My Reactions To What The Rich And Powerful Are Saying

Beck On Trump

Since the publicizing of Trump’s 2005 “locker-room conversation”, many politicians and popular media figures are publicly distancing themselves from him. Among these is Glenn Beck. Like most, his comments are clearly an overreaction to a minor incident, and I respond to him here.

In one of his Facebook posts about the subject, Glenn states:

It is not acceptable to ask a moral, dignified man to cast his vote to help elect an immoral man who is absent decency or dignity.

Answer: It is if all of the other alternatives are much worse. Politics isn’t a game where the voter who does the most virtue-signaling wins. If you elect the wrong person, then people can suffer badly.

If the consequence of standing against Trump and for principles is indeed the election of Hillary Clinton, so be it. At least it is a moral, ethical choice.

Answer: No it isn’t. What you’re describing is the willful choosing of the greater of two evils, a choice that many others will have to pay for, possibly for the rest of their lives.

If she is elected, the world does not end…. Once elected, Hillary can be fought…

Answer: How’s that approach been working out so far, with regards to the Obama administration?

But let’s accept the argument for a moment, and see where it takes us. If Clinton is the greater of two evils, and her greater evil can be fought, then can’t Trump’s lesser evil also be fought? And if he’s the lesser of two evils, then wouldn’t electing him just mean that there’s less evil to fight, leading to a better outcome?

Her nominees can be blocked,…

Answer: This is a bit like saying of a psychopath: “When he hits me I’ll defeat him by turning the other cheek!” I’ve dealt with a psychopath before. A psychopath has an infinite capacity to hit you on each cheek that you turn, until you die. And he’ll do this repeatedly, in front of a huge audience, with no remorse. That’s what makes him a psychopath.

Regarding the nomination of Supreme Court Justices, Congress will only deny nominees for as long as they have the political courage to do so. Like the psychopath of my previous example, Clinton has an infinite capacity and willingness to unsuccessfully nominate statist Justices to the Supreme Court, each time pointing at conservative Congressmen and saying “They’re evil if they don’t accept this one!” The press has an infinite capacity to parrot this message, and the public has an infinite capacity to believe it. How long do you think our spineless conservative Congressmen will hold out against this?

…her proposed laws voted down.

Answer: She can pass a lot of laws as executive orders. And it doesn’t matter if Congress can successfully challenge them in court, because we know from past experience with the Obama administration that they won’t.

If one helps to elect an immoral man to the highest office, then one is merely validating his immorality, lewdness, and depravity.

Answer: Incorrect. If you’re forced to make a choice between two alternatives, then you’re only responsible for choosing the best (or least bad) of the two. There are three relevant possibilities here:

1. If you choose the best of the two, then your act only validates your choice as from among the alternatives that you were given.

2. If you choose the worst of the two, then your act only validates your choice as from among the alternatives that you were given.

3. If you choose neither, and the results are predictably bad, then your act validates your lack of support for the lessor of two evils, in a situation in which you knew that you could have at least lessened the evil consequences, but chose not to. Because even though you didn’t have the freedom to choose a good candidate, you did have the freedom to choose a less evil one.

In no case does your act validate your choice as from among any other set of alternatives than those which you were given. And in no case does your act validate the process by which you were forced to choose between two bad alternatives. Your acts can only validate the choices that you made, from among the alternatives that you were given.

[Senator Mike] Lee’s call for Trump to step down and withdraw from the race is respectful to him and to the process.

Answer: It’s respectful, but not meaningful, since we all know in advance that Trump won’t step down. It’s also irresponsible, since it will only increase the chances of the most evil candidate winning. And finally, his request is irrelevant, since it has no bearing on your choice.

Trump stepping down does not guarantee a Clinton win,…

Answer: Yes it does. With only four weeks to go until the election, it’s too late in the game for another Republican candidate to play catch-up.

…but it does guarantee that the Republican party still stands for something,…

Answer: Doing this would show that the Republican party stands for spinelessly throwing away a potential victory for a candidate who might pass some genuine small-government reforms, over nothing more than some politically-incorrect chatter that was thought to be private at the time.

…and that it still has a future.

Answer: If Clinton wins, and we become a socialist nation, with enough socialist immigrants to guarantee that the Republicans never win the White House again, then it won’t have a future.

In a second Facebook post about the subject, Glenn also states:

Let us stand together against Clinton.

Answer: The best method for standing against Clinton is to elect Trump. You don’t start a battle by strengthening your enemy.

Let’s worry about holding the senate and house,…

Answer: Being smarter than trained baboons, we peasants can support Republicans for the House, Senate, and White House, all at the same time.

…let’s join the Article five movement as it is the answer.

Answer: It’s part of the answer. But that doesn’t excuse supporting the greater of two evils when you don’t have to. You can support Trump and try for an Article Five convention.

We know how to fight the Clinton Machine.

Answer: Up until now, we’ve been losing to the Clinton Machine. Or did the Department of Justice decide to indict her while I wasn’t looking?

Yes, it will be “terrible times”, but we will survive…

Answer: You will survive. You have lots of money, and your own ranch, and many other resources that the rest of us don’t.

Accept the consequences of years of wrong choices,…

Answer: By deliberately making even more wrong choices?! If you wish to flagellate yourself for your own previous political mistakes, then by all means do so. But no matter how intense your feelings of guilt, they don’t justify you dragging the rest of us down with you.

In the E.U. there’s a woman named Angela Merkle who claims that she’s trying to make up for her country’s massive slaughter of Jews, by giving her country to people from a different culture who claim that, if they have their way, they’ll slaughter more Jews.

You’re saying that we should repent for years of bad political choices by making an even worse political choice, when it’s totally unnecessary to do so. Does that make sense to you?

…fight only for those causes that are righteous and have nothing to do with those who are not.

Answer: Victory for the lesser of two evils is a righteous cause when you have no other choices. Yes, you can choose to support neither, but you can’t choose victory for neither. One or the other of them will win.

Let us be worthy of the freedom we cherish.

Answer: By courageously allowing the greater of two evils to win?

Trump’s “locker room talk” may be politically incorrect, and offensive to some, but it’s perfectly healthy, and normal, and is not evidence of misogyny. And I have it on good (female) authority that in their own private conversations women talk the same way about men. Why have you accepted, as true, the fictional and self-serving social ideals of modern progressivism? And if we become so sensitive to the possibility of offending someone that we even begin to self-censor our private conversations, then what do you think happens to the First Amendment, and to freedom of thought?

Many conservatives seem to have an enhanced sense of shame; to be terrified at the public disapproval that they might suffer if they’re seen to be doing something that society deems incorrect. This is what you’re seeing now. A group of conservatives saying: “I’m sorry I did something wrong! I promise if you don’t hate me I’ll make my candidate leave the race so that your candidate wins! I’ll even convince myself that it’s the right thing to do!” This isn’t courage, it’s cowardice.

You (Glenn Beck) are well-known for your use of the civil rights era slogan “I am a man!”. But are you? There’ll always be something that you’ve done that your opponents can point to and say “shame!”, even if they have to fabricate the social taboos that you’re supposedly violating. Indeed, keeping conservatives in a perpetual state of submissive guilt is a large part of what political correctness is for. If you’re going to submit every time liberals can point a finger at you and say “shame!”, then you’re going to submit on everything, and this is a luxury that America can no longer afford.

Man up.

Disagree with me? Think I’m a sexist pig? Then tell me in a response below.

If you like my writing, then please consider buying my e-book, “Getting Screwed: A Layman’s Guide To Political Strategy”. It’s available almost everywhere except Amazon (which doesn’t treat it’s no-name authors very well). Here’s an exciting link to my e-book at Barnes and Noble to get you started!