Tell me what I'm missing: Trump vs. Clinton

[Liberty Tree Dr]

I'm looking for a fact-based response to a question on Trump vs. Clinton in 2016.  I've seen many #NeverTrump folks state that Hillary is survivable, but Trump would not be.  Things like, "we'll live through Hillary and the Republican Party will reemerge stronger for it."  So tell me where in the following scenario I'm wrong...and please be as verbose as you can - the 5 word, "because Trump is a facist/Hitler/liberal" isn't in the spirit of the dialogue I'm after.  I REALLY want to know if I'm missing the answer on this.

Hillary wins. 

• Huma Abeddin replaces Valerie Jarrett, and the pro-Islam policies and sympathetic staff in the various national security agencies only increase in power and headcount.
• Clarence Thomas retires, and Hillary nominates two solid Leftists to the Supreme Court - all decisions are now 6-3 or 7-2 in favor of destroying liberty and the Constitution.
• Within 100 days, she uses executive orders to effectively cease deportations.  Within a year, she has fast-tracked legalization and naturalization.  Millions of now legal immigrants are made citizens by the 2020 elections, while the demographic shift reduces dependable Republican voters (i.e. four years' worth of folks dying of old age - Obamacare bonus).  Formerly red states (Florida, Virginia, even North Carolina) are now solidly Democrat. No conservative Republican will ever sit in the White House again. No challenge in the courts stops this (6-3, 7-2 - remember?)  The Leftist voting blocks now put the Senate and House majorities in jeopardy (with reversals possible in 2020 or sooner).
• Economic and governmental warfare against conservative power bases accelerates.  Government contracts shift to favor blue states, pro-union corporations are advanced while free-market groups are strangled slowly (ex. Obamacare waivers).  No challenge in the courts stops this (6-3, 7-2 - understand yet?)
• Within 100 days, Hillary issues an executive order requiring ammo importers, manufacturers, and sellers to comply with a slew of new regulations that effectively limit purchases and track buyers.  She and sympathizers in the GOP pass an "assault weapons" ban that now has more teeth that the one passed in 1994.  Within a year, ATF rules are written making all firearms transfers subject to special filing fees and background checks.  The national database is now digital.  Enforcement actions for minor violations start shutting down shops and other sales methods.  No challenge in the courts...well, you get it by now...
• The Fairness Doctrine returns, curbing the voices on conservative talk radio and even reaching into Christian broadcasting due to FCC regulation.
• The LGBT agenda advances without impediment.  Programs started in the military by Obama expand exponentially.   Federal education money becomes dependent on public schools teaching from an approved, pro-LGBT curriculum. 
• Her foreign policy favoring militant Islam means Israel is without her former US ally.  Evil moves in the Middle East.  China ignores the US in Asia and 70 years of peace bought with US blood is squandered.

Where am I wrong?  For you to be against Trump, you have to think he would produce worse outcomes that the above.  If you think he would, provide specifics.  Explain how you think "we" will survive Hillary, when Hillary and her allies will make sure there's never an election "we" can win...ever...again. [dramatic ellipses]

And while you're providing specifics, also respond to the fact that Trump won the primary.  He wasn't placed in that position by the GOP elite, people came out and voted for him, voted more for Trump than they did for his 15 opponents, all of which dropped out before the primaries were over, leaving Trump in command of the field.  As a republic, the representative was chosen.  What is the basis for nullifying the representative who finished with a win?

[roamer_1]

Where am I wrong?  For you to be against Trump, you have to think he would produce worse outcomes that the above.  If you think he would, provide specifics.  Explain how you think "we" will survive Hillary, when Hillary and her allies will make sure there's never an election "we" can win...ever...again. [dramatic ellipses]

Your premise is a misguided attempt at the 'lesser evil' argument.

Conservatives vote *FOR*, not against. To put your boy in play with Conservatives, defend him by Conservative Principles:
What does he offer the Civil-Libertarians, and how does he embrace their principles?
What does he offer the Social Conservatives, and how does he embrace their principles?
What does he offer the Defense and Foreign Policy Conservatives, and how does he embrace their principles?
What does he offer the Fiscal Conservatives, and how does he embrace their principles?

But you cannot do that, can you? Hence your dilemma is one without an answer. Trump is no Conservative, Period.
Hence, nothing for Conservatives to vote for.

And while you're providing specifics, also respond to the fact that Trump won the primary.  He wasn't placed in that position by the GOP elite, people came out and voted for him, voted more for Trump than they did for his 15 opponents, all of which dropped out before the primaries were over, leaving Trump in command of the field.  As a republic, the representative was chosen.  What is the basis for nullifying the representative who finished with a win?

Because Conservatives vote for Conservatives - end of story. You are selling something that they (we) have no reason to buy. Hence the necessary 'lesser evil' tack - It's all you've got, and it ain't gonna work. Done deal.

[Mechanicos]

As expected a total failure response.

[mirraflake]

I can't stand Hillary but you watch, she will govern from the middle.

[Liberty Tree Dr]

Your premise is a misguided attempt at the 'lesser evil' argument.

Conservatives vote *FOR*, not against. To put your boy in play with Conservatives, defend him by Conservative Principles...SNIP

No, I am looking for an argument from those who say Trump is the greater evil.  You didn't read the first few lines.  But you still might be able to help in the dialogue - can you tell me what you are "conserving" if Hillary wins and my scenario plays out? 

And he's not "my boy" - he's the GOP nominee.  I didn't vote for him, and I'm a refugee from TOS because I was arguing with his supporters while there were primaries to be contested.

[Oceander]

No, I am looking for an argument from those who say Trump is the greater evil.  You didn't read the first few lines.  But you still might be able to help in the dialogue - can you tell me what you are "conserving" if Hillary wins and my scenario plays out? 

And he's not "my boy" - he's the GOP nominee.  I didn't vote for him, and I'm a refugee from TOS because I was arguing with his supporters while there were primaries to be contested.

He's not the GOP nominee.  Not at this point.  False premise.

Trump will be at least as bad as Clinton.  He could also be worse because he'll be just as liberal as she will, but he'll be the GOP's liberal, and therefore almost impossible for the GOP to oppose him.  As a result, much more liberal nonsense will get through under Trump than under Clinton because there won't be as effective an opposition to his liberalism as to hers.

[Liberty Tree Dr]

He's not the GOP nominee.  Not at this point.  False premise.

Distinction without a difference - he has attained sufficient delegates to secure the nomination barring any change in the rules.

Trump will be at least as bad as Clinton.  He could also be worse because he'll be just as liberal as she will, but he'll be the GOP's liberal, and therefore almost impossible for the GOP to oppose him.  As a result, much more liberal nonsense will get through under Trump than under Clinton because there won't be as effective an opposition to his liberalism as to hers.

The GOPe hasn't shown a propensity to stop Obama in the last 4 years - and they had the majority.  But you didn't address my points - with the Supreme Court in her pocket, anything she wants can be made "constitutional" by 6-3 or 7-2 majority.  She can walk around Congress at will.  She will use that power - is her use of that power as I outlined less dangerous than Trump?  If so, how?  Use as many words as necessary.

[Liberty Tree Dr]

I can't stand Hillary but you watch, she will govern from the middle.

Please provide a basis for this opinion.  What makes you think she won't do all or a large part of the things I outlined.  Be as specific and fact-based as you can.

[Oceander]

Distinction without a difference - he has attained sufficient delegates to secure the nomination barring any change in the rules.
The GOPe hasn't shown a propensity to stop Obama in the last 4 years - and they had the majority.  But you didn't address my points - with the Supreme Court in her pocket, anything she wants can be made "constitutional" by 6-3 or 7-2 majority.  She can walk around Congress at will.  She will use that power - is her use of that power as I outlined less dangerous than Trump?  If so, how?  Use as many words as necessary.

Nope.  The rules don't bind the delegates unless the delegates decide at the start of this convention to be so bound.  Now maybe they'll wimp out - most likely they will - and they'll put the silk dress on the pig, but so far they haven't and they aren't bound to do so, so it is a difference with a distinction.

If Congress won't stop Clinton, then why would they stop Trump?  Trump's liberalism will have just as much free rein as Clinton's liberalism will, with exactly the same results.

Donald Trump is, at most, a Rockefeller Republican - that is the political milieu in which he exists - and Rockefeller Republicans are nothing more than rich white liberals who are too embarrassed to hang around with the protestor types (too smelly, dontcha know).  He is a republican of convenience in exactly the same way Michael Bloomberg was/is a republican of convenience.  Bloomberg spun a good tale, and then reneged on it and governed as a liberal.  Donald Trump has made an art-form out of lying in negotiations to trick people into giving him what he wants - but he calls it telling "truthful hyperbole" in order to get his marks emotionally invested in the project he's pitching.

In short, Donald Trump is a liberal and he will govern like a liberal, just as Clinton would.  So, to the extent that Congress won't block Clinton, it won't block Trump, and we'll have to suffer through more liberalism.  Conversely, to the extent Congress would block Trump, it will also block Clinton, which again means we don't gain anything from Trump that we don't have with Clinton.

[speekinout]

Isn't it enough to know that we're deciding between socialism and capitalism? And whether we will try to get back to our Judeo-Christian roots or become a multi-culturist mish-mash of various moral codes?
I don't think the details matter all that much. Few Presidents have been able to accomplish more than 3-4 major things. Pick the 4 best of hillary's promises and the 4 worst of Trump's, and I think it's clear that Trump at his worst is still better than hillary would ever be.
Trump has a list of very acceptable Supreme Court nominations, and that is very important. He also wants to reconstitute our military (which has suffered greatly). I am hoping that his vp selection will be impressive. And those three things are a pretty good start for Trump.

[Mechanicos]

Nope.  The rules don't bind the delegates unless the delegates decide at the start of this convention to be so bound.  Now maybe they'll wimp out - most likely they will - and they'll put the silk dress on the pig, but so far they haven't and they aren't bound to do so, so it is a difference with a distinction.

If Congress won't stop Clinton, then why would they stop Trump?  Trump's liberalism will have just as much free rein as Clinton's liberalism will, with exactly the same results.

Donald Trump is, at most, a Rockefeller Republican - that is the political milieu in which he exists - and Rockefeller Republicans are nothing more than rich white liberals who are too embarrassed to hang around with the protestor types (too smelly, dontcha know).  He is a republican of convenience in exactly the same way Michael Bloomberg was/is a republican of convenience.  Bloomberg spun a good tale, and then reneged on it and governed as a liberal.  Donald Trump has made an art-form out of lying in negotiations to trick people into giving him what he wants - but he calls it telling "truthful hyperbole" in order to get his marks emotionally invested in the project he's pitching.

In short, Donald Trump is a liberal and he will govern like a liberal, just as Clinton would.  So, to the extent that Congress won't block Clinton, it won't block Trump, and we'll have to suffer through more liberalism.  Conversely, to the extent Congress would block Trump, it will also block Clinton, which again means we don't gain anything from Trump that we don't have with Clinton.

This is called pounding the table. Its when you have no facts or law on your side and hope emotional appeal will win the argument.

[Liberty Tree Dr]

In short, Donald Trump is a liberal and he will govern like a liberal, just as Clinton would.  So, to the extent that Congress won't block Clinton, it won't block Trump, and we'll have to suffer through more liberalism.  Conversely, to the extent Congress would block Trump, it will also block Clinton, which again means we don't gain anything from Trump that we don't have with Clinton.

OK, so from the list of things I gave of what Clinton could try to accomplish with her packed Supreme Court, are you saying Trump would do all of those things, too?  So he'd completely reverse himself on immigration and Islam?

[Oceander]

Isn't it enough to know that we're deciding between socialism and capitalism? And whether we will try to get back to our Judeo-Christian roots or become a multi-culturist mish-mash of various moral codes?
I don't think the details matter all that much. Few Presidents have been able to accomplish more than 3-4 major things. Pick the 4 best of hillary's promises and the 4 worst of Trump's, and I think it's clear that Trump at his worst is still better than hillary would ever be.
Trump has a list of very acceptable Supreme Court nominations, and that is very important. He also wants to reconstitute our military (which has suffered greatly). I am hoping that his vp selection will be impressive. And those three things are a pretty good start for Trump.

You don't get it, do you.  Trump is a liberal, just like Clinton.  There is no lesser of two evils choice this time around.  If Trump is the nominee, there is just the choice of which poison to take.

[roamer_1]

No, I am looking for an argument from those who say Trump is the greater evil.  You didn't read the first few lines.  But you still might be able to help in the dialogue - can you tell me what you are "conserving" if Hillary wins and my scenario plays out? 

In the first place, anything we say is incidental to the fact that Conservatives will not vote *for* him, so anything I say beyond that is theoretical/academic. This isn't a matter of changing people's minds - It's a formulation that represents how to get the disparate factions of Conservatism to back your guy.

There is no leadership - It's way-of-life, which is why all the dirt-thrower's accusation of butthurt over Cruz are so very misplaced and off target.

But I would submit that Trump is invariably more dangerous than Clinton in what he represents - The same thing that Romney represents, which is a leftward swing - an adoption of liberalism within the party that is supposed to be the bulwark against liberalism. If the Republicans are liberal, then who rises in opposition to liberalism?

Answer:We do. The moment the Republicans loft a liberal candidate, we will be their enemy. And we will fight against them tooth and nail, because that's what Conservatives do.

So in the abstract, the fight against Trump is the preservation of a party with which to protect the principles of Conservatism - If the Republicans are that no longer, then we will leave it to die (which it will) and seek another party more in line with our way (as many of us have already done).

And he's not "my boy" - he's the GOP nominee.  I didn't vote for him, and I'm a refugee from TOS because I was arguing with his supporters while there were primaries to be contested.

Welcome - Me too, though I just walked away.

Do not conflate Conservatism with the Republican Party - That has not been true for decades. I will guarantee that Conservatives will stay true to principle regardless of the Republicans. Many, many (including me) have left the party long ago.

It doesn't matter what the Republicans do outside of their commitment to Reagan. We will remain committed to Reagan (/Goldwater). I didn't leave the party, the party left me.

And I do not care if the world comes down around us all - I know Conservatism to be right, and I will be a Conservative till the day I die. Republican, not so much. Without the principles of Conservatism, Republicans stand for nothing.

[Liberty Tree Dr]

If Trump is the nominee, there is just the choice of which poison to take.

OK, so which poison are you going to take?

[speekinout]

You don't get it, do you.  Trump is a liberal, just like Clinton.  There is no lesser of two evils choice this time around.  If Trump is the nominee, there is just the choice of which poison to take.

I don't think you get it.  ^-^ Trump may have some liberal leanings, but he also is a capitalist and a patriot. He has a great list of Supreme Court nominees, and that is a major issue for this election.

Please don't make the perfect the enemy of the good. You might not love Trump (I don't), but he sure beats the alternative (hillary).

[BuckeyeTexan]

This weekend, I watched the movie 13 Hours. I read the book when it came out. I watched all of the interviews when those guys first told their story. I watched all of the news reports. I watched all of the testimonies before Congress. Watching the movie forced me to answer a question about Trump.

What would President Trump do if faced with those 13 hours in Benghazi?

He would've sent help immediately. He would've sent the F-16's to strike fear. He would've done whatever was necessary to rescue our guys. He wouldn't have done nothing.

I already know what President Clinton would've done. She'd have blamed the video just like Secretary Clinton did. She cannot be POTUS.

I have no love for Trump, but if he leaves Cleveland as our nominee, my choice is clear. Hillary cannot be POTUS.

[speekinout]

This weekend, I watched the movie 13 Hours. I read the book when it came out. I watched all of the interviews when those guys first told their story. I watched all of the news reports. I watched all of the testimonies before Congress. Watching the movie forced me to answer a question about Trump.

What would President Trump do if faced with those 13 hours in Benghazi?

He would've sent help immediately. He would've sent the F-16's to strike fear. He would've done whatever was necessary to rescue our guys. He wouldn't have done nothing.

I already know what President Clinton would've done. She'd have blamed the video just like Secretary Clinton did. She cannot be POTUS.

I have no love for Trump, but if he leaves Cleveland as our nominee, my choice is clear. Hillary cannot be POTUS.

YES, Buckeye!!

[Oceander]

OK, so from the list of things I gave of what Clinton could try to accomplish with her packed Supreme Court, are you saying Trump would do all of those things, too?  So he'd completely reverse himself on immigration and Islam?

Very good.  You catch on quick.  Trump would either actively try to accomplish those, or would actively help the democrats in Congress to accomplish them. 

Look, Donald Trump says in his book that when he's negotiating a deal he tells the other side "truthful hyperboles" in order to get them emotionally invested in the project.  My sainted grandmother would have called that telling fibs.  That is what he does, he lies in order to convince the people he's negotiating with that they'll get from the deal what they probably will not - why else would he see bankruptcy as just another strategic tool in the tool kit for getting what he wants.  And trying to get the GOP nomination - which he does not have yet - is nothing more than a negotiation, and the marks being told truthful hyperboles - being told lies - are the GOP primary voters.

His words cannot be trusted - he says as much if you bother to read his book - and so must be ignored.  That leaves his political milieu - NYC.  And that milieu is most definitely liberal.  Other than on Staten Island, most so-called "republicans" in NYC are Rockefeller Republicans:  rich white liberals who are too embarrassed to be seen at the same functions with the liberal hoi polloi and the protestor types.  That is who Michael Bloomberg was and is.  Bloomberg is also, btw, another rich white successful NYC businessman.  Bloomberg also signed up as a republican at the last minute, because that was the only way he could run for Mayor because he was too low in the DNC seniority chain to be able to run as a democrat.  And Bloomberg definitely ruled as a liberal in his three terms (the third being illegal).

So yes, Trump's words cannot be trusted because they are nothing more than "truthful hyperbole" - what my sainted grandmother would call fibs - and Trump's political milieu is liberal, so he will go back on what he's said - he's already gone back on a lot, like the wall - and will end up going for the same sorts of things Clinton would.

[Oceander]

I don't think you get it.  ^-^ Trump may have some liberal leanings, but he also is a capitalist and a patriot. He has a great list of Supreme Court nominees, and that is a major issue for this election.

Please don't make the perfect the enemy of the good. You might not love Trump (I don't), but he sure beats the alternative (hillary).

He's neither.  He's not a capitalist except in the cronyism sense - how else do you think he's succeeded in NYC real estate, other than through cronyism - and there is simply nothing on which to base your claim that he's a patriot other than his own self-serving words, which cannot be trusted because they are nothing more than "truthful hyperbole" - the lies he happily says he tells the other side during negotiations.

I'm not making the perfect the enemy of the good.  There is no good as between Trump and Clinton, just a choice between two equally toxic poisons.

[Oceander]

OK, so which poison are you going to take?

If the GOP delegates are too stupid to sidestep the Trump insanity, then I'm voting third party or write-in.  I'm not taking the poison.

[BuckeyeTexan]

YES, Buckeye!!

I felt nauseated watching those 13 hours play out. With President Clinton, it will happen again ... somewhere. Make no mistake. Our guys will be left with no support and no rescue. Blackhawk Down and 13 Hours will be allowed to happen again on Hillary's watch.

I cannot allow my vote to endorse such events.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

Very good.  You catch on quick.  Trump would either actively try to accomplish those, or would actively help the democrats in Congress to accomplish them. 

Look, Donald Trump says in his book that when he's negotiating a deal he tells the other side "truthful hyperboles" in order to get them emotionally invested in the project.  My sainted grandmother would have called that telling fibs.  That is what he does, he lies in order to convince the people he's negotiating with that they'll get from the deal what they probably will not - why else would he see bankruptcy as just another strategic tool in the tool kit for getting what he wants.  And trying to get the GOP nomination - which he does not have yet - is nothing more than a negotiation, and the marks being told truthful hyperboles - being told lies - are the GOP primary voters.

His words cannot be trusted - he says as much if you bother to read his book - and so must be ignored.  That leaves his political milieu - NYC.  And that milieu is most definitely liberal.  Other than on Staten Island, most so-called "republicans" in NYC are Rockefeller Republicans:  rich white liberals who are too embarrassed to be seen at the same functions with the liberal hoi polloi and the protestor types.  That is who Michael Bloomberg was and is.  Bloomberg is also, btw, another rich white successful NYC businessman.  Bloomberg also signed up as a republican at the last minute, because that was the only way he could run for Mayor because he was too low in the DNC seniority chain to be able to run as a democrat.  And Bloomberg definitely ruled as a liberal in his three terms (the third being illegal).

So yes, Trump's words cannot be trusted because they are nothing more than "truthful hyperbole" - what my sainted grandmother would call fibs - and Trump's political milieu is liberal, so he will go back on what he's said - he's already gone back on a lot, like the wall - and will end up going for the same sorts of things Clinton would.

Great post Oceander.

Another point to consider is all of the liberal accomplishments of a President Trump are then owned by the GOP.  A GOP that will be pressured into passing stuff for President Trump they wouldn't consider passing for President Hitlery.

Every thoughtless bigoted slur to come out of Trump's mouth becomes another stain on the big tent.

Additionally I would make the case that Hitlery would be better on issues of trade than Trump, but then I'm a freetrader like Reagan, not an isolationist.

[Oceander]

Free the Delegates:  http://www.freethedelegates.com/

[Oceander]

Great post Oceander.

Another point to consider is all of the liberal accomplishments of a President Trump are then owned by the GOP.  A GOP that will be pressured into passing stuff for President Trump they wouldn't consider passing for President Hitlery.

Every thoughtless bigoted slur to come out of Trump's mouth becomes another stain on the big tent.

Additionally I would make the case that Hitlery would be better on issues of trade than Trump, but then I'm a freetrader like Reagan, not an isolationist.

Thanks.  I'm not sure if Clinton would be any better on trade - I think she will end up being beholden to the anti-freetraders on the Sanders/Warren side of the DNC - but she won't be any worse than the trade wars Trump wants to start.