Letting Hillary Clinton win is a big mistake

Submitted by John Meyer (United States), Jul 21, 2016 at 18:08

I was for Walker, then Rubio, then Cruz, but I do not share your views on Trump. This neofascist stuff is nonsense. Trump is a nationalist and populist who is against the current liberal establishment and vigorously opposed to Political Correctness. Clinton wouldn't even name the enemy, Radical Islamic Terrorism, until forced to by Donald Trump.

There is absolutely no chance of your parade of horribles. If Trump tried to do the things you fear, the courts would slap him down. Also, the Republicans in Congress would unite with the democrats if he started wholesale Executive usurpation. The exercise of muscle at the convention was mild compared with many conventions of both parties and Trump clearly had the votes of the delegates, even without these rules (which I oppose). And actually, it was the RNC establishment that did most of the Rules stuff.

If the Democrats had a good candidate who was moderate, then there would be a decision to make. As it is, the Democrats are further Left than ever and their candidate is just short of under indictment. She will continue to spend the USA into debt, continue to strangle the economy with regulations, undercut authority with the anti-police campaign which may return us to a high-crime situation like that before 1991.

We can be sure that Hillary Clinton will be a disastrous continuation of Obama's eight years.

With Trump, there is a range of possibilities, but nearly all of it is better than Clinton. I can concede that there are good reasons to dislike Trump, although I submit there are equally good reasons to despise Clinton as a person.

What Trump is likely to do is to engage in an ongoing battle with the liberal establishment; maybe he can shake their stranglehold on many sectors of our society and at least he is likely to stop the march of Political Correctness. Ther eis no doubt where he stands on Israel and Isreal may need someone who will go further than the State Department wants, especially in the matter of Iran.

I will concede that Clinton will be more predictable and possibly better in Europe and probably in East Asia, except that I expect there is a significant chance we will need to take drastic military action against North Korea before they become a thermonuclear power, not just an atomic power. Clinton won't do this; Trump may well take this decisive and dangerous action. Also, maybe he could swing a deal with China --something like China makes North Korea non-nuclear with our support, using any means necessary, and once this is done, the USA withdraws its forces from South Korea (the alliance remains, but U.S. forces don't). Outcopmes could range from a united, neutral Korea to China's taking over North Korea. North Korea is a danger to us, South Korea, Japan and civilization in general in a way that no other country, except potentially Iran, is.

The only viable route is for Trump to win -- or lose narrowly. In the crush-Trump scenario, we get a generation of a left-activist Supreme Court and Democratic majorities in both the senate and, probably, the House. By the time the republican Party is reconstituted after this disaster, we will have has anoth rtwo years like 2009-10 and we just can't affo9rd that at home. Abroad, we will have a complete disaster in the Middle East - and the Democrats' energy policy is likely to make us dependent on Middle East oil again.

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".