Donald Trump has shown, once again, his stunning lack of understanding, when it comes to the electoral process, coupled with his usual overwhelming arrogance.
Not a good mix.
Speaking at a rally in Iowa, in typical Trumpanzee:
“If you really like Donald Trump, that’s great, but if you don’t, you have to vote for me anyway. You know why? Supreme Court judges, Supreme Court judges,” Trump said at a rally in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.
“Have no choice, sorry, sorry, sorry. You have no choice,” Trump continued, calling the late Justice Antonin Scalia a “great guy” and acknowledging tied decisions at the Supreme Court after his death.
Trump said the next president “will probably have three, could be four, could even be five” appointments to make to the Supreme Court, alluding to the ages of senior justices.
I’m going to ignore that annoying, as well as disturbing habit he has of speaking of himself in third person. I want to address this belief that is being hammered by not just him, but those who feel compelled to repeat it, out of party loyalty.
While he is correct in his assessment of the situation with the Supreme Court, and it remains vitally important that no liberal be allowed to stuff the court with their activist judges, several concerns face the voters.
To begin, we can’t say who a President Trump would choose, and how it would be any different than having any other liberal pick the judges. The convention for the new Trumplican party was chock full of liberal speakers, liberal ideology, and a total abandonment of any conservative principles.
Other than those dancing in the aisles, as Trump and the RNC allowed the co-founder of PayPal to rail against traditional values, or his daughter to push a debunked narrative of gender pay disparity, there was no joy or hope involved with that convention. Only the dark vision of a nation that needed an authoritarian “strong man” to fix what was wrong.
Trump’s own speech, where he proclaimed, “Only I…” should have frozen all the revelers in their tracks. Every person who voted for Trump in the primaries, every politician who endorsed the man should have found themselves in a moment of horrified clarity, saying to themselves, “What have I done?”
Next, we should consider Trump’s “best brain” and who is acting as that brain. Right now, it is Paul Manafort, a shadowy Svengali, with questionable ties to some dangerous people. How much influence would Manafort and those foreign ties have over Trump’s decisions, once in office?
Then there is the simple matter of “have to.”
No, Mr. Trump. No one is under any threat or compulsion to vote for someone who violates their conscience or their principles.
So far, we still have that liberty.
We also have Gary Johnson, Darrell Castle, or Jill Stein to vote for.
I couldn’t ever see myself voting for a Jill Stein, as she would likely kill business in this nation for ages to come with overregulation through environmental policies.
Third parties are an option, however, and one that has long been decried as the “spoiler” option, blocking one of the big two parties from drawing enough votes. Ross Perot was the last third party candidate to really make an impact.
Can a third party win this year?
Anything is possible, long shot as it may be. That being said, it’s not about their chance of winning so much as it’s about the idea that we are locked into the two party system and are being told we must choose one of two evils.
When one who seeks to lead says you have no choice, you should always question why, then explore your options.