Posted on 03/04/2016 10:45:55 AM PST by Sean_Anthony
No matter how down and dirty the 2016 presidential campaign becomes. In fact, context is all that ultimately matters
Unless you’ve has been living in an alternative universe, you’re well aware of the avalanche of criticism directed at Donald Trump from all quarters, liberal and conservative, including the latest hypocritical screed by Mitt Romney. Yet despite that criticism, virtually everyone engaged in it ignores the essential reality that attends every election: context is everything. In other words, whatever one feels about Donald Trump, or any other candidate for that matter, the ultimate question and the answer to it cannot be postponed indefinitely, as in Donald Trump—running against whom?
Like many conservatives who live amongst those who believe they own the franchise on enlightened thinking, I have often been asked how in the world I could have voted for a (fill in the progressive blank) like George W. Bush for president. Remarkably, the answer to that question is one that seems to have eluded most of these deep thinkers. “You mean how could I have voted for George W. Bush—as opposed to a hypocritical scold like Al Gore, or a self-aggrandizing blowhard like John Kerry?” I invariably respond.
Exactly. However imperfect Trump is, you have to judge him on a curve against the available alternatives. From my perspective, Kasich is too moderate and doesn’t really have a chance anyways, and Cruz and Rubio are not eligible. Therefore my vote goes to Trump.
The Establishment GOP would tolerate a President Hillary Clinton to maintain their control of the party—even if they run the party into the dustbin of history as a result.
That would be the same Hillary Clinton, who believes the rule of law applies to everyone else but her and her husband. The same Hillary Clinton who left four Americans to die in Benghazi and then lied about a video being the cause of their demise when her own communications with her daughter, Egyptian prime minister Hisham Kandil and the Libyan president on the night of the attack indicated she knew otherwise. A women who still can’t explain at the very least how highly-classified emails “migrated” from wholly secure and self-contained government servers to her personal one. A woman with no discernible accomplishments as a Senator, and a track record of colossal failure as Secretary of State.
A woman who successfully used the sexist card to bash every Republican, until Trump came along and threw it right back in her predator-enabling face.
Make no mistake: this is not an endorsement of Donald Trump. I’m not a big fan of the Palookaville style of politics, or the mud-wrestling into which the Republican primary season has devolved. But if Trump does make it to the finish line, and Hillary is his opponent, then what? If it comes down to these two, who do you want picking the next Supreme Court Justice—or three? Who do you want formulating immigration policy? Who has a better vision for our terminally-underperforming economy? Who do you want defending America against Islamist terror, Iranian nuclear ambitions and Russian and Chinese military expansionism? Who do you want restoring American exceptionalism, someone who might believe in it, or someone who clearly doesn’t?
The electorate has long been forced to choose between the “lesser of two evils,” and there is little doubt this may very well prove to be the most pernicious choice in modern history. But it remains a choice nonetheless, maybe the most important one in a very long time. Thus it behooves every would-be voter to keep context in mind, no matter how down and dirty the 2016 presidential campaign becomes. In fact, context is all that ultimately matters.
If Kasich carries Ohio, I look for him to be the VP pick because Ohio is going to be one of the swing states.
Some people disparage the idea of voting for the lesser of evils. But you always vote for the lesser of evils.
And when its a flawed man who is one of the good guys, against the profoundly evil, it should be an easy choice.
Thanks for posting that.
That seems to make a lot of sense to me as well, but, for what's it's worth, Kasich says he won't be anyone's running mate.
That is what all the candidates say.
Yes, the “I refuse to vote for the lesser of tho evils” is derived from the fallacy of “the undistributed middle”, otherwise known as “the fallacy of too few alternatives”. Yet, to invoke this fallacy in a voting situation is in itself to commit a logical fallacy, because with voting, there is no undistributed middle.
For example, if you are given the choice on a two item lunch menu between a Rat Poison Salad that would kill you and a Shit Sandwich that would only make you puke, it would be fallacious thinking to conclude that the Shit Sandwich is the better choice, because there is an undistributed middle, a third alternative: No Lunch at This Restaurant.
A vote is different. In November, when it is Clinton or Trump, there is no third alternative called “I’ll Choose to Have No President in 2016”. There will be a president chosen even if you abstain, and all you do by refusing to vote is give up your small bit of control over who is chosen, and weaken the odds for whomever you would have preferred. So not voting for Trump helps elect Clinton.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.