Editorial: Party over country? Citizens who won’t dump Trump
Here’s a question for the Republican Party faithful who have yet to reject presidential candidate Donald Trump: How far would you go?
If you knew his intention was to suspend our democratic system and our rule of law, arm the police and military to restore “law and order” — at least until we got all the “bad hombres” out of the country, and the Islamic terrorists and the drug lords and “all the many, many bad people” he keeps talking about — would you still cast your vote for him?
If you read up on the issue and came to understand that Hillary Clinton did not violate any laws by using her personal computer while Secretary of State (although the practice was deemed “sloppy and careless”) and that the tens of thousands of emails turned over to the FBI have yielded nothing that would compromise the integrity or security of the country, and that the issue of the missing emails was determined by the FBI not to be a crime or of consequence, would you still vote for Trump knowing he says he would prosecute Clinton and put her in jail if he is elected ?
Would you vote for Trump even though he incites violence against his political opponent by, among other things, suggesting that “Second Amendment folks” might want to “do something about it” if his opponent wins? And who said in last Wednesday’s debate that he might not accept the democratic result of the election, unless he wins.
Would you vote for Trump knowing that he idolizes the strong-arm tactics of dictators like Russian President Vladimir Putin, the one world powerbroker who has demonstrated a willingness to fight alongside our military opponents in Syria’s civil war, threaten strikes against the U.S. military, willingly use cyber attacks against us to manipulate U.S. election results, and all the while playing Trump for a fool?
Would you vote for a candidate who would break our ties with NATO, and possibly concede the countries of Eastern Europe and the Baltic states back to Russian dominance? Would you be proud to elect a candidate who consistently lies on nearly ever point he makes, who refuses to correct his comments even after they have been repeatedly debunked, who has no regard for the truth? Would you vote for a candidate who denies the forces of climate change, and who scoffs at the notion that his tax plan would bankrupt the nation’s treasury as most economists predict?
And would you be proud to elect a candidate who preys on women as if they were sex objects, even as his wife is upstairs at home pregnant with his child?
That is what a vote for Donald Trump means. It is not a vote against Hillary Clinton, it is a vote FOR all the things that Trump represents.
If you are a citizen ready to vote for Trump, that is what is meant by the phrase “voting for party over country” — that regardless of the harm that vote might cause the country, you still will vote for that person and party.
Vermont Republican gubernatorial candidate Phil Scott has long distanced himself from Trump and rejects his candidacy, as have many loyal Republicans, including some influential leaders. Vermont Republican State Chair David Sunderland, on the other hand, remains a steadfast Trump supporter. In Sunderland’s world, as in the world of other supporters, Trump is the only alternative to a Clinton presidency, which, to them “is unfathomable.”
Really? Here’s a man who stiffs blue-collar workers and small business owners for the legitimate work they have done for him, just because he knows they don’t have the money to prevail in a lawsuit; who ducked the military draft multiple times and insults the family of a heroic soldier who died saving the lives of others in his unit; and who is the first candidate for president who has refused to provide his tax returns for public review; and on and on and on.
And what makes his opponent unworthy? Missing emails? Even though the FBI cleared her of any crime and specifically noted that the whole issue has been overblown by Trump and was never an issue of national consequence. Certainly voters also have policy objections, but no other allegations — despite a life in the public spotlight for 30 years — that would deem her unfit to serve. In short, what makes Trump unfit for the presidency versus the Republican allegations against Mrs. Clinton are not equivalents; not even close.
If voters cannot make that judgment based on the abundance of available facts, then we are truly a nation in peril.
But if reason prevails and the election goes solidly against Trump, hopefully Republican voters will understand their folly, and will clean house of those leaders, including their reliance on conservative media, who perpetuated the lies, the false allegations, and the intolerable insults and innuendo that led the party to such low public regard and imperiled the nation in the process.
Angelo S. Lynn