One man argued that my voting for anyone other than Trump is to be anti Christ and pro “stabbing babies in the neck,” and is nonsense anyway, because Trump, as a Republican candidate, likely “supports 80% of the GOP platform.” My rebuttal follows:
I disagree with the initial premise that the Republican platform is a concern to Donald Trump. Even now, his proxies are busy feeling out the possibilities of Trump TV after the election. Does that sound like a serious, concerned winner? How insidious this candidacy is, I cannot know. I can know that it is highly suspect. I know that his rhetoric reinforces the suspicion that he will abuse executive power in ways that democrats would only dream of trying. Monday, he demanded Saturday Night Live be cancelled because of an unflattering Trump parody they aired along with an equally negative one about Hillary Clinton. Do I support the show? Irrelevant — the point is far more chilling. He is alarmingly thin-skinned and demands the silencing of dissent. His hunger for the attentions of the same press that gave him hundreds of millions of dollars in free exposure during the primaries, has moved to censure them since winning the nomination. Now, extrapolate that little tidbit to the power of the presidency and executive orders.
I disagree that Trump has presented reliable evidence that he is for religious liberty or is pro life, since he promotes his radically pro abortion sister for Supreme Court. Trump’s sister takes the position that “geography”-to use her word-plays no part in the pro abortion statute. By her rulings, a half born child can still be killed, a position that even Hillary Clinton does not support. As for Mrs. Clinton, she is not a communist, but is center left in her economic policy, and is pro military, facts that have made hundreds of national security professionals and military field grade support her over Trump. I make those points solely as points of information. I will not vote for her anymore than I will vote for Trump. The national security issues are obviously of urgent importance, but some matters concern national security in less obvious ways. In spite of the claims of the Trump camp, Clinton’s private conversations demonstrate her distaste for Obama’s foreign policies, and a more centrist position. One must not rely on unproven campaign rhetoric, from either side, as if it is fact.
We see rampant instances of false claims in Trump’s desperate one liners, as polls shift in Clinton’s favor, due primarily, to the sewer ever flowing from his own mouth. One of those baseless narratives he is emphasizing as election day nears is that of a ‘rigged’ election. He seems to not realize that 31 states are controlled by Republicans with Republican Secretaries of State running the elections. He knows so little about our system, I can only think he mistakenly believes the Federal government controls and administers each state’s voting process. No, I cannot vote for a wild, unbridled teenager, if for no other reason than that very kind of dangerous bluster that reinforces distrust in our elections, and, therefore, our foundational system. This tactic is straight out of the anarchist’s handbook.
Undermining the confidence in the election system without evidence of more than isolated offenses is dangerous to our national security by encouraging violent insurgency based on a false narrative. Even today, social media is full of Trump followers blaming the Clinton campaign, with no shred of evidence, for the campaign office bombing in North Carolina. These are the same folks that were disgusted by the burning of Ferguson that also proved to rise from a false narrative. One of his surrogates this week called for pitchforks and torches. I shuddered to hear a Republican sheriff sounding like Al Sharpton, stoking flames of violence and terror.
This kind of rabid hyperbole is part of the Trump effect, as is the vulgar and base language now acceptable from our elected representatives. Those trends are breaking down our nation, not just dividing the GOP. Mr. Trump has stated flatly that he is against NATO and for nuclear proliferation. He has danced around it at times when the press reported that polls reflected both positions as careless and unpopular. Even so, he continues to default to them. May I say, I not only disagree with the implication that I am for stabbing babies to death if I do not vote Trump, but am gravely disappointed you ever dared to imply it. What is to follow now — threats on my person, my family, pornography, vile vocabulary? These things have become part of my life since August 2015 when I posted “Donald Trump: A Pig in and Elephant Suit” on Medium. I am pro life, and do not accept your false equivalency. I will not ever vote for Trump, and, in so doing, contribute to a global economic or military holocaust that could well result in the deaths of untold numbers. His explosive temperament, isolationist policies, and strong arm tactics would initiate existential threats and give rise to increased violent radicalism globally, making him uniquely unfit for the office he seeks.
As for the Republican platform, it was influenced by Trump surrogates at the convention to soften certain positions, not the least of which was its position as a friend to Ukraine, a reversal that also represents a national security threat. I cannot contribute to the election of a Putin page for president of these United States. Still in his employ are Paul Manafort and Carter Page, the latter made surreptitious trips to Moscow to meet quietly with two of Putin’s closest confidants before the Convention this summer, then was allowed to argue, without credentials, before the platform committee, for Trump’s positions. The former’s record of pro Putin and anti American clients is well-documented, as are his threatening tactics.
Would that things were simpler, but they are not. I do not depend upon Republicans, as the majority of them have put party ahead of principle by not resisting a nominee who has zero bona fides with anything remotely resembling the historical platform to which you refer. John Knox wrote, for instance, of the preeminent importance of property rights as a test of the exercise and existence of freedom. It is notable that the manipulative Mr. Trump is for federal land grabs and an abuse of eminent domain. This support for anti Constitutional protections is not surprising coming from a man who admires political assassinations of suspected opponents as “amazing leadership.” I think of Trump’s touting of Kim Jong Un’s murderous entry into power every time I hear his crowds cheer, “Lock her up.”
I will defend and support conservative republicans down ticket, as I do find many of them more closely aligned with Constitutional thinking. Many of these same conservative republicans would be tagged as moderates, like Speaker Ryan, simply for their understanding of the slow moving ship our Founders established American governance to be. It was by design that the Founders shaped a government that could not be quickly or easily made monolithic. It was also by design that a Baptist preacher named John Leland, fought boldly behind the scenes with Thomas Jefferson and James Madison for religious liberty. It was a religious liberty that included the “musselmans.” Why? Because, it was Leland’s contention that the liberty that could be denied say a Catholic or a Muslim, could be denied a Baptist. He contended that the Truth of the Baptist message would win the day in numbers and influence, becoming an inherent defense for our nation’s security.
I do not rely on a charlatan messiah for America. We have the right history over all, the right foundations, and a multitude of sound folks who will carry the message for our guaranteed liberties. To choose a standard bearer like Donald Trump, whose narratives defy our very founding documents, is to give aid and comfort to the enemies of Americanism, and to threaten her position as a lighthouse of hope to the world. I would liken it to leaving the keys to grandma’s jewelry box on the open front door with a welcome sign. Perhaps, the better analogy in the case of Mr. Trump would be for a republican administration to send the nuclear codes to Vladimir Putin and ask him to promise not to use them. That narrative is not false in that it is good comedy — good, because it has the requisite element of truth.
I will vote for a third candidate, Evan McMullin, and hope the vote is split enough to throw the decision from the electoral college to the House. Thanks again for your input; but, as you can see, sadly, we disagree organically. Gladly, we can agree that whichever way this election goes, our commission does not change, and neither does our God.