A vote for Clinton is a vote in favor of unlimited totalitarianism and Marxism, and against the possibility of any form of return to a constitutional America.

Glenn Reynolds, a law professor who respects the constitution and knows what a danger Hillary Clinton is to the rule of law, disagrees with both you and James Kirkpatrick on this subject.

I suggest you re read Glenns writings on this subject

"...those conservatives who acknowledge Trump's unfitness cannot bring themselves to admit that Clinton represents an even marginal improvement."

As bad as he is, she is far worse.

> A vote for Clinton is a
> vote against Trump.

No, it's a vote for Clinton.

Iowahawk's metaphor for those confused about this is glorious.

Sorry "Kirchick" I was typing my original post in Tokyo Station, while I waited for my son to find his lost ticket so we could exit into the subway.

There is *no* conservative case for voting for Clinton, none, zip, nadda. But there is a very good libertarian case for voting for Trump.

Read Glenn Reynolds.

Kirchick's opening paragraph is logically flawed. To see this, try the same argument with a different name.

"That Mao Zedong would make a better president than Donald Trump should be evident to any mammal. Substantiating this assertion does not require one to make a positive case for Mao, so disqualifying are Trump’s many negative qualities."

He wishes to avoid the burden of making a positive case for Clinton...probably because he can't. For example, Clinton *does* challenge freedom of the press; she wants to overturn the Citizens United decision (which found in favor of a film critical of her).

They are both appalling, abhorrent candidates, and the only case that can be (or has been) made for either is "I'm not the other." That's not good enough.

And the Supreme Court Justice nominees are ...

Iowahawk is wrong.

http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2016/08/12/both_sides_1.html

"Whatever one thinks about Clinton, launching a nuclear strike against another country out of pure spite is difficult to imagine."

I gotta disagree right there. Clinton is highly interventionist. She loves invading foreign nations. She also holds a grudge. She is far more likely to start a war and to use nuclear weapons than Trump.

Here:

http://theweek.com/articles/643299/donald-trumps-deranged-foreign-policy

Hillary Clinton is simply the least dangerous of two terrible candidates.

Iowahawk tweet about Trump TV:

@iowahawkblog
If you didn't suspect this was the plan all along, you're a bit slow

https://www.ft.com/content/7dc39954-940e-11e6-a1dc-bdf38d484582

You keep telling yourself she won't do things out of spite when the wikileaks proved she turned down peace in Libya and wanted Gaddafi killed out of spite. He endorsed the current president in the primary instead of her (you know, the man she ostensibly worked for...).

Hillary Clinton is simply the least dangerous of two terrible candidates

The Rooskies seem to be in the mind to build fallout shelters: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/17/russia-is-building-fallout-shelters-to-prepare-for-a-potential-nuclear-strike.html

Can't imagine why they'd do that.

Also, she'll open our borders even wider than they are, and move heaven and earth to get them amnesty, citizenship, and more importantly registered as Democrats. One party rule? almost guaranteed!

And at the same time, be busily chipping away at the first and second amendments. Once her Supreme Court nominees are confirmed, the mechanisms to force a retrial of Citizens United, Heller, and McDonald will proceed.

Don't forget that while she won't accept donations from foreign nationals and corporations to the Clinton Foundation (but it was OK while she was SoS?) I'm sure they can rent out the Lincoln Bedroom for the weekend. And she'll be negotiating with the Chinese for the purchase of whatever US technology they're interested in purchasing.

The most likely scenario for a nuclear war is NOT a president saying 'OK, let's nuke Transcanistan', it is a chain of events involving perceived weakness combined with a felt need to demonstrate toughness. This is what occurred with the Cuban Missile Crisis, under the John F Kennedy administration.

I think the use of nuclear weapons somewhere in the world is far more likely with a Clinton administration than with a Trump administration.

The Democratic Party has already sharply increased the probability of nuclear use through its feckless policy on Iran.

Why would anyone think that Hillary Clinton is a particularly stable personality? There have been many documented cases of her reacting with unhinged rage toward people around her, Secret Service agents for example.

Amy, I'm sorry, but you have fallen for the mainstream media line on this hook, line and sinker. Do you not realize what they are doing here? That "he's insane and he's going to start a nuclear war" accusation has been thrown against every Republican since Eisenhower. Do you not remember that LBJ, surely one of the worst Presidents ever, won largely because the media succeeded in sticking the nuclear-warmonger label on Barry Goldwater? Would you have voted for LBJ seriously believing that Goldwater was itching to start a nuclear war? Is there the slightest shred of evidence that he would have done that?

Now, let's take Ronald Reagan, someone that you've said in the past that you respect. Do you not remember how the smug media portrayed Reagan as a doddering senile fool who was going to start a nuclear war by accident? Saturday Night Live even did a skit about it. And when George H. Bush was running in 1988, as the Soviet Union was on the verge of collapse, we were assured by the Left that the election of Bush would so enrage the Soviets that they would launch the moment the election results were announced. Unilateral disarmament, we were assured, was the only available means to Save The Planet.

I'm sorry, but the media has cried wolf once too often. You do notice, don't you, how Kirchick's op-ed conveniently omits any mention Hillary leaking highly classified material in order to keep corrupt Clinton Foundation activities covered? And the fact that the Justice Department and the FBI put the fix in for her, completely dynamiting the rule of law in this area? Is that not worse than anything Trump might be expected to get away with? What about Benghazi? The Russian "reset" and the subsequent invasion and annexing of the Crimea? The Middle East mess and the "red line" appeasement? Hillary's close connections with international banks, and the secret speeches that she was paid thousands of dollars a minute for? And her willingness to sell out the women that she supposedly stands with, in order to protect her power-broker husband's reputation?

"...politicized IRS that rivals that of the Nixon administration..." Gee, looks to me like we already have that. How could Trump make it any worse?

"...or a Justice Department war on the news media..."

As opposed to a Justice Department war on global warming skeptics?

"a president who says NATO is 'obsolete?'"

How is he wrong? NATO has been deteriorating since the 1970s, and it has been completely dysfunctional for a decade now. Trump's take is better than the head-in-sand attitude that damn near every else has towards the issue. If the problem is going to be fixed, the first step is being willing to admit that there's a problem.

"American conservatives still wavering about supporting Clinton can look to an unlikely historical parallel for moral guidance: the French Socialists in 2002. "

Bad analogy. The Socialists had every opportunity to vote for their preferred candidate, Lionel Jospin, in the general election. The fact that Jospin didn't make the runoff wasn't because Socialists "held their noses" and voted for a "reasonable" candidate. They didn't. Jospin didn't make the runoff because Le Pen was the only candidate who spoke to how fed up a lot of French citizens are with the bureaucracy in Paris (and by extension, Brussels). Chirac was, like nearly all mainstream candidates in Europe, a center-left candidate, so it wasn't that big a stretch for the Socialists to vote for him. And if the Socialists voted for Chirac in the general election, it was a lot less that they feared a Le Pen government (which, truthfully, probably would not have differed from the Chirac government in very many areas), and more because of their hatred towards the people that Le Pen represented.

(And as for the "spite" think: What about her wanting to assassinate Juilan Assange?)

...Clinton represents an even marginal improvement.

Does she? As has been pointed out, she is mercurial personality with no regard for the consequences of her actions. She is beholden to billionaires and political agents. She is inordinately fond of foreign interventions with military troops she treats with disdain, as well as byzantine and job-killing economic regulations. She is a proponent of the over-reaching nanny state.

Elizabeth Warren is already demanding that Hillary fire Mary Jo White as head of the SEC should she win. Look for a more Warrenesque regulatory state to strangle an already struggling economy should Hillary win. Warren wants complex reporting of political donations applied to corporations that would not be applied to unions under the SEC. This will have the affect of silencing any nonunion (i.e., non-Democrat) political activism.

Hillary has said that her litmus test for justices is anti-2nd Amendment and a promise to overturn Citizens United. She's already advocated the arrest of a US citizen to appease foreign interests. She believes no one has a right to know what she's doing, even if it's government business paid for by taxpayers.

When she was constructing Hillary Care in the '90s, she shut out Republicans, doctors, and insurance companies. Don't look for her legislative initiatives to be inclusive, or even logical.

Is Donald Trump a good choice for president. By all measures, no. Is Hillary a "better" choice. No. Not even a marginal improvement. Equally bad? Probably.

Either one of these two idiots will be an unmitigated disaster in the White House. William F. Buckley's comment about the Boston phone book comes to mind.

Trump however, authoritarian his instincts, is an inept political operator. She, with equal authoritarian instincts, is a slick political operator. Which one do you think will succeed in implementing a more authoritarian government?

The only thing that makes Trump marginally better is that he is loathed by both parties. He will not have the automatic backing of either aisle in Congress. She will have the automatic backing of and basically a blank check from the Democrats. The liberal wing of the Democratic Party is putting the final touches to its wish lists (see the Warren comment above). It expects to be handsomely rewarded by President Hillary.

Personally, I'm appalled by this election. It's the most vicious and nasty one I've ever seen. Every one of the ads, debates, and talking points so far are personal attacks, not policy discussions. Both candidates are sleazy operators.

==============================

This election reminds me of Douglas Adams' wrong-lizard democracy:

...the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."

"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."

"I did," said Ford. "It is."

"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't people get rid of the lizards?"

"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."

"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"

"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."

"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"

"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in.”

~ Douglas Adams
~ So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish

"The next battlefield after high tech is discretion in hiring--which the activists believe must be limited to force employers to hire any candidate "qualified" for a job as soon as they apply. Only a few radicals are proposing this kind of blind hiring now, but continuing successes in getting firms to bow to their diversity demands will result in a list of new demands. We have already seen Seattle pass an ordinance requiring landlords to rent apartments to the first applicant who qualifies. And similar movements in hiring--supposedly to prevent discrimination by eliminating management choice of who to employ--are coming soon."

https://pjmedia.com/drhelen/2016/10/16/could-social-justice-warriors-ruin-your-tech-company/

You can be absolutely certain that things of this ilk would accelerate under a Hillary Clinton presidency.

Even if Trump is more dictatorial/unhinged/misogynist/whatever than Clinton, he's less dangerous than she is. Establishment Republicans despise him, so Congress will oppose him no matter who controls it. Clinton will be tolerable as long as Congress is Republican or divided, but give her a Democratic Congress and it's Dubya all over again. Or LBJ.

Clinton is highly interventionist. She loves invading foreign nations. She also holds a grudge. She is far more likely to start a war and to use nuclear weapons than Trump.

I agree with Ben. Plus her utter disdain for the male soldiers who would be doing the bulk of the dying in her wars ... very scary.

> Iowahawk is wrong.

You're out of your depth.

Also, Ben, I don't think your comment was very good.* I think you could do better. You should review the original post and consider the things others have said here. Then take a few minutes to review the matter, and write another comment... A brief one. You, especially, should always try to make your comments as brief as possible.

*I didn't read it.

But you've taught us what
this means to you.

Which one has so obviously lied about their actions and evaded criminal charges due to political insiders?

Which one tried to develop a health care system "in the dark" w/no public input?

Which one has avoided the press and taking questions?

Oh, the "adult" one that is "less dangerous".

But Trump has SAID bad deplorable things and is an ass so obviously he's a bad person.

One of the bad things is that, no matter who is elected, something utterly stupid and avoidable is going to take place in the next two years. The response from supporters of the losing candidate will inevitably be, "That wouldn't have happened if the other person had won!"

I worry about you, Amy.

You're (rightly) against Islam, yet support the President who will be bringing it, unvetted, to your local neighborhood.

You can't afford to see the Dr and have to self-diagnose and order meds online, but you support the woman who will make this worse by bringing in single-payer.

You maniacally support free speech, but also bizarrely support the woman who would abolish it.

You aren't a fan of kids and don't care to subsidize parenting, but support the woman promising 'free" daycare, that you will get to pay for.

You point out the fallacy of the 1-in-3 FBI stat at every opportunity (and thank you for that), but support the woman who would criminalize being a male, and make all women victims.

You are against racial and gender preference, but support the woman who will cement them into laws touching literally all aspects of life-forget refusing to bake a cake, if they have their way you'll be eating falafel once a week or face the consequences of your "racism".

You recognize the student-loan fiasco for the crap it is, but support the woman who promises that the taxpayers will pay for ALL college, for all people.

You think he's unstable, but she has-documentedly-thrown items at the president of the United States, and her own security detail, in drunken fits.

'it's evident to any mammal"..."Uh-oh, I don't want to look stupid, I better just accept that, sans any supporting evidence whatsoever. Can't have people thinking I'm not qualified to be a mammal". You want to be liked, and seen as smart, and part of those in the know. Shake it off. You're too smart to fall for that trick.

I disagree with you Amy. But I have far too much respect for your intellect to suggest you've "fallen" for anything. I just think our criteria for evaluating the damage to be done by the person given the presidency in the upcoming election are different.

Talk about holding a grudge. Crid can really hold a grudge. The only question is, can Crid start a better nuclear war than Trump or Hillary? Given the candidates of today he's probably ready for the presidency. ;)

Guess Dems just want to justify a vote for Hillary as not a vote for Hillary but a vote against Trump.

If they just happen to get gun control, health care for MILLIONS, FREE STUFF paid for by OTHERS, plus a WOMAN in the White House, they will suffer along in silence. After all, Trump did not win so it's for everyone's good. Right?

> really hold a grudge

Naw, I'm all about judging people as they asked to be judged. (Extra comma in third sentence; teenager's cartoon at the end.)

All this vote-for-X-is-a-vote-for-Y stuff is not only a test of intelligence, though it's certainly that as well... It's an affirmation of schoolyard spite. When the popular kids gang up on the weasel, who's almost by definition a less-capable social performer, he'll turn to the kids at the fence behind the swing-set and squeal "It's me against the meanies! You're with me or against me... Who do you choose?"

The fence kids will quietly reflect on the fact that the Weasel never did anything nice for them, certainly no more often than did the popular kids.

So the Weasel chooses as his developmental identity A Man Alone in a World That Doesn't Care, and spends the rest of his days recapitulating the tragic schoolyard encounter through imaginary calculus: 'Not voting for Hillary is a vote for Trump!,' etc.

But sometimes it's just a cigar. I can imagine plenty of voters who simply want Hillary to be president.

NYT editorial: It may be too late for the Republican Party to save itself from the rolling disaster of Donald Trump, but the party’s top leaders still have the duty to speak out and help save the country from his reckless rhetoric. The most frightening example is Mr. Trump’s frenzied claim that the presidential election is being "rigged" against him — a claim he has ramped up as his chances of winning the presidency have gone down.

Just as I've said: Trump can't accept losing so when he loses, which he will, there has to be "fraud."

Uh, excuse me? When Mr. Nixon told the IRS to harass someone, they told him to stuff it.

Mr. Nixon is like a fantasy hate creature. But, he actually would be called, by Liberals, one of the best presidents ever, if they ever took it upon themselves to look at his record.

I think this is a smart piece, over at Ricochet, by Robert Zubrin:

https://ricochet.com/381402/the-caligula-candidate/

Whole thing is worth reading, and then there's this from the end:

...While in Caligula’s day the Roman Empire was completely secure against all external threats, and so his lack of restraint and desire for absolute power could only wreak serious harm on the internal soundness of the commonwealth, an infantile ruler of such character today could quickly lead the nation, and indeed human civilization, to quick and total destruction.

Say what you will, Hillary Clinton is an adult. Many of her policies are mistaken, but she is demonstrably sane. The same cannot be said about Trump.

America requires a president with a mental age over 35, not under two. Trump does not meet that criterion. Accordingly, he is unfit for office.

The equation of Trump with Caligula implies that the reasonable and rational candidate is Hillary. She is neither. This election is Caligula vs. Nero. One will wreck the Republic with immaturity, the other will watch it burn, and even light the match.

Remember, if Trump goes too far, he can be impeached. Both parties will sign on for impeachment then. But the Dems will defend Hillary from impeachment with a vigorous scorched earth policy. So, even if she goes to far, she will never have to answer for it. There will be no check on her overreach. There will be a vigorous and immediate check on his.

How sad is it that the best argument to be made for a candidate is that the candidate is hated equally by both parties?

That should be "too far."

I'm not sure why trump claiming the election is rigged, is proof of his instability. Did the DNC not provably rig the primaries? Did the IRS not provably target conservatives? Do we not have voting districts with more people voting than even live there (including those too young to vote)? That they're rigging it is more believable than not. Whether they can do it consistently enough to win, we'll see.

"The equation of Trump with Caligula implies that the reasonable and rational candidate is Hillary."

Yeah, that's just more "Republican candidate = Hitler" stuff. It means nothing. Remember how Mitt Romney was labeled misogynist for having a list of qualified women for his Cabinet? (And I'll wager that most of our citizens educated in post-intellectual America have never heard of Caligula anyway.)

"I'm not sure why trump claiming the election is rigged, is proof of his instability. "

Especially when Al Gore is, to this day, a hero to the Left for having said the exact same thing. It's only rigged when the Democrats don't win.

"Many of her policies are mistaken, but she is demonstrably sane."

I think we can safely say that Zubrin, who's been way out there before, is back there again.

"demonstrably sane"

At best, you can make the case that neither is.

But you cannot say that Clinton is "sane" without dealing with her huge, huge, huge, huge, huge, huge, list of well over 25 *years* of lawbreaking, legal shenanigans, and ethical lapses.

And yet, you don't. (Nor is it likely that she is sane. Possible, on the outside. But not likely.)

Zubrin did not post a single example of the alleged thousands of lawsuits. Trump's detractors seem to want to use generalities, without pointing out specific examples that concerned voters could use to latch on to somebody else, like Gary Johnson.