Why I Am Voting for Evan McMullin

 

Evan McMullinHillary Clinton is awful. No question. This is not a matter of who is marginally more suited for the Oval Office – neither one is. We know Hillary’s sins – deceitful, scheming, greedy, paranoid, vindictive, incompetent, and very likely criminal (feel free to pile on if I missed anything). She has experience, I’ll give her that, but it is not good experience. She was my Senator for eight years, and I can’t recall a thing – good or bad – she did in that time. As Secretary of State, her hands were tied by Obama, but she still embraces his policy choices now. I will concede she may be better on trade and foreign policy than Trump, but that’s not a given.

To say Trump is better is like saying Charles Manson is more likely to go to heaven than Joel Rifkin. He is vain, lecherous, ignorant, and dishonest. He has done nothing to show he has thought through issues, or even cared to learn the responsibilities and limitations of the office he seeks. He has the moral standards of a pig, and a well-earned reputation for being a dishonest business man. Like Hillary, he lies nearly as often as he speaks, but she at least can craft plausible falsehoods. He will lie in his second breath about what he said with his first, and expect you not to notice. He lied about his faith, yet had such contempt for the faithful that he didn’t even bother learning enough to make that lie plausible. He does not have the history of abuse of power that Hillary does, but that’s most likely because he’s never been in a position to do so.

This is not a question of which candidate is more suitable for office. In my opinion, neither one meets even the minimum standard to be called President. I believe both will be bad for the country. Both are unfit.

If you are convinced otherwise, that’s fine. I have regretted votes I have cast in the past, so who am I to tell say you are voting wrong? And even if you are, you are as entitled to do so as I am.

But the point is over the past year both candidates have had the chance to sway me – Trump more so because he was more of an unknown factor. Both have failed. Hillary is still under investigation, still has no rationale for running, and her pandering has only become worse. Trump is marginally better as a candidate, but he is no more honest or decent than he was a year ago.

On a national level, my vote will not affect the outcome of the election. It only matters perhaps in what message it might send (even then it will be but a drop in the bucket).

So I am tossing my vote to Evan McMullin. As a former CIA field operative, he has already risked more for his nation than either major party candidate. On paper, at least, his policies most align with mine. More importantly, he seems to be a decent human being. His lack of executive experience would likely have kept me from voting for him in the primary, but that would have been a case of less fit, not unfit. It is a vote I can cast with a clean conscience, and to me, that is what matters most. Many of you will vote for Trump with a clean conscience. More power to you. As Shakespeare wrote in Henry V, “Every subject’s duty is the king’s, but every subject’s soul is his own.”

And if my vote in any way strengthens the message that voters want a conservative candidate, an honest candidate, and a moral candidate, rather than the fetid charlatans leading the field, so much the better.

There are 118 comments.

  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  1. Contributor

    Glad you found a presidential candidate who’s not making you hate yourself! A lot of people are going to look down on themselves for this election. I\m glad to see at least a few options, like yours, that seem decent.

    • #1
    • November 4, 2016 at 7:25 am
    • Like
  2. Coolidge

    I will either be writing in McMullin or voting for Castle (of the Constitution Party), who is actually on the PA ballot. I am just trying to figure out which one will send a stronger message. Yes, I know it is pitiful to use the word stronger when describing a candidate who will be getting a minuscule portion of the vote, but it is all I have.

    • #2
    • November 4, 2016 at 7:33 am
    • Like
  3. Inactive

    Mister D: This is not a question of which candidate is more suitable for office. In my opinion, neither one meets even the minimum standard to be called President. I believe both will be bad for the country. Both are unfit.

    Indeed, as I have stated elsewhere, those who throw out “Trump is the lesser of two evils” as if it is an objective truth are mistaken. I would also argue that, because of this, a Trump victory has far more potential to do damage than a Hillary victory. Hillary will enter office as a weakened, scandal-ridden president with no mandate. She will also face at least an opposition House majority and is looking ever more likely to face both legislative chambers controlled by Republicans. With the dismal landscape in 2018 for Democrats (25 of 33 Senate seats which are up are held by Democrats) and an unpopular Democrat president who will surely be facing on-going scandals, Republicans will solidify their Senate majority further. To think that Clinton will be able to move on a radical leftist agenda as Obama did at the beginning of his presidency (when he had super legislative majorities in his own favor) is naive.

    A Trump victory would paint him as the face of conservatism and of the Republican party (which he is neither). He would have perhaps an even weaker claim on a mandate than HRC. The long term damage that would do to Republican viability could be irreparable.

    • #3
    • November 4, 2016 at 7:36 am
    • Like
  4. Contributor

    Wordcooper:I will either be writing in McMullin or voting for Castle (of the Constitution Party), who is actually on the PA ballot. I am just trying to figure out which one will send a stronger message. Yes, I know it is pitiful to use the word stronger when describing a candidate who will be getting a minuscule portion of the vote, but it is all I have.

    Don’t worry about pitiful, because things can add up: There is at least some evidence McMullin will be the strongest third party showing in two decades.

    There is at least some evidence that turnout is going to be low.

    There is at least some evidence the election is going to be close.

    When once we have the facts, I expect they will confirm that the American people did not want things to end up this way. The country will be worse for this election, but decent people will have a chance to do better.

    • #4
    • November 4, 2016 at 7:37 am
    • Like
  5. Contributor

    Karl Nittinger:Indeed, as I have stated elsewhere, those who throw out the “Trump is the lesser of two evils” as if it is an objective truth are mistaken. I would also argue that, because of this, a Trump victory has far more potential to do damage than a Hillary victory. Hillary will enter office as a weakened, scandal-ridden president with no mandate. She will also face at least an opposition House majority and is looking ever more likely to face both legislative chambers controlled by Republicans. With the dismal landscape in 2018 for Democrats (25 of 33 Senate seats which are up are held be Democrats) and an unpopular Democrat president who will surely be facing on-going scandals, Republicans will solidify their Senate majority further. To think that Clinton will be able to move on a radical leftist agenda as Obama did at the beginning of his presidency (when he had super legislative majorities in his own favor) is naive.

    A Trump victory would paint him as the face of conservativism and of the Republican party (which he is neither). He would have perhaps an even weaker claim on a mandate than HRC. The long term damage that would do to Republican viability could be irreparable.

    I’m skeptical of the calculations you make. A lot of the damage will come by defeat, too; & who is really hopeful–aside from you?–that in 2018 & 2020, the GOP will have any spine & any sense?

    • #5
    • November 4, 2016 at 7:40 am
    • Like
  6. Inactive

    Titus Techera: I’m skeptical of the calculations you make. A lot of the damage will come by defeat, too; & who is really hopeful–aside from you?–that in 2018 & 2020, the GOP will have any spine & any sense?

    Regarding the “damage of defeat”, that ship has sailed. That damage was done in July in Cleveland, Ohio.

    On “spine” and “sense”, you’ll find that I don’t buy into the prevailing thought proffered by some (many?) that Republicans in congress have done nothing against – or have even been complicit in advancing – the Obama agenda…it’s an untruth that is rapidly becoming a crutch by some to rationalize their electoral choices and make themselves feel better about engaging in the con that is the Trump candidacy.

    • #6
    • November 4, 2016 at 8:16 am
    • Like
  7. Contributor

    Karl Nittinger:

    Titus Techera: I’m skeptical of the calculations you make. A lot of the damage will come by defeat, too; & who is really hopeful–aside from you?–that in 2018 & 2020, the GOP will have any spine & any sense?

    Regarding the “damage of defeat”, that ship has sailed. That damage was done in July in Cleveland, Ohio.

    On “spine” and “sense”, you’ll find that I don’t buy into the prevailing thought proffered by some (many?) that Republicans in congress have done nothing against – or have even been complicit in advancing – the Obama agenda…it’s an untruth that is rapidly becoming a crutch by some to rationalize their electoral choices and make themselves feel better about engaging in the con that is the Trump candidacy.

    I agree about the fact that the party has been quite active. But at the same time, it lacks spine & sense, both when it comes to winning the presidency & when it comes to confronting the president in public.

    I think even you have to admit that the GOP is not doing any job of letting the American people know why they should care or show any respect-

    • #7
    • November 4, 2016 at 8:24 am
    • Like
  8. Moderator

    Mister D: He does not have the history of abuse of power that Hillary does, but that’s most likely because he’s never been in a position to do so.

    I just want to highlight this bit. I’ve very tired of the Benghazi argument as a reason to vote Trump, because although Trump has never had the opportunity to abandon our troops in their hour of need, I have not seen any character evidence that he wouldn’t if presented the same situation.

    When the 3:00 AM phone call happens, will Trump be too busy screwing some bimbo or fighting on Twitter to take it?

    • #8
    • November 4, 2016 at 8:37 am
    • Like
  9. Inactive

    Titus Techera: I think even you have to admit that the GOP is not doing any job of letting the American people know why they should care or show any respect-

    I’m not completely sure I understand the full context behind this part of your comment. But I think I am inclined to say that I disagree that I have to admit such…again, depending on the full context.

    • #9
    • November 4, 2016 at 8:46 am
    • Like
  10. Contributor

    Ok, let’s start from facts we can agree on: The American electorate is mostly Dem or GOP. The Dems hate your guts as a matter of institutional organization of public life. But the GOP electorate also comprises an influential faction that hates the party & a majority that does not love it & would not defend it.

    The GOP was taken over this year. The electorate does not seem to care about that. I take that as evidence that the Congressional party & the organization of RNC, money pouring in to candidates, & opportunities / think tanks where to give speeches–all this complex has very little support with its own electorate.

    Are we agreed so far?

    • #10
    • November 4, 2016 at 8:49 am
    • Like
  11. Contributor

    Amy Schley:

    Mister D: He does not have the history of abuse of power that Hillary does, but that’s most likely because he’s never been in a position to do so.

    I just want to highlight this bit. I’ve very tired of the Benghazi argument as a reason to vote Trump, because although Trump has never had the opportunity to abandon our troops in their hour of need, I have not seen any character evidence that he wouldn’t if presented the same situation.

    As I’ve said in some dark moments “Hey, give him a chance.”

    • #11
    • November 4, 2016 at 8:50 am
    • Like
  12. Inactive

    Mister D: Like Hillary, he lies nearly as often as he speaks, but she at least can craft plausible falsehoods. He will lie in his second breath about what he said with his first, and expect you not to notice. He lied about his faith, yet had such contempt for the faithful that he didn’t even bother learning enough to make that lie plausible. He does not have the history of abuse of power that Hillary does, but that’s most likely because he’s never been in a position to do so.

    I prefer the liar who’s not particularly good at it to the one who is.

    Likewise, I prefer the one who hasn’t proven himself a master of corruption to the one who has.

    I prefer the one whom the press will be keeping accountable to the one who will be covered for.

    I prefer the one who has behaved, for the most part, legally, to the one who is above the law.

    In short, I prefer the con artist to the mafia boss.

    • #12
    • November 4, 2016 at 8:53 am
    • Like
  13. Inactive

    Tom Meyer, Ed.:

    Amy Schley:

    Mister D: He does not have the history of abuse of power that Hillary does, but that’s most likely because he’s never been in a position to do so.

    I just want to highlight this bit. I’ve very tired of the Benghazi argument as a reason to vote Trump, because although Trump has never had the opportunity to abandon our troops in their hour of need, I have not seen any character evidence that he wouldn’t if presented the same situation.

    As I’ve said in some dark moments “Hey, give him a chance.”

    Suppose I set before you two glasses of your favorite beverage, and truthfully told you that one had rat poison in it and would kill you, and the other might or might not kill you, we don’t know yet.

    Further suppose I threatened you that you must choose to drink one, and had the means to force you. And if you don’t choose, or choose a third, more pure beverage, one of the first two would be chosen for you by someone else?

    What would you do?

    • #13
    • November 4, 2016 at 8:59 am
    • Like
  14. Contributor

    Probable Cause:I prefer the liar who’s not particularly good at it to the one who is.

    This does not seem sound. All presidents have to lie well…

    Likewise, I prefer the one who hasn’t proven himself a master of corruption to the one who has.

    How much more successful at corruption would he have to be?

    I prefer the one whom the press will be keeping accountable to the one who will be covered for.

    This is laughable. What accountability? Ruining his reputation further is hardly possible & the notion that people badmouthing him could stop him is even more laughable!

    Maybe you have hope in leaks?

    But have you considered that an even more rabidly partisan divide in America, thanks to the Trump-liberal press combo is a bad idea?

    I prefer the one who has behaved, for the most part, legally, to the one who is above the law.

    I guess that’s the triumph of hope over experience?

    In short, I prefer the con artist to the mafia boss.

    It’s not even obvious that a conman is a better executive than a mafia boss! Organized crime might be smarter & more practical than disorganized scams. To boot, conservatives not infrequently act like the government is pretty evil. Well, here’s your chance!

    • #14
    • November 4, 2016 at 9:01 am
    • Like
  15. Contributor

    Probable Cause:

    Tom Meyer, Ed.:

    Amy Schley:

    Mister D: He does not have the history of abuse of power that Hillary does, but that’s most likely because he’s never been in a position to do so.

    I just want to highlight this bit. I’ve very tired of the Benghazi argument as a reason to vote Trump, because although Trump has never had the opportunity to abandon our troops in their hour of need, I have not seen any character evidence that he wouldn’t if presented the same situation.

    As I’ve said in some dark moments “Hey, give him a chance.”

    Suppose I set before you two glasses of your favorite beverage, and truthfully told you that one had rat poison in it and would kill you, and the other might or might not kill you, we don’t know yet.

    Further suppose I threatened you that you must choose to drink one, and had the means to force you. And if you don’t choose, or choose a third, more pure beverage, one of the first two would be chosen for you by someone else?

    What would you do?

    This seems silly. America has survived & will survive the Clintons. But this is a good example of why what passes for thought problems or philosophical quandaries is really an insane abstraction with a partisan bent.

    • #15
    • November 4, 2016 at 9:02 am
    • Like
  16. Inactive

    Titus Techera: But this is a good example of why what passes for thought problems or philosophical quandaries is really an insane abstraction with a partisan bent.

    You’re better than this, Titus.

    • #16
    • November 4, 2016 at 9:05 am
    • Like
  17. Contributor

    Probable Cause:

    Titus Techera: But this is a good example of why what passes for thought problems or philosophical quandaries is really an insane abstraction with a partisan bent.

    You’re better than this, Titus.

    I don’t mean anything against you–I should add, I apologize for the harsh language.

    I am serious, however, that what passes for thought experiments is so crazy no philosopher has ever taken seriously.

    Also, that America has survived the Clintons & will, again.

    • #17
    • November 4, 2016 at 9:14 am
    • Like
  18. Member
    Mister D Post author

    Probable Cause:

    Tom Meyer, Ed.:

    Amy Schley:

    Mister D: He does not have the history of abuse of power that Hillary does, but that’s most likely because he’s never been in a position to do so.

    I just want to highlight this bit. I’ve very tired of the Benghazi argument as a reason to vote Trump, because although Trump has never had the opportunity to abandon our troops in their hour of need, I have not seen any character evidence that he wouldn’t if presented the same situation.

    As I’ve said in some dark moments “Hey, give him a chance.”

    Suppose I set before you two glasses of your favorite beverage, and truthfully told you that one had rat poison in it and would kill you, and the other might or might not kill you, we don’t know yet.

    Further suppose I threatened you that you must choose to drink one, and had the means to force you. And if you don’t choose, or choose a third, more pure beverage, one of the first two would be chosen for you by someone else?

    What would you do?

    What a shock. A Trump supporter threatening me with violence if I don’t do what he says.

    • #18
    • November 4, 2016 at 9:22 am
    • Like
  19. Member
    Mister D Post author

    Probable Cause:

    Mister D: Like Hillary, he lies nearly as often as he speaks, but she at least can craft plausible falsehoods. He will lie in his second breath about what he said with his first, and expect you not to notice. He lied about his faith, yet had such contempt for the faithful that he didn’t even bother learning enough to make that lie plausible. He does not have the history of abuse of power that Hillary does, but that’s most likely because he’s never been in a position to do so.

    I prefer the liar who’s not particularly good at it to the one who is.

    Likewise, I prefer the one who hasn’t proven himself a master of corruption to the one who has.

    I prefer the one whom the press will be keeping accountable to the one who will be covered for.

    I prefer the one who has behaved, for the most part, legally, to the one who is above the law.

    In short, I prefer the con artist to the mafia boss.

    And, as I said, you vote your conscience, I will vote mine. The criminal may be worse than the con man, but I will not choose either.

    • #19
    • November 4, 2016 at 9:24 am
    • Like
  20. Contributor

    I don’t think he means to threaten violence. Mr. D. He might simply be trying to replicate the psychological situation of the people who feel they have to vote for Mr. Trump. I certainly have met good, hard-working people who feel that way. I would say, at least in their case, the question was not about violence but about a desperate search for dignity. I think they are misguided–it remains the case, we shouldn’t be defending voting for either of these crazy people–but I can see why they’re so angry & depressed.

    For all that, yes, the hypothetical story is unpalatably tied up with violence…

    • #20
    • November 4, 2016 at 9:26 am
    • Like
  21. Contributor

    Titus Techera: I don’t think he means to threaten violence. Mr. D. He might simply be trying to replicate the psychological situation of the people who feel they have to vote for Mr. Trump.

    That’s how I read it, too.

    • #21
    • November 4, 2016 at 9:47 am
    • Like
  22. Thatcher

    Just to say thank you, @misterd…You’ve made my Friday.

    • #22
    • November 4, 2016 at 10:07 am
    • Like
  23. Member

    Probable Cause: In short, I prefer the con artist to the mafia boss.

    What about the con man who is friends with and funded the mafia boss?

    And that’s why this election sucks so bad. There’s so much garbage surrounding both candidates the arguments over which is worse have no end. Thankfully it won’t matter much after Tuesday.

    • #23
    • November 4, 2016 at 10:31 am
    • Like
  24. Member

    So . . . . another vote for the GOP has a deep problem with racism. I guess that’s a bit of a balancing test, but my scale would tip the other way.

    • #24
    • November 4, 2016 at 10:32 am
    • Like
  25. Member

    McMullin supports Hillary if he can’t force the election to the House. Let’s say for a moment that that happens.

    Under the 12th Amendment, the House delegations get to choose one of the top 3 candidates from the election. That would be Hillary or Trump, with McMullin as the likely 3rd possibility.

    IIUC, each state delegation has one vote. Of the 50 states, 30 have a Republican majority of 2 or more (or only one Congresscritter.) 12 have a Dem majority (I’m assuming good Democrat party discipline,) 3 are evenly split D/R and the remaining 5 have a Republican majority of one. Sounds like President Trump to me, but “no mandate.”

    In real life, McMullin’s strategy is for Hillary to win in the Electoral College or for Never Trump Republicans to dominate 14 states’ delegations. Otherwise, it’s President Trump.

    Either way, his “Never Trump, Never Hillary” is a smokescreen. His plan is “Hillary or Bust.” McMullen saving the conservative movement by throwing the election to the House? What are you smoking?

    Say he succeeds, and Hillary wins. Think that she is a temporary aberration?

    One more Democrat regime importing illegals and strategically locating immigrants in critical districts and it’s game over for the Republicans and for what’s left of the conservative movement for the foreseeable future. 

    This one’s for all the marbles. McMullin can gei in drerd arein.

    • #25
    • November 4, 2016 at 10:43 am
    • Like
  26. Contributor

    Hoyacon:So . . . . another vote for the GOP has a deep problem with racism.

    As a McMullin supporter, I want to go on record as saying that that initial statement of his was unbelievably stupid and, moreover, not true. McMullin has an annoying, schoolmarmish side to him and I wish to hell he’d knock it off.

    • #26
    • November 4, 2016 at 11:02 am
    • Like
  27. Member
    Mister D Post author

    Amy Schley:

    Mister D: He does not have the history of abuse of power that Hillary does, but that’s most likely because he’s never been in a position to do so.

    I just want to highlight this bit. I’ve very tired of the Benghazi argument as a reason to vote Trump, because although Trump has never had the opportunity to abandon our troops in their hour of need, I have not seen any character evidence that he wouldn’t if presented the same situation.

    When the 3:00 AM phone call happens, will Trump be too busy screwing some bimbo or fighting on Twitter to take it?

    To me Benghazi is less about active criminal behavior (that is she didn’t order them murdered) and more about gross negligence and/or incompetence. I can readily see Trump costing lives due to his stubborn ignorance, arrogance and inexperience.

    • #27
    • November 4, 2016 at 11:14 am
    • Like
  28. Member
    Mister D Post author

    Nanda Panjandrum:Just to say thank you, @misterd…You’ve made my Friday.

    A humble “you’re welcome.”

    • #28
    • November 4, 2016 at 11:16 am
    • Like
  29. Member
    Mister D Post author

    Titus Techera: I don’t think he means to threaten violence. Mr. D. He might simply be trying to replicate the psychological situation of the people who feel they have to vote for Mr. Trump.

    And that is why I say vote your conscience. I understand those in that position, and do not and have not condemned them for it. I simply do not see things in that same light. I do not see the election as a dichotomous choice except that people allow themselves to believe it so.

    • #29
    • November 4, 2016 at 11:19 am
    • Like
  30. Member
    Mister D Post author

    Karl Nittinger:

    Indeed, as I have stated elsewhere, those who throw out “Trump is the lesser of two evils” as if it is an objective truth are mistaken. I would also argue that, because of this, a Trump victory has far more potential to do damage than a Hillary victory. Hillary will enter office as a weakened, scandal-ridden president with no mandate. She will also face at least an opposition House majority and is looking ever more likely to face both legislative chambers controlled by Republicans. With the dismal landscape in 2018 for Democrats… and an unpopular Democrat president who will surely be facing on-going scandals, Republicans will solidify their Senate majority further. To think that Clinton will be able to move on a radical leftist agenda as Obama did at the beginning of his presidency… is naive.

    I see them both as bad in office, I just don’t know which will be worse. If I just look at the politics, I’m more inclined to think Trump does more long term damage to the GOP/conservatism.

    I believe Hillary plays out as you said. Hurts us short term, could help us long term.

    If Trump wins he could undermine (again) a potentially good year in 2018, and possibly cost us the house, senate and state governments. Then we’d be forced to either primary him in 2020 or to defend him and his record (which I believe will be bad).

    • #30
    • November 4, 2016 at 11:25 am
    • Like
  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4