PoliticalChic
Diamond Member
As always, my view is that the correct way to determine your vote is based on polices, not persons.
If that had been done, I doubt Hussein would have been in the position to do the damage he did....and, no, Democrats, he was not god, Jesus nor the messiah.
In fact, referring to the thread title....lacking the ability to think, lots of Democrat voters would have to stay home.
But just now, Daniel Pipes wrote his view of voting, and it conforms to the above.
1. "Why I'm Voting for Trump We Elect a Team, Not a Person
2. It makes sense to focus intensely on those issues in the primary, when one has a choice among two or more candidates with a roughly similar outlook. In the general election, however, the candidate's superficial qualities matter much less in deciding whom to vote for.
That's because the candidate heads a vast team that enters government with his election, from cabinet secretaries to the military chief of staff to federal judges and many, many others, including those furtive "senior assistants to the acting deputy" types and other bureaucrats. In the aggregate, they reduce the importance of the leader. A vote for the candidate is also an implicit vote for the team.
3. Rather than the person, I advise a focus on a party's overall outlook. Does it take pride in American history or emphasize its faults? Does it favor the original Constitution or a living version of it? Does it emphasize individualism or equality? Does it focus on the free market or government oversight? Does it see the United States more as a force for good or ill in the world?
4.These, not the president's appearance or college grades, determine his place in history and the trajectory of the country. Indeed, that the team's views and policies are often sharper-edged than the president's further emphasizes the central importance of his outlook.
Personally, I favor the first in each of those dualities: a proud view of the United States, caution about the Constitution, and an emphasis on individualism and free markets. In this election, only one of the two major parties agrees with my outlook. Despite my intense aversion to Trump's immorality, vulgarity, and egotism, these now worry me less than the Democrats' uniquely radical program. And so, I publicly endorsed him. To quote journalist Bernard Goldberg, "He is a detestable man. And I hope he wins."
5. ...Trump appeared to be a populist out to wreck the Republican party, the conservative movement, and even American democracy. Then, to my surprise, he governed as a conservative on those issues I consider most important. So, consistent with the argument presented here, I put aside my distaste and fears. "
There is no way any sentient individual can vote for this:
The Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech, substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry, support for rioters, arsonists, murderers, and anarchists, and anti-Semitism… the knuckle-dragging, atavistic pagan party.
If that had been done, I doubt Hussein would have been in the position to do the damage he did....and, no, Democrats, he was not god, Jesus nor the messiah.
In fact, referring to the thread title....lacking the ability to think, lots of Democrat voters would have to stay home.
But just now, Daniel Pipes wrote his view of voting, and it conforms to the above.
1. "Why I'm Voting for Trump We Elect a Team, Not a Person
2. It makes sense to focus intensely on those issues in the primary, when one has a choice among two or more candidates with a roughly similar outlook. In the general election, however, the candidate's superficial qualities matter much less in deciding whom to vote for.
That's because the candidate heads a vast team that enters government with his election, from cabinet secretaries to the military chief of staff to federal judges and many, many others, including those furtive "senior assistants to the acting deputy" types and other bureaucrats. In the aggregate, they reduce the importance of the leader. A vote for the candidate is also an implicit vote for the team.
3. Rather than the person, I advise a focus on a party's overall outlook. Does it take pride in American history or emphasize its faults? Does it favor the original Constitution or a living version of it? Does it emphasize individualism or equality? Does it focus on the free market or government oversight? Does it see the United States more as a force for good or ill in the world?
4.These, not the president's appearance or college grades, determine his place in history and the trajectory of the country. Indeed, that the team's views and policies are often sharper-edged than the president's further emphasizes the central importance of his outlook.
Personally, I favor the first in each of those dualities: a proud view of the United States, caution about the Constitution, and an emphasis on individualism and free markets. In this election, only one of the two major parties agrees with my outlook. Despite my intense aversion to Trump's immorality, vulgarity, and egotism, these now worry me less than the Democrats' uniquely radical program. And so, I publicly endorsed him. To quote journalist Bernard Goldberg, "He is a detestable man. And I hope he wins."
5. ...Trump appeared to be a populist out to wreck the Republican party, the conservative movement, and even American democracy. Then, to my surprise, he governed as a conservative on those issues I consider most important. So, consistent with the argument presented here, I put aside my distaste and fears. "
Why I’m voting for Trump - The Boston Globe
Rather than the person, I advise a focus on a party’s overall outlook.
www.bostonglobe.com
There is no way any sentient individual can vote for this:
The Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech, substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry, support for rioters, arsonists, murderers, and anarchists, and anti-Semitism… the knuckle-dragging, atavistic pagan party.
Last edited: