Glenn Beck: Electing Hillary Clinton ‘Is a Moral, Ethical Choice’

[endicom]

I think we all need to remember two very important things:

#1  This election is about the Supreme Court justices and the 2nd amendment.

And the First Amendment. They want us shut up and shut out.

[dfwgator]

And the First Amendment. They want us shut up and shut out.

That's already fait accompli with all of the mergers of the major media companies.

[NavyCanDo]

Glenn Beck: No, I’m not voting for Hillary Clinton in November

Conservative radio host Glenn Beck made it clear Tuesday he has no intention of casting his ballot for Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump on Election Day.

“I am firmly against both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton as potential presidents of the United States of America. I believe that neither candidate has the values, decency or principles to be the leader of the free world,”

“The ‘moral, ethical’ reference is not directed towards Hillary Clinton, but rather my decision to stand for and on my principles against the candidacy of Donald Trump,” Beck clarified.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/10/11/glenn-beck-no-im-not-voting-for-hillary-clinton-in-november/

[endicom]

That's already fait accompli with all of the mergers of the major media companies.

They have to merge to remain major. Fewer people care about them now that they have the interactive fora and blogs.

[geronl]

Sorry, guys but I reread the quote several times ...abandon support of Republican nominee Donald Trump, declaring that if such an action results in the election of Hillary Clinton, “so be it” because “[a]t least it is a moral, ethical choice.”.

so be it
 least it is a moral ethical choice

are the only parts that are quotes

Glenn is voting for Darrell Castle of the Constitution Party. Not voting for Trump is the moral, ethical choice.

[geronl]

I think we all need to remember two very important things:

#1  This election is about the Supreme Court justices and the 2nd amendment.

and remember that both major party candidates are pretty much the same on those.

[dfwgator]

and remember that both major party candidates are pretty much the same on those.

Yeah, look what W gave us.   Chief Judas Roberts.

[libertybele]

and remember that both major party candidates are pretty much the same on those.

Except ... Cruz brought into focus what he was promised by Trump and Trump reiterated what he promised Cruz at the 2nd debate.  There's really no denying what he said.

[geronl]

Except ... Cruz brought into focus what he was promised by Trump and Trump reiterated what he promised Cruz at the 2nd debate.  There's really no denying what he said.

Trump lies 99% of the time.

Remember the wall.... not going to happen

[Wingnut]

They would be out of business, but the Stormfront types need a gathering place.

@Frank Cannon

Looks like TBR has a Stormfront sub chapter brewing.

[Suppressed]

Breitbart's title is misleading.  But then again, now that Breitbart is all in for Trump, a misleading story is not surprising.

Yup.

He is supporting Castle...and that's what he's talking about as the moral choice, even if it results in Hillary winning.

[Frank Cannon]

@Frank Cannon

Looks like TBR has a Stormfront sub chapter brewing.

@Wingnut

It's more of a Stormdrain blockage.

[catfish1957]

Maybe the second biggest SNAFU Cruz had in this campaign for allying himself with this whack job.

No. 1 was his impeccable sense of timing with endorsements and non-endorsements.

[Rivergirl]

Count me in the
SO BE IT
camp.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

And the First Amendment. They want us shut up and shut out.

This is probably the single most dangerous aspect of a Hillary Clinton Presidency, and it all revolves around the Supreme Court.

If Citizens United is overturned -- which is a virtual lock if Hillary is elected - the Democrats will have clear sailing to begin much heavier regulation of political speech.  They will first cutoff private, direct expenditures for conservatives to buy airtime -- think the NRA "I am the NRA" ads, Swift Boat Vets, etc., -- then move towards the "Fairness" doctrine and limitations on issue advocacy by talk radio, websites, etc..  And "fairness" will be defined as presenting "both" points of view.  The supposedly moderate leftism of a Hillary, versus the slightly more extreme version of a Warren or Sanders.  That will be the recognized "reasonable" range of opinion.  We will not only be outnumbered by the mass legalization/path to citizenship for illegals, but gradually muzzled as well.  It won't happen overnight, but once Citizen United is gone, it's only a matter of time.

I personally don't see how any choice that fails to oppose that result is a "moral" or "ethical" choice for thinking conservatives.  It seems closer to Church Lady levels of congratulatory self-righteousness rather than a sober, rational analysis of the likely end result.

[Jazzhead]

I personally don't see how any choice that fails to oppose that result is a "moral" or "ethical" choice for thinking conservatives.  It seems closer to Church Lady levels of congratulatory self-righteousness rather than a sober, rational analysis of the likely end result.

But you discount the damage that would be done by an authoritarian strongman whose base of support is, let's be honest, xenophobic if not racist.  That alt-right base would have been purged by the GOP thirty years ago,  now it's threatening to become the conservative brand. 

I don't want Clinton as President any more than you do - that's why I fought so hard in opposition to Trump, and supported the one candidate who, to this day,  refuses to endorse him.   I understand the perils of the next four years.   I'm at least going to vote for Pat Toomey to help retain a Republican Senate regardless of whether we choose Corrupt or Crazy.   

You claim to be a "thinking conservative", yet you've cast your lot with Crazy.   I won't do it - I've studied my history and recognize - soberly and rationally - the dangers of know-nothing fascism.         

[montanajoe]

This is probably the single most dangerous aspect of a Hillary Clinton Presidency, and it all revolves around the Supreme Court.

If Citizens United is overturned -- which is a virtual lock if Hillary is elected - the Democrats will have clear sailing to begin much heavier regulation of political speech.  They will first cutoff private, direct expenditures for conservatives to buy airtime -- think the NRA "I am the NRA" ads, Swift Boat Vets, etc., -- then move towards the "Fairness" doctrine and limitations on issue advocacy  by talk radio, websites, etc..  And "fairness" will be defined as presenting "both" points of view.  The supposedly moderate leftism of a Hillary, versus the slightly more extreme version of a Warren or Sanders.  That will be the recognized "reasonable" range of opinion.  We will not only be outnumbered by the mass legalization/path to citizenship for illegals, but gradually muzzled as well.  It won't happen overnight, but once Citizen United is gone, it's only a matter of time.

I personally don't see how any choice that fails to oppose that result is a "moral" or "ethical" choice for thinking conservatives.  It seems closer to Church Lady levels of congratulatory self-righteousness rather than a sober, rational analysis of the likely end result.

I don't think anything is a virtual lock regardless of who is elected. If Hilliary is elected the liberal justices that are so inclined will retire and the conservative justices will hang on. The reverse is true if Trump is elected.

In my view Roberts is a conservative justice not necessarily a political conservative. I think the stamp he wants to put on a Roberts court is one of judicial restraint, as the term was originally used. He is not eager to overturn any prior decision of the Court or any legislation passed by Congress. In his view it is up to the Congress to make law not the SC. Many think Roberts is a traitor to conservatives because of the Obamacare decision. Actually I think it reflects his judicial philosophy, he is saying to Congress you own it so you fix it...

Under a Roberts led SC who is elected to Congress becomes much more important than who a president may nominate to fill a SC vacancy. Because for years to come a Roberts Court is going to force Congress to do it's job or the SC is going to presume that they knew what they were doing when they enacted a particular piece of legislation and will generally let it stand.

BTW With the election as it stands today the Senate would be wise to act on Garland's nomination before November 8th. Otherwise Obama will withdraw the nomination the day after and Hilliary will appoint someone far more liberal, Garland is far more Conservative than anyone we will see nominated in the next four years and they best get him quickly confirmed....

[Jazzhead]

In my view Roberts is a conservative justice not necessarily a political conservative. I think the stamp he wants to put on a Roberts court is one of judicial restraint, as the term was originally used. He is not eager to overturn any prior decision of the Court or any legislation passed by Congress. In his view it is up to the Congress to make law not the SC. Many think Roberts is a traitor to conservatives because of the Obamacare decision. Actually I think it reflects his judicial philosophy, he is saying to Congress you own it so you fix it...

Under a Roberts led SC who is elected to Congress becomes much more important than who a president may nominate to fill a SC vacancy. Because for years to come a Roberts Court is going to force Congress to do it's job or the SC is going to presume that they knew what they were doing when they enacted a particular piece of legislation and will generally let it stand.

BTW With the election as it stands today the Senate would be wise to act on Garland's nomination before November 8th. Otherwise Obama will withdraw the nomination the day after and Hilliary will appoint someone far more liberal, Garland is far more Conservative than anyone we will see nominated in the next four years and they best get him quickly confirmed....

Agreed on all points.  Excellent post - exactly the sober, rational analysis one would expect from a thinking conservative.   

[Maj. Bill Martin]

But you discount the damage that would be done by an authoritarian strongman whose base of support is, let's be honest, xenophobic if not racist.  That alt-right base would have been purged by the GOP thirty years ago,  now it's threatening to become the conservative brand.

In my opinion, worrying about the "conservative brand" is a longer term problem for which other solutions might present themselves.  What I fear Hillary will do with some pretty fundamental Constitutional issues is an immediate, tangible harm for which there are no other practical solutions.  Essentially, she's going to stack the deck so that we will have no chance of winning moving forward.  They'll flood the voting rolls with former illegals, and restrict political speech and opposition, including on the internet.  And when Heller falls, they'll pass legislation creating civil liability for gun manufacturers and FFL dealers, and eventually impose a massive ammunition tax.

To me, that's significantly worse than a branding problem that can be cured with one really good candidate, impeachment of Trump, or any number of other possibilities.

I'm not condemning those who see it differently.  I just think you guys are wrong on this.  I think there is so much pent-up anger at the absolutely disgraceful, despicable campaign Trump ran in the primaries that it is tainting what should be a more sober evaluation of the consequences of this election.  I say that because I felt that way myself for a long time.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I don't think anything is a virtual lock regardless of who is elected.  If Hilliary is elected the liberal justices that are so inclined will retire and the conservative justices will hang on. The reverse is true if Trump is elected.

There are no absolute locks.  But Garland would be best case scenario, and I think Garland's record overall in terms of campaign finance reform does not bode well for Citizens United.  Yes, he was with the majority in Speechnow v. FEC, but that was a post-Citizens United decision that openly followed that precedent "regardless of the merits of" the arguments to the contrary.  There are even stronger cases on the gun control side suggesting that he'd reverse Heller.
 
As for conservative justices hanging on...well, we saw how well that worked with Scalia.  Kennedy is 80. 

Under a Roberts led SC who is elected to Congress becomes much more important than who a president may nominate to fill a SC vacancy. Because for years to come a Roberts Court is going to force Congress to do it's job or the SC is going to presume that they knew what they were doing when they enacted a particular piece of legislation and will generally let it stand.

I think your assumption that Roberts will be able to steer the rest of the Court to that degree is contingent on getting a 5th conservative justice appointed.  Otherwise, the Court will coalesce around someone in the liberal majority.

BTW With the election as it stands today the Senate would be wise to act on Garland's nomination before November 8th. Otherwise Obama will withdraw the nomination the day after and Hilliary will appoint someone far more liberal, Garland is far more Conservative than anyone we will see nominated in the next four years and they best get him quickly confirmed....

Well, they clearly aren't going to confirm Garland prior to the election, so if you are right, we're going to get someone to the left of him.  That's just making a bad situation worse.

But I don't think Obama would withdraw the Garland nomination if Hillary wins, and in fact has publicly stated he would not do so.  It would be unfair to Garland himself -- a fairly public insult -- and I think Obama has enough of an ego to want to expand his legacy as much as possible.  I'd be surprised if we was willing to give up part of that legacy just to give Hillary an extra boost.  Particularly after stating publicly that he would not withdraw the nomination.

[mystery-ak]

Glenn Beck Clarifies: Nope, Still Against Clinton (and Trump)
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/glenn-beck-not-voting-hillary-either/2016/10/11/id/752877/

[Jazzhead]

In my opinion, worrying about the "conservative brand" is a longer term problem for which other solutions might present themselves.  What I fear Hillary will do with some pretty fundamental Constitutional issues is an immediate, tangible harm for which there are no other practical solutions.  Essentially, she's going to stack the deck so that we will have no chance of winning moving forward.  They'll flood the voting rolls with former illegals, and restrict political speech and opposition, including on the internet.  And when Heller falls, they'll pass legislation creating civil liability for gun manufacturers and FFL dealers, and eventually impose a massive ammunition tax.

To me, that's significantly worse than a branding problem that can be cured with one really good candidate, impeachment of Trump, or any number of other possibilities.

I'm not condemning those who see it differently.  I just think you guys are wrong on this.  I think there is so much pent-up anger at the absolutely disgraceful, despicable campaign Trump ran in the primaries that it is tainting what should be a more sober evaluation of the consequences of this election.  I say that because I felt that way myself for a long time.

I understand your perspective, but disagree.   If we sacrifice our reputation,  we may never regain it.  Buckley was right back in my day when he drew a line in the sand and cast out the racists and xenophobes.   If we now stand with those evil values, our civic souls will be tainted, and deserve to be, for a good, long time.   We must do what is right, not what is expedient.

I admit to being a bit aghast that you're willing to elect Donald Trump in order to impeach him.   Once the fascists gain power,  are you so naïve to believe they can be cast aside like an old newspaper?   Be very, very careful what you wish for - once the wolves are in the door,  they will take what they came for.         

[montanajoe]

Garland is the best conservatives are going to get given the obvious outcome of the election. I don't doubt for a minute Obama will throw him under the bus to cement a liberal majority on the SC for at least a generation. Scalia's unfortunate and untimely passing was more the exception than the rule in recent court history. The Chief has considerable internal power on the court and Roberts has shown that he will use that power to preserve his legacy.

Garland while certainly not perfect, is orders of magnitude more judicially conservative than anyone Hilliary will nominate and a Democrat Congress will confirm in the next four years. I think the present GOP majority is sadly deluded to think Obama would not withdraw the nomination despite any promises he may have made...

[Just_Victor]

He didn't say voting for Hillary was the 'moral or ethical' thing to do.

He said it was your moral and ethical choice to abandon Trump and vote your values (my paraphrasing).

He wasn't saying Hillary was moral or ethical, he said your choice was moral and ethical.

TrumpBart is doing the typical equivocation practiced by seemingly all Trump supporters.  Not voting for Trump = supporting Hillary.

The moral and ethical choice is to vote your principles.  Regardless of the outcome.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I understand your perspective, but disagree.   If we sacrifice our reputation,  we may never regain it.

You're right -- we may not.  Best historical example we have is Nixon, and Watergate.

After Nixon, the GOP brand was at its lowest point ever.  But what happened after voters punished us at the polls in '74 (especially) and '76?  We had a huge GOP tidal wave in 1980 because we had a different candidate/candidates.  I actually think the GOP leadership and various candidates have done enough to separate themselves from Trump overall (heck, even Hillary has said that Trump is an anomaly in the GOP) that our next round of candidates will get judged on their own merits, not Trump's. 

At least, I think that scenario is more likely than is Hillary not putting a vise-grip on national office for Democrats.  That's really the point for me -- that recovering from Trump is more likely than recovering from Hillary. 

I admit to being a bit aghast that you're willing to elect Donald Trump in order to impeach him.

I'm not saying I'd elect him n order to impeach him.  I'm saying that if he crosses lines that shouldn't be crossed once election, then we can/should/will impeach him.

Once the fascists gain power,  are you so naïve to believe they can be cast aside like an old newspaper?

Trump?  Oh, absolutely.   He will have less institutional support in the other branches of government -- and in the military -- than any President in history.  The Democrats absolutely despise him and would likely vote for impeachment day one if they thought they could win.  More elected Republicans in Congress have affirmatively distanced themselves from Trump than from any candidate, ever.  You don't think Paul Ryan would support a vote for impeachment if Trump did something unconstitutional or criminal?  He'd call for that vote in a heartbeat -- much rather work with Pence.  Same with McConnell, and Pelosi/Schumer would happily board that train.  Trump would be toast.

How do you think he'd resist that?  Congress would vote to impeach him, the courts wouldn't back him - they're all filled with traditional GOP and Democratic appointees who also would have no particular love for Trump.  So what's his play when given the boot?  Call out the Marines?  I can assure you, they wouldn't play that game either.