3 readers online now  |  69 million page views

A Reply to Pipes' Reply

Reader comment on item: Blowback from Criticizing Trump

Submitted by Stuart Fagin (United States), Jul 22, 2016 at 12:25

Replying to Pipes' four points

"Can I be more clear that I do not support Hillary Clinton? " This election has only two plausible outcomes, President Trump or President Clinton. When a conservative chooses not to vote, he implicitly fosters the election of Clinton, even if he does not directly support her.

"I am reconciled to the inevitability of a terrible president ....focusing on Congress, the governorships, and the state legislatures, as well as building a strong conservative movement." A central project of the Obama administration has been the eradication of both Federalism (for example, the absurd interference with North Carolina's bathroom legislation), and the primacy of Congress (for example, the subvention of Congress's immigration laws). Protecting Federalism and the institution of Congress requires that Clinton, who will surely continue these trends, not be president.

"Concern about Supreme Court justices should translate into giving money to and working for maintenance of the Republican majority in the Senate...." It is unlikely the GOP will keep their Senate majority because (a) far more GOP seats are in play, and (b) Trump has very unfavorable coattails. Even if successfully held, a GOP Senate majority will not refuse to confirm a Clinton nominee because of their ideology. They never have before. The only way to prevent a progressive transformation of the Supreme Court is to keep Clinton out of the presidency.

"Trump's ignorant, wild-man comments put the country at risk". True, but isn't this risk far less than that of electing a President who is pledged to the Iran nuclear agreement? If Trump fulfills his vow to withdraw from the agreement, admittedly uncertain, does this not outweigh his reckless comments?

A Trump presidency will likely discredit the GOP, and make it harder to ensure that conservative governance remains its guiding doctrine. As awful as this is, it is outweighed by the permanent threat to American democratic governance presented by a Clinton presidency.

Submitting....

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Comment on this item

Mark my comment as a response to A Reply to Pipes' Reply by Stuart Fagin

Email me if someone replies to my comment

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

See recent outstanding comments.

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List
eXTReMe Tracker

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2021 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)