Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Why I’d Vote for Hillary Before Trump
I just made this point in the comments, then realized I should make it explicitly. I know we have Trump supporters on Ricochet. We also have people who think that he’s not their first choice, but might not be a total disaster. I’ve made it clear that I think he’d be an unparalleled disaster, but perhaps haven’t made my argument as clearly as I could.
So I’ll give it my best. I have more arguments where this came from, but to me, this is definitive.
The moment that most clearly demonstrates that he’s nuts — and nuts in a way different in kind from any previous president in the nuclear era and from any of the other candidates for the presidency — was when he said George W. Bush knowingly misled the world about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. “I will tell you. They lied. And they said there were weapons of mass destruction and there were none. And they knew there were none. There were no weapons of mass destruction.”
It’s not absolutely clear who “they” are in this sentence, but by any plausible, common-sense reading, he means George W. Bush and his administration.
The assertion that Bush knew there were no weapons of mass destruction, as opposed to having been wrong about it, is extremely implausible and requires a belief in hundreds of conspirators, not just George W. Bush. It’s so implausible that it qualifies, to my mind, as a clinically paranoiac belief. People who hold this kind of belief tend to be people who’d also believe aliens abducted them and probed their orifices with laser beams. They are not capable of forming reasonable judgments about serious things.
It’s not clear to me whether Trump truly believes George W. Bush knowingly lied to the American people about the Iraq war. But if so, how does his mental universe work? What, in his view, motivated Bush and those around him to do this? How does he account for the most obvious objection to this theory, namely, that any administration prepared to go to war on premises they knew to be false would have had both the disposition and the motivation to plant the weapons they had told the world would be found?
What does he imagine motivated all of Bush’s intimates, as well as the House and Senate, to lie like that, but fail to cover up the lie? Why does he think no one has since come forward to offer evidence of this conspiracy? Why does he discount all the evidence that this was a catastrophic intelligence failure?
If he said this cynically, knowing it makes no sense, it’s a different order of malice than a standard political lie or exaggeration. If he believes it, it suggests mental disorder (I use the word “disorder” deliberately — as in, “not orderly, not logical”) of a more disturbing kind than any previous holder of that office in the nuclear era. Not just degree, but kind.
I have many other objections to him, but I think this one is — as George Tenet might say — a slam dunk.* You can’t put people who believe things like that in the White House. It’s too dangerous.
*I also think Tenet’s ultimately responsible for the worst intelligence failure in American history, but that’s another story.
Published in Foreign Policy
Destroying Trump is my goal right now. I won’t vote for Clinton, but I don’t think there is much difference between the two deep down. Both are left wing demagogues.
Luckily there is more then just two choices.
I live in California where my vote in the Presidential election is literally a symbolic gesture. As a result, if faced between the two, my probable symbolic gesture will be in not voting for either.
I would rather gouge out my own eyeballs then vote for Hillary Clinton. Hillary would be much more dangerous to this country than Trump. Sure Trump is a bore but he isn’t an ideologue, Hillary is. Trump never left his people in Benghazi to die with no protection, nor do I think he ever would. Trump never sold the country’s influence to the highest bidder, Trump never risked our country’s national security for his own convenience. Trump’s an off the cuff charlatan but he genuinely loves this country and actually does want to see it do well, Hillary hates this country and wants to continue helping it in its decline, also she’s a complete arrogant incompetent. Remember Assad is a reformer, and the whole “reset” with Putin, and Libya. Rhetoric is rhetoric, actions are actions and Hillary’s actions, to me are much worse than Trump’s rhetoric. Think about what a Clinton presidency would actually look like. Imagine Sid Blumenthal as some high level official in her cabinet. We actually know the awful, ideological , self-serving corrupt people Hillary would put into high level positions in government. Again Trump isn’t ideological, we don’t know exactly who he will put in those positions but I doubt they would be the full bore leftist that Hillary would appoint. Geez, I think too many people are allowing their hatred of Trump cloud their judgment, especially if you would vote for Hillary over him. Have we all forgotten Benghazi already?
I want to read thru all comments and take this story seriously – I know in past threads I have leaned towards Trump over Hilary if that was the line up – but the inner gut is sort of screaming what you are trying to say here – for me, that means I’d stay home.
On the Bush thing, my gut feeling was always that there were WMD’s in Iraq, but got moved to Syria before the invasion – is that not possible – Sadam thinking he would re-emerge at some point? I thought I recalled overhead surveillance showing large convoys moving out prior to invasion, and they found residue of chemicals – back to Trump, I am listening…
You’ve only given one reason why you believe this to be true. Would you provide others?
I also think that Hilary falls into Claire’s definition of nut for other reasons.
Are you sure? I think the opposite. Devil you know…
There is a lot of “Trump never…” in this comment. You know why? Because he never.
Shark: jumped.
Well, you raise an interesting moral question. Your argument is that abstaining from voting or voting for an unelectable third-party question is effectively voting for Hillary, so I may as well “go whole hog.” I realize I seem to be arguing against myself here, but I’m thinking aloud and see two problems with this. The first is that percentages matter — a Hillary “elected by a landslide” has more of a mandate than a Hillary “squeaking into office.”
But the second is more difficult. If I believe Trump to be that dangerous, and I do, do I have a responsibility to do more than vote for Hillary? Do I have an affirmative responsibility to convince other people to vote for her? For a candidate who, in the most charitable interpretation, didn’t understand that you can’t use a “private e-mail server” to transmit classified information? Even in the most charitable way I can look at it, that’s someone who doesn’t understand the first thing about technology. (And forget about the least charitable interpretation.) Is she competent to assess what she’ll be told about anything technical or mechanical? Is there anyone here whose grandma would know how to wage a cyberwar? Because that’s the most charitable interpretation of that incident: She’s an addled old lady.
I’m making myself sick thinking of this.
One thing I know is that the democrats, courts, and media would protect and hide Hillary’s foul actions, but would not very likely extend the same courtesy to Trump.
Assuming they’re both ‘foul’, Trump would likely have more oversight than Hillary and therefore less room for mischief. Think about that.
I’m not saying anybody deserves this or that all blame goes to the Republican Party. (I just wish the party understood the primal anger it has engendered.)
Nor do I understand the popular psychology that gave rise to Trump. I don’t know what makes him tick.
But equally shocking is the thought that significant Republicsns would be open to voting for Hillary.
Am I observing the atomization of the conservative movement? If so, I guess we’ll all have to accept that fundamental transformation has arrived, and it’s every man for himself.
Can it be?
The reason I would support Hillary over Trump (which I won’t, but I’m just saying hypothetically) is as follows:
First, it seems clear to me we are going to have a dope as our next President. I’d rather that dope be a Democrat. I think that is self explanatory.
Second, with Hillary, we know what we are going to get. I don’t think she’s going to do much of anything, just prattle on about #waronwomen and #vrwc.
Third, Trump is a complete psycho. I wonder, once he’s been in power in North America for 8 or 10 years, and has annexed Canada, and the Sudetanland, with eyes on Mexico, who will rescue us?
All that said, I’ll be asking Fred to provide me with a good Libertarian candidate to vote for, should Trump be the Republican nominee.
Agreed. Not to mention the fact that Trump destroys the GOP, and send us completely into a dark age. Many of us will not support him, and men and women like me will spend the rest of the time he is in the public square trying to destroy him.
Just because you know the devil doesn’t mean they would be better than the other guy.
excellent point.
Currently, my intent would be to vote for neither Trump nor Clinton. I’d either go for a third party that aligns with my principles and beliefs, or just leave that choice blank. I’ve always voted for the GOP candidate (albeit sometimes resignedly) because in the end I think they have best represented me. I can’t vote for Trump in any meaningful sense.
In the long struggle to one day restore the republic, which if Trump gets the nomination will likely take decades or longer now, the first step is to reclaim our mantle from the false pretenders. Crush the alt-right is the first thing conservatives must do. We must define ourselves again, and then separate from the usurpers.
I don’t think Trump has a ‘secret’ plan at all. I do think he’s counting on being elected because of his more extreme positions, which appeal to his ‘angry’ and ’emotional’ fans, and he’s counting on the fact that the media will not report the full extent of his plans, such as they are. I’m not sure what will happen when they find out that they’ve been lied to (by Trump) this time. For example, take illegal immigration:
Doubt me, that this is Trump’s position? Look no further than this unusually informative and even-handed report from November.
As someone who doesn’t have Trump’s billions to throw around, and who regularly contributes more of her money than she thinks right to the federal government, I can’t think of anything more wasteful than spending millions (billions? trillions?) of money (some of it mine) to send eleven (fifteen? thirty?) million people back to Mexico and then letting all but the known bad apples right back in again.
In Trump’s own words:
Hey, Donald! Here’s a thought. Why not just deport the bad apples when you find them in the barrel, and just leave the other ones here? Doesn’t that achieve much the same effect at much less expense?
Or does that sound too much like Jeb! Or Marco? Can’t have that.
But, bet me that isn’t about where Trump ends up, after he’s made one of his famous deals.
Trump wins. Again. Voters lose. Again.
No, Trump doesn’t have a secret plan. He’s as transparent as Obama in that respect.
But as with their other hero, the media is spinning, and hiding, for all its worth.
For now.
I don’t think she’s too old – she’s only 68 – we’ve had older running before – she is incompetent because she is corrupt – can you imagine her in charge of our armed forces? I think I read where she was astonished that she was selected to be SOS – rightly so. I could not sleep well knowing she was in charge – to Trump’s credit, he could not have been as successful without doing something right – that doesn’t make him presidential, but the Clintons have too much dirt on their hands.
Why would you assume any of this? Even if I accept the premise that Trump ruins the party, well anymore than the party’s leadership already has. Hillary ruins the country. We can rebuild or replace a political party. What will the country look like after another Clinton term? with all of her crony’s embedded in the bureaucracy. Trump may actually fire some of Obama’s cronies that are left behind. Hillary may not.
I’ve seen nothing to change my view that Trump is a stalking horse for Hillary. I think he and his people are as surprised as everyone else at how well he’s done. He was only supposed to distract the electorate from a highly qualified Republican field. Consider: in what other circumstances could Hillary have won a general election? Any of the professional politicians would’ve beat her handily without Trump.
Now it looks like he might actually cross the finish line at the primaries. His next move will either be to sabotage himself (and he’ll have to try hard) or to simply step out of the general election with a medical excuse. He has no interest in the actual Presidency.
Given the strategy Obama’s pursuing with the Sandoval proposal for the Supreme Court, a consistent parallel would have them putting forward some kind of Olivia Snowe wannabe as Trump’s running mate.
It does no good for me to protest at this point that I usually don’t think in terms of conspiracies. For the Democrats, only winning matters.
Excellent point, and one I hadn’t thought of. So everyone think about Lily Bart’s point please, before you do something unthinkable. Any of you who vote for her, you are dead to me. If I have to listen to that maniacal cackling fake laugh for four years, I’m going down to the basement and jump out the window.
Very good line about the road map. Our Republic has had a lot of turmoil from the beginning of it’s creation – corruption, scandal, wasn’t Pres. Woodrow Wilson very ill, not able to make decisions and they kept it hidden throughout his presidency – his wife as his spokesperson? Considering the times of his presidency where Europe’s lines were being redrawn – it was serious. We have gotten through much tougher times than now – thank you for the reminder.
Tyler,
I guess it makes sense on paper. But crushing whatever the alt-right is wont be done in a vacuum.
Trump before Hillary even if we use him as crumpled newspaper to plug the hole.
Slap. Slap! Listen to yourselves: Some of you are open to voting for Hillary. (A bit of hollering at the end there.)
Whether you want to admit it or not, both Trump and Clinton are equally destructive to the country. Both are going to ruin what we have built up since Reagan. In such a world, the only thing we can do is prepare the conservative redoubt. Which includes the destruction of the alt-right.
Keeping a Democrat in office will continue to focus what remains of the right to prepare for the long haul.With the Republic dead, it’s in our best interest to make sure it dies under the left, well conservatives conserve the ideals of the founding, and prepare to restore the republic in the long haul. Which now will require us to go through truly dark times.
Either way though, we are in for a decades long restoration battle here. All of this is completely at the feet of Trump, and his alt-right core of supporters. They are the antithesis of conservative philosophy, and if restoration is to happen, they first must be defeated and exiled from the mainstream.
I’m late to this but did someone else mention that Hillary claimed that Bush lied about WMD — and she did it when our soldiers were in the field! She and Kerry both rescinded their support for going into Iraq because Howard Dean was making so much hay with claiming that Bush lied about WMD.
Other than that, this post is too stupid to contemplate.
“Does he know for a fact that he kills journalists? I don’t think anybody knows that, it’s possible that he does, but I don’t think it’s been proven. Has anybody proved he’s killed reporters? Sure, there are allegations. I’ve read those allegations over the years. But nobody’s proven that he’s killed anybody as far as I’m concerned. If he has killed reporters, that’s terrible. He’s always denied it. You’re supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, at least in our country.”
What possible reason could he have for defending Putin? Does he honestly have no idea? Does he believe it? I mean, “Do we know for a fact it’s an evil empire? I don’t think anybody knows that, it’s possible, but I don’t think it’s been proven. Has anybody proved it’s an evil empire? Sure, there are allegations. I’ve read those allegations over the years. But nobody’s proven this stuff about the gulags as far as I’m concerned. You’re supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, at least in our country.”
I mean … this is a useful idiot.
McCain as a junior officer was a foolhardy catastrophe. We piously assume he was redeemed by his brave and honorable conduct in captivity. We owe him respect for that. In politics he’s been more of a catastrophe again, yet his service immunizes him from the consequences of his bad actions in office.
[Self censored]