The “none of the above” election
The Chicago Tribune states an idea I’ve thought about quite a bit lately:
…[T]the odds are very good that the next president will be someone most voters actively dislike or even detest.
I don’t think there’s ever been a situation like that before in this country, and in some ways it’s the saddest and most outrageous thing about this election.
The Trib goes on to add:
The stark reality is that barring a political earthquake, an independent or third-party candidate has almost no chance of becoming president. Ask Ross Perot, who at one point in the 1992 campaign led George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton by double-digit margins. Despite his initial appeal and despite spending $63 million of his own money, the Texas billionaire ended up with just 19 percent of the vote ”” and didn’t carry a single state.
I ordinarily would agree that third parties have no chance. I don’t really think a third candidate has much of a chance this year, either. Except…except…note that phrase “barring a political earthquake.” Have we not already had the equivalent of one?
As I’ve commented here before, I think this is the first year I think a 3rd party, or independent candidate maybe has a longshot chance to win. I will vote third party. As for those who say I’m betraying the party, my response is no, YOU betrayed the party when you chose a narcissistic immoral, jackass, who doesn’t espouse a single conservative philosophy, and who is unfit to be POTUS. He’s unfit to take my garbage out, so don’t blame me for not voting for him.
Article 12.
We may not get a majority of Hillary or Trump.
Tom, I agree; and would further state that I do not feel that we necessarily owe anything to political parties. By definition, they exist to elect like minded candidates. If a party’s candidate does not meet your standard, why should there be an obligation to support the candidate or the sponsoring party?
There are, of course, down ballot candidates who could meet the standard, and are worthy of support.
I have said to people who suggest that I am obligated to vote for Trump if he is the GOP candidate, “nonsense”. It is Trump’s obligation to earn my vote–if he wants it.
Having said that, it appears that in this case we may have to choose between the lesser of two evils–if we can make that determination.
Ed, I’ve been trying to figure out how that could happen. You’d need to convince a large number of people that they weren’t wasting their votes by voting for someone they knew was going to lose. They’d further have to trust that Congress would choose someone better than their party’s candidate.
Oldflyer, 2:23 pm — “it appears that in this case we may have to choose between the lesser of two evils—if we can make that determination.”
I’m reminded, ever so briefly, of independent presidential candidate John Anderson bemoaning the idea that (in 1980 when he was running) the electorate was finding itself in a position of having to choose between the evil of two lessers.
It is highly unlikely that a third party can win or even garner enough electoral college votes to deny hrc 270. But for me its worth the attempt. I will vote Libertarian for POTUS and gop down ticket.
M J R, I voted for John Anderson, lol, that was the first election in which I could vote. I swore I’d never vote 3rd party again. I have since, but only in years when I knew that the Republican candidate was so far ahead that my vote couldn’t matter. I must say though, that I don’t think Reagan could be accused of lying, narcissism, and infantile behavior of Trump. Carter could hardly be characterized as criminal as Hillary.
Tom, 3:52 pm — “M J R, I voted for John Anderson, lol, that was the first election in which I could vote. . . . I must say though, that I don’t think Reagan could be accused of lying, narcissism, and infantile behavior of Trump. Carter could hardly be characterized as criminal as Hillary.”
Definitely agree on both counts. Reagan and Trump are not only playing in different ballparks, they’re in totally different leagues. As far as Carter is concerned, to my perception the rap on him was never that he was dishonest, but that he was inept — figuratively but *not* literally speaking, criminally inept.
It’s like you’re really hungry. You open the refrigerator and there’s nothing there you want to eat.
Any third party at this stage of political America is a complete non–starter.
The system is rigged for two-parties.
As the Atlas of the World, it’s essential that every election be between good and evil … aka a vote for the lesser evil.
It’s looking increasingly likely that financial chaos is directly ahead.
Hillary will permit Wall Street to crash the system, Bourbon-style.
Trump’s epic systemic ignorance and cavernous mouth — dynamite in avalanche country.
FDR triggered the depth of the Great Depression — via his utterances on the campaign trail, 1932.
You can go back and look at every jagged plunge in the Dow-Jones and trace it back to the prior day’s Franklin blather.
The higher FDR rose in the polling, the lower the economy sank.
There is no possible third party candidate with the name recognition and bi-partisan crossover appeal to seriously challenge either party’s nominee.
Even if Trump were assassinated (someone is going to try, especially if he’s leading in the polls) a month before the election and a week later, Hillary collapsed at a rally and could not continue… what third party alternative could garner a majority?
It’s Lenin or Caesar folks.
See, here’s the thing, I keep hearing everyone saying a third party is impossible, but looking back, I’m sure those same sentences were uttered right before a third party emerged. It was impossible to put a man on the moon, it was impossible to break the sound barrier, and on and on and on. All things are impossible, until an environment occurs that makes them possible. Again, I’ll say it’s a long shot, and I’m more than likely dreaming, but STOP saying it’s impossible, because it’s NOT! It’s only impossible in your imagination, the same way that a Trump nomination was impossible in mine.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhXjcZdk5QQ
Tom,
Name just one current third party candidate or even an independent, who can appeal to a broad enough section of Americans to win.
The reason it’s impossible for a 3rd party candidate to win is because the country is too divided. It’s too split up, into too many factions. Thanks to the left, there’s little social cohesion left in America.
And the reason you find it so distressing, as to protest against the ‘impossibility’ of a third party candidate is because it leaves you with an impossible choice; Lenin or Ceasar?
Oldflyer: “Having said that, it appears that in this case we may have to choose between the lesser of two evils—if we can make that determination.”
I’ve already commented about determining which of the two is the lesser evil. TIMO, that would be Trump. With Hillary we know we’ll get another four years of Obama policies or maybe even worse. Trump is a gamble. With a GOP majority in Congress, as we presently have, and some good cabinet picks (Giuliani -Homeland Security, Christy – DOJ, Carson – HHS, Palin – DOE, Gingrich – EPA, Genl. (retired) Jack Keane – DOD, etc.) I think Trump could actually accomplish some positive things. I also am of the opinion that unlike Obama, who was unimpeachable because of his ancestry, Trump would be subject to impeachment, if he strayed too far off the reservation. Hillary, because of her gender, might also be very close to unimpeachable. For those reasons I am less afraid of Trump than of Hillary.
Geoffrey, I’m NOT in fact left with an impossible choice of either Clinton or Trump, and I’ve indicated many times that I will vote for a third part candidate, regardless. I tend to disagree with you about the country being divided in two, which I know you didn’t say, but it’s implied. I think it’s divided in three, and I think the split is the hard left, which includes minority activists, feminists, and LGBT. I think that group makes up about 20%. Then there’s the hard right, which includes the religious right, hard core anti abortionists, hard core anti-LGBT, opposed to almost any immigration or path to citizenship, etc. I think this group also composes about 20%. Then I think there’s about about 60% that really doesn’t agree with either hard line position. I know there’s a large group that believes in fiscal responsibility, smaller more efficient government etc., but they don’t believe that it’s an issue for gay people to get married, they are adamantly pro-choice, they think that people who have lived in the country for a very long time should be provided with a path to citizenship, etc. I think if someone can capture that group, the 60% in the middle, they have a chance. If you have paid any attention, that’s kinda the libertarian platform. Small, efficient, responsible government, and screw the social issues. I further think the old coalitions in both parties are beginning to break up, as their interests are beginning to conflict with each other. So I think there’s a coalition to be built there. Either way, I won’t vote for Trump or Hillary, neither is a conservative, and neither reflects my values. I think people lining up behind Trump, especially those who bitched about Romney and McCain not being conservative enough, is the true hypocrisy here. If you’ve complained about how much control Wall Street, and “big donors” and you’re lining up to vote for Trump, you again get really high marks for hypocrisy. There’s also no guaranty he’ll be any better than Clinton, and plenty of indication he could be worse, WAY worse.
J J,
Two comments, who’s going to impeach Trump, given he’s already trying to stomp on Ryan for crossing him (as hes done with so many others). Second, that’s a hell of a way to choose a candidate, I’m going to choose candidate X because he’s more impeachable? You gotta be F%CK!N kiddin’ me!
Tom – It’s definitely worth trying. There’s no way I’m voting for either of those two. It’s just very unlikely to succeed.
If Sasse runs, he’s got my vote. Any conservative independent candidate. If not, I’d consider voting Libertarian. I don’t care if it comes off as a protest vote. If you can’t protest this election, when can you?
Who could lure enough voters over to a third party or independent? You’re not going to get there on conservative votes alone. You’d need massive defection from Democrats as well. So, a candidate of the middle. (I don’t think it could be a candidate who straddles both parties’ extremes. People fleeing these campaigns are going to want stability.) My gut says that revulsion at Clinton won’t be enough either. In modern, post-Obama America, there’s got to be a racial angle too. I earlier speculated that a Bloomberg/Powell ticket is the only thing that could do it. Would conservatives go for it?
Nick,
Sasse, Libertarian, I’m not sure the gun owners of America are going to vote for Bloomberg, but I certainly could find myself voting for Powell.
Oops. Tom, you snuck an extra comment in there. I was responding to the idea of a third-party candidate, not an impeachment.
But I would bet on Trump getting impeached. He has no comprehension of the office he’s running for. He’ll be violating the Constitution on his first day. His lawyers won’t be able to restrain him. And he’ll have very few natural allies in Congress. When he declares New Mexico illegal or orders troops to fire on the Department of Homeland Security or some crazy thing, who’s going to stand up and defend him?
Nick,
Who’s going to defend him? The same folks who defended him when he treated Megyn Kelly with so much disrespect, or who defended Corey Lewandowski, the people who have defended so many of his statements, and positions. (Many of them here.)
Another bet – if a third-party candidate doesn’t somehow win, a year from today we’re going to be discussing how “at least Obama had respect for the Constitution”. Because compared to the next president, it’ll look like he did.
Man, I’m just one comment out of sync with you tonight!
I meant, who in Congress would defend him?
JJ – What about if he chooses Palin for DoD, Hillary Clinton for HHS, and Corey Lewandowski for Attorney General? Can you really see him turning to Republican leaders for guidance?
Nick,
As we’ve learned during the Obama administration, impeachment is as much a political exercise as a constitutional one.
Too Late! A national candidacy takes time and organization ad there are filing deadlines that vary from state to state. That plus the knee jerk lawfare reflex from the left dooms any serious third party run – even if there were a serious groundswell ALREADY for an individual.
Bad times are coming and we no longer raise the likes of George Washington or John Adams.
Folks, never say never.
This has been the most surprising/disappointing election cycle yet.
There are many conservatives scrambling to organize for a “fourth” party for non-Trump GOP voters.
I’d rather they put their full weight and resources behind a Libertarian candidate that comes close enough, as I could see disaffected voters from all sides rallying to that candidate, and prove a spoiler, if not a winner.
Having a “fourth” party specifically for conservative GOP divides the field that one more notch. Yes, that would be closer philosophically, but haven’t we just seen how divided votes and resources plays out?
Of course, GOP down ballot.
Tom: “I’m going to choose candidate X because he’s more impeachable? You gotta be F%CK!N kiddin’ me!”
If you want to vote libertarian, that’s your choice. It’s also one less vote against four more years of progressivism. The Libertarian Party, got the highest vote total in its history in the 2012 election – somewhat north of one million votes. That’s not anywhere nearly competitive. A third party is not going to be competitive either.
I am not a Trump supporter. My vote for him would be a vote against Hillary and the Democrats. Some people think he would be dangerous – neo has made references to possible authoritarianism under him. That’s why I look at the issue of impeachability. If he turned out to have dictatorial impulses, (as, IMO, Obama has) would there be a way to stop him? (As there hasn’t been in the case of Obama.)
My tendency, noted on a previous thread, is to believe that Trump can’t win in November. I also pointed out that my beliefs/instincts have been wrong throughout the primaries. He is just a way to vote against Hillary.
How do you account for this? Hillary is on record as being for closing down the coal industry. Trump is on record as saying he will put the miners back to work. Polls today in West Virginia (a coal mining state) show Hillary beating Trump in the general. Are people listening or using their heads? They want a candidate that’s going to close down one of their major industries?
Nick: “What about if he chooses Palin for DoD, Hillary Clinton for HHS, and Corey Lewandowski for Attorney General? Can you really see him turning to Republican leaders for guidance?”
Palin, Christy, Carson, and Giuliani have endorsed him. Maybe he won’t make good picks, but the possibility is there. Like I say, it’s a gamble. Even with the picks you mention, I don’t see it as being worse than what Hillary would do. Do you remember the many mediocre people Bill Clinton had in his cabinet? The Clintons don’t want anyone around who is smarter or more honest than they are. Kinda like Obama. How about Rhodes, Price, Donilon, Kerry, and more? Real gems, no?
Neo:
“I ordinarily would agree that third parties have no chance. I don’t really think a third candidate has much of a chance this year, either. Except…except…note that phrase “barring a political earthquake.” Have we not already had the equivalent of one?”
There’s a chance. I say that, anyway, as a volunteer on Senator Lieberman’s (
DI) last campaign.Bryan McGrath, the lead author of the Trump-protest letter from GOP foreign policy elites, wants Mitt Romney to run:
https://conservativewahoo.blogspot.com/2016/05/mitt-romney-nation-turns-its-lonely.html
A viable candidate should pull together anti-alt-Right (conservative) dissidents from the GOP and anti-Left (liberal) dissidents from the Democrats. Say, for example, a Romney-Webb ticket.
To catch up, the momentum for the campaign would need to be generated and multiplied by a vigorously competitive [Moderate? Centrist? Middle?] social activist movement functioning as the center of gravity, countering the Trump-front alt-Right and Democrat-front Left throughout the arena. To have a chance, the activists would need to be smart, aggressive, and aggressively opportunistic. Seize the initiative and drive.
Key, the ticket would need to ride a narrative spread by the social activist movement, a compelling story where a critical mass of We The People join with the ticket as the protagonists who save the American nation from the corrupted GOP and Democrats for the sake of posterity.
In swing states, anyone who does not vote for Trump is casting an indirect vote for Hillary. I’m sorry, but that is not an opinion but a brutal fact. Anyone who thinks that Lenin is preferable to Caesar needs to revisit the history books.
Another brutal fact is that we’ve reached the end of the Republic. That is so because a majority of Americans have, in 2008, 2012 and now, in this primary season… conclusively demonstrated that they are incapable of choosing wisely.
Which leaves the final relevant fact: the road ahead has two forks; Lenin’s ‘soviet’ or Caesar’s pretense of a republic? It’s the ‘gulag’ or cutting down all of the laws, to get after the devil…
IMO, there are two misconceptions going on in this thread. The first is the belief that the gop will retain a senate majority with the donald at the top of the ticket, that is unlikely. And, the gop will struggle to hold a substantial majority in the house. The second misconception is that the donald is an anodyne to hrc’s ‘progressive’ desires. One example as to why this is false is djt’s support for biological males in biological females toilets, dressing rooms, and shower rooms. I could provide a host of other reasons like PP, etc. But why bother?
For the first time I am considering voting for the Libertarian candidate, despite their bong-weed driven ideas on foreign and military affairs. Since my state is so blue as to verge on ultraviolet, my vote would be just as irrelevant if I voted for The Donald as for the Lib.
I shall vote Republican down ballot, but again I live in a state swamped with blue ninnies.
In a sense, Trump’s triumph is the revenge of John Lindsey. Two term mayor of New York, he wanted to push the GOP to the left, adopting Democratic Party ideas. That was the Wave of the Future in 1965 dontcherknow. Well, he was purged from the party and ended up a Dem. Now we are about to nominate a man whose every instinct, when pushed to describe a policy solution for a problem, is to fall back on the stale conventional wisdom of the Dems.
In this time when the world is on fire, we need a Washington, a Lincoln, or a Reagan. Instead we get to choose between two Democrats with no original ideas whatsoever.
Feh.
Geoffrey Britain:
A lot of people judge Donald Trump to be much worse than a Caesar. You keep repeating that “Caesar” thing over and over as though it was a self-evident truth. It is not.
I shall vote my conscience.
I think at this point everyone recognizes the two-party system is broken. Neither the Republicans nor Democrats have the candidate they want. People are just waiting for “someone else” to fix it.
Of course a third party candidate is impossible if you believe them to be. We have the bravest nation on earth, full of people afraid to vote their conscience.
I am voting to end two-party elections and give people real choices.
“In swing states, anyone who does not vote for Trump is casting an indirect vote for Hillary. I’m sorry, but that is not an opinion but a brutal fact. Anyone who thinks that Lenin is preferable to Caesar needs to revisit the history books.”
Except we’re not choosing between Lenin or Caesar. No analogy stands on all four legs, but you’ve totally bought into this one and it looks like you’re riding it all the way to November. I don’t really think it fits.
I won’t vote for either one of them. The arguments against HRC are well known. But the arguments for Trump tend to boil down to “we know what we’ll get with her, so let’s take a gamble on him”. We don’t need more unpredictability in our system, and I don’t think we should want to bet the farm on a junk bond like Trump. This idea that it’s self-evident that he’s better than she is an argument without proof. Trump is about Trump and my sense is he’ll devote himself mainly to using the full force of the executive branch to punish his enemies. I haven’t seen any evidence to the contrary and Godfather government doesn’t appeal to me. Someone said he’s more like Sulla in another thread and I think that’s a closer match.
I will vote to keep him as far away from the levers of our economy and the nuclear football as possible.
I find it hard to take Trump seriously, even now, looking at him. His mannerisms are only slightly less annoying than Bernie’s, and his policies are incomprehensible.
Then I recall a number of things: The administration’s lack of concern for vetting floods of Muslim refugees. The years the Ft. Hood shooting was called “workplace violence”.
Ignoring the scores of people injured in terror attacks. “Injured” meaning maimed, crippled, mutilated, blinded.
That the Russian intel handed the FBI the Tsarnaevs on a platter.
The number of low-wage workers who’d like a job which is held by an immigrant who dare not complain about lousy wages and conditions.
ICE’s practice of releasing felons who, were they American, would be in jail.
Sanctuary cities.
The Blob’s view of such as Kate Steinle (“who?”).
The VA. The IRS. The EPA–see the Animas River (aka, “which? what?”)
That’s not including the more complex issues like the giveaway to Iran. Benghazi. Many of the Trump supporters come from the class that fights our wars, whether or not they’re actual veterans. They know soldiers and veterans and they know about “leave no man behind” unless you’re Hillary.
It isn’t that Trump is necessarily seen-except possibly as post-decision rationalization–a great guy with all the answers.
It’s that he’s going to turn the whole thing upside down and it can’t be worse.
Hillary, we know to be a leftist fraud who hates America–see her views of Alinsky, who is a monstrous crook and corrupter, and cares not a whit for anything but power and the Clinton Foundation’s revenues.
This is a lousy lineup. But, as to the repub primary, it’s a hard sell to claim that doing things the usual way will cure the results of doing things the usual way.
All the anti-trumpsters need to get over it.
Trump has the nomination.
Come this fall there will be two and only two choices: Trump or Hillary.
Trump is not an ideological conservative, but neither was Nixon, both Bushes, Dole, McCain, and Romney. Conservatives however can get some conservative policies out of Trump; closed borders which will allow the Republican party to survive; good Supreme Court justices.
That’s quite good enough.
Bush the idol of most of the anti-Trumpsters has given us tens of thousands dead and injured; 15 years of war; the middle east in chaos. All that good stuff out of a “Conservative”.
#NEVERNEVERNEVER–Hillary
Bush the idol of most of the anti-Trumpsters?
Huh?
What Bush, and when? I’ve read a lot of stuff from both sides, and I haven’t found anyone who’s considering any of the Bushes to be idols.
Bill Kristol and most of the neo-cons very much like Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” and his foreigh policy.
Kristol is actively trying to put together a third party run against Trump. Something that will just guarantee a Hillary presidency.
Interesting article at The Federalist by Liz Mair.
http://thefederalist.com/2016/05/11/4-ways-to-oppose-trump-besides-voting-hillary/
She discusses the possibility of running a third-party candidate in all 50 states, then says: “A variation would be to run one well-known and well-liked figure for president in each state, say, Christie Todd Whitman in New Jersey, or Mitt Romney in Utah.” I hadn’t seen that discussed before.
Ummm Harold, Bush II was no idol of mine. I didn’t vote for him in 2000 as a protest vote. (The election in Colorado was already in the bag for him.) You’re absolutely 100% wrong when you say there will be two choices. There will be a myriad of options which do not include voting for either Trump or Hillary. I voted for Dole, Bush I, McCain and Romney, but each could claim at least some conservative ideology. I assure you, in each of these cases I was not happy about voting for any of them. Bush did not give us fifteen years of war, and a middle east in chaos, that was given to us by a bunch of radicals who followed the tenants of Osama Bin Laden, and attacked the Pentagon, and the World Trade Center, and killed thousands of our fellow citizens. Last and most importantly, I do not “need to get over it”. This is a polite blog, so I’ll refrain from expressing my true feelings about the matter. Trump hasn’t expressed a single conservative ideology. There’s ZERO evidence he’ll do anything except be an authoritarian who uses the Federal Government to advance his own agenda. He’s a thin skinned, narcissistic moron, and I can’t imagine a worse place for the controls of our nation, and our nuclear arsenal to be placed.
Nick, great article, thank you!
parker,
I for one do not assume that the Republicans will retain a majority in the Senate or even the House. Nor, do I believe djt to be an ‘anodyne’ to Hillary’s “progressive desires”.
He’s definitely a social liberal. His ability to accomplish anything will require that he, ‘cut down all the laws, to get after the devil’.
But he’s not an ideologue like Hillary and while they both lust for power, history demonstrates that an ideologue who lusts for power like Lenin is far more dangerous than a Caesar.
But he’s not an ideologue like Hillary and while they both lust for power, history demonstrates that an ideologue who lusts for power like Lenin is far more dangerous than a Caesar.
Argh! You’re going to keep doing this! 🙂
I think they are both equally lusting for power. Neither will use power responsibly.
Harold – No. Trump is unacceptable. If not voting for Trump helps Hillary, and not voting for Hillary helps Trump, then not voting for either nets out to zero benefit to either of them.
No x 1,000,000. I am not going to be a responsible party to what happens after either of these is elected. There are too many unproven assertions in your line of reasoning.
Unproven assertions
1. That the Trump we don’t know (the unpredictable “gamble”) will be better than the Hillary we do know, just because he has an “R” after his name and now and then remembers to assure us that he’s a “conservative”.
2. That someone who is transparently dishonest, sadistic, bullying, etc, will somehow be different in the white house.
3. That someone transparently dishonest is lying to everyone except his supporters.
4. That we can trust him to do the right thing, and not screw up the SCOTUS nomination, etc. – for all I know he’d nominate some whacko just to get high ratings and build his “brand” for his after-Presidency
5. That we can trust him to not cause financial earthquakes and world-wide instability by running his as-yet completely undisciplined mouth. Do we really want to wake up to a stock market crash every third Wednesday based on some tweet he posted at 3am?
6. That he doesn’t actually like jacking with us as in #5. Narcissists and bullies are like that. I think Trump is having a ball right now, and not because he is determined and excited to “make America great”, but because he now is one of the most influential people on the planet with his own cult-following and everyone talking about him 24×7. He digs that.
neo,
I choose ‘Ceasar’ simply because it is IMO, the best historical comparison to Trump that comes to mind, that is also familiar to everyone. If you can offer an alternative comparison that resonates. I’ll happily adopt it. So no, I don’t regard it as self-evident truth.
As for some people thinking Trump to be much worse than Caesar, my perception is that Trump’s lying, bullying, etc. do not even begin to rise to the level of Caesar’s casual brutality. Yet those who did not oppose Caesar where left alone. Trump follows that same M.O., if you don’t stand in his way, he leaves you alone.
Whereas Hillary also seeks America’s fundamental transformation (as all leftist ideology demands) and that compels her to actively interfere with all of our lives. It must be agreed to by everyone, that when the left declares it, that 2+2=5.
Harold:
“Bush the idol of most of the anti-Trumpsters has given us tens of thousands dead and injured; 15 years of war; the middle east in chaos. All that good stuff out of a “Conservative”.”
This is an example of the Trump-front alt-Right consistency with Left and Russian propaganda with the objective to recoil American leadership and national security interests. The conflation and blame-America-first are Russian propaganda tells.
To set the record straight, see the answers to “What were President Bush’s alternatives with Iraq?” & “Why did Bush leave the ‘containment’ (status quo)?”, and the answer to “Was Operation Iraqi Freedom a strategic blunder or a strategic victory?”.
Geoffrey Britain:
But Trump’s definition of “stand in his way” includes exercising freedom of speech, and/or criticizing him. It also has included (in the past, when he was a private citizen) taking your property if he thinks you spoil his view (“stand in his way”), and his reaction also involves defaming you publicly, as well as defaming your family, and using every tool available in the law to screw you. Even if he knows the lawsuit is frivolous and won’t go anyway, he uses it to harass you, because he knows his pockets are deeper.
His definition of “stand in his way” is already extremely broad. And as yet he’s had very limited power. When his power increases, do you really think his definition won’t broaden?
Geoffrey Britain:
Trump is not Caesar. Your analogy is poor in many ways, and those ways matter.
Caesar was [emphasis mine]:
In short, Caesar was (although a populist who lusted for power) a brilliant and seasoned general, as well as a seasoned and experienced office holder and politician before he ascended to the highest office. And an excellent writer.
Trump is none of those things, not even close. Whether that will make it better for us or worse for us is anyone’s guess, and you are completely guessing as well. The analogy doesn’t work for me at all. I think a better one is probably Caligula or Nero, if you have to reach back that way. But I actually think that we don’t know enough about what Trump will do to make those analogies. We DO have enough information to say he is ruthless, mendacious, profoundly narcissistic, changeable and unpredictable, and power-hungry.
Harold:
People who come on blogs saying “get over it” need to get over it.
See this.
“As for some people thinking Trump to be much worse than Caesar, my perception is that Trump’s lying, bullying, etc. do not even begin to rise to the level of Caesar’s casual brutality. Yet those who did not oppose Caesar where left alone. Trump follows that same M.O., if you don’t stand in his way, he leaves you alone.”
Two things: Trump may not be worse than Caesar. I’d also submit, even though I think she’s reprehensible, Hillary is not Lenin (or Stalin).
At least if Hillary wins the loyal opposition can effectively counter her. If Trump wins, we’re screwed because he will have emasculated those who normally would be there to oppose (it’s already happening)
Secondly: About that Caesar thing – people keep pointing out that Trump is not this, Trump is not that, Trump never left our people out to dry in Benghazi, etc. They forget is that one possible reason is Trump has never had that kind of power. What’s he going to do when he gets that power? He has already shown himself unqualified just in the way he’s treated his opponents. A man like Trump needs to have less power, not more. I for one don’t want to find out what it’s like once he’s got the reigns of the government. A lot of his followers talk as if the fun will begin when they get to hunt down and destroy us neverTrumpers. Perhaps just their authoritarian fantasy, but I for one don’t want them or him anywhere near the buttons of power.
Vote as you like, but as for me I can’t vote for H or D.
Bill:
I’ve been saying over and over that the only reason Trump hasn’t done those things may be because he’s never had the power before.
Bill @ 8:14,
“Except we’re not choosing between Lenin or Caesar. No analogy stands on all four legs, but you’ve totally bought into this one and it looks like you’re riding it all the way to November. I don’t really think it fits.”
You may be right but to prove that it doesn’t ‘fit’ you have to demonstrate how and why it doesn’t fit.
“the arguments for Trump tend to boil down to “we know what we’ll get with her, so let’s take a gamble on him”. We don’t need more unpredictability in our system, and I don’t think we should want to bet the farm on a junk bond like Trump. This idea that it’s self-evident that he’s better than she is an argument without proof.”
No, my argument boils down to Lenin OR Sulla. Hillary leads to Lenin, that is not merely my opinion but her ideological imperative. While Trump, whether personally or as precursor, leads to IMO, Sulla/Caesar.
We certainly do not need more unpredictability in our system but it will be either the predictability of Hillary/Sanders OR the unpredictability, for good or ill or whatever combination thereof, of Trump.
In the swing states, there is NO other choice and pretending that there is, is simple denial and avoidance.
The proof you deny, as to the malevolence of a Hillary administration is history itself, which is factual. Obama’s actions are historical fact, Lenin’s actions are historical fact. Anyone who thinks Hillary will just be another Bill Clinton hasn’t been paying attention. The best example of the difference between Bill and Hillary is Eleanor and Franklin Roosevelt. Reportedly, she pushed FDR to be much more ambitious in his efforts.
“Godfather government” only appeals to the tyrannically inclined. But if the analogy of Godfather government or another Putin/Caesar/Sulla VS a Gramscian/Alinsky acolyte… resonates better, then fine. The choice still remains and those who pretend to themselves that not to be the choice will enable Alinsky’s disciple to assume the most powerful position in the world.
I hope I’m wrong and I’m certainly open to reasoned persuasion but absent that…
I don’t want that to be the choice, that is the choice we face.
Voting Libertarian won’t make a difference. Voting for “down ballot” conservative Republicans is fine, and it would be an action taken, anyway, but some people are unrealistic to rationalize that voting for “down ballot” conservative Republicans would check the alt-Right insurgent Trump phenomenon.
In the context of the 2016 presidential election, if the goalpost is set at the higher bar of counteraction rather than (impotent) protest, then the only maneuver with a “chance” to make a difference is a legitimate, fully committed, all-in 3rd party run with a broadly appealing ticket and narrative that are clearly distinguished from the (GOP) Trump-front alt-Right and Democrat-front Left. Most critically, it needs to have the activist chops to simultaneously outplay the alt-Right and Left in the arena.
Yes, Caesar’s resume included all of those things and Trump hardly compares in those areas. It is in Caesar’s “lust for power” and the consequence it had for Rome’s republic, wherein I think the comparison is valid.
You state that Trump is ruthless, mendacious, profoundly narcissistic, changeable and unpredictable, and power-hungry and I agree.
So to was Caesar as those qualities are a prerequisite for being a dictator. Thus, those who would be dictator (he who dictates) share much more in common than just their resume. It is to their shared motivation to dominate wherein the analogy stands.
Geoffrey Britain:
Sharing some traits does not an analogy make.
Those traits could fit almost any dictator. Some are far far worse than Caesar. Calling Trump “Caesar” is inaccurate and misleading, in my opinion. He could end up Caesar or any number of other people, or different from all of them.
Nor, by the way, is “Lenin” quite right for Hillary. As several people have pointed out. And yet you state these analogies as though they are self-evidence truths that should inform our actions.
“At least if Hillary wins the loyal opposition can effectively counter her.” Bill
Uh… what loyal opposition? McConnell? Ryan? Reid? Pelosi? A Congress that gave Obama MORE than he demanded? In the Senate, the “loyal opposition” will consist of Ted Cruz and Jeff Sessions.
It is not your valid fears of what Trump would do wherein we disagree. It is in your discounting of what Hillary will accomplish, wherein we part company. IMO, you and others who share your POV are letting your valid fears of what Trump may and probably will do, lead you to prefer the certainty of the continuance of the Gramscian March that leads to Lenin. And, we are much closer to that Marxist cliff, than evidently many of you are willing to credit.
Again I hope I’m wrong but I’m not the one denying that things are as grim as 2008, 2012 and NOW demonstrate them to be, nor am I the one clinging to the hope that somehow things under Hillary will be better than under Trump.
Geoffrey, I completely agree that we’re in a burning building that is crumbling around us, I just don’t see Trump as a solution. I don’t see Hillary as one either, but if we’re just gonna say f*cK it, then I’m gonna say f*ck it my way. I’m going to pray that enough people see things the same way that I do that they try to do something other than pick the perceived lesser of two evils, and look for a third option. I see Hillary as gasoline, and Trump as kerosene. I’m looking for water. We’re Americans, we have choices, we don’t have to accept whatever choices are handed to us. I was also reminded this morning that EVERYONE said Murkowski couldn’t win a write in election, but I’m pretty sure she’s a sitting senator. I think the worst part is that I went into this election cycle thinking we could FINALLY have a decently conservative presidential candidate to vote for, and maintain both houses of congress. I honestly thought we had a shot at maybe beginning the long journey of turning this around. Now I feel we’ve blown it, and it was our last chance. I’m always going to wonder if Trump was a Democratic plant.
“I think the worst part is that I went into this election cycle thinking we could FINALLY have a decently conservative presidential candidate to vote for, and maintain both houses of congress. I honestly thought we had a shot at maybe beginning the long journey of turning this around. Now I feel we’ve blown it, and it was our last chance. I’m always going to wonder if Trump was a Democratic plant.”
Hear, hear! The Republican party has earned it’s nickname “The Stupid Party” many times in the past, but now it has earned win, place and show with an oak leaf cluster.
We had the best opportunity in 8 years and completely blew it. No way I ever saw this coming. No way I would have ever predicted it.
As I said above, I think Trump is having a blast and enjoying jerking us around. There is really no likely outcome that isn’t fraught with tears at this point.
I’m with you, though – I’m not going to just throw in the towel and submit to dictators (to use GB’s formulation). Because that’s what both of them want to be. I don’t know what I’m going to do, but helping Trump win so I can spend the next four to eight years having him punch me in the face with my own fist while saying “Why are you hitting yourself? Why are you hitting yourself?” over and over …. not going to happen.
Tom:
“Bush did not give us fifteen years of war, and a middle east in chaos, that was given to us by a bunch of radicals who followed the tenants of Osama Bin Laden, and attacked the Pentagon, and the World Trade Center, and killed thousands of our fellow citizens.”
Plus:
And:
Note:
Our intervention was not the cause of the sickness in the region. It was the cure until Obama deviated from Bush. The Saddam regime, with accomplices like Russia and Syria, were causes of the sickness in the region.
lead you to prefer the certainty of the continuance of the Gramscian March that leads to Lenin.
The Gramscian march actually stopped in 2008. And the Leftist alliance had activated their strategic reserves and came out of the shadows by around 2012.
I think the worst part is that I went into this election cycle thinking we could FINALLY have a decently conservative presidential candidate to vote for, and maintain both houses of congress. I honestly thought we had a shot at maybe beginning the long journey of turning this around. Now I feel we’ve blown it, and it was our last chance.
You would probably know what my views are/were, if you read my comments at Grim b’s blog.
My prediction and analysis from 2007 hasn’t changed. If anything, it is becoming amazingly on target, even time wise.
As for Caesar, he was more like Ted Cruz and the Senate were the corrupt dictators. The Senate, by killing Caesar, doomed the Republic and created the Imperium of mad rulers and emperors.
Caesar was of the Marius Reforms faction and in fact probably had Marius as a mentor.
Wow trumpians reluctant or otherwise,
Cut down the law YUUGE bumper sticker! You are (sorry those I respect or disrepect) are in a fantasy world. The donald is a trojan horse. Might as well vote dem straight on down for that is what you will reap.
There is no difference between hrc and djt, other than the later has a below average penis. Yes, that is crude, but you followed the crude, clueless, supreme most dangerous momster. Congratulations, you won. You have voted to elect hrc or her surrogate.
In a democracy, people should only vote their conscience. It doesn’t matter what anyone else says.
The question isn’t “what happened to the Republic”. The Republic is dead. The question is nominally between “are we oligarchy or democracy”.
Assuming votes still matter, then democracy.
parker:
“There is no difference between hrc and djt, other than the later has a below average penis.”
Love it!!!! I’m gonna fall outta my chair!