Your Choice in November

 

Ricochet members frequently have spirited debates over how and why to vote, or not, in November. These debates never solve anything and rarely address the real issue. Too often they concentrate on the candidate and not the party that will be in power setting the agenda.

Our country has been slouching towards totalitarianism in some form ever since the “Progressives” emerged in 1898. It didn’t matter which party won. Names we were taught to revere in history class share in the blame: Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Wilson, Dewey, etc. Under the guise of a special love for humanity, constitutional amendments and social programs were passed that are now bankrupting us. The same humanity excuse is being used to rip apart our borders, our identity as a country, and even our moral values. For some unfathomable reason, too many think age and personality should guide their choice.

The #1 priority that should guide your choice is the understanding that you are picking the party and ideology that will govern and will therefore determine the direction the country will take. Deferring this choice until 4 years later could be fatal for the country. We are in the end stages of the Marxist cultural revolution, launched by the adherents of the “Frankfurt School,” the cultural Marxists welcomed into our Ivies after WWII. Their critical theory ideas have been wholly accepted and spread by the left, affecting and weakening every institution. It might even be too late already. Waiting one or two elections for your perfect candidate to emerge before you can start the correction is not wise.

The US isn’t alone. The entire Western world is under assault, often succumbing to it. The World Economic Forum is a major driver. If you look at Biden’s executive orders, they often are in lockstep with WEF goals, which do not coincidentally bear a close resemblance to critical theory goals. The party you put in the White House will continue to push its own ideology. When Trump was in the White House, he pushed ours, whether or not it passed your purity test. Despite the arrogant backstabbers in his administration, his economic team was excellent and several think tanks had their say. The Biden Administration implements the lefty agenda from its power brokers and think tanks. Pick the ideology you want to set the direction of the country.

The next consideration should be based on how things were in the candidates’ first four years in office. Why is this my #2? Because many of Trump’s successes were not acknowledged by even by our own side. This includes the Trump haters who begrudged him every little success. As a result, much of the electorate isn’t aware of them.

Now for the reasons you should set aside, or in some cases, excuses you shouldn’t use:

#1. You are in a blue state so your vote doesn’t matter. The Democrats have been pushing gimmicks and spin to replace the Electoral College with a national popular vote. This gets purchase for two reasons: they often win the popular vote (unless you subtract California votes) and civic ignorance. We need every popular vote— in both blue states and red states— to convince them they aren’t the majority.

#2. Abortion. We got a bad court ruling overturned. Accept the victory and fight it out in each state. Some foolishly say Trump isn’t as pro-life as they would like. So what? He delivered.  It is a state issue now, unless the Democrats win the White House.

#3. Age. So what? Our Constitution ensures a continuation of governance should the president falter. We aren’t as likely to prop up a semi-corpse figurehead as the Democrats have done. The VP choice is critical. We only need two years of Trump’s fighting spirit to put things in motion; three would be a bonus. We would get four years, even if his VP must replace him. He needs a strong staff, and by all indications,  he is putting together a loyal band ahead of time. Think tanks are drafting something resembling Newt’s “Contract With America.” Have you noticed how effective his campaign ads are?

#4. Personality. If this is what drives you, even above the future of the country, then you deserve what the Democrats will continue to do to this country. Freedom isn’t free. It must be fought for. If this is all it takes for you to roll over on the country, then I am done. I won’t save you.

#5. Morality. If you feel the need to engage in moral preening, do it elsewhere—not in the voting booth. None of the moral preeners have lived a more prudish lifestyle than I have. I can separate a person’s youthful indiscretions from his later years. I grew up in the 60s. I know how most in my generation behaved. Divorced? So what? Trump has finally found what works for him. All the accusations that have surfaced? Oh, please! Democrats have been dragging such people and accusations out for years to damage our choices. Why do they do that? To use our values against us (Alinsky rule) because enough people fall for it every time. Note that these aren’t their values. They hated every moral candidate we had in the past. It is a tactic, that is all. At this point I ignore the accusation and just consider each one another fabrication.

So now you have my rationale. Do with it what you will. Some will not change. Adding ten pages of repetitive debate in the comment sections won’t change a mind solidly made up.

Each must make a choice. I just think you should consider whether the decision you make will be about you or your country.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 52 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Well said, Red.

    • #1
  2. David Foster Member
    David Foster
    @DavidFoster

    “Too often they concentrate on the candidate and not the party that will be in power setting the agenda”

    Especially now, the party matters.  If Biden s replaced on the ticket, the new candidate will still be the vehicle of Dem-party objectives.  I discussed the nature of those objectives in my post Are You a Target?

    • #2
  3. Tex929rr Coolidge
    Tex929rr
    @Tex929rr

    Well said.  Any ostensible conservative not voting for Trump is foolish. 

    • #3
  4. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    Yes, “foolish” might apply , and even “naive.”  The problem with this debate on ricochet is the debate ends up with repetitive pages of comments and even insults. We need to remember that many people we disagree with are expressing values we hold in common under other circumstance. It is their rigid application here that puts the country at risk. The Bible would be a much smaller book if God had only chosen perfect people to do His will. He chose people as imperfect as those they must lead. 

    • #4
  5. EJHill Staff
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    Red Herring: The next consideration is how were things in the candidates’ first four years in office? Why is this my #2? Because many of Trump’s successes were not acknowledged by even our own side, the Trump haters who begrudged him every little success, so many aren’t aware. 

    Except those successes are a direct result of the “arrogant backstabbers” you hate. Paul Ryan and Kevin Brady ushered in the tax cuts. Mitch McConnell was more responsible for the Supreme Court than anybody.

    Red Herring: I can separate a person’s youthful indiscretions from his later years.

    Donald Trump was freaking 60 years old when he cheated on wife #3. He was 53 when he cheated on wife #2. He was 44 when he cheated on wife #1. At exactly what point does “youthful indiscretion” stop and being a disloyal, rotten human being begin? You have accepted Clintonian morality in its fullest form.

    Red Herring: He needs a strong staff, and by all indications,  he is putting together a loyal band ahead of time.

    Loyalty to the man and not the Constitution or the law. Down this path lie dragons.
     

    • #5
  6. Tex929rr Coolidge
    Tex929rr
    @Tex929rr

    EJHill (View Comment):

    Red Herring: The next consideration is how were things in the candidates’ first four years in office? Why is this my #2? Because many of Trump’s successes were not acknowledged by even our own side, the Trump haters who begrudged him every little success, so many aren’t aware.

    Except those successes are a direct result of the “arrogant backstabbers” you hate. Paul Ryan and Kevin Brady ushered in the tax cuts. Mitch McConnell was more responsible for the Supreme Court than anybody.

    Red Herring: I can separate a person’s youthful indiscretions from his later years.

    Donald Trump was freaking 60 years old when he cheated on wife #3. He was 53 when he cheated on wife #2. He was 44 when he cheated on wife #1. At exactly what point does “youthful indiscretion” stop and being a disloyal, rotten human being begin? You have accepted Clintonian morality in its fullest form.

    Red Herring: He needs a strong staff, and by all indications, he is putting together a loyal band ahead of time.

    Loyalty to the man and not the Constitution or the law. Down this path lie dragons.

    Even if one concedes all your assertions, the alternative is four more years of Joe Biden or someone even worse.

    • #6
  7. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    Our fearless leader, Mr. Cooke, has provided another reason to vote, most particularly in the event Biden is replaced on the ticket. That would be to prove Mr. Cooke wrong.

    Today at NRO:

    On the one hand, the Democrats are ruthless and don’t care about institutions that stand in their way, whether that institution is the Electoral College, the filibuster, the Supreme Court, or the Constitution. Nuking their own rules? Pah! That’s child’s play. On the other hand, there’s no obvious backup candidate, and to get to one that would obviously beat Trump — which is most people in America — they’d have to jettison Kamala Harris, which would be pretty tough.

    So, other than Biden, “most people in America” would “obviously beat Trump.”

    So, rather than bow to genius, we should be motivated to prove that, indeed, there are many other people in America, including politicians, who would lose to Trump. 

    • #7
  8. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    EJHill (View Comment):

    Red Herring: The next consideration is how were things in the candidates’ first four years in office? Why is this my #2? Because many of Trump’s successes were not acknowledged by even our own side, the Trump haters who begrudged him every little success, so many aren’t aware.

    Except those successes are a direct result of the “arrogant backstabbers” you hate. Paul Ryan and Kevin Brady ushered in the tax cuts. Mitch McConnell was more responsible for the Supreme Court than anybody.

    Red Herring: I can separate a person’s youthful indiscretions from his later years.

    Donald Trump was freaking 60 years old when he cheated on wife #3. He was 53 when he cheated on wife #2. He was 44 when he cheated on wife #1. At exactly what point does “youthful indiscretion” stop and being a disloyal, rotten human being begin? You have accepted Clintonian morality in its fullest form.

    Red Herring: He needs a strong staff, and by all indications, he is putting together a loyal band ahead of time.

    Loyalty to the man and not the Constitution or the law. Down this path lie dragons.

    No, the economic successes were the result of the agenda of his Council of Economic Advisers. The Senate couldn’t nominate judges. Only Trump could. McConnell did what we expected him to do. He also turned on Trump often. You are having to dig pretty far back into his life for examples of infidelities. There is a big area on the line graft between cult adoration and backstabbing. Your reply adds nothing re my reasons for voting for Trump or your reasons not to, and I wonder if you are more of a prude than I am or merely using that as an excuse.

    • #8
  9. EJHill Staff
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    Tex929rr: Even if one concedes all your assertions, the alternative is four more years of Joe Biden or someone even worse.

    But you’re still asking me how I prefer my own country’s suicide. This isn’t the lesser of two evils. This is the lesser of two really evils. The arguments made for Donald Trump and the MAGA cause on these pages have been antithetical to freedom and Constitutional government.

    Trump can call for the suspension of the Constitution and people shrug their shoulders. He can write on Truth Social,”A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution,” and deny saying it two days later and they will believe his denials. That’s not a rationale to vote for Trump, that is a rationalization.

    His acolytes such as Steve Bannon and Kash Patel can openly boast about their desire to gut the First Amendment. “We will go out and find the conspirators not just in government, but in the media,” says Patel, “We’re going to come after you whether it’s criminally or civilly. We’ll figure that out.” (Emphasis mine.)

    And then Bannon nods and says, “This is just not rhetoric. We’re absolutely dead serious.”

    And then Trump says of NBC, “Our so-called ‘government’ should come down hard on them and make them pay for their illegal political activity.”

    And I take them at their word. They are tyrants in waiting and they can’t wait to get to work.

    • #9
  10. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    EJHill (View Comment):

    Tex929rr: Even if one concedes all your assertions, the alternative is four more years of Joe Biden or someone even worse.

    But you’re still asking me how I prefer my own country’s suicide. This isn’t the lesser of two evils. This is the lesser of two really evils. The arguments made for Donald Trump and the MAGA cause on these pages have been antithetical to freedom and Constitutional government.

    Trump can call for the suspension of the Constitution and people shrug their shoulders. He can write on Truth Social,”A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution,” and deny saying it two days later and they will believe his denials. That’s not a rationale to vote for Trump, that is a rationalization.

    His acolytes such as Steve Bannon and Kash Patel can openly boast about their desire to gut the First Amendment. “We will go out and find the conspirators not just in government, but in the media,” says Patel, “We’re going to come after you whether it’s criminally or civilly. We’ll figure that out.” (Emphasis mine.)

    And then Bannon nods and says, “This is just not rhetoric. We’re absolutely dead serious.”

    And then Trump says of NBC, “Our so-called ‘government’ should come down hard on them and make them pay for their illegal political activity.”

    And I take them at their word. They are tyrants in waiting and they can’t wait to get to work.

    You fail to address the alternative. Also, Trump followed the Constitution his first term and didn’t ignore the court when he lost. Punishing guilty coupsters using legal means isn’t tyranny.  Trump haters have done enough damage already. 

    • #10
  11. EJHill Staff
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    Red Herring: Your reply adds nothing re my reasons for voting for Trump or your reasons not to, and I wonder if you are more of a prude than I am or merely using that as an excuse.

    As I said. You expect a moral, principled government from immoral (or amoral) people. Everything is transactional. All you want to do at this point is haggle over the price.

    • #11
  12. EJHill Staff
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    Moderator Note:

    Please refrain from overly personal and rude responses.

    Punishing guilty coupsters using legal means isn’t tyranny. Trump haters have done enough damage already.

    “Trump haters” have Constitutional rights, too.

    • #12
  13. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    EJHill (View Comment):

    Red Herring: Your reply adds nothing re my reasons for voting for Trump or your reasons not to, and I wonder if you are more of a prude than I am or merely using that as an excuse.

    As I said. You’re now a Clinton Democrat. You expect a moral, principled government from immoral (or amoral) people. Everything is transactional. All you want to do at this point is haggle over the price.

    I refer you back to my opening paragraph:

    Ricochet members frequently have spirited debates over how and why to vote, or not, in November. These debates never solve anything and rarely address the real issue. Too often they concentrate on the candidate and not the party that will be in power setting the agenda. 

    And my closing one:

    So now you have my rationale. Do with it what you will. Some will not change. Adding ten pages of repetitive debate in the comment sections won’t change a mind solidly made up. Each must make a choice. Just ask yourself if your choice is about you or your country.

    My post isn’t for people like you, but for those still on the fence. I also will not waste my time arguing with you. Neither of us will change our mind.  Comparing me to a corrupt Marxist just because I don’t agree with you is uncalled for.

    • #13
  14. EJHill Staff
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    Red Herring: Comparing me to a corrupt Marxist just because I don’t agree with you is uncalled for.

    It’s exactly what’s called for. And it’s not because we disagree, but because you’ve abandoned the principles you claim to stand for and have embraced the tactics of the tyrannical in the name of revenge. You want your own brand of “lawfare” and your own brand of destruction of constitutional rights. That needs to be called out for what it is.

    • #14
  15. Tex929rr Coolidge
    Tex929rr
    @Tex929rr

    EJHill (View Comment):

    Red Herring: Comparing me to a corrupt Marxist just because I don’t agree with you is uncalled for.

    It’s exactly what’s called for. And it’s not because we disagree, but because you’ve abandoned the principles you claim to stand for and have embraced the tactics of the tyrannical in the name of revenge. You want your own brand of “lawfare” and your own brand of destruction of constitutional rights. That needs to be called out for what it is.

    Where did he say that?  Actually, where did any of us say that?  

    • #15
  16. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    EJHill (View Comment):

    Red Herring: The next consideration is how were things in the candidates’ first four years in office? Why is this my #2? Because many of Trump’s successes were not acknowledged by even our own side, the Trump haters who begrudged him every little success, so many aren’t aware.

    Except those successes are a direct result of the “arrogant backstabbers” you hate. Paul Ryan and Kevin Brady ushered in the tax cuts. Mitch McConnell was more responsible for the Supreme Court than anybody.

    Red Herring: I can separate a person’s youthful indiscretions from his later years.

    Donald Trump was freaking 60 years old when he cheated on wife #3. He was 53 when he cheated on wife #2. He was 44 when he cheated on wife #1. At exactly what point does “youthful indiscretion” stop and being a disloyal, rotten human being begin? You have accepted Clintonian morality in its fullest form.

    Red Herring: He needs a strong staff, and by all indications, he is putting together a loyal band ahead of time.

    Loyalty to the man and not the Constitution or the law. Down this path lie dragons.

    You just inserted a whole bunch of things that she didn’t say. 

    Your post is more about you than it is actually responding to Red. 

    Are you going to vote for Trump??

     

    • #16
  17. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Tex929rr (View Comment):

    EJHill (View Comment):

    Red Herring: Comparing me to a corrupt Marxist just because I don’t agree with you is uncalled for.

    It’s exactly what’s called for. And it’s not because we disagree, but because you’ve abandoned the principles you claim to stand for and have embraced the tactics of the tyrannical in the name of revenge. You want your own brand of “lawfare” and your own brand of destruction of constitutional rights. That needs to be called out for what it is.

    Where did he say that? Actually, where did any of us say that?

    Trump actually said the opposite. He actually said it wouldn’t be the right thing to do and that success was the best revenge.

     

    • #17
  18. EJHill Staff
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    Bryan G. Stephens: You just inserted a whole bunch of things that she didn’t say.

    No, I dealt with each of her arguments on their merits. One cannot excuse the actions of a 60-year old man as a “youthful indiscretion.”

    She described the traditional end of the party as “arrogant backstabbers.” Those same people delivered Trump’s legislative victories, in spite of Trump, not because of him. 

     

    • #18
  19. EJHill Staff
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    Bryan G. Stephens: Trump actually said the opposite. He actually said it wouldn’t be the right thing to do and that success was the best revenge.

    And if we learned anything during the Trump presidency is was his mastery over process and the people who worked for him? Please.

    • #19
  20. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    EJHill (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens: Trump actually said the opposite. He actually said it wouldn’t be the right thing to do and that success was the best revenge.

    And if we learned anything during the Trump presidency is was his mastery over process and the people who worked for him? Please.

    Will you vote for Trump?

    • #20
  21. AMD Texas Coolidge
    AMD Texas
    @DarinJohnson

    Tex929rr (View Comment):

    EJHill (View Comment):

    Red Herring: Comparing me to a corrupt Marxist just because I don’t agree with you is uncalled for.

    It’s exactly what’s called for. And it’s not because we disagree, but because you’ve abandoned the principles you claim to stand for and have embraced the tactics of the tyrannical in the name of revenge. You want your own brand of “lawfare” and your own brand of destruction of constitutional rights. That needs to be called out for what it is.

    Where did he say that? Actually, where did any of us say that?

    She didn’t say that nor did anyone else. 

    • #21
  22. Paul Stinchfield Member
    Paul Stinchfield
    @PaulStinchfield

    Red Herring (View Comment):
    Yes, “foolish” might apply , and even “naive.”  The problem with this debate on ricochet is the debate ends up with repetitive pages of comments and even insults. We need to remember that many people we disagree with are expressing values we hold in common under other circumstance.

    Note the many blog and social media forums where lack of absolute ideological purity gets one consigned to the Outer Darkness. “Agree 90%” is not enough. Nor is “agrees but used to be on the other side”. By such criteria trolls demoralize, sow confusion, and paint even heroes like David Horowitz as enemies.

    • #22
  23. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    Don’t waste your time arguing with him. I am amused that he lumps me in with Hillary. Also, I am all for revenge, as he said, but only against the guilty, and only through the justice system. Why? The best way to stop the playground bully is to punch him in the face. Wimpy kids never defend themselves and wimpy adults don’t deter bullies.

    • #23
  24. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    EJHill (View Comment):

    Red Herring: Your reply adds nothing re my reasons for voting for Trump or your reasons not to, and I wonder if you are more of a prude than I am or merely using that as an excuse.

    As I said. You’re now a Clinton Democrat. You expect a moral, principled government from immoral (or amoral) people. Everything is transactional. All you want to do at this point is haggle over the price.

    You, on the other hand, expect to find moral people. You’d probably want honest, too. Check with Diogenes – I hear he’s looking for one.

    • #24
  25. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    EJHill (View Comment):
    Mitch McConnell was more responsible for the Supreme Court than anybody.

    Well…

    I’ve been quite vocal in my approval of McConnell’s guts on this score, but I think it is very easy to defend the proposition that, had Hillary Clinton defeated Donald Trump in 2016, Roe v. Wade would still be controlling legal doctrine, and today’s glorious defeat of Chevron deference would not have occurred — with or without McConnell.

    So credit where it’s due, but only that.

    • #25
  26. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Our fearless leader, Mr. Cooke, has provided another reason to vote, most particularly in the event Biden is replaced on the ticket. That would be to prove Mr. Cooke wrong.

    Today at NRO:

    On the one hand, the Democrats are ruthless and don’t care about institutions that stand in their way, whether that institution is the Electoral College, the filibuster, the Supreme Court, or the Constitution. Nuking their own rules? Pah! That’s child’s play. On the other hand, there’s no obvious backup candidate, and to get to one that would obviously beat Trump — which is most people in America — they’d have to jettison Kamala Harris, which would be pretty tough.

    So, other than Biden, “most people in America” would “obviously beat Trump.”

    So, rather than bow to genius, we should be motivated to prove that, indeed, there are many other people in America, including politicians, who would lose to Trump.

    CW has some rather distressing blindspots.

    • #26
  27. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    EJHill (View Comment):
    Trump can call for the suspension of the Constitution and people shrug their shoulders. He can write on Truth Social,”A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution,” and deny saying it two days later and they will believe his denials. That’s not a rationale to vote for Trump, that is a rationalization.

    You don’t understand how that refers to the left, not to the right or to himself?

    • #27
  28. AMD Texas Coolidge
    AMD Texas
    @DarinJohnson

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    EJHill (View Comment):
    Mitch McConnell was more responsible for the Supreme Court than anybody.

    Well…

    I’ve been quite vocal in my approval of McConnell’s guts on this score, but I think it is very easy to defend the proposition that, had Hillary Clinton defeated Donald Trump in 2016, Roe v. Wade would still be controlling legal doctrine, and today’s glorious defeat of Chevron deference would not have occurred — with or without McConnell.

    So credit where it’s due, but only that.

    I don’t believe he’s capable of giving Trump even the tiniest bit of credit. Maybe I’ll be surprised.

    • #28
  29. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    I can’t help but notice that anti Trumpers won’t answer direct questions like

    “Do you want Trump to win”.

     

    • #29
  30. AMD Texas Coolidge
    AMD Texas
    @DarinJohnson

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    I can’t help but notice that anti Trumpers won’t answer direct questions like

    “Do you want Trump to win”.

    I’ve noticed that as well. You’ve asked that over at least two threads recently with the question being dodged by those you asked. Usually while mewling about integrity.

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.