neither of the Democrats in the race would even dream of decentralizing power. Trump won't do that, either, nor will Kasich. Cruz may or may not, but his proposal to bust up the IRS is a good starting point.
Will the wall Street boys be lead to the guillotine where they belong?
I would argue that it would be sufficient to simply end the corporate welfare inherent in the current system, including the regulations and tax provisions that favor the businesses whose securities they sell and buy. And when they object--as they surely would--you simply ask them why it is appropriate that the barber be taxed to support a hedge fund manager.
What Bubba said. One other observation/question — if it is imperative that Wall Street be stopped, and if Trump is supposedly the person to do it, why did he do so well in the place where Wall Street is located?
I never said trump was the answer. I only said he was addressing the right issues.
Yes, and my point has been that his addressing the issues doesn't mean he is the guy to take the reins. There is way too much cult of personality going on with the guy.
Your focus should be on how to pick up the pieces when your party burns down this summer and fall.
You can't pick up ashes, so the job at the moment is to stop the guy with the gas can.
It's over. If he is denied, he will take his supporters into full revolt. The time to stop trump was long ago by not allowing these issues to fester.
If he is denied, he will take his supporters into full revolt.
So tell me what that looks like. Be specific.
The time to stop trump was long ago by not allowing these issues to fester.
Long ago is gone. What do you do now? Again, be specific.
Actually, apart from immigration, where he's making a hash of it, Mr. Drumpf is not addressing the right issues. He's just bragging and, sad to say, a lot of people are falling for it.
I am much more impressed by the very practical argument that "Trump can't win" in the general election than I am by the "principled" refusal to make that possible with a vote. Nonetheless, if he is the nominee, I fail to see any other course than to vote against Hillary, and if that means voting for Trump, I will hold my nose and do it, just as I did for McCain.
It doesn't much matter who the Republicans nominate, the Democrats and the sycophantic liberal media will savage them and make it difficult. Our candidate should not be making that easier for them, as Trump does.
I am concerned that, the more I hear the more "right message, wrong messenger" seems not to apply, and that "NO message, wrong messenger" seems more accurate.
Full revolt: they won't show up. Try to win in November with out half your primary voters.
As for other specifics... How bout decades of open borders? Economic policy that favored 10% while riding the rest to the mery of unfair competition? A party leadership that is best summed up by the actions of Paul Ryan and his budget deal?
Not showing up isn't a revolt. I guess what puzzles me is how crony capitalism is the fault of the GOP when it's been endemic in both parties, especially the Democrats under their last two administrations. Why burn down one party and not the other?
The Democrats are rent seekers. They never claimed anything else. The GOP likes to claim principles. That's the difference.oh, and the Dems do move the ball in favor of their voters... The GOP, even when they have majorities, goes French.
The Democrats are rent seekers. They never claimed anything else.
Yes, the Democrats are absolutely rent seekers. But to say they never claimed anything else is ridiculous. They have claimed to be the party of the working man for generations. And how are the working men and women doing these days? And if you think the Democrat move the ball in favor of their voters, tell me how $15/hour will help, or how their various forays into proper bathroom etiquette are moving the ball in favor of their voters. They move the ball in favor of their donors first, last, and always.
The GOP likes to claim principles.
Some do, some don't. And we have to get rid of the Mitch McConnells of the world who don't give a damn about principle. The whole point of Ted Cruz's campaign is to change the way Washington operates. And he's got the scars to prove he's willing to fight. I wish he had a better persona, but he's been about as consistent a guy as I've seen in Washington. And his reward for it? Being called "Lyin' Ted" by a braying orangutan with a combover.
The problem with Ted, and the GOP generally, is that this is not the same America Ronald Reagan was elected by. And the border, along with NAFTA and other trade deals are a large reason why.
As for Ted's lack of character: I appreciate his dirty play. It's called politics, and that's how you move the ball sometimes. But he's 15-20 yrs too late.
So because he's 15-20 years too late, you cede the field?
Things have moved on. Like I said before, constitutionalism is a cute idea. I like it, too. It's just not a practical fight anymore.
Okay then. So nothing Trump claims matters either. The jack boots deployed on your throat and up your ass are growing comfortable. But you can't move on with the boots deployed.
Nothing anybody claims really matters much to me. I'm jaded and disillusioned.... And lacking in any faith in the process.
Thanks for telling us where you are "coming from," Gino. It makes more sense now. But I'm wondering if "the process" would get better if you devoted your no-doubt-considerable talents to fixing it?
I was heavily involved in the process at one time, even got involved in central committee politics, vetting candidates, registration drives.. All that.
Then I grew up.
I did it the other way around. I felt I had to get involved, but admittedly my life would be easier otherwise, and it seems like pushing an elephant around sometimes, but I'm an optimist.
Post a Comment