
Given the transparent, albeit predictable, bias brutally evident in last nights debate, I’m going to leave this stuck to the top of the page for half the day.
In Part ONE I explained why Donald Trump’s candidacy was essentially a “nothing to lose” decision for conservatives, because all paths lead to Jeb Bush.
In Part TWO I explained why there is a severity within my position.
Here in Part THREE, as requested, I’ll expand for those who remain critical; and for those who are finding themselves called out as “ridiculous” for having the audacity to present such a non-traditional approach.
Starting with an actual defense (via comment) left by someone who presents the counter argument to my position of the GOP needing to be torn down. The counter-argument encapsulates many traditional political followers. Here is their point:
First of all, there a difference between the GOP and the Democrats. If there had been a GOP president instead of Obama, we would not have Obamacare, or all the regulations he’s issued, or all the idiotic DOJ civil rights investigations, or the two liberal SC justices he has appointed (which in turn lead to liberal SC decisions for years to come).
Second of all, destroying the GOP as it exists today will only lead to a smaller minority party which will never win a presidential contest, and probably gift the Democrats with permanent control of Congress.
Finally, Donald Trump wrote in 2000 that he favored a single-payer healthcare system like Canada, and told O’Reilly in 2012 that illegals should be given a pathway to citizenship. Viewing him as a “tool’ to defeat Obamacare and amnesty can most charitably be described as bizarre.
Politics is a game where you don’t get everything you want, and you frequently must settle for a choice that’s simply better than the alternative. You can’t just take your ball and go home.
Various forms of this argument are found dispersed amid the various blogs and comment sections therein; but essentially the essential argument is the same. So here’s the intellectual reply. (more…)






