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.
At What Point Does Voting for Trump Become Virtue-Signaling?
With the exception of his convention bounce, Trump has been behind Clinton from day one. His paths to victory are extremely narrow and the predictions markets have consistently favored a Clinton win. On a state-by-state basis, Trump’s chances look no better. It’s a little too early to say that he’s going to lose, but its likelihood is both high and rising.
So, barring some major change (which, again, I concede is still just possible) we’re rapidly approaching the date where we can say it’s over and Clinton’s won. And if we reach that point, a vote for Trump will simply be a matter of virtue-signaling — whether to yourself or others — one’s justified loathing for Hillary Clinton and will have precisely the same impact as voting for Gary Johnson or even Evan McMullin.
Now, one might say that it doesn’t matter and that we should still hold out hope even when the odds are gone … but that’s been one of the main complaints against NeverTrumpers for months.
If we’re going to go down fighting, I’d rather do it under a banner I can be proud of.
Published in General
It would be awesome if you voted Stein. Stein’s potential for destruction is unbelievably low.
Have you met anyone on our side of the spectrum who didn’t seem to offer much to society? Could I introduce you to [redacted on advice of counsel]?
You have a good lawyer!
If you meet 1,000 Leftists and 50% of them are generally worthless people while the rest are not, then yes, you’ve met plenty of Leftists without obvious worth. You’ve also met the remaining 50%, though.
And if you met 1,000 people with any characteristic X, and 10% of them were generally worthless people while the remaining 90% were not, you would have met plenty (100) of generally worthless people with characteristic X. If the proportions were reversed, and 90% were generally worthless people while the remaining 10% weren’t, you also would have met plenty (100) of people with characteristic X who weren’t worthless people.
Anyone not voting Trump, of course! ;-)
For those on this thread who are still open to voting for Trump and are against the growth of Bigger Government, please realize that the very wealthy people who profit the most from Bigger Government are quite clear about whom they prefer.
Fact: Hillary Clinton’s campaign raised $143,000,000.00 in August alone.
Fact: Hillary is not sick and not hiding from her supporters. (You can read Steve Sailer’s excellent piece here)
You may be smarter than the wealthy people mentioned in the article, but do you really have as much “skin in the game?”
I totally hate guns and won’t allow any in my home. My dearly beloved youngest sister shot herself in the mouth with one some 20 years ago and died instantly. My mother and I always felt she would have lived had there been no gun in the house. For example, pills would have taken much longer and someone could have called for help in time to save her life. Of course, we’ll never know as she’s long gone, and I still live with guilt that I didn’t know how miserable she was and try to help her. That said, I still support the second amendment, keeping in mind it’s our last means of defense against a government run amuck.
Always with the math. I’m dropping this class.
Thank you.
I would not recommend pills, either – liver, brain, etc damage, leading to the person feeling even more of a burden than previously, are so likely. I, too, have close family and friends that have struggled with suicidality. Fortunately, many are still alive.
I don’t know if you’ve ever read the essay “Burdens”. I don’t agree with its political assertions contained therein, but the other insights are well-articulated. The author is, in particular, right that as a stopgap measure, some folks can be guilt-tripped into avoiding suicide attempts. In fact, I wonder if the reason more folks I know aren’t dead by their own hand is because they got good at reflexively guilt-tripping themselves in this fashion.
Occupational hazard! :-)
Are There Democrats Against Clinton?
At the risk of taxing the patience of those pursuing this topic and because I hope that it may have some relevance to your considerations, I am adding this post (published, slightly edited, originally on another thread) here, as the issue seems the same and to me a clear one that sometimes gets obscured.
I assume that none of the NeverTrumps actually wants Hillary to win except as an alternative to Mr. Trump. Nonetheless, one of those two is going to be the next president.
If the NeverTrumps base their positions upon an “analysis of the issues”. I should like to know what issues were considered.
Mrs. Clinton:
Upon what “issue” is there a benefit to having Mrs. Clinton in office?
Mr. Trump may be as bad many seem to fear. But he claims positions that are better to my thinking. Some will say that he cannot be trusted on those points. Maybe not; but maybe he can be, and we may be pleasantly surprised. Mrs. Clinton can be trusted to act as she says she will, and that frightens me.
Not only can Mrs. Clinton be trusted to pursue her goals. She will come into office surrounded by devoted accomplices and co-conspirators and backed by a party in Congress united in pursuit of her objectives. There will be nothing even to slow down the forces of totalitarianism: not Congress, not the complaisant courts, and not the bureaucracy (vide, Lerner, Lois, IRS). It will be a stampede.
Mr. Trump will face a recalcitrant Congress, whether in the hands of Democrats (united in opposition to him) or of Republicans (who are in many cases foes of measures that he supports); courts that will not be his natural allies (and that he cannot “pack” willfully, as Mrs. Clinton can); and, an obstructive bureaucracy.
Except for would-be Pontius Pilots washing their political hands, the choice is binary: either
(1) vote for and do all one can to elect Mr. Trump, who may turn out to be a bad ’un; or
(2) stand mute and inactive and thereby assist and encourage the election of Mrs. Clinton and promote a disaster for freedom.
I go with No.1, Mr Trump, without hesitation or equivocation.
@m1919a4, In answer to your question, yes of course I have considered all those things. I have also considered that most of those things would be true of any Democratic President, and I recognize the lesson of history that Democrats will win the White House about half of the time. Under current conditions, that is. A truly catastrophic Republican Presidency could turn the White House and the Congress over to the Democrats for a generation. As it did starting in the 1930’s.
I recognize that a Hillary Presidency will be very much a third term of Obama. Not quite as bad, but very similar. Anemic, low growth economy. Deteriorating relationships with foreign governments. Disintegrating health care. Unsustainable debt. Increased citizen dependency on government. Feckless response to terrorism and foreign military threats. The problem is, I don’t think Trump would be any different.
But Trump also raises the risk of some catastrophic events that I think Hillary would know enough to avoid. These include a trade war and resulting worldwide Great Depression, escalating military conflicts and, perhaps most importantly, irreparable damage to the Republican Party and the conservative brand. Republicanism/conservatism is the only hope this country has. We can live with a Democratic President for four years, especially if we hold at least the House. We cannot live with the destruction of the Republican Party for a generation. Cannot.
The primary problem as I see it is that far too many Trump supporters are actively seeking the destruction of the Republican Party. Far too many others simply want to turn the Republican Party into another version of the Democratic Party, i.e., big-government central-planners.
I fear the Republican Party is already dead, and the Democrats will indeed have total control of the government for a generation.
But, the people usually get the government they want.
That is indeed a risk. But I don’t have to help the process along. And I won’t.
You shouldn’t.
What I think you may be failing to recognize is the current vulnerability of the SCOTUS; Two, possibly three vacancies will be coming up.
I think you wildly underestimate what Hillary can do. She won’t just be continuing Obama’s legacy, she will be building on it. This is her stated intent and while in the past she’s been more centrist than Obama, I tend to believe her.
Particularly in ‘social justice’ areas. This societal shift in attitudes is more damaging than the economic malaise we’re in, and an area in which even full-throated Trump haters would probably agree that he is far preferable to her. His constant pounding on PC culture, social justice silliness, and the degradation of the the fourth estate might be the most important message to impress on the country right now.
The real problem is the conservatives, who took a 50 state party to a 22 state party will not be happy until it is a one state party that has no national presence at all.
The people running it and guiding it prior to Trump were doing a fine job of bleeding the GOP dry of any capability for winning national elections. The Blue Wall was the result of ideological purity at the expense of a national presence.
Thanks for making my point.
Editing like that is something the Progressives do.
Those same damn conservatives in the Republican Party that had won over countless state governments (the Republican Party holds 35 state governments I think) after Barack got elected. Those damn conservatives obviously weren’t doing enough. They should instead try to emulate trump who is currently only winning 24 states according to polling averages. Conservatives should lower their goals and be like more like trump and lose elections. sarc/ What a brilliant plan! /end sarc
trump’s “national presence” isn’t national. He is currently only winning in traditionally Republican States and some have turned nearly blue (like Georgia and North Carolina), trump is destroying Republican electoral strongholds rather than gaining new ones.
I don’t think there’s been much opposition to Trump’s attempts to expand Republican reach into blue zones, particularly cities and to African Americans (if there has been, that’s too bad). There absolutely is a way for Republicans to make that pitch and a tougher immigration policy fits well with it. Republicans have screwed up on this, massively.
What remains to be seen with whether Trump will succeed in the attempt, accomplish little, or actually be counter productive. I don’t think anyone knows for certain at this point, but I’d wager my money on the counter-productive side.
Ah, it is tempting but I shall not respond to your comment on advice of management.
A typical excuse of fear.
Given the absolute disgust and many words written trashing “Trump Supporters” as big government gimmes and more words which summed up to ‘not our kind of people’ and ‘the end of the conservative movement’ over the last months, I tend to think the complete and utter disdain for working class people expressed here on many occasions would say otherwise.
The only reason outreach to blacks is not treated as ‘bringing in big government gimmes’ is the fear of sounding racist.
Trump is at least doing it instead of endlessly talking about doing it. He is also the first candidate in a long time who might pull it off, since he is the first in a long time who does not apologize for being white.
Even Kemp apologized for being white too much. You get no street cred for trashing yourself.
Yes, he may screw it up, but to do that , you have to at least try.
Unfortunately for trump according to the latest PPP poll (page 33) 97% of Black Americans find trump unfavorable while 3% are not sure. The margin of error was 3.3 so its possible that 3.3% of blacks find him favorable but even then that is really, really, low. He needs to change his message and delivery if he wants to win over minorities like blacks. Law and order no doubt appeals to some but it probably needs to be apart of a larger message.
Wow. Now I know why management might have something to their advice. Delusions of extreme ferocity.
What do you think his message should be?
In totality trump ought to be focusing in regards to blacks as he should to any group. Law and order, greater economic liberalization for better employment opportunities to blacks, and defense of social conservatism (with added emphasis to the horrendously high abortion rate among blacks).
Law and order doesn’t speak directly to the hope of life. It is supposed to be a neutral sentinel that keeps threats away from life (thus increasing the chance of realizing that hope).
By speaking to the aspiration for a better life and on government policy changes that increase the likelihood of that in addition to that law and order along with denigrating the leftist disregard for black life (by pointing to high black abortion rates and the importance of social conservative values) trump would definitely improve his standing.
How far it would go I am not sure, trump obviously had to have lost or not had much respect in order to be at so low a favorability number to begin with. Only with constant practice could he show sincerity on the issue.