You are not seeing the gist of the writers point.
He’s looking big picture and long term results of the two potential administrations, and then looking at it like you would a damage assessment.
His primary worry is the size and scope of government, which is the primary focus of most if not all conservatives.
The fact that you and other trumpers don’t even see it or acknowledge it is difficult for me to get my arms around.
To me it appears to be mass hysteria. Caused in part by viewing this contest with only the “right brain”, which is the emotionally laden part of the brain that is without any logic.
It is what it is...I am not even going to argue it. I recognize that I cannot counter it with logic or facts. Nobody can do that.
You and the author have convinced me. I’m going to vote for a treasonous scandal-magnet for president instead of a guy who has built a multi-billion dollar enterprise.
That way the next president can appoint Huma, Wasserman-Schultz, Cheryl Mills, and Elizabeth Warren to the SC.
Except the author really makes no logical arguments here. They simply wave their hands and cast many assumptions without coherent reasons for why anyone should believe any of this is so.
The best they can proffer is some hope that Hillary will somehow remain gridlocked by a GOP-controlled Congress and thus not be able to get anything done. Yet Obama has already empirically demonstrated that he can get what he wants, GOP Congress or not. And the GOP Congress demonstrates time and again that they’ll effectively do nothing to stop him.
I doubt a Hillary presidency will be any different from this sort of pattern. There’s also no telling if the GOP will be able to retain control of Congress come 2018 and beyond.
So, yeah. I’d take my chances pulling the lever for Trump > Hillary.
The issue is you assume Trump would expand government more than say Rubio or Cruz, and other than lip service what do you base this on? Sure Obama gave us Obamacare.. Bush gave us prescription drug coverage... Neither fall into limited government.
The dillusion far to many on the right have is that they believe the right has been holding the line on limited government. You think federal land grabs started with Obama? Banning of incandescent Bulbs? Rediculous safety spouts on gas cans? Large eggs now legally have no tie to the actual size of the egg? Etc etc etc. you think this expansion has been kept in check by republicans? If so you are ill informed.
Both parties do what their backers tell them, and their interests are stacking the government deck in their favor.
Trying to make any argument that Trump would be a failure by the folks who gave us Bish, Clinton,Bush and Obama is laughable. Trump may be a disaster, he may not, but for the folks who have given us those guys to try to say someone else would be worse is a hollow argument.
Who are these mythical fiscally conservative republicans of which you and the author speak? Paul Ryan? Mitch McConnell?
Yes, but the hysteria seems to infect only about 35% of likely GOP primary voters.
In other words, it's not as if an hysterical-but-minority movement could burn a Reichstag, overthrow an anticommunist government, elect a Duce, etc.
Oh, wait . . . .