Decided: The Ten Reasons I’ll Be Voting To Re-Elect President Trump [6-10]

Hiding Biden meme

[Reasons 1-5 are here; the Preface to this exercise is here.]

6. I hate to quote Newt Gingrich, whom I detest, but in an appearance on Fox News yesterday predicting a Trump victory, he put his finger on a factor that the media (and pundits like Nate Silver) seem to ignore or not understand. (Newt is despicable, but he’s not dumb.) He said,

“In the end, as you watched these two candidates campaigning, I think it’s coming down to sort of a bunny rabbit hiding in a basement protected by the news media and a bear who is wandering around on the stage courageously without fear. If you think the world is dangerous, whether the dangers are riots in Philadelphia or the dangers are the Chinese communists, you probably want a bear that is strong enough to defend you and not a bunny rabbit that has to be protected by the news media. I think every day that Biden hides and Trump goes out and campaigns, the psychological message being driven to the American people is really deeper than just ideology or partisanship. It says one guy has the guts, the willingness, the toughness to actually be out here, taking on things including Covid. The other guy is hiding, frightened, hoping the news media will save him because he can’t possibly save himself. And I think that sinks in,” he continued. “And I think that’s why you are seeing in virtually every poll I trust we’re seeing a steady drift towards Trump and away from the undecided and away from sort of leaning towards Biden but not sold. My personal bet is it will lead to a surprising majority for Trump.”

I don’t quote Newt to suggest the likely outcome, but rather to explain how this factor influenced my decision. Reluctant leaders are lousy leaders, and for the most part, they don’t reach the Presidency, and shouldn’t. I admire Trump for campaigning so vigorously despite the chorus from the media that he will lose, despite the constant hate directed his way, despite being in his mid-seventies and having just had a bout with the Wuhan virus. The man is working. He wants it. I see no evidence that Joe Biden really wants the job, or, if he does, that he’s capable of fighting for it. If he’s not capable of fighting to be President, he is not capable of being President once he’s elected.

7. The decision by the Democrats to allow the Biden ticket to represent the party and its supporters in the 2020 election will stand as the most cynical, irresponsible and unethical act by any political party in American history, only rivaled by the same party’s decision to let a dying President Roosevelt run for a 4th term in 1944. At least that version of the party had some excuses: there was a world war to wrap up, and many in the party leadership didn’t know just how sick FDR was, since he actively hidden the fact. These Democrats have no such excuses.

The first time I saw Biden speak following his absence from the spotlight after the 2016 election, I was shocked at how terrible he looked. He always was an embarrassing speaker and of mediocre intelligence at best, but it was obvious that Biden was in the midst of age-related cognitive deterioration—and it has become more evident since. I admit it: once again, I was overly naïve about the ethical rot among our political leaders and the ignorance of the public. I did not think it possible that Biden could survive the primaries and end up as the nominee, even as his competition revealed themselves as unequivocally unfit as well.

It is disgraceful that Biden’s family would allow a man in his condition to run for the office. It is disgraceful that Biden himself, assuming he has enough marbles left to understand his own condition, to run when he is declining. Is it ego? Arrogance? Or just a byproduct of senility?  In the end, it doesn’t matter why a man who cannot do the job is offering himself to the people. It is wrong.

It is equally outrageous for Biden’s Vice-President to be Kamala Harris. Biden’s only Presidential-level decision so far was to fill a crucial job—especially crucial, given the likelihood that he will soon be disabled—and he made the choice based on gender and skin color alone. As Democratic voters quickly discerned during the primaries, Harris has no relevant experience, is driven by ambition without principles, and to be blunt, is a shallow, pandering fool.

8. I have already written enough about how disastrous the corruption of journalism in our country is for the future of democracy and the Republic. No matter who is elected this time, the consequences of the United States public being perpetually misled by political operatives masquerading as objective reporters can only be disastrous. As I think about it, this factor alone justifies voting for President Trump. The news media has to be taught that we will not tolerate its conduct, and moreover, that their schemes will not work.

9. I agree with bulk of the National Review’s most recent assessment:

Reelection is the only way of restoring the conditions that Trump created that eliminated unemployment prior to the onset of the COVID-19 crisis. This, coupled to his near-elimination of illegal immigration (against fierce Democratic resistance), generated greater percentage income growth amongst the lowest 20 percent of income-earners than among the top 10 percent — a noteworthy start on addressing the universal income-disparity problem. Only a Trump victory will ensure retention of the present relatively low personal and corporate income-tax rates and the avoidance of insane, highly damaging, and counterproductive shutdowns in cowardly terror of the coronavirus, which only mortally threatens 1 percent of the population, who can be isolated and protected.

Only a Trump victory will prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear military power within five years and North Korea from resuming its missile tests over Japan and South Korea. There are no grounds for confidence that the Democrats would maintain a firm but not belligerent economic and strategic containment strategy towards China, coordinated with India, Japan, South Korea, and other key allies in south and east Asia and Australasia. We know that if Trump is defeated, the country will be subjected not just to the self-flagellating provisions of the Paris Climate Accord, but also to the $100 trillion Green Terror assault on the petroleum industry and a bone-cracking rise in electricity costs after closing gas-fired electricity plants… Only a Trump victory would continue to promote private, charter, community, and separate schools that will reverse the steady decline of educational standards generated by the teachers’ unions, to which the Democratic Party is bound hand and foot…If President Trump is defeated, America will never know the proportions of or the people responsible for the greatest breach of the Constitution in the country’s history: the politicization of the intelligence agencies and of the FBI in an attempt to alter the 2016 presidential election, both before and after it occurred. Nor will it ever be established whether the Biden family’s receipt of millions from Russia, China, and Ukraine while Joe Biden was vice president constituted crimes, or just mere improprieties compounded by lies and disinformation.

10. The news media and social media embargo on the Hunter Biden laptop story was the final straw.

Trump is hardly a model for integrity, but the hypocrisy of his foes has been head-exploding. In the latest installment, provocative evidence relating to the matter the Democrats illegally used to stage a dangerous and invalid impeachment has been deliberately and buried by journalists and social media censors even as the double standards employed in doing so were brilliantly illuminated for all to see. The undeniable difference in the handling of this emerging scandal and the way the same organizations handled, to name a few, the various leaks during the Mueller investigation and such dubious evidence as the Steele memorandum. Then, last week, we learned that the New York Times not only published the supposed inside revelations of a writer calling himself “Anonymous” to smear the Trump administration, but falsely told its readers that he was a “senior official” to enhance credibility he did not warrant.

A week ago, the Times published another op-ed by the same Harvard “resistance” professors who concocted Big Lie #6: “Trump’s Defiance Of Norms Is A Threat To Democracy,” even as the Times continued to breach the most basic of democratic norms, that the public in a democracy must know the truth, not just “all the news that’s fit to print,” fit meaning “that supports the journalists’ political agenda.” In another op-ed in the same section, standard-issue Leftist Times op-ed writer Frank Bruni, closed with this flaming hypocrisy, referring to Biden’s closing remarks in the final debate:

I nodded along with his final remarks, when he said, yet again, “What is on the ballot here is the character of this country: decency, honor, respect.” He’s right about that, and he’s the right person because of that.“You know who I am, you know who he is,” Biden said earlier. “Look at us closely.”

“We” don’t know who Biden is, however, and Bruni, like the New York Times management, knows that. We don’t know because he has been hiding, because the news media has avoided asking him the tough questions that might reveal who he is, and because the Times and other alleged news organizations refused to investigate and report on evidence that suggested that he might be corrupt.

(I have more than ten reasons, incidentally. Here’s one that doesn’t make the cut: even though there is no chance of my vote making a difference in Virginia, which now has a progressive governor and lieutenant governor who embody everything wrong with the Democratic Party, another Trump victory without winning the popular vote will almost guarantee riots and “resistance” hysteria. In that sense, every vote really does count.)

35 thoughts on “Decided: The Ten Reasons I’ll Be Voting To Re-Elect President Trump [6-10]

  1. #7. I would also argue that the Democrats’ decision to anoint Obama as their candidate was quite cynical. Eminently unqualified and unarguably opaque, the Democrats (and the media) consistently characterized any questions regarding his demonstrable qualifications as “racist”.

    In the words of Uncle Joe: “”I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy…I mean, that’s a storybook, man.” [https://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/31/biden.obama/]

  2. 6. Newt Gingrich is a very intelligent historian and writer, and possessed of great political skill (though not enough wisdom to avoid getting toppled as Speaker). However, I think he is completely wrong on this one. The fact that Trump is out there rallying his base could just as easily be used against him as for him in the pandemic. He himself has already suffered coronavirus and bounced back, as have several key allies. He could arguably be called reckless, dangerous, and not in touch with the biggest problem that grips this nation. Arguably, Joe did have the courage to stand up to Trump’s attempt to bully him and tell him to shut up, which is more than most have.

    7. Agreed and agreed. I think the Democrats have done a VERY risky thing by creating a situation in which Kamala Harris could be president. She is all the things you said, and, arguably just as important, she is NOT well-liked, even in her own party. Maybe she is counting on her color and gender to insulate her from criticism? It might even work for a while, but color and gender are no substitute for skill.

    8. I agree. Unfortunately, I DO think they are going to work this time out, and the journalism industry will go back to sniffing the president’s chair and running interference for him and his VP, who will be their new darling.

    9. Yup, and all of that is likely to come to pass.

    10. Yup, and old Joe is likely to join Haireddin Barbarossa, Ivan the Terrible, Eamon de Valera, and Idi Amin in the ranks of bad guys whose bad actions never caught up to them.

  3. Regarding number 7, if you want to talk cynical, here’s cynical:

    Hilary was supposed to win in 2008. The DNC got caught by surprise by a black guy with little experience. They were more than happy to trade First Woman President for First Black President. But, the deal was: Hilary was next.

    Because of that deal, Biden did not run in 2016. Why wouldn’t the VP of a popular President run? That is probably your best chance of winning? The fix was in. The DNC just had to take out pseudo-Democrat, Bernie Sanders.

    And the deal was, Biden Was up next. Again, they just had to fend off Sanders. But, when it became apparent that Biden might not be up for the job, the DNC saw that it could win First Black Female President. And, all they had to do was get the Old White Guy elected. They don’t even have to find a candidate who can win, just another candidate who can cross the finish line.

    -Jut

    • Great observations – wheels within wheels and lots of horse trading.
      Just one other data point. According to the “always reliable” Wikipedia, when Obama unexpectedly won the Illinois Democratic Senate primary in 2004, he was identified as an up-and-comer. As a result, he gave the keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention in July 2004. He won his Senate election in 2004 and served as a senator from January 2005 to November 2008.

      • Yeah, I think that is all correct. For brevity, I condensed all of that into “little experience,” because often, his experience is watered down to “he gave one good speech at the 2004 convention,” and that’s an unfair condensation.

        -Jut

      • And then John McCain rolled over the last three months of the campaign and played dead. I know someone who believed there was a fix in then on both sides to let Obama win. I wouldn’t go that far, though.

          • Somewhat off-topic, but I think John McCain was strongly disliked among conservatives as well, and he was a bad Presidential choice regardless of the VP pick. That election cycle was doomed for Republicans almost from the start, and they knew it.

          • I think history will tell us that once the pandemic hit, the president was dead in the water and whatever chance he had vanished.

            • I would disagree. Trump was heading towards a likely landslide reelection and, despite the pandemic, still has a decent chance of winning. McCain was never a shoo in — and the crash and his too honest, too patriotic response to it totally doomed him.

              I thought at the time that McCain saw the crash as something we should unite to overcome and Obama saw it as an opportunity to pad his chances. In retrospect, McCain had other problems but I never did recover much respect for Obama.

              • But for the pandemic, the president would have been easily reelected. However, the other side sees it as nothing more than a hammer to beat him with, rather than something we should pull together to overcome. The same with the George Floyd freak out. The other side sees it not as a chance for this country to come together, but another weapon to beat the president with.

                • The same with the George Floyd freak out. The other side sees it not as a chance for this country to come together, but another weapon to beat the president with.

                  Who is beating the President using the George Floyd freakout?

                • And if the American people are so stupid to think that Biden or anyone else for that matter would have been able to mobilize resources faster to handle the pandemic and the outcome would have been better short of destroying the entire economy they deserve authoritarian rule they will vote for.

                  • The American people are angry and frustrated. They are angry and frustrated that a two-week shutdown to flatten the curve has become a nine-month ordeal with still no end in sight. They are angry and frustrated that the President seems to be out of touch with the reality on the ground and so out of touch about it that he himself got it. They are angry and frustrated that nearly a quarter million Americans are dead from this. They are angry and frustrated that a whole year’s worth of life events and the things that make life worth living has been stolen from them, that it’s almost certain Thanksgiving and Christmas will also be stolen, and where does it end? They are angry and frustrated that promised cures or treatments never seem to materialize. They are angry and frustrated that they can’t collect their rents and their real estate investments are endangered. They are angry and frustrated that small businesses are closing by the dozen. They are angry and frustrated that the market tanked. Most of all they are angry and frustrated that the current administration does not appear any closer to solving this than it did in March.

                    I guess there’s that feeling that an employer gets when his employee just can’t fulfill the standards he sets or keeps missing the targets. Ultimately he says “either you come up to snuff, or I will fire you and fill your position with someone who will,” and then he follows through and gives the employee his walking papers if he needs to. Maybe enough Americans are ready to give this perceived failure his walking papers.

                    • I don’t think the President’s supporters are angry and frustrated with him. I know I’m not. I am angry and frustrated with Governor Evers though. He’s the one closing down my state, trying to end everything that makes life worth living. I don’t know anyone who is a Trump supporter blaming him for the pandemic. The folks putting all the blame on Trump weren’t ever going to vote for him anyway.

                    • The question is what propetion of swing voters blamw him.

                      For examples, black voters (an solid Democratic constituency) probably blame Trump for the pandemic by a lopsided majority.

                      It is black swing voters who will help mske the difference-and their opinion of Trump’s handling of the pandemic may differ greatly from black voters in general.

          • I thought McCain had 1 chance, and he blew it by bowing to the establishment. McCain’s only advantage was his claim to be ‘outside’ the Republican inner circle, a maverick, almost an independent. People upset about the growing partisanship in government were his following. He wanted to appoint Joe Lieberman as his VP pick. That would have locked his candidacy as the candidacy against partisanship and towards bipartisanship. That was his ONLY advantage and he blew it by bowing to the demand to appoint a more conservative candidate and a woman. He needed to do something dramatic to get voters and Sarah Palin wasn’t it. Appointing a VP candidate who had formerly been a Democrat VP candidate would have been dramatic. McCain needed to be bold and he showed that he couldn’t be.

  4. Steve we agree on most things but I have to disagree here.

    I don’t see him as out of touch. Every mall in western MD has full parking lots. People are out doing their thing.

    Flattening the curve was accomplished but Fauci created the idea that flattening the curve would be a panacea. In fact it just extends the pandemic like a restrictive valve. Fauci has misled the public too many times but is heralded as oracle of all scientific understanding by the left.

    If people are angry because they lost 9 months of their lives I have to ask them who forced them to forego living. I understand that vulnerable populations remain at risk but we each have to decide what is most important to us. If my neighbor fears becoming infected he can choose to stay isolated. The problem as I see it is that Fauci and his followers are demanding people to protect others instead of themselves. This is the foundation of socialism.

    I would be willing to join a mobilization to curtail the virus by shutting down the economy if all persons who are making the decisions forego their salaries for as long as they keep the economy shuttered. No pain no gain.

    • I do, and I’m a (reluctant) supporter. The mayor of Newark and I agree on almost nothing, but he was out there from the get-go telling everyone to stay home, stay away from others, wear your damn mask at all times, wash your mask every day, etc. etc. Flattening the curve was accomplished, although we didn’t mash it flat like NZ because a nation of 330 million can’t be locked down and monitored like a nation of 8 million. No, we’re not going to mask this thing out of existence, or social distance this thing out of existence, or hide this thing out of existence, and I think that wasn’t explained too well. Yes, Fauci (a fellow Holy Cross graduate), was treated like he was all-knowing and all-wise. He is neither. However, because he appeared to be at odds with the president, a lot of folks jumped on him as the scientist that the crazy, out of touch president was ignoring.

      If people are shopping at malls I have to ask why. There’s almost nothing you can’t get online and no reason not to get it there. Most families have old people, people suffering from chronic health conditions, etc. Every time you make contact with a stranger or expose yourself to a stranger, you put those people at risk. My dad’s 77, so he’s at risk. However careful he is, he’s at risk, and if he dies, there could barely be a proper funeral now. My sister-in-law just lost her mom, and they are struggling to let everyone say their farewells. If she had died in April, they could have done nothing. I don’t want anything like that on my conscience.

      I admit, memes saying “I wear my mask because I care about others” are just annoying, and I guess the idea that “we’re all in this together” has worn off, just like it wore off after 9/11. There is a limit to how much limitation people will tolerate. However, people also fear death and harming those they hold near and dear. I remember whenever these arguments would erupt online, people would say that anyone who refuses to mask up or social distance should agree to refuse treatment for the virus, and then those opposed would say if you want to keep the economy closed then forego all income. Neither is workable.

  5. While there are a plethora of reasons how this election is going to turn out the way it turns out, my summary comments:

    1) If Trump loses, it’s because of his personality and behavior independent of media prodding. Frankly his impolite conduct towards the media as a reaction are quite understandable and defensible at this point. It’s his unnecessary prodding and poking at things on the side, unprovoked, that will cost him the election. Originally it would have been the abject propagandized caricature of him by the media that I would have said would have fooled enough voters, but at this point, I think undecideds are no longer convinced by the MSM’s portrayal of him, and the only one’s their distortions work on are the fools who were already 100% sold on the left wing worldview.

    2) If Biden loses, it’ll be hopeful proof that there is still a strong beating strand of American DNA flowing through our veins that says “we don’t like being told how to live”, “we don’t like self-styled superiors tut tutting our lifestyles”, “we don’t like people who sit on thrones judging our lives after having their own lives laid bare as amoral cynical monsters”, etc.

  6. 1. “Ick” is not a reason not to.
    2. He still hasn’t been given a chance.
    3. “Fuck it”, I think?
    4. Lefty Violence.
    5. Trump did a good job.
    6. Biden is weak and awful.
    7. Biden is weak and awful.
    8. The Media is Corrupt.
    9. Trump did a good job.
    10. The Media is Corrupt.

    I know I’m grossly oversimplifying, and I don’t disagree with anything on this list per se, but I think you left out the most important reason to vote for Trump, really the only one that matters: You haven’t forsaken every policy position you hold dear.

    America is a two-party system, and those parties are very different. Very few people are single issue voters, but even the voters that are don’t usually choose “likeability” as their single issue. Trump is awful? Granted. But I still like Free Speech, I still like Gun Ownership, I still like low taxes, I still like competent jurisprudence, I still like the idea of freedom, and dislike the ability not to go outside (or buy seeds). And frankly, if the RNC runs a literal flaming brown paper bag full of shit, then I’d pull the level for the bag of shit and feel good about it, because I’m still not in favor of censorship, gun restrictions, high taxes, commu-socialism, justices like Kagan, mob rule, and obnoxious sloganeering. I don’t care who the Democrats nominate. Hell, they could nominate* me* and I still wouldn’t vote for a Democrat ticket.

    Let’s say that we’re ignoring Ick, people gave him a fair shake, the left wasn’t devolving into violence, Biden wasn’t weak or awful, and the media wasn’t corrupt… Would you really have voted in a Democrat? Or would you have done that virtue-signally thing that people do where they say they don’t vote top-ticket because even though they haven’t turned your back on everything they believe in, and they still really want their candidate to win, they couldn’t *possibly* support this candidate? Or would you have voted for the Republican?

    • You point out where I should have made clearer: I was listing 10 reasons that I believe should be shared regardless of core policy disagreements. I’ve had too much experience with deflections from Facebook Deranged who say, “Oh, no! Maybe SOME Democrats want to…[ban guns, restrain free speech, open borders, etc etc.] Fine. The party has disqualified itself regardless of what its supposed agenda is.

      • I’ve said off and on for years that “NAXALT” should be in the list of rationalizations;

        It’s a mutation of the “No True Scotsman” fallacy: With “No True Scotsman”, someone says “A person did that!!? No true believer in our ideology would do that! So they aren’t part of our ideology!” It’s kind of an ad hoc moral rescue where people try to distance themselves from members of their group by creating immaterial differentiations.

        With NAXALT (Not all X are Like That) The fallacious are admitting that people in their group do what you’re talking about, and they might even be admitting they don’t appreciate the behavior, they just want you to discount it or draw conclusions about the group from the actions of their members. Defenders (or users) of NAXALT will describe it as a call against bigotry: Because how dare you judge a group based on the actions of it’s members.

        The thing is that with NAXALT, users are giving away the premise even if you don’t realize it, because the subtext is “But obviously some are”, and the ones that are 1) can have a massive disproportionate impact and 2) are still part of your group, and derive part of their worldview from that association. While it would be wrong to judge individuals inside the group on the actions of other people in the group, it is not unreasonable to judge the group and point out significant problems with it’s ideology. And attempting to avoid conversations about ideological issues by pointing out that the issues aren’t universal isn’t honest.

        “Not all Muslims will become irrationally angry and behead people drawing cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad, Peace and Blessings be upon him.”

        …but some do.

    • You mean, I presume, to analyze a matter carefully and when all the data is in, and to make the decision unaffected by bias or expediency, or by fear of the enmity or insults of others?

      Thank you! I would expect no less from you.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.