![\"TrumpCaricature\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2016\/03\/TrumpCaricature.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Compilation of public domain and Creative Commons caricatures by \u201cDonkeyHotey\u201d (14 January 2016)<\/span> [Flickr<\/a> \/ CC-BY-SA 2.0<\/a> license]<\/p>\n * * * * *<\/p>\n Here are some thoughts of mine from a ferociously contentious Facebook thread today (see it for the full exchanges<\/a>), which was (ostensibly) about an earlier article\u00a0of mine<\/a>\u00a0devoted to Donald Trump. \u00a0Many seemed to be under the mistaken impression that I am either contending that Trump is 1) perfect and saintly, 2) the best of the original 17 GOP nominees (I think he is 15th best), or 3) my personal favorite (see #2). My actual<\/em> point is that we are likely faced with a choice between him and Hillary Clinton. For the conservative, pro-lifer, and yes, Catholic concerned about the direction of the country, I submit that that choice is a very easy one.<\/p>\n Moreover, I have a thing about defending people and ideas that I feel are unjustly maligned. There is plenty with which to criticize Trump (and I agree with a lot of it), but the problem is that he is so often being accused of things that he doesn\u2019t hold, or that are vastly misunderstood, or that are just as true of other politicians, so that double standards are in play. His humor is often greatly misunderstood. He\u2019s sort of like a Rush Limbaugh in that respect.<\/p>\n Rush, like Trump, tends to be either hated or loved. He talks using some vulgarities. It\u2019s not my cup of tea and I think it is inappropriate, and don\u2019t allow it on my online venues, but it is true that we live in an age where almost everyone talks this way. It\u2019s all over TV, movies, and songs. Yet when a presidential candidate uses the same language, all of a sudden everyone becomes a Victorian. I\u2019m just asking for some consistency. Every politician uses crude language, but most use it only privately. Trump has the guts (agree or disagree) to do it in public, which is no different from R movies that everyone flocks to see. So why the double standard?<\/p>\n Anyway, here are my thoughts, in no particular order, in the Pascal\u2019s Pens\u00e9es<\/em> style.<\/p>\n * * * * *<\/p>\n This [post being discussed] was originally from 1-6-16. Full disclosure: At that time I was a Cruz supporter (as mentioned in the post). I switched to Rubio after Cruz\u2019s well-documented dirty tricks against Carson in Iowa. Then I tired of Rubio when he started his childish tirades and name-calling against Trump (looks like that strategy backfired for him). So now it\u2019s Trump by default. But as argued, I have no problem with his stated policies, which are indeed conservative in nature.<\/p>\n I didn\u2019t vote in the Michigan primary yesterday because Trump was so far ahead (and did win). If I had voted, it would have been for Kasich.<\/p>\n I have said all along that I will vote for the GOP nominee against Billary Clinton. If we don\u2019t do that, then we can only blame ourselves for yet another stupid effort and self-demolition, and will bear the blame for what happens under a Billary administration.<\/p>\n The choice is up to us non-Democrats: conservatives, independents, and libertarians. Do we want more of the same, or some real reforming change?<\/p>\n * * *<\/p>\n I support whoever runs against Hillary (just as Kasich, Rubio, and Cruz \u2014 and all the earlier candidates who are now out \u2014 all said they would do; even Reince Priebus said that : so apparently they\u2019re nuts as well).\u00a0 I heard Rubio say it again tonight. Why? Because \u201canyone is better than Hillary.\u201d<\/p>\n * * *<\/p>\n I like Cruz\u2019s\u00a0policies. I like how he is a very sharp debater. If he wins it, I vote for him, of course. But I\u2019ve lost a lot of respect for him. It may actually be a Trump-Cruz or Cruz-Trump unity ticket. So we will all have to do a group hug and go out and kick Hillary\u2019s butt and get this country back on track again.<\/p>\n * * *<\/p>\n I have a big<\/em>\u00a0problem with people who don\u2019t vote or go third party, so that the Dems win again and keep ruining our country and our moral and cultural \/ religious traditions.<\/p>\n But I think we win this year despite all the best efforts of \u201cGOP\u201d (?) folks, who are determined to wreck our election chances. The movement and trend to completely shake things up in Washington is that big.<\/p>\n * * *<\/p>\n It\u2019s a leap of faith to believe any politician. But I see lots of reasons to believe that Trump will at least try to do what he says he wants to do. He\u2019d look pretty ridiculous if he doesn\u2019t. So, say, e.g., he doesn\u2019t build the wall like he says. He\u2019d look like a total fool and liar, and self-interest, if nothing else, would dictate that he does what he keeps saying he will do.<\/p>\n If he can\u2019t get the economy going, then he\u2019ll be shown to be incompetent that way. Etc. But there is no good reason to not<\/em>\u00a0do what he says he wants to do.\u00a0It will likely be him vs. Billary and that choice is one of the easiest ones I can imagine.<\/p>\n * * *<\/p>\n He has made it clear he will defund Planned Parenthood because of abortion. He merely says that they do some good things, too. That could very well be a wise way to get some moderate votes.<\/p>\n It\u2019s not clear that waterboarding is technically torture in the first place. I went through all that a year ago, losing a few friends in the process. I oppose it as abusive, but am not convinced it\u2019s torture. We do it on our own soldiers, after all, in training. That\u2019s a hell of a lot different from, e.g., drilling a hole through someone\u2019s cheek, or breaking their toes with a sledgehammer, gouging out their eyes . . . Big <\/em>dif.<\/p>\n As for non-combatants, he has spoken about the wives of the 9-11 perpetrators as co-conspirators. That\u2019s borderline, and it\u2019s arguable that those with knowledge of terror plots are also terrorists (though with children, of course, it would be a more difficult case).<\/p>\n When Osama bin Laden was taken out, his wife was killed at the same time. So does that make that soldier an immoral wife-killer?<\/p>\n Harry Truman wiped out 100,000 Japanese in Hiroshima. Lots of people continue to defend that to this day. Not me. I argued loudly that this was utterly immoral and indefensible, and I lost a friend in that debate, too. He savaged and lied about me for several years afterwards.<\/p>\n We did many more immoral acts in WWII: carpet-bombing Dresden and Tokyo, etc. I say it is wrong.<\/p>\n Today we have smart bombs and far more capacity to stick to military targets, as much as is humanly possible.<\/p>\n * * *<\/p>\n We have a civil obligation to vote, according to the Church. The Church allows us to vote for the lesser of two evils. Trump is clearly that [at the very least], against Billary, who loves childkilling and will do everything she can to perpetuate the abortion industry.<\/p>\n Reagan signed an abortion bill into law in California in 1967, that resulted in 200,000 abortions before Roe. A tremendous flip-flop . . .<\/p>\n * * *<\/p>\n I think the GOP wins in November, no matter how many folks are stupid and sit on their hands on election day or vote for some irrelevant fool.<\/p>\n [two people took great offense at this sentence and I later clarified:<\/p>\n I made a general statement, that would apply to the 2012 election or any other, for that matter (Trump didn\u2019t run in those), about apathy and lack of civic responsibility.\u00a0Logically, that is not\u00a0<\/em>saying \u201cone is stupid if they don\u2019t vote for Trump<\/em>\u201d but rather: \u201cone is stupid if they sit on their hands on election day or vote for some irrelevant [i.e., 3rd party] fool.\u201d<\/p>\n Two different things . . . though it is a somewhat subtle distinction.<\/p>\n It\u2019s the idea that \u201cI won\u2019t vote for the GOP candidate if he\u2019s not my first choice or is not a canonized saint.\u201d This is what has killed us in many elections and brought us destructive liberal dominance. And that<\/em>\u00a0is stupid.<\/p>\n It was a general statement against not voting or voting third party, that applies to all elections and goes far beyond Trump: i.e., I\u2019m saying it is stupid to not vote for whomever<\/em>\u00a0the GOP nominee is. It would apply to anyone who got the GOP nomination. I will<\/em>\u00a0vote for whoever it is. You guys will not, if it\u2019s Trump.<\/p>\n IT IS STUPID TO NOT VOTE FOR THE GOP CANDIDATE (WHOEVER IT IS) OVER AGAINST THE PRO-ABORT DEM CANDIDATE.<\/p>\n But I can say it is stupid to not vote for the GOP candidate, whoever he is (either not voting or going 3rd party), since we know the nature of the opponent.<\/p>\n We don\u2019t know<\/em>\u00a0who will be the candidate yet, so how could I say it was stupid to not vote Trump, since we don\u2019t yet know if he is the candidate?<\/p>\n If Trump is the one, and someone doesn\u2019t vote or votes third party, it\u2019s stupid.<\/p>\n If Cruz is the one, and someone doesn\u2019t vote or votes third party, it\u2019s stupid.<\/p>\n If Rubio is the one, and someone doesn\u2019t vote or votes third party, it\u2019s stupid.<\/p>\n If Kasich is the one, and someone doesn\u2019t vote or votes third party, it\u2019s stupid.<\/p>\n All four of these men say they will support whoever the nominee is, so why can\u2019t we in the GOP out here say the same thing? What is so blasted complicated<\/em>\u00a0about it? We unite to beat the Democrats!<\/p>\n What if Trump picks Rubio or Cruz for VP? Will those who like one or both of them change their mind and now vote for Trump?]<\/p>\n If Trump wins and starts getting some good things done, maybe these people will vote for him in 2020, and he\u2019ll have an even bigger landslide than it looks like he\u2019ll have this year.<\/p>\n All indications are in our favor: history (the presidency almost always flips after eight years), turnout, the lousy economy and ISIS, no incumbent running, Billary\u2019s indictment or at least (quite likely) recommendation of same by the FBI, which will lead to Dem chaos, \u201cReagan Democrats\u201d and other crossover Dems favoring Trump over Billary, people being absolutely fed up with the political status quo in both parties, etc.<\/p>\n All we have to do is stop our childish, asinine infighting and get behind our likely candidate.<\/p>\n Head-to-head Dem vs. GOP polls are way too early to prove anything, because the fight has not yet begun. Also, they don\u2019t take into account the likely recommendation for indictment and possible indictment of Billary. Thirdly, people are still getting to know Trump. Fouthly, it doesn\u2019t take into account the VP pick, which could gain great support, if it is Cruz or Kasich or some other popular, conventionally conservative figure. All that can change very quickly.<\/p>\n What will give us the victory is all the factors I mentioned. Trump also brings into play states like Michigan and Pennsylvania and New Jersey (not to mention Ohio), by getting the Reagan Democrat \/ blue collar white vote.<\/p>\n * * *<\/p>\n As I said, Trump is only my candidate by \u201cdefault\u201d and I would have voted for Kasich in the [Michigan] primary, if I had gone yesterday. [I didn\u2019t because Trump was far ahead in the polls, and did win by 13 points or so] He was my 15th choice of the original 17.<\/p>\n I\u2019m also a pragmatist and realist in political terms. The fact remains that Trump is the likely candidate, against Billary. Everyone who isn\u2019t a Dem \/ liberal will have to decide whether to vote for him, or sit home or go third party. I believe in party unity, as Reagan taught, and so will vote for Trump or Cruz or the man in the moon, against Billary and more mad, mindless liberalism.<\/p>\n This is a vote for President, not sainthood. No one is under any illusions that Trump is perfect. But last time I checked, no other politician is, either, and there has been only one Catholic President (and he was a lousy Catholic).<\/p>\n What is relevant is whether he will do what he claims. If he accomplishes even two or three of these things, he will be a resounding success, because Obama hasn\u2019t done a damned thing except drive the economy and our foreign policy into shambles and pursue a radical unisexist and childkilling agenda.<\/p>\n * * *<\/p>\n Arguing that\u00a0\u201cTrump is a bad guy of low character\u201d is ad hominem<\/em>: which means \u201cat the man.\u201d There can be good and bad reasons for saying so, but it is still attacking the man, as opposed to his policy positions. My post was about the latter, and that\u2019s what I specifically said I wanted to discuss.<\/p>\n My critique of Cruz is ad hominem<\/em>, too, but I would say it is heavily substantiated ad hominem<\/em>. I studied the \u201cDr. Carson leaving the race\u201d thing very closely, and there is no doubt in my mind (nor in Dr. Carson\u2019s) that it was deplorable dirty tricks.<\/p>\n As I have said, and have held ever since 1980 and Reagan, I vote for the GOP candidate, because they are always pro-life (i.e., anti-abortion) and the Dem opponent is not. It\u2019s the #1 social issue for our time, just as slavery was 160 years ago. Thus, if Rubio or Cruz got the nomination, I would vote for them. If Trump does, I vote for him. I would have voted for 16 of the 17 original candidates (Pataki is pro-abort, or was last time I checked, anyway).<\/p>\n You guys don\u2019t want to do that. You want to sit home on election day or go third party if Trump is the nominee. And that helps the Dem get elected. It\u2019s a direct causation. Every election requires high turnout in order to achieve victory. Unless you\u2019re in a blue state where the GOP has no chance ever, you are contributing to the Dem victory by not voting or voting for some irrelevant 3rd party clown (thus making the GOP guy lose your state because of low turnout, if there are a lot who think like you).<\/p>\n It\u2019s not even arguable. You may not like it for me to say that, but it is what it is. It\u2019s the reality. Abortion will be here forever if we don\u2019t vote pro-life and change the Supreme Court. If Billary gets elected, abortion will become more entrenched, and less restrictions will be allowed, and this will be the case for at least 30 years if not longer.<\/p>\n As for ethical distinctions regarding Cruz, Rubio, and Trump, the latter has not hidden anything about himself. He is what he is. When his past positions are brought up, he doesn\u2019t deny them. He doesn\u2019t set himself up as some exemplary Christian, like Rubio and Cruz do.<\/p>\n