The Leftist Horde: Two Thousand Reasons to Vote for Trump

 

shutterstock_335650667Some fellow Ricochetti have lamented that they’ve yet to see a coherent reason to support Donald Trump and it’s a staple of many #NeverTrump arguments that there is no difference between him and Hillary Clinton. In response to these, I wanted to offer an argument that addresses an issue that hasn’t gotten the attention it deserves, with a focus on which of the two candidates will cause the most damage to America’s culture, values, rights, and finances.

It likely goes without saying that I am convinced that a win for Clinton would be bad for America and result in greater (and more lasting) damage, and my reason is simple: I fear the Leftist horde — some four million strong — that she will direct and unleash through the executive branch.

Politics is a Team Sport

The president is the head of the Executive Branch and the cabinet secretaries serve as managers of large agencies. The secretaries, deputy secretaries, and other high-level management positions are all subject to the “advice and consent” provision of the Constitution. This means that, if we hold the Senate, we can block the worst of the marxists and libertines a president might nominate. But there are over 2,000 such management positions. (Below that level, federal civil service rules apply, and it is very difficult, but possible, to fire those federal employees.)

So, the president is the head of a large enterprise that is running the federal government. When there is a change of party at the White House, there follows a change of management in the government, and it’s one of the under-appreciated jobs of the presidency.

Clinton and Team Obama

If Clinton comes to power, she will have an enormous advantage in that she will inherit Team Obama. These are the people at the IRS who targeted conservatives and leaked private information about Republican candidates. These are the people at the Department of Education who decided that “gender” is a synonym for “sex,” and are threatening states if they do not comply with Team Obama’s preferred bathrooms policies. These are the people at EPA who want to regulate every puddle and rivulet, taking control of your land without any thought of due compensation. These are the people who have been putting coal out of business and who block such good economic proposals as oil and gas pipelines. These are the people at the Department of Justice who covered up “Fast and Furious,” but who took a peculiar interest in local crime matters regarding Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown. These are the people at the State Department who promote abortion globally, and hides details of his deals from Congress.

Those are just a few examples of the way Team Obama have leveraged their control of the federal agencies to push their agenda of curtailing individual liberties, increasing regulatory control over businesses, farms, cities and states, and taking up the Leftist side in all the culture war issues. They have been busy for two terms, chopping away and tearing down the supports that hold up Western Civilization. Nathanael Ferguson put a post on the Main Feed with a nice review of Team Obama, “Slumping to the Occasion,” so you can check that out for additional matters of Team Obama actions to bring America down.

When Obama was first elected, the Democrats controlled the Senate, and he had no trouble putting his team in place. While Clinton will no doubt wish to make a few changes, the dirty work in this regard is already been done for her: She can just keep the team already in place, without having to submit replacements to the Senate unless she so chooses. With the exception of a small number of folk who rubbed her the wrong way, we can expect her to retain the bulk of Team Obama. And, for any vacancy she does have, there is a large number of leftists with solid Democrat Party pedigrees who are ready to help do their Progressive worst to America.

They will get a boost of fresh enthusiasm to continue their assault on the family, the churches, and all the supports of western civilization.

Team Trump

Trump, on the other hand, has won the GOP nomination with a very small political team. He does not have a large number to draw on in order to make up an administration and will need help staffing the Executive Branch. He is likely to look first to those Republicans who rallied to his cause the earliest. Team Trump will be a mixed bag, with many who are not conservatives, and probably some who are very liberal, but they will not be as focused and like-mindedly leftist as Clinton’s Leftist Horde would be . They will have to work with each other, perhaps compromising here or there, in order to get anything done. This will be likely to slow them down on initiatives that Trump assigns to them, and will keep them from doing as much damage as Team Hillary could do.

Also, recall that “You’re Fired!” that is an integral part of Trump’s brand. He, unlike Obama or Clinton, will not overlook incompetence for the sake of ideological purity. Some of his team will have to go when they screw up, so that the rest of the team learns to take the boss seriously. That is just good business sense, which is something that neither Obama nor Clinton have. Remember the Obamacare website crew? And the Veterans Administration? Trump would get rid of some of those incompetents just to protect his own brand.

Obama has been criticized by conservatives for overlooking incompetence. I think that Obama keeps slackers on because — ever since his 2010 shellacking — he wants to avoid the advise and consent process. Clinton will be able to keep Team Obama in place, while Trump is not likely to keep very many of them.

Individual Liberties

Ricochet members — and conservatives in general — should know how Team Obama has been chopping away at our individual liberties these past seven years. That could be a separate post. For now, just consider that they are the enemy. They have been working to arrogate power away from individuals, and they have been working to arrogate power away from the states.

Trump may be bad for individual liberties and he may be bad for states, but he cannot possibly be as bad on either score as Clinton.

Vote for Trump

This is not about the Republican Party and it is not about the conservative movement. This is about the United States of America. Vote for awful Trump. Stop Scofflaw Clinton.

And yes, fear is a motivating force. I fear the damage that a Team Hillary could do to American values, American culture, American security and American finances. Fear of Clinton is why I am earnestly supporting Trump for President.

Lord, help us.

There are 168 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. MJBubba Inactive
    MJBubba
    @MJBubba

    2 Chronicles 20:12

    O our God, will you not execute judgment on them?  For we are powerless against this great horde that is coming against us.  We do not know what to do, but our eyes are on you.”

    • #1
  2. MJBubba Inactive
    MJBubba
    @MJBubba

    Chris Phillips posted a half-baked comparison of Trump and Hillary on some of the issues.  http://ricochet.com/rating-the-presidential-match-up/

    We have had similar conversations weekly for six months.  This sort of comparison completely misses the argument I have posted above.  I hope you find it to be a compelling argument.  If you see Trump as equally bad as Hillary, or if you think he is worse, I agree with you.  I am still hoping that you will support Trump.

    Paul Gregory put up a post that compares D. Trump to H.R. Clinton on the basis of character and policy.   He supports Trump.  I agree with his conclusion, but please take that discussion back to his post, and focus here on the federal bureaucracy and Cabinet offices.   Thanks.

    http://ricochet.com/rational-case-conservatives-vote-trump/

    • #2
  3. DocJay Inactive
    DocJay
    @DocJay

    Nice post.  Let’s see if it gains traction.  I’ll take the malignant narcissist my side will have some influence over instead of the criminal sociopath answering to the horde and wall st.

    BTW, I’m right in my diagnosis about them regardless of what anyone says.   Hillary is without conscience.

    • #3
  4. Herbert Inactive
    Herbert
    @Herbert

    MJBubba:Individual Liberties

    Ricochet members should know what could be said about the way Team Obama has been chopping away at individual liberties. That could be a separate post. For now, just consider that they are the enemy. They have been working to arrogate power away from individuals, and they have been working to arrogate power away from the states.

    Trump may be bad for individual liberties and he may be bad for states, but he cannot possibly be as bad on either score as Hillary.

    Sure he can I don’t see Hillary talking about banning people or profiling them based on their religion,  Hillary hasn’t talked about strengthening libel laws.  Trump has proposed both of those attacks on liberty

    • #4
  5. DocJay Inactive
    DocJay
    @DocJay

    Not that anyone’s mind will be changed but the checks and balances on Trump ( who has said and done some pretty bad things) will work far better than the checks and balances on Clinton.   How is this not apparent for a number of reasons ????????!

    • #5
  6. Jamie Lockett Inactive
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    DocJay:Not that anyone’s mind will be changed but the checks and balances on Trump ( who has said and done some pretty bad things) will work far better than the checks and balances on Clinton. How is this not apparent for a number of reasons ????????!

    Why would you expect the checks and balances to work against Trump but not Clinton?

    • #6
  7. Umbra Fractus Inactive
    Umbra Fractus
    @UmbraFractus

    MJBubba: At Tom Meyer’s post with the Trump/NeverTrump Ricochet poll, a member said that he had never seen a Ricochet post with a coherent reason to support Trump. I know that the member in question has participated in a number of Trump conversations, so I am supposing that the problem is that the coherent reasons have all appeared deep in the comments and not in discrete posts. So, here is a post to give you one good reason to support Trump. Please help keep on topic.

    I don’t know who the member to whom you refer is, but in my case, and I know I’m not alone here, the question is a coherent reason to vote for Trump other than, “Hillary will be worse.”

    It’s not that we’re not seeing the arguments, it’s that “Hillary will be worse,” is not enough. Obviously it’s enough for you, and that’s an understandable position, but with all due respect this post is just more of the same. We want a reason to vote for Trump; we want a reason why Trump deserves our affirmation.

    • #7
  8. DocJay Inactive
    DocJay
    @DocJay

    Jamie Lockett:

    DocJay:Not that anyone’s mind will be changed but the checks and balances on Trump ( who has said and done some pretty bad things) will work far better than the checks and balances on Clinton. How is this not apparent for a number of reasons ????????!

    Why would you expect the checks and balances to work against Trump but not Clinton?

    He doesn’t know the political machine as well as her.  He isn’t as connected as her.  The current machine in power in all areas of government favor her.  The media will not report much on her ( except the soon to be marginalized conservative media ).  Her side will mostly go along.  My side has a very vocal and large contingent that would hold him accountable.  A decent Scotus can stop him.  Her Scotus will rubber stamp her.    The non Trump republicans will angle for a primary challenger in 4 years whereas the Clinton led dems wouldn’t dream of it.  They’d hate to catch a cold.

    • #8
  9. DocJay Inactive
    DocJay
    @DocJay

    Umbra , he is not a member of the one world socialist order.   Maybe that’s a reason.

    • #9
  10. Mendel Inactive
    Mendel
    @Mendel

    Two quick meta-thoughts:

    First, as a NearlyNeverTrumper, I think the complaint about “not having seen a Ricochet post with a coherent argument for Trump” is slanderous. There have been plenty of reasonable, rational, and well-structured arguments in his favor here.

    Second: this post absolutely belongs to that category. Thanks, MJ.

    • #10
  11. Mendel Inactive
    Mendel
    @Mendel

    Having said that, a few bones to pick:

    First, I don’t think Hillary will fill the ranks exclusively, or even primarily, with Team Lefty. One point the right has missed in its Hillary hatred is that Hillary really isn’t much of a lefty anymore – she’s been mugged by the reality that she can become much richer and more successful by selling her principles to the highest bidder.

    I think it’s much more likely that she’ll use good, old-fashioned patronage to dole out prestigious positions, as illustrated well in this example of her time at State.

    And second, I don’t think we have any idea whom Trump will actually choose for all of these positions, but I doubt “being an early adopter” will play much of a role. His track record is that loyalty takes a distant backseat to whatever his current self-interest is.

    Nonetheless, I still imagine that Trump’s selections would be marginally better than Hillary’s. But like all things Trump, nobody really has any [expletive] clue.

    • #11
  12. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    I see Trump as the Republican nominee because he publicly acts like what appeals to the current social/political/media powers that be, but he came to the Republican Party nomination process telling the Party that he is something other than what he appears to be and the primary voters have said OK, let’s see. None of the conventional Republican Party candidates, in the recent past or the present, including Cruz, have been able to do this.

    To go with Trump as our nominee might be the only chance the Republican Party has to survive. Our conventional approach does not stand a chance.

    • #12
  13. BrentB67 Inactive
    BrentB67
    @BrentB67

    Umbra Fractus:

    MJBubba:..

    I don’t know who the member to whom you refer is, but in my case, and I know I’m not alone here, the question is a coherent reason to vote for Trump other than, “Hillary will be worse.”

    It’s not that we’re not seeing the arguments, it’s that “Hillary will be worse,” is not enough. Obviously it’s enough for you, and that’s an understandable position, but with all due respect this post is just more of the same. We want a reason to vote for Trump; we want a reason why Trump deserves our affirmation.

    I don’t know if these pass as coherent reasons or deserving affirmation. If  you don’t think so I’ve no issue, just some things to consider.

    Trump was the first candidate to take a hard line on illegal immigration and it brought him notoriety and popularity when other candidates shied away from it and Cruz tried to lawyer himself for/against.

    Trump is the only one to not embrace globalist trade while simultaneously affirming our regulatory behemoth. This also brought him recognition and popularity.

    He recognizes and raises challenging, politically intractable issues. No other candidate does that coherently or consistently.

    I think his solutions to challenging issues are often incoherent and he fails to support even his own policies consistently.

    When everyone else was afraid to bring up some big issues that are troubling flyover country Trump was willing to.

    • #13
  14. BrentB67 Inactive
    BrentB67
    @BrentB67

    Umbra, if you are looking for absolute positive affirming reasons to vote Trump I really don’t have any.

    I am not sure if I am even going to bother to vote this year. There aren’t any down ballot issues or candidates in Texas-32 I care about and Trump certainly doesn’t motivate me to lose my spot in the parking garage to vote for him.

    If I do bother to go vote I will probably find a way to write in Ted Cruz just to stir up the numbers.

    • #14
  15. Jamie Lockett Inactive
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    BrentB67: Trump is the only one to not embrace globalist trade while simultaneously affirming our regulatory behemoth. This also brought him recognition and popularity.

    When you put it that way (absent the loaded term globalist) it reminds me why I find him so thoroughly un-conservative.

    • #15
  16. Herbert Inactive
    Herbert
    @Herbert

    DocJay:Not that anyone’s mind will be changed but the checks and balances on Trump ( who has said and done some pretty bad things) will work far better than the checks and balances on Clinton. How is this not apparent for a number of reasons ????????!

    Why?  Wouldn’t you expect the GOP to be deferential to Trump… at least in his first months…  As opposed to a Clinton presidency, they will oppose her from the git go…

    • #16
  17. BrentB67 Inactive
    BrentB67
    @BrentB67

    Jamie Lockett:

    BrentB67: Trump is the only one to not embrace globalist trade while simultaneously affirming our regulatory behemoth. This also brought him recognition and popularity.

    When you put it that way (absent the loaded term globalist) it reminds me why I find him so thoroughly un-conservative.

    Why is globalist loaded?

    I object to his raising the issue of tariffs/trade embargo, etc. before dealing with our regulatory state. Unfortunately Republicans fully embrace leviathans like TPP without having the spine to stand up to donors over the carve outs, subsidies, and regulations that are killing us.

    I think if we eliminate the non-legislated federal regulatory scheme Americans can compete with any workforce in the world (no offense to your family down under) and do not need to start invoking tariffs, etc.

    I think we can compete our way out of this slump.

    • #17
  18. BrentB67 Inactive
    BrentB67
    @BrentB67

    Herbert:

    DocJay:Not that anyone’s mind will be changed but the checks and balances on Trump ( who has said and done some pretty bad things) will work far better than the checks and balances on Clinton. How is this not apparent for a number of reasons ????????!

    Why? Wouldn’t you expect the GOP to be deferential to Trump… at least in his first months… As opposed to a Clinton presidency, they will oppose her from the git go…

    Do you expect the GOP to oppose Clinton similar to their opposition to Obama?

    • #18
  19. Mendel Inactive
    Mendel
    @Mendel

    DocJay:Not that anyone’s mind will be changed but the checks and balances on Trump ( who has said and done some pretty bad things) will work far better than the checks and balances on Clinton. How is this not apparent for a number of reasons ????????!

    Here are a few:

    Bill Clinton was certainly swayed much more by checks and balances (read: Gingrich) than Obama was by Congress. Will Hillary act like Bill? Who knows, but she certainly hasn’t disowned his “third way”.

    Also, Trump seems to take pride in bucking what other people – especially any sort of establishment – want. So I could imagine him being obstinate against Congress just for the sake of being obstinate.

    Third, Trump’s meeting with the NRA – and their subsequent muddying of their otherwise clear position – seems like a bad omen to me.

    And finally, isn’t most of the appeal of Trump precisely the fact that he does what he wants, not what he’s being pressured by the outside world to do?

    Bryan Stephens disclaimer: these aren’t intended as pro-Hillary arguments; they’re intended as “let’s take a deep breath and try to assess the situation clearly before we jump all in for Trump” arguments.

    • #19
  20. DocJay Inactive
    DocJay
    @DocJay

    Trump is male.  The rampant sexism throughout the Middle East prevent Hillary from having any respect without the use of the military.   Nobody there will take her seriously.  They’ll be excrement scared of Trump ( along with most of us ).

    • #20
  21. Herbert Inactive
    Herbert
    @Herbert

    BrentB67:

    Herbert:

    DocJay:Not that anyone’s mind will be changed but the checks and balances on Trump ( who has said and done some pretty bad things) will work far better than the checks and balances on Clinton. How is this not apparent for a number of reasons ????????!

    Why? Wouldn’t you expect the GOP to be deferential to Trump… at least in his first months… As opposed to a Clinton presidency, they will oppose her from the git go…

    Do you expect the GOP to oppose Clinton similar to their opposition to Obama?

    yes.

    • #21
  22. Martel Inactive
    Martel
    @Martel

    Jamie Lockett:

    DocJay:Not that anyone’s mind will be changed but the checks and balances on Trump ( who has said and done some pretty bad things) will work far better than the checks and balances on Clinton. How is this not apparent for a number of reasons ????????!

    Why would you expect the checks and balances to work against Trump but not Clinton?

    Because a Republican speaking out against Trump will be praised to no end for his courage in standing up to bullies, whereas one opposing Hillary will be pilloried for his backwards, sexist, intransigence.

    And yes, this sort of thing does influence political behavior.

    • #22
  23. BrentB67 Inactive
    BrentB67
    @BrentB67

    Herbert:

    BrentB67:

    Herbert:

    DocJay:Not that anyone’s mind will be changed but the checks and balances on Trump ( who has said and done some pretty bad things) will work far better than the checks and balances on Clinton. How is this not apparent for a number of reasons ????????!

    Why? Wouldn’t you expect the GOP to be deferential to Trump… at least in his first months… As opposed to a Clinton presidency, they will oppose her from the git go…

    Do you expect the GOP to oppose Clinton similar to their opposition to Obama?

    yes.

    That isn’t very reassuring and sounds like another 2017 bi-partisan infrastructure stimulus.

    • #23
  24. Martel Inactive
    Martel
    @Martel

    As for the “I need a positive reason to vote for Trump; he’s not as bad as Hillary won’t cut it” argument, if I needed a “positive” reason to vote for someone, I’m not sure I would have ever yet voted.

    We’re not choosing a Savior, we’re selecting a political leader.  They’re all flawed, but some of them are so horribly flawed they have to be stopped no matter how imperfect their opponent.

    Hillary falls into this category, especially with so many SCOTUS seats on the line.

    On the other hand, if a leftist court bans sites like Ricochet for hate speech or some campaign finance violation, at least we’ll be able to pat ourselves on the back (in private) for not sullying our pristine moral sensibilities by voting for Trump.

    • #24
  25. Publius Inactive
    Publius
    @Publius

    Martel:On the other hand, if a leftist court bans sites like Ricochet for hate speech or some campaign finance violation, at least we’ll be able to pat ourselves on the back (in private) for not sullying our pristine moral sensibilities by voting for Trump.

    I’m struggling with this a bit. Trump is the guy who wants to “open up” libel laws to go after free speech because he isn’t happy with the press.  I could see Ricochet ending up in a bind similar to what NR and Mark Steyn find themselves under if that were to come to pass so I don’t see how a vote for Trump makes things safer for Ricochet than a vote for Clinton on this one.

    • #25
  26. BrentB67 Inactive
    BrentB67
    @BrentB67

    Martel:As for the “I need a positive reason to vote for Trump; he’s not as bad as Hillary won’t cut it” argument, if I needed a “positive” reason to vote for someone, I’m not sure I would have ever yet voted.

    We’re not choosing a Savior, we’re selecting a political leader. They’re all flawed, but some of them are so horribly flawed they have to be stopped no matter how imperfect their opponent.

    Hillary falls into this category, especially with so many SCOTUS seats on the line.

    On the other hand, if a leftist court bans sites like Ricochet for hate speech or some campaign finance violation, at least we’ll be able to pat ourselves on the back (in private) for not sullying our pristine moral sensibilities by voting for Trump.

    Yeah, I don’t recall all the positive reasons to vote for McCain, Bush, etc. I do remember a lot of “But the democrats are worse….”

    • #26
  27. Jamie Lockett Inactive
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    BrentB67: Why is globalist loaded?

    It implies a disregard for what is good for your nation. I hold free trade positions for entirely nationalist reasons.

    • #27
  28. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    BrentB67:

    Jamie Lockett:

    BrentB67: Trump is the only one to not embrace globalist trade while simultaneously affirming our regulatory behemoth. This also brought him recognition and popularity.

    When you put it that way (absent the loaded term globalist) it reminds me why I find him so thoroughly un-conservative.

    Why is globalist loaded?

    I believe in free enterprise and thus free trade at all levels. What I think I see in the international marketplace is big, monopolistic-styled corporations promoting something they label as free trade, while they pick our pockets at home in consort with our elected officials with regulations that stifle any type of small to medium entrepreneurship and destroy competition in the local markets and simultaneously surrendering our national sovereignty. And this is what I think when I see the term ‘globalist’. Am I seeing things that are not there?

    • #28
  29. BrentB67 Inactive
    BrentB67
    @BrentB67

    Jamie Lockett:

    BrentB67: Why is globalist loaded?

    It implies a disregard for what is good for your nation. I hold free trade positions for entirely nationalist reasons.

    As do I, but I don’t immediately associate globalist treaties with free trade positions.

    The bulk of America’s trade agreements have little to do with trade and much to do with exerting political influence in various parts of the world.

    • #29
  30. Martel Inactive
    Martel
    @Martel

    Publius:

    Martel:On the other hand, if a leftist court bans sites like Ricochet for hate speech or some campaign finance violation, at least we’ll be able to pat ourselves on the back (in private) for not sullying our pristine moral sensibilities by voting for Trump.

    I’m struggling with this a bit. Trump is the guy who wants to “open up” libel laws to go after free speech because he isn’t happy with the press. I could see Ricochet ending up in a bind similar to what NR and Mark Steyn find themselves under if that were to come to pass so I don’t see how a vote for Trump makes things safer for Ricochet than a vote for Clinton on this one.

    I’m not fond of that, either.  However, he’s also said he’ll appoint Justices I like, which would keep that under control.  It also might just be a way to frighten the press.

    Hillary and her cohorts have been consistent from top to bottom in their opposition to speech.  If they can shut down all opposition, they will.  Even if Trump wants to, he’d be relatively alone.

    Also, I’ve noticed that whenever Trump says something conservative, he’s not to be believed, just pandering.  He says something liberal, we can know with absolute certainty that that’s exactly what he’ll do.

    On or the other, please. (I’m not saying you, Publius.)

    • #30

Comments are closed because this post is more than six months old. Please write a new post if you would like to continue this conversation.