I'm with Paul Ryan
Paul Ryan put it best in describing where I am right now with regard to Donald Trump.
Ryan's position makes him the highest-level GOP official to reject Trump since the real estate mogul became the last candidate standing in the party's nominating contest. His move gives down-ballot Republicans cover to hold off on supporting Trump. It could also keep his agenda in the House from being overtaken by Trump's policy positions.
Ryan said he hopes to eventually back Trump and "to be a part of this unifying process." The first moves, though, must come from Trump, he said.
Ryan said he wants Trump to unify "all wings of the Republican Party and the conservative movement" and then run a campaign that will allow Americans to "have something that they're proud to support and proud to be a part of."
"And we've got a ways to go from here to there," Ryan said.
I have felt recently like I might be in the #NeverTrump camp. But the key word is felt. When I actually think about it, I'm more like #NotYetTrump. I think he has some work he still needs to do in order to prove that I would be voting for a grown-up in November and not a spoiled brat. Like, for example, he could have started off better by not telling me that he doesn't want my vote and the votes of those like me.
Now I know that we've started having heated discussions over here about this topic. And that is fine. Let's just continue to be respectful. Let me just say now that a decision not to vote for anyone is just that—a vote for not anyone.
Also, with regard to feelings, I'm going to say right off the bat that "Would you rather have Hillary?" is a good response--as far as it goes. But looking at the bigger picture here one sees a woman who has planned to run for President for at least half here lifetime, has held numerous positions in government and has amassed enormous political power. Some people have decided that a loose cannon real estate & casino mogul who polls the worst against her of all his rivals is the best option simply because he said things that made them feel good. So people should come up with something a little bit better.
ReplyDeleteWell, Pauli, at this point either Trump or Hillary will be the next President - unless the current criminal investigation against Hillary serves up an alternate Democrat nominee.
DeleteGiven that there are no longer even any competing candidates going into the Republican convention, unless the convention committees and delegates end up producing one out of...something...what there no longer is is an alternate to Trump as the Republican nominee.
Events have now rendered feelings irrelevant. Only choices remain.
(By way of whatever calculus, Rick Perry has now formally endorsed Trump.)
At this point, Hillary might be better than Trump on foreign policy. Feel free to discuss.
DeleteThe evidence with respect to Trump on foreign policy is a big zero; he has no track record at all.
DeleteHillary was Secretary of State, and her track record extends at least from the ostensible reset with Russia, through the defenestration of Gaddafi, the events at Benghazi, the deaths of four Americans there and the lies she promulgated about it (currently under congressional investigation by Trey Gowdy, in the course of which the existence of her private email server was revealed), her subsequent statements about that, her questionable blending of State Department access with donations to the Clinton Global Initiative, a holding tank of money beloved by Clintons but poorly regarded by those who rate charities on their value a more than private wealth management, an activity closely enough resembling selling her office for profit to warrant its own criminal co-investigation alongside the criminal investigation currently being pursued by the FBI with respect to the email server and the beyond top secret documents which travelled through it; and that's a long enough paragraph.
With Trump, we have no clue as to what sort of foreign policy he'd pursue once he was actually invested in office, as an executive decision maker with the enormous pool of attendees which surround Presidents these days (one can think of American Presidents these days less like Washingtons crossing he Delaware and more like bloated termite queens deep in their mounds, surrounded by armies of President-tweaking Valerie Jarretts, Chiefs of Staff, Security Councils and the like). His only real expertise is as a negotiating, decision-making chief executive - the job he has applied for.
With Hillary, we can reasonably assume that her future public foreign policy behavior would be at least some sort of extension of her past public foreign policy behavior, probably with greater media scrutiny.
I suppose it comes down to what one's definition of "better" is.
Well, Pauli, at this point either Trump or Hillary will be the next President....
ReplyDeleteSo.... Donald Trump needs to convince people that he will be better than Hillary. And what has he done to ensure that?
Nothing, and less than nothing by saying things that make everyone think he is a conspiracist, a racist, actually trying to lose, a bully, a woman-hater....
You see why this is hard for many of us.
Yes, I do. Perhaps I'm simply less moved by what politicians say, any politicians, particularly while campaigning.
DeleteTrump is without question a swaggering vulgarian private billionaire with, as a consequence, an extremely negative aesthetic chemtrail trailing him.
Hillary says everything right, but has an actual record of activity in alleged service to the U. S. which has managed to intrigue everyone up to and including forensic congressional committees and a posse of 150+ career FBI agents.
So I'm faced with weighing a privately successful billionaire shit-grinning over a taco bowl against an imminently indictable federal national security felon.
You see how these things see-saw on the decision scales.
To put things in some perspective, let's imagine that in some sort of Man-in-the-High-Castle alternate universe it was Trump versus James Webb, the moderately compassionately conservative trans-Demo-Republican-Democrat, one of Ronald Reagan's sub-level Cabinet guys, as a matter of fact, who faded out of this race long, long ago. An extremely accomplished and honorable public servant, and thus a starkly different decision calculus than Trump v. Hillary.
DeleteBut it ain't. So, as Donald Rumsfeld didn't say, you go to election with the nominees you have, not the nominees you might want or wish to have. The Republicans have Donald Trump. The Democrats have Imelda Marcos. I have to pick the known unknown over the known known in this one.
My decision isn't between whether to vote for Imelda Marcos or Donald Trump. My decision to make is whether to vote for Trump for President or leave that one blank and only vote down ballot.
DeleteA no vote for Trump is a vote for the Hildebeast & a vote for her will have Barack Obunga & Eric Holder as Supreme Court judges. You want that then by all means go ahead!!!
ReplyDeleteIn related news: On Facebook Mark Shea is shilling for Hillary, painting her as the put-upon victim of Trump's smears against her stand-by-her-man heroism. Um, what?? I think my head is going to explode from all the cognitive dissonance.
ReplyDeleteI can see loathing Trump. I can see sitting out the election, voting third party, or writing in Nick Saban. But defending and even extolling Hillary, an evil witch who ruthlessly tried to destroy her husband's rape and harassment victims?? This is surreal.