Wednesday, February 24, 2016

The Federalist has lost its everlovin' mind


I was absolutely dumbfounded to read this article.

Star-struck, low-information celebrity cultists will vote for Trump under any circumstances because they do not know any better and do not care. For them, Trump is whatever they want him to be, and they will never change their minds. The rest of us, however, have a much more difficult choice to make. Will we really oppose Trump to the point of accepting any alternative, including Hillary Clinton?

The answer, at least for me, is: Yes. If forced into a choice between Clinton and Trump, I will prefer Hillary Clinton. The future of the entire conservative movement is at stake, and a Clinton victory over Trump might be the only hope of saving it.

There's more at the link.

Seriously?  The author would allow - he'd vote for - Hillary to be able to nominate to the Supreme Court justices like by-then-former President Obama or her husband?  He'd allow her to take over a federal government already politicized and turned into a witch-hunt machine par excellence by the Obama administration, and further refine it into a pack of Clinton attack dogs?  He'd ignore her repeated public lies, evasions and dissimulations over decades in the political arena - the 'sniper fire' claim, Whitewater, Hillarycare, Travelgate, Filegate, her impossibly profitable cattle futures investment, her role in the Benghazi tragedy, the e-mail controversy, and many more scandals?

I don't know how bad Mr. Trump may prove to be as President if he's elected.  He may, indeed, be as bad as the author of that article fears.  All I know is, he can't possibly be a worse candidate (or, if it comes to that, President) than any of the current 'mainstream' candidates on both the Left and the Right of US politics.  He'll probably be significantly better than at least some of them.  Under those circumstances, the obvious choice is to vote for the lesser of the available evils - and that ain't Hillary Clinton.

Based on the hard facts and historical evidence available to us, if the author of this article seriously considers Hillary to be a better choice for President, from a conservative/libertarian perspective, than Donald Trump, he must be either deluded or insane.  I can't see any other possibility.




Peter

18 comments:

sth_txs said...

GOPe would rather have a Hillary in charge so they can keep feeding at the government rent seeking trough as well.

For me, all the candidates are bad in their own way. I'm a disenfranchised Ron Paul Republican, so I'm all for tearing down the GOP. Maybe Bernie can do the same for that side. As one blogger put it, both parties have elements in them that no different than annoying house guest that need to leave.

Trump 2016 - Because what can he do? Screw it up even more?

lee n. field said...

IMHO, Nicki Kenyon's rant today at the Liberty Zone is worthwhile reading.

Gorges Smythe said...

The man is either a moron or a liar.

libertarianrn said...

Reading the article, it sounds like the author feels Trump is as bad as Clinton. So given the choice, the author would rather have someone the Republican party can rally against.

Trump is a Mystery Box as far as actual governance goes. His policy platform is, "We're going to WIN, and make American great again!" Who knows what he'll do? But before he was running for President, he supported assault weapons bans, waiting periods, and universal background checks - so on gun issues at least, he's as bad as Clinton. At least the Republicans will oppose Clinton as President, instead of knuckling under for a nominal Republican President. At the same time, he is going to alienate the woman and Hispanic vote, which the Republican party very much needs to NOT alienate.

I won't be voting for either one of them, but I can see the author's point.

clark myers said...

Agreed that the author would rather have someone the Republican party can rally against - thus preserving the Republican Party at the cost of the nation. I wouldn't call that insane though it's a choice I can only look at with dismay.

On the other hand, though I do not know Mr. Trump I do know Michael Bane of Outdoor Channel fame. Under the circumstances I choose to believe Mr. Bane when Mr. Bane writes that Mr. Trump's earlier position on guns was a kneejerk unreasoned position Further that Mr. Trump's current position has been rethought as a result of family pressure. And on the gripping hand that Mr. Trump's current, reasoned conviction, is satisfactory to Mr. Bane and so to me. It is also not obvious that Trump will eliminate any more of the women's vote or the Hispanic vote than any other candidate of the Republican party.

Thus I may be guided by the sick puppies in approaching a Hugo Ballot but break with anybody, anybody at all, who suggests Hillary over Trump. I do hope earlier predictions that it will come down to Cruz on the Republican side are correct but I won't be voting for any Democrat. Fortunately I have so arranged my life that all my home state's electoral votes will be going to the Republican candidate regardless so the issue doesn't much arise.

MadMcAl said...

As far as I (as an European) can see, you have the choice between pest and cholera.
Neither Trump nor Clinton are anything a leader of a nation should be.

Trump is a populist and as such most likely without a real plan (it is nice to say to evict 11 million illegals, but the doing of this is.... questionable for example).
Clinton has not done a deal with the devil only because the devil can't trust her.

Inconsiderate Bastard said...

Interesting.

Trump is, as libertarianm above points out, a "Mystery Box," to the extent that the specifics of what proposed actions lie behind his campaign proclamations are largely missing. "Make America Great Again" is no less an electioneering slogan than "Hope and Change" and equally vapid.

Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is very much an open book, and, as such, highly predictable: a corrupt, money-seeking, incompetent administration, driven by syncophants so far left they make Karl Marx look like John Wayne can be the only result. If you thought Obama's foreign policy was dismal, just wait and see what Hillary Clinton will be able to do in a couple short years; Clinton's domestic policies, on the other hand, will become the playtoys of the entrenched, unelected, and thoroughly leftist and incompetent bureaucratic mass of executive agencies.

I'll predict, despite the hazards of making predictions, that if Hillary Clinton is elected the United States will have armed insurrection within 3 years; if you thought the British treated Washington, D.C. roughly in the War of 1812 wait until you see what enraged Americans do to it in 2019. There will be a waiting list for streetlamp rope space. (Pretty much the same outcome for a Bernie Sander presidency, although it may take longer because so few take The Bernie seriously, so he'll largely be ignored for a while).

Trump, despite his faults, does have some level of grounding in reality that can be used as leverage. In business a lot of so-called "management training" takes place, seeking to drive corporate philosophy and performance from the top down; little effort is expended on the concept of "managing up" but every in every highly successful business one can find evidence of it. Competent employees manage their managers every bit as much as their managers seek to manage them, albeit with a great deal more subtlety.

I contend that, should a cadre of competent Department Secretaries be assembled (a not insignificant task, although quite possible; consider a personage such as Ben Carson as HHS Secretary, Carly Fiorina at State, Christie at Justice, etc., and the abolishment of enough executive agencies to reduce the need for a large number of highly competent managers (see: HUD, Education, Labor, et al)), it is entirely possible that, given "The Art of the Deal," Trump can be succsssfully managed from below, at least to some degree.

That cannot be said of anyone on the Democrat side.

Successful upward management of someone like Trump will be dependent upon an engaged populace who, first, understands the concept, and second, has a sufficient idea of what's involved in doing it to support the not inconsiderable, and sometimes quite frustrating, effort. It's quite possible our ship runs aground at that point, but remember that we did win World War II with a certain number of incompetent generals reporting to Marshall, and Ike was not known for polling the troops to determine where they wanted to invade Eurrope.

Dirk said...

With everything Hillary has done, or been suspected of doing - and what's she's verifiably done is far more than enough to have gotten pretty much anyone else jailed forever, if not executed - it just floors me that she has any support at all. How can people support a lying, conniving, thieving traitor such as Hillary?

I saw one of those demotivational posters. Had pictures of Bernie and Hillary. For Bernie, the caption was "Mr. Free Shit", and for for Hillary, the caption was "Mrs. Bullshit". Quite apt, though didn't go nearly far enough, IMHO

Gail said...

Being from Arkansas we know the Clintons. I know NO ONE who has ever voted for Mr as governor or president and yet they continued to be elected. Yes, they. They are a unit.

Pardon my language, but the future for my grandchildren and even the immediate future scares the hell outta me.

Anonymous said...

In that case my vote will NONE OF THE ABOVE.

Gerry

Dirk said...

Interesting info on voter turnout in the last few primaries:

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/big-2016-story-out-nevada-gop-caucus-turnout-n524951

August said...

Oh, that's Tom Nicholls. he is a progressive meme generator, or perhaps just repeater. I imagine it starts with some huge PR company, but they hardly have to do anything with these useful idiots around.
Anyway, I found one of the memes he's written about in the real world- the supposed death of expertise, which is actually the death of their stupid narrative. I think it is an excuse to not seek out real experts who don't support the narrative.

internetscofflaw.com said...

Just echoing libertarianm: Trump is a Democrat, pretending to be a Republican. Given a choice between two Democrats, it's not clear to me who is the lesser of two evils. I would probably hold my nose and vote for Trump over Clinton, but I can see the contrary case. If you're disgusted with the Republican establishment often giving in to Democrats, just wait until they're faced with a Democrat labeled as a Republican.

Anonymous said...

Yep, I don't see Trump as any more trustworthy than Hillary, especially given that he's had so much less time in the public eye. At least with Hillary the nation would get a known, albeit distasteful quantity. Hoping that Trump's "mystery policies" will be better is optimistic but, given the evidence, not much more than that. I'm not very taken with his business record either. He sure gives a mean speech but is it anything other than masturbatory nationalism?

I certainly hope that I don't have to choose between the two. I'd probably bow out but there's no telling what will happen between now and November.

Bibliotheca Servare said...

Yeah, given a choice between Hillary freaking *Clinton* getting to name a Supreme Court Justice, and Donald Trump? It's not a choice I like having to make, but it's also, in my opinion, a no-brainer. Donald, at least, has given lipservice to the idea of nominating a Constitutionalist replacement for Scalia...I may not trust him to do what he says he will do, but I DO trust that Hillary will do what she always does, which is whatever helps her while pleasing her ultraliberal, "pro-choice" base. Neither of those things includes the possibility of.appointing a non-liberal-biased justice to the court. Donald *might* appoint a terrible choice...Hillary *definitely* will. It's not even a question worth asking. Maybe Donald will "destroy" any hope the GOP has of winning elections in the future...I doubt it, but maybe. So WHAT? We'll finally form a new party, or something else will happen. But Barack Obama, or Gloria Steinem, or someone equally insane won't be a Supreme Court Justice in the meantime. And even if that weren't an issue, I'd vote for Judas Iscariot before I voted for Hillary Rodham Clinton, quite frankly. Not Satan, no...but definitely Judas. At least *he* offed himself when he realized the evil he had done. Hillary justifies it, and tells herself she's a saint. Honestly...if Hillary Clinton wins in a Trump VS Clinton election? I will be tempted to do injury to every single person I know who says "I'm not voting for either of those leftist lunatics!" while telling themselves that that's actually a possibility. No, if you don't vote, then whoever wins, if you would have voted against them, won because you essentially voted *for* them by refusing to vote. If you truly think they are equally evil, and genuinely could *not* decide which would be worse, well...the answer is always going to be "Hillary". It really is that simple. But I've still got my fingers crossed for Cruz, pathetically hopeless as that might make me...dangit. I'll step off my soapbox now...sorry. God bless! :-)

Bibliotheca Servare said...

Personally, I'm hoping Hillary is arrested and formally charged before the national election. Unlikely? Sure, but then I'd get to see my moderately sane democrat friends heads explode as they had to choose between a "nationalist socialist" and a Constitutionalist republican (in the scenario where Cruz is the nominee) or I'd get to see the same thing with my republican friends having to choose between a guy we *know* is nuts and a guy we know little about other than he's an unknown quantity (given what he has said about his changed political beliefs, he is either sincere, or a pathological liar)...socialist or potential pathological liar who, if he isn't a pathological liar, might actually be a decent, or tolerable, president? Fun choice. But if it's between Bernie and Trump and anyone doesn't vote? Seriously? We KNOW Bernie is sincere about his insane socialism. If you can't hold your nose and vote for a possible liar in order to prevent an actual, self-described SOCIALIST from taking office...you scare me. God bless. :-)

ASM826 said...

My response to a discussion on this last week was the flip side. If the Democrats run Hillary, I will vote for whoever the Republicans nominate. Anyone. Anyone at all.

To paraphrase Winston Churchill, "If the Devil took the Republican nomination, I would make at least consider his platform if Hillary was the other choice."

sdharms said...

Trump is Hillary. Picture him being criticized or joked about by Jimmy Fallon. Fallon will find himself sued or IRS investigated. How is that different from Hillary? He is a crony capitalist. How is that different? He will insult our foreign partners and enemies alike. He will appoint CRONIES to the SC. Vote for either? Not me.