Tuesday, December 8, 2015

If It Comes Down To Trump vs. Hillary

A Target Liberty subscriber asks:
If it came down to Hillary and Trump for POTUS, would a potential Trump presidency be enough for you to go and vote for Hillary? Since it's a hypothetical anyway, let's say you had a 1% chance of being the deciding vote.
My Response: I think they are both terrible and your hypothetical does not fit with reality since there is near zero chance of my vote making a difference. That said, if it comes to Trump vs. Hillary, I would rather see Hillary in office based on the idea that she would have less support amongst the  general public, that is, she would be less effective in office than Trump in rallying the masses.

I fear Trump because he is an unknown with seeming tendencies toward totalitarian positions that Hillary would never dream of trying to implement and there seems to be a vast number who will follow him wherever he chooses to march.

I want to emphasize I hold my position based on my view that they would both be horrific for liberty. If it was down to two candidates where one was clearly better on libertarian positions across a broad swath, I would likely favor such a candidate, but when we have two terrible choices I am going to go with the one that is likely to be least effective in implementing grand plans.

I also want to emphasize that I would not favor Hillary based on the idea that she would create such a terrible economic conditions that the economy would collapse and  phoenix-like a total free market economy would emerge. Fat chance. most often collapse is followed by even worse government interventions.

My favoring Hillary is solely based on her being least competent at getting things done. There are many that hate her and would be obstructionist under her rule. Under Trump, I fear the opposite, enforcers who would go out of their way to police those not obeying Trump edicts.

It would not be any fun under Hillary rule, but under Trump it  likely would be worse.

The least competent is the only choice that makes sense if these are the two choices.

-RW

11 comments:

  1. We are way behind schedule in getting organized to take control in the event of a collapse. It should represent an OPPORTUNITY for us to say "we told you so," and offer an alternative.

    ReplyDelete
  2. They're both terrible and I won't be voting for either one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. of course they are terrible and none of us here would be caught dead voting for either but that isn't the point. the fact is these are the two likeliest candidates.
      However I am guessing Trump, if he gets the nomination, will be a far different creature than the one tossing out red meat to errm a certain section of the base. This is creating a splash. its telling the real powers rubio, cruz, paul, bush whatever all as interesting as watching pajamas being washed this is how you create a event getting people excited getting them into the horse race and its going to save you some money.

      Delete
  3. It might be more accurate to say least *able* rather than least competent. Clinton is quite a competent, but evil, politician.

    I agree with Bob's analysis as far as it goes, but I also think the powers that be don't want Trump either... his money and unpredictability is something beyond their control... and without their backing wouldn't he be a less effective President?

    On the other hand, I don't see much big money trying to take him out.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Under Trump, I fear the opposite, enforcers who would go out of their way to police those not obeying Trump edicts."

    Granted all the conservative candidates favor giving coproaches more power but Trump was the most open on wanting to give them more power. Im willing to bet that one logs onto PoliceOne (most well known form for coproaches) that most of them are pulling for Trump.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hillary is a proven war monger; Trump is not. Hillary would support any increase in the minimum wage law; Trump would not. Hillary would nominate the most evil leftie to the Supreme Court; Trump would not. Hillary would support tax increases; Trump would not. Hillary would support tougher gun laws; Trump would not. Hillary would bring Bill back into the White House; Trump would not!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree. Trump is a loose cannon and dangerous, but I think we have a much less chance of nuclear war and even more chaos with Trump than Hillary. At least Trump says he will go talk to Mr. Putin instead of calling for shooting down Russian fighter jets like everyone else seems to want to do!

      Delete
  6. Trump will not make it. You will see Cruz come out with a 'surprise' surge (as he did in Iowa recently) and become effectively the establishments 'non-establishment' figure. Rubio, in the power brokers mind, is too eager and hard to trust. Cruz, his wife, and his connections will make a good fit for the right.

    Hillary will still be a contender though.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I applaud RW's excellent take and choice of emphasis. (Note, he does not actually advocate voting for Hilary, merely points out abstractly which candidate would be least damaging to liberty).

    The Trump candidacy is a litmus test to separate closet conservatives masquerading as libertarians from true libertarians who are anti-power, irrespective of its right or left orientation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ron Paul's campaigns cemented in my mind that conservatvies were never really interested in liberty just wanted power and the libertarian vote. The Trump campaign just further enforces that point and also brought the authoritarian neoreactionaries out of the spotlight.

      Delete