Not Voting for Trump Has Consequences

In response to my article A Contested Republican Convention is Not Appropriate This Election Cycle, a reader calling himself scruffyscirocco offered the following objection to my choice of Trump as Republican nominee in the comment section:

Sorry, but you have a few things wrong with your analysis:

First, this is the REPUBLICAN primary. It's not the Republican, independent and blue-dog Democrat Primary. Republicans should be allowed to pick their candidate. What the Independents and democrats want is irrelevant.

Second, Rule 40 was the rule for the 2012 convention, and has no bearing on the 2016 convention until it's accepted by the delegates on the floor. It may be amended, changed or completely done away with. What's published before the convention is merely a suggestion, not binding on the delegates until they vote on it. Since rule 40 was passed in a convention that was overwhelmingly filled with Romney supporters, it will likely be dispensed with. As for Cruz getting the majority in 8 states, that won't be a problem now that Rubio is out of the way. It's very possible that Trump may not win more than one or two more states. More people have voted against him than have voted for him.

You've lost all credibility with me for rooting for Trump. It shows that you're driven more by crowd dynamics than by any actual rational basis for evaluating candidates. Trump is unqualified for the position by any metric that you care to use. His public policy is so much hand waving and self flattery and is utterly devoid of substance, and in many cases of even common sense. I and most hard-core conservatives I know will never cast a vote for this man.

If Trump wins the nomination, he will lose to Hillary. His disapproval rating is higher than has ever been seen before in a presidential candidate, particularly among the base, which has historically been both fickle and essential to a Republican win.

Allow me to address each point:

• Assertion: First, this is the REPUBLICAN primary. It's not the Republican, independent and blue-dog Democrat Primary.

  My Response:

  The majority of primaries won by Donald Trump so far have been open primaries, that is, primaries where Republican, independent, blue-dog Democrat, or even unaffiliated voters may participate. Who should decide what to do with the delegates chosen by these non-Republicans, the Republican elites who have been spending 3 times more on derailing Trump than Trump spent trying to get nominated?

  This is not the time to be setting up country-club rules on who should be allowed into the new Republican Party or there won't be an Old Republican Party.




---




• Assertion: Second, Rule 40 was the rule for the 2012 convention, and has no bearing on the 2016 convention until it's accepted by the delegates on the floor. It may be amended, changed or completely done away with.

  My Response:

  Nothing wrong with changing rules to make the nominating process more efficacious. However this year, this election cycle, changing any rule that might be perceived to be specifically anti-Trump will result in chaos and revolt at the convention and rightly so. Just a friendly warning.




---




• Assertion: As for Cruz getting the majority in 8 states, that won't be a problem now that Rubio is out of the way.

  My Response:

  When Rubio was in the campaign, Trump spent most of his verbal arsenal on him. With Rubio out, Trump can now attack Cruz. When Cruz is out of the running, Trump will attack Hillary. Everyone in due time, my friend, everyone in due time.




---




• Assertion: More people have voted against him than have voted for him.

  My Response:

  Yeah, when 16 candidates, the entire press, and the entire Republican establishment were mocking him.

  At this time in 1980 Reagan was 20 points behind Jimmy Carter and so you, dear reader, would have been telling me that my pick during the 1980 Presidential campaign had no chance of winning that November. And more remarkably, a week before that Election Day, polls showed Reagan and Carter in an even dead heat. When the final lever was pulled, Reagan won the electoral vote 489 to 49. Your "More people have voted against him than have voted for him" could easily have been applied to Reagan in 1980 and we now see is a worthless assertion.




---




• Assertion: You've lost all credibility with me for rooting for Trump. It shows that you're driven more by crowd dynamics than by any actual rational basis for evaluating candidates.

  My Response:

  Yeah, you're right, I should do what you have been doing for the past few decades, voting for the rational candidate who when elected enriches himself at the expense of the electorate and whose political correctness will one day turn this country into a Muslim-ruled nation. Remember the definition of insanity? Making the same rational choice every election cycle over and over and over and over again and expecting different results. And I'm the one making a non-rational evaluation of the candidates? Really?




---




• Assertion: Trump is unqualified for the position by any metric that you care to use.

  My Response:

  Same charges were leveled at Jefferson, Lincoln, Reagan and every other great President.




---




• Assertion: I and most hard-core conservatives I know will never cast a vote for this man.

  My Response:

  Jewish sages millennia ago warned that people who place principle above human life are pious fools who are not only a danger to their community but are destroyers of the world. The rabbis gave as example, a pious fool says, "I will never lower my principles to exert myself on the Sabbath even to save a human life." I consider sticking to principle instead of doing the right thing as immoral. In a choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, you would facilitate Hillary's election?

  You would rather see American citizens suffering under a leftist liberal than someone who wants our borders secure, our trade deals to be honored on both sides of the table, our taxes on corporations lowered so that doing business in America becomes profitable again, to halt immigration of certain groups during war-time as Roosevelt, Truman, and every other President has done until we can properly vet those wishing to enter our country, etc. Those issues are irrational to you?

  George Bush proposed mass deportation, Romney wanted a high-tech fence built along the ENTIRE Mexican border, but Trump suggesting the same is utterly devoid of substance, and even common sense?




---

The Most Important Issue

There is one slot currently available for Supreme Court Justice and before the next President's potential 8 year run is over, there could be up to three more openings should Justices Ginsburg, Kennedy, or Breyer fail to turn 90, 87, and 85 respectively. If Hillary is elected she will without doubt nominate the most leftist loonies to fill those slots.