Ronald Kimmons for U.S. Congress

A noisy democracy is a healthy democracy. Even in this digital age, there is still plenty of room for old-fashioned protesting and other forms of public demonstration. Important issues are often swept under the rug or not adequately addressed by our major media outlets, and important viewpoints are often dismissed without society considering them as much as it should.

There is nothing wrong with grabbing a sign or a flashlight and taking to the streets to make yourself heard and try to make a difference. However, too often, protesters do not seem to understand some of the fundamentals of human psychology and how their actions will influence others. If you want to go out and do something to draw attention to an important issue, follow a few basic points to make sure that you aren’t doing something that ends up being counterproductive.

Stop thinking about yourself. This is not about you. This is about your audience. If you are taking to the streets, it is because you want to change someone’s mind. Think about the person whose mind you want to change. What does that person want? What does that person care about? The hardliners on the other side are probably hopeless cases for the most part, but there are probably plenty of people who are in the dark or undecided who you can influence for the better. Everything you do should be with these people in mind. Think about how your demonstration will come across to them. Will they be confused? Offended? Will they laugh at you? In that case, you should probably rethink things. You may feel that the righteousness of your cause validates any method of protest, but even if that is true, the reality is that you will not win any hearts and minds by thinking in this way.

So whether you are a feminist wearing a vagina hat or a Second Amendment advocate carrying an assault rifle around in the streets, please realize that your methods may not have the desired results.

Focus on communication, not attention. This is actually just an extension of the previous point, but I am reiterating it because it is important. Protesters often think that the most important thing is to get as many eyeballs as possible, so they will often do outlandish things to get those eyeballs, without regard for the cost. It is not enough to get people’s attention. You need to communicate a clear message that people can identify with in a way that they can understand. Otherwise, all of that attention you just received may have actually been counterproductive.

Again, think about your audience, the people whose minds you seek to change. Imagine if you saw a protest in which your neighbor was stomping a picture of your deceased grandmother. Would you like this? You probably would not think: “Hmm...this guy has something important to say.” In his mind, it may not be offensive because he actually knew and loved your grandmother, and he is trying to show his displeasure with the fact that she died of cancer relatively young, so he wants people to donate to help cure cancer. In his mind, it’s okay because he is stomping on the memory of her dying. But to you, he is just stomping your grandmother’s picture. Maybe his intentions are pure, and maybe his method makes sense in his mind, but he should be thinking about how it appears to the people looking on. (I am looking at you, national-anthem-kneelers and flag-stompers.)

Have a specific, achievable goal. The fatal flaw of the OWS movement was its lack of a goal that made any sense. It is not enough to tell everyone that you are displeased with “the system”. A general expression of displeasure alone just makes you look like a whiner.

Some OWS groups did have a laundry list of specific things they wanted, but these lists were numerous and often contradictory, and many of the items were not achievable at all. It is okay to have lofty goals, but those are no good without immediate, attainable goals. OWS failed in that it called for the complete deconstruction of our social, political, and economic landscape without providing a workable roadmap for doing that – or even a clearly defined destination.

It is not enough to point out that something is wrong. Tell us what is right, do it with some clarity, and tell us what we can do right now to work toward that.

Respect the law. Notice that I did not write “obey the law”. At the height of the Civil Rights Movement, Martin Luther King, Jr., and others found it necessary to break certain laws that they thought were immoral laws. However, in doing so, they made it clear that they still respected the institution of law. As King once wrote:

I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law.

I will not say that a protester should never break the law. There are cases in which it is necessary. However, in doing so, one should not seek to create a general state of civil unrest, but to simply show for everyone how unjust that specific law is and how immoral it is for agents of the state to enforce it. At best, one who breaks the law and runs away is a revolutionary in what he sees as a full civil war - something that no one should be anxious to start. But he is probably just a terrorist or hoodlum.

Don’t be a jerk. Something that I never understood about the terrorist bombers in various parts of the world is their tendency to kill the very people they are trying to get on their side. Similarly, when we are talking about protesters in the West, we may not be talking about violence, but they do often victimize the very people they should be trying to win over. For example, blocking traffic.

What purpose does this serve? All it does is make the general public hate you because you are making them late. Also, you may think that firebombing parked cars or vandalizing businesses is a highly artistic method of self-expression, but there are people who work every day to pay for those things, and they probably feel differently.

Know your symbols. Symbols are very, very powerful. They elicit thoughts and feelings that guide human behavior. So make sure that the symbols you use actually reflect the values you claim to hold. For example, it has become popular for protesters to wear this mask.

Most commonly, it is used by left-ish secular types who say that religion should stay out of politics and claim to dislike military interventionism and violence in general. So it is rather ironic that this mask actually commemorates Guy Fawkes – a man famously caught in the act of religiously motivated terrorism. (He tried to blow up Parliament with everyone inside in response to the government’s persecution of Catholics.)

Check your spelling. You are about to participate in an event that could be televised and reach millions of people. It probably will not help your cause if your sign makes them think you are a “moran”.

I am reminded of when Abraham Lincoln once argued that the Fugitive Slave Law should be observed and enforced even though he disagreed with it. His argument was that we must at times follow bad laws because doing so shows our respect for Law itself, and it maintains our ability to peacefully change the laws we dislike.

Republicans are supposed to believe in rule of law. They are the ones who are supposed to err on the side of order, while it is the Democrats who flagrantly ignore laws that they unilaterally deem to be "unfair" according to the most recent definition of "fairness".

Not when Donald Trump is in charge of things.

Joe Arpaio has been declared in contempt of court for blatantly defying court orders regarding his disregard for people's constitutional rights. In response, as this article suggested that he probably would, Trump has now pardoned Joe Arpaio.

Upon hearing this, many Republicans will undoubtedly shrug their shoulders because, like Trump, they agree with what Arpaio was doing. Even though it violated the law. And we are not just talking about a law passed by Congress, as the Fugitive Slave Law was. No, we are talking about the Constitution itself - something that Republicans supposedly hold to be sacrosanct.

If you are willing to throw the Constitution to the wind as soon as it is convenient in order to hurt those whom you deem to be "enemies", you do not believe in the Constitution. No, not at all. At this point, you are showing that you do not believe in rule of law, but only believe in rule by force.

It doesn't matter if you think we are too soft on illegal immigrants.

It doesn't matter if you think it was really cool for Joe Arpaio to spend taxpayer money on a tank (yes, that kind of tank) that he neither needed nor used while sheriff.

It doesn't matter if you like the fact that Joe Arpaio made convicts wear pink and live in tents.

It doesn't matter if you think Joe Arpaio's corrupt use of government funds is not a big deal and excusable considering the many cool things you think he has done.

This is not about what you do or don't like in the text or application of our current laws.

This is about the institution of Law as a concept. This is about living in a modern liberal (in the true sense) democracy rather than an authoritarian state like North Korea or a failed state like Somalia.

As stated in the Denver Post:

In the end, the only legally binding check on law enforcement is the authority of the judiciary to say what the law is — and be listened to by the cops on the streets.

Some will see this issue and just double down on claims that unconstitutional action is merited because illegal immigration has gotten out of hand. What such people do not understand is that, regardless of the real problems that exist due to illegal immigration, those problems are nothing compared to what will happen when our government completely disregards the Constitution.

Let us also remember that tyranny always, always, always arises on the back of claims that some particular matter has gotten out of hand.

Some will tell us that we should trust the police and not the courts. Others will tell us that we should trust the courts and not the police. The truth of the matter is that neither should be fully trusted or vilified. Both comprise imperfect humans whose power should never be absolute. This is the beauty of the system of checks and balances that is supposed to exist in our country.

Regardless of your reasons, if you are willing to overlook this severe infraction on constitutional governance and affront to rule of law on the part of Arpaio and Trump, you are marching us toward becoming a police state. And ironically, in doing so, you are joining with many people you would otherwise see as political rivals. You are giving the same kinds of excuses, and you are overlooking the same kinds of blatant wrongs.

In response to Donald Trump’s most recent attempt to establish federal policy via Twitter, I think that, as I often do, I am going to have to take a policy position that will anger people on both sides of our contrived political aisle.

Military policy is about life and death. Not just for those individuals currently serving, but for our entire nation. That being the case, it is my general philosophy that the military is not the place for political correctness, political statements, or social experiments. The military should do what works, and its leadership should tell both “liberals” and “conservatives” to go to hell if they demand anything different.

As Twitter only allows 140 characters per tweet, Trump was not able to give many details for his reasoning, despite the fact that he decided to get verbose and stretch his edict out to make it an epic series of three tweets. All that he expressed on Twitter was that this decision was motivated by:

...the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail...

By “tremendous medical costs”, we can assume that he means gender reassignment surgery. As for “disruption”, he will need to explain how transgender people are more disruptive than homosexuals, who, as of now, are still allowed to serve. I will await his explanation before commenting on that.

My position on all of this is simple: No civilian authority should place a statutory ban on transgender people serving in the military, but the military should not be required to pay for gender reassignment surgery either.

Some have countered Trump’s Twitter edict by saying that the total cost of such surgeries is negligible with regards to the military’s total budget. I am not convinced by that. The fact is that this simply is not something that the military should be paying for. We can come up with any number of possible elective expenses and say that the military should pay for them because they would account for just a small percentage of the total budget. The fact that it is a relatively small expense in no way implies that it is an expense that the military should cover.

Transgender people may feel inclined to say that the type of genitals they have does not play any role in their ability to do their job. However, if that is the case, that only shows that the military should not, in fact, be paying for gender reassignment surgery. You cannot simultaneously argue that an expense item is both work-related and irrelevant to your ability to do your job.

If a particular service member feels that he or she is incapable of doing his or her job without gender reassignment surgery paid for by the military, the military should be able to weigh its options and decide internally whether to pay for the surgery or discharge the service member. That should be a decision made by military staff based on the value of what this individual brings to our nation’s defense, and not by politicians or activists.

Some will say that gender reassignment surgery is a necessary expense such as treating battle wounds or replacing a failing kidney. However, the fact is that it is not comparable. Gender dysphoria is not something caused by war or by the work done in military positions, and it is, by all accounts, a pre-existing condition. If that condition is manageable such that gender reassignment surgery is a purely elective thing (as it is for many transgender people who do not seek surgery), there is no reason for the military to foot the bill for an elective surgery such as that. If the condition is not manageable without surgery, the military should have the ability to deny entry to transgender people who have not yet had gender reassignment surgery on the grounds that they have a pre-existing medical condition making them unfit for service, just as the military would deny entry to a man needing a kidney transplant. In either case, there is no reason for the military to be paying for this surgery.

I do not want decisions about who is or is not fit for service to be made by either left-wing social justice warriors or right-wing religious fanatics who are trying to turn the military into a microcosm for what they want the rest of the country to be. Instead, I want such decisions to be made by those who actually have some idea about how they will affect the military and its ability to do its job. Similarly, I do not want funds set aside for the defense of our nation to be used on something that even those requesting the funds would say has no bearing on the defense of our nation. It is not Donald Trump’s place to issue a ban on transgender service members contrary to the advice of those in the Defense Department. As for his stated concerns, those can be addressed by clearly expressing that our military will not be paying for gender reassignment surgery unless it feels that it has good reason for doing so.

When Obama was President, I saw an unending stream of conservatives responding to his puerile “Yes we can!” slogan with chants of “No you can’t!”

I would really like to see some more of that pugnacious spirit and rejection of assumed authority right now.

Jeff Sessions, our current U.S. Attorney General, has recently moved to reverse Obama-era policies regarding law enforcement.

“Great!” some conservatives will say. “If it’s from the Obama era, it must be bad!”

But what if I told you that Sessions is actually advancing more statism and unconstitutional overreach rather than less?

All of this is regarding the practice of civil asset forfeiture. In a nutshell, that is the policy of allowing law enforcement officers to seize your property if they suspect that it has been involved in the commission of a crime.

Theoretically, the idea is to just facilitate investigation and halt crimes in progress. In practice, though, it brings up many constitutional concerns. This is because what ends up happening is that people are punished by the law based on simply the suspicion that a crime has been committed. People lose their property, and if they want to get it back, the burden of proof is on them to show that they did not commit a crime. In many cases, people lose their property and never get it back - or get it back only after a long and laborious process - when they were never even arrested, let alone convicted of a crime.

Under the Obama Administration, Anthony Holder’s Justice Department noted that many law enforcement agencies were abusing the practice of civil asset forfeiture. One thing that was being done was that, even when local and state law officers had to obey certain strict guidelines regarding civil asset forfeiture, they could often get around this through something called “adoptive seizure”. And what is adoptive seizure? That is when local or state authorities seize your property and then turn it over to the federal government, which does not have to abide by the same strict guidelines.

And here is the key point: the federal government gives local and state authorities a substantial portion of the value of assets that they seize.

The much-maligned (and for good reason) Anthony Holder saw the problem with this arrangement, and as a result, he made it more difficult to abuse the process.

However, Jeff Sessions has other ideas. He has announced his intentions to expand the practice of adoptive seizure once again.

In case I have not made it obvious enough yet:

The current practice of civil asset forfeiture is wrong because people are supposed to be assumed innocent until proven guilty, and it does the reverse.

As someone who holds many conservative views, I have found myself frequently clashing with other conservatives over the constitutionality of various policies advanced by Donald Trump and his administration. I can see the counter-arguments on some of those questions of constitutionality, but I really do not see any solid counter-arguments here. This is statism. This is fascism. This is everything that constitutionalists are supposed to be opposed to.

Civil asset forfeiture should be allowed on some level, yes. However, it must come with strict protections. Specifically, there should be a moratorium: if a certain amount of time has passed and the person from whom the asset was seized has not been charged of a crime - or if he or she has been acquitted of said charges - the asset must be returned. Period.

Any system of civil asset forfeiture that does not include such protections is clearly in danger of empowering a corrupt police state.

During the election, Trumpistas frequently exulted over the claim that Donald Trump was “Not a politician!” For a non-politician, though, he has grown strangely fond of blatant doublespeak. (Though perhaps a real politician would not be so blatant about it?) Such doublespeak characterizes many of his policy positions, but quite notably, it characterizes his position on foreign trade.

In April 2017, Donald Trump said:

I’m a nationalist and a globalist. I’m both.

This appears to have been yet another instance of him departing from the rhetoric of his campaign. Consider the seven steps he laid out during his campaign to protect American jobs from foreign competition. These points are indicative of his position on foreign trade prior to taking office: he was a nationalist advocating protectionism. Everyone else is the enemy. They are taking advantage of us. We have to get tough and stop letting them. So on and so forth.

At least, that was his stated position. There were of course the many instances in which his companies chose to source from China and elsewhere rather than from the United States. Officially, though, he was a nationalist and a protectionist.

So to put it simply: When other people buy from China, that is bad because they are bad globalists, but when Trump buys from China, that is good because he is a good globalist.

This phenomenon can be seen yet again in Trump’s attempted ban on (some) Muslims entering the country.

On the one hand, Trump ordered a travel ban from Muslim-majority countries like Iran and Yemen on the grounds that, being Muslim-majority countries, there is a high threat level when it comes to the possibility of terrorists entering the USA from there...even though there has never been a fatality in the United States resulting from terrorists coming from those countries. Despite the lack of fatalities, Trumpistas would say that those countries are still dangerous because they are still full of Muslims.

On the other hand, Trump’s travel ban did not affect other Muslim-majority countries such as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates...even though terrorists from those countries have killed thousands of Americans on our own soil.

Some may be confused by this, but it is really not very confusing: when it comes to banning legal residents coming from Muslim-majority countries where he has no business dealings, Trump is a nationalist, but when it comes to banning tourists coming from Muslim-majority countries where he has business dealings, Trump is a globalist.

Donald Trump’s ideological complexities regarding economics and security do not stop there, however.

For example, consider employment.

When it comes to the reliability of low unemployment statistics while Barack Obama was president, being a job-loving nationalist, Donald Trump disregarded them as phony numbers, saying:

The number is probably 28, 29, as high as 35 [percent]. In fact, I even heard recently 42 percent.

Such claims were of course tied to claims that the Chinese and Mexicans were stealing all of our jobs, etc.

Now, as President, Trump plays the exuberant globalist, gushing about low unemployment numbers reported by the same government agencies as before. An example of this can be seen in the following tweet from Trump’s press secretary:

Apparently, not only are government labor statistics now reliable, but our trade relations with China and Mexico are not so bad after all, as unemployment below 5% is not evidence of “stolen” jobs. This may be one of the reasons why Trump departed from his seven-point plan and decided not to label China a currency manipulator after all.

Enough with the nonsense.

The honest truth is that Trump is neither a nationalist nor a globalist. That would require him to actually believe in something. Rather, Donald Trump is simply a fast-talking salesman who will tell you whatever he thinks you want to hear at the moment so that he can get the deal signed and proceed to do whatever he wants to do. This is how he has always done business, and we should not be surprised that he continues with such unmitigated doublespeak and dishonesty now.

Anyone who pays any attention to my blog or my social media presence knows that I am no lover of Donald Trump. Even from the beginning of the election cycle, when I thought he didn’t have a chance, I criticized him more than I criticized Hillary Clinton, and that’s saying something. That said, I have to take a stand in support of both Mitt Romney and the Mormon Tabernacle Choir regarding what some would describe as their newfound support of Trump.

On March 3, 2016 – a day which will live in infamy – Mitt Romney, unsuccessful Republican presidential candidate from 2012, openly and publicly denounced Donald Trump and called on other Republicans to do the same. He of course drew the ire of many staunch party-line Republican voters, but he was praised by many never-Trump Republicans, Cruz Republicans, Democrats, etc. That being the case, when it became evident that he was being considered for Secretary of State – and when it became evident that he was meeting with Trump to discuss the matter – many called him out as a traitor and a turncoat who just wanted a high position in government.

I disagree.

I think Mitt Romney’s actions in that instance were the actions of a level-headed patriot. Donald Trump has been elected. We cannot change that at this point. I have been openly critical of Donald Trump, but if I could put myself or Mitt Romney in Trump’s cabinet, I would jump at the opportunity. I would do it because I know that having someone like myself or Romney there would probably be better than having someone picked by Trump to fill the role. (Such as a Big Oil executive who has troubling ties with foreign despots.)

As Secretary of State, Romney of course would have needed to tone down his anti-Trump rhetoric. He would have needed to criticize only in private. He would have needed to have shown a certain level of submission. However, he also would have been able to steer a lot of the creation and execution of policy in the Trump Administration, which is much more influential – though less flashy – than the role of the persecuted gadfly.

Of course, Trump hates Romney, as he hates anyone who doesn’t absolutely love Trump. Trump considered the appointment only because he knew that there were many Republicans out there who, though voting for him, only did so because he was running against Clinton, and might in fact vote against him in four years. Trump wanted to convey a certain sense of solidarity among conservatives. (Which is why he gave an appointment to Ben Carson after having previously compared the man to a pedophile.)

Romney knew this. Romney knew he was being used to try to ensure Trump’s re-election in 2020. He also knew that their meeting – normally something that would be held in private – was held in public specifically because Trump wanted photographs of it to show how Romney had come to kiss his ring. I do not think that Romney swallowed his pride for the sake of his pride: I do not think he went to speak with Trump simply because he was power-hungry and would take whatever he could get within Trump’s administration. Rather, I think Romney swallowed his pride for the sake of the country. He did it because he saw the opportunity – however slim – to stand as a voice of reason within the Trump administration.

Neither man has spoken of their conversations in detail, but judging by the circumstances and the characters of both men, here is what I and many others assume happened: Trump told Romney that he could have the position if he agreed to issue a public apology for his previous comments – one probably written by Trump himself (like how Trump probably wrote that statement from his doctor) – and Romney refused.

I applaud Romney for openly denouncing Trump. I applaud Romney for swallowing his pride and talking with Trump about the Secretary of State position. I applaud Romney for (I assume) refusing to issue a public apology. In all three instances, I think Romney did exactly what a patriot would do. He put country before both party and personal pride. The fact that Trump did not appoint someone like that to his cabinet when he had the opportunity just further confirms what we already know about Trump.

More recently, the Mormon Tabernacle Choir has come under fire for accepting an invitation to perform at Donald Trump’s inauguration. I have seen critics writing about how this is “despicable” and how it is supposedly indicative of a culture of hatred, intolerance, and bigotry within the Church. (My church.) On the contrary, it is indicative of a culture of tolerance, temperance, and civility.

The Choir did not specifically request to perform at Trump’s inauguration because the Church wants to show any kind of overt or implied official support for Trump, his party, or his platform. In fact, the Choir did not request to perform at all. As with the numerous instances in which it has performed at inaugurations for presidents from both major parties, the Choir was invited.

Officially, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is politically neutral. It does not support parties or platforms. It does take stances on specific political issues that are relevant to the teachings of the Church, and it does recognize that there are aspects of the platforms of both major parties in the United States that are in line with the Church’s teachings. Considering that stance of political neutrality, when the Choir is invited to perform at a presidential inauguration, what is the politically neutral thing to do? One can say either yes or no. There is not another option. It is clear the more politically partisan thing to do is say no. So the Choir and the Church said yes.

Knowing that some would interpret this as evidence of support for Trump and his policies, Church spokesman Eric Hawkins said the following:

The choir’s participation continues its long tradition of performing for U.S. presidents of both parties at inaugurations and in other settings, and is not an implied support of party affiliations or politics. It is a demonstration of our support for freedom, civility and the peaceful transition of power.

If the Choir were to politicize its invitation to perform at the inauguration by refusing to attend, every inaugural performance after this would be deemed a tacit show of support for the new President and his platform. The Choir would never be seen as politically neutral again.

As a father, I would not leave Donald Trump alone with my daughter. As an entrepreneur, I would never do business with Donald Trump or his companies out of fear that he would never pay me. As a conscientious conservative citizen, as with 22% of the voters of Utah, I voted for Evan McMullin because I could never vote for Donald Trump and look at myself in the mirror. That said, if I were a member of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, I would still perform at Donald Trump’s inauguration. I say that because, as Eric Hawkins said, I want to demonstrate my support of freedom, civility, and the peaceful transition of power. Yes, I support freedom even when it means that my fellow countrymen will use their freedom to elect a corrupt vulgarian to the highest office in the land. Yes, I support civility even in the face of an elected leader who does not. Yes, I believe in the peaceful transition of power even when that power is being given to Donald Trump. Call me crazy, but I remain optimistic that a Trump presidency will still be preferable to a bloody revolution. In this way, I am better than Trump himself, who called on us to march on Washington when Obama was re-elected in 2012.

Some are pointing to the numerous artists who have refused to perform at Trump’s inauguration and saying that the Mormon Tabernacle Choir should learn from them. However, this is a false comparison. If I were a famous rock star, I would not perform at Trump’s inauguration. But again, if I were in the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, I would. I say this because, as an individual, I will never claim to be politically neutral, because I am not, but an institution such as the Mormon Tabernacle Choir can be. The Mormon Tabernacle Choir has been around since 1847.  It has performed in a weekly radio broadcast since 1929. It has already performed at the inaugurations of five U.S. Presidents so far. President Reagan referred to the Mormon Tabernacle Choir as “America’s Choir”, and the nickname has stuck.

If you think Trump is too bigoted and misogynistic for the Choir to grace him with its presence, remember that the Choir performed at President Johnson’s inauguration. (Johnson was unabashedly racist in private meetings, proudly referred to his penis as “Jumbo” while showing it off to people, and made a practice of unexpectedly crawling into bed with female guests at the White House.) If you think Trump is too corrupt for the Choir to perform at his inauguration, remember that the Choir performed at President Nixon’s inauguration. In those instances – as in this instance – the Choir was performing for the country, not for the president-elect. It is not in the nature of such an organization to suddenly stop participating in national events just because the nation has made a poor decision.

In short, Donald Trump has been elected, and we have to live with that. It does not mean that we have to roll over and die. It does not mean that we should refrain from any appearance of cooperation or compromise in order to maintain our purity. It means that we have a long road ahead of us. It means that we have to show that we are better than Donald Trump by showing that we are able to act like adults and accept reality – even while we move to change that reality through rational thought and civility.

In closing, a quote from Bernie Sanders:

To the degree that Mr. Trump is serious about pursuing policies that improve the lives of working families in this country, I and other progressives are prepared to work with him. To the degree that he pursues racist, sexist, xenophobic and anti-environment policies, we will vigorously oppose him.

In opposing Clinton, I have to deal with a deep ideological divide between myself and what Clinton supporters stand for. It is difficult to appeal to them when we do not care about the same things and when we essentially speak different languages. In opposing Trump, though, I have to deal with something even more banal and frustrating: the blatant disregard for facts. Trump supporters give us reasons for not supporting Clinton, Johnson, McMullin, etc., and sometimes their arguments are legitimate, but too often, they utterly fail when it comes to recognizing how those same arguments are even more relevant for their own candidate. My brother just drew my attention to a real whopper of a blog post in which the writer is guilty of just this. Since I know many other Trump supporters out there probably feel the same way, I could not help but write a rebuttal of the writer’s logical fallacies and ignorance of facts.

These Republicans are terrified that if Donald Trump is elected president there will be major shakeups in Washington. He will shine a light on the dark backroom deals that have resulted in policies like Obamacare, The failed war in Syria, and 20 trillion dollars in debt. The livelihoods of their wealthy corporate backers are on the line and with that their own power and perks in Washington. For that reason they would rather see Hillary Clinton become president than Donald Trump. They feel like they can work with Hillary.

Trump supporters talk about how Trump is going to bring corruption to light, but it is just wishful thinking. He has an extensive history of political corruption. Even if he does bring some corruption to light, it will only be because the people involved are rivals. Meanwhile, he will continue to bribe and threaten his way into getting what he wants and using public powers for private benefit. Because that is what he has always done. He has openly admitted that he makes a practice of buying politicians, and one example of his use of these corrupting influences would be his history of eminent domain abuse. Then, of course, there are the recent allegations that Trump bribed Pam Bondi and Greg Abbott. In what universe does it make sense for a man with this kind of record to be lifted up as an anti-corruption candidate? Trump is being billed as anti-establishment, but his donations helped create the establishment. He has attended the establishment’s sex parties, and he still golfs with the establishment. Trump does not want to destroy the establishment: he just wants to hijack it.

So enter Evan McMullin, Crony Capitalist Spoiler. No one in the world including Evan McMullin believes Evan McMullin is going to be elected President. What the corrupted Republican establishment and the Clinton campaign hope is that he will keep Donald Trump from getting to 270 electoral votes and thus guarantee a Hillary presidency.

If Evan McMullin wins Utah – which, at this point, seems likely – this will not help Hillary Clinton in the slightest. It is mathematically impossible for McMullin’s six electoral points in Utah to help Clinton. If Clinton hits 270 (which she probably will), the question of whether or not McMullin takes Utah from Trump will be irrelevant. If Clinton does not hit 270, the decision will go to the House, and the House is not going to elect Clinton. The only way McMullin could help Clinton would be by splitting the conservative vote in Utah such that Clinton wins the state, and current polls are showing that to be highly unlikely.

It is highly ironic that McMullin is being dismissed here as a “Crony Capitalist Spoiler” when Donald Trump openly sought Wall Street donors – and, by his own standard, is owned by Wall Street. And note that Trump’s claim of his campaign being “self-funded” has always been an outright lie. Trump supporters have created this vision of Donald Trump as some sort of purist who is incorruptible and would never use government powers improperly, but it is pure fiction. In addition to Trump’s history of corruption as noted above, he has shown a blatant disregard for constitutionality and division of powers. As usually happens with Trump supporters, they are comparing rivals to a fictitious version of Donald Trump that is obviously – and laughably – inaccurate.

When the GOP Establishment Never Trumpers and their Clinton allies went looking for a 3rd party spoiler they needed someone with a constituency of sheeple who would follow him regardless of the obvious logical outcome (President Hillary.)

Again, it is highly unlikely that McMullin’s campaign will contribute to a Clinton victory. That could only happen if he causes Clinton to win Utah. And right now, he seems to be the leader rather than a spoiler, and that momentum continues to build.

There were plenty of Republican politicians who had lost to Trump in the primary or who had foregone a run in 2016 and didn’t like Trump much or were outright hostile to him, but not a one of them would put their name on the line and be the fall guy who put Hillary in office. So plan B – find a weak-minded demographic and create a leader for them.

The support for McMullin actually shows that Utahns are significantly less “weak-minded” than Republicans across the country. A weak-minded person simply accepts the options he is given, no matter how terrible they may be, and similarly accepts oft-repeated falsehoods such as “a vote for McMullin is a vote for Clinton” even when they are demonstrably untrue. A weak-minded person trusts that Donald Trump will champion conservative social issues and appoint conservative Supreme Court justices when he is fine with men entering women’s restrooms and dressing rooms (and, in fact, does so himself), when he took five different positions on abortion in three days, and when he thinks government should be able to forcibly close places of worship when no crimes have even been committed. If Christian conservatives think their religious liberty is safe from Trump’s “suggestions” because they are not Muslims, they should think again, as such action would create a far-reaching precedent that would absolutely endanger them as soon as the governing administration similarly deems their church’s teachings to be “hateful” and “dangerous”.

In 2016 that good person is Evan McMullin. The Never Trumpers couldn't talk Romney into another run, or Huntsman or any Mormon politician you had ever heard of.  So they created Evan McMullin from thin air and Goldman Sachs receipts.

In this paragraph, the writer of this article is trying to convince us of a blatant lie. He is suggesting that Evan McMullin is being funded by Goldman Sachs. I challenge him – or anyone – to provide evidence that McMullin’s campaign is funded by Goldman Sachs. It is not. He has, however, received $1,000 from employees at Morgan Stanley. If that is all you can dig up to implicate him as a Wall Street crony…you are failing miserably. He received more money than that from donors at the Alaska Cancer Institute. Meanwhile, Donald Trump has received donations totaling over $15 million from the folks at Renaissance Technologies. The company’s Wikipedia page describes it as “a New York based American investment management firm”. Yeah.

In building on our sense of fear for a Clinton presidency, the writer continues:

Her tried and failed economic policies of higher taxes and more spending will eventually bankrupt our nation. Her support for wars and conflicts not in our interest will bleed the best of our youth.

Do you know what will bankrupt us even faster than “higher taxes and more spending”? Lower taxes and more spending. According to the Tax Foundation (which has been frequently criticized for unfairly favoring conservatives), even after accounting for the increased economic activity resulting from lower taxes, Donald Trump’s tax plan will result in a decrease in tax revenues of between $2.6 trillion and $3.9 trillion. Meanwhile, Trump tells us that he is going to increase military spending even though we already account for about 40% of all global defense spending. On top of that, Trump promises that he will eliminate the entire $19 trillion national debt in eight years. How will he do this, exactly? Where will the money come from? He did suggest one way: he said that he would not default on the debt because “you print the money”. So Trump is going to eliminate our national debt by printing $19 trillion in new currency. This would basically destroy the world as we know it.

Trump zombies keep telling us things like this: “Don’t vote for someone who can’t win! You will make Clinton win!” But the thing is that we were telling that to them during the primaries, and they didn’t listen. Now that they have nominated someone who can’t win - and have thereby pretty much sealed the deal for Clinton - they expect the rest of us to throw away our principles to help them save face. If beating Clinton is as important as they say, they should not have given us the worst Republican candidate in a century. Trump’s weakness as a general-election candidate became painfully apparent when WikiLeaks revealed that the DNC’s preferred Republican rival was Trump all along.

To recap, the writer at the blog cited suggests that Mormons are being fooled into supporting Evan McMullin because it will result in a Clinton win and because McMullin has been bought and paid for by Goldman Sachs. In truth, though, it is impossible for a McMullin win in Utah to contribute to a Clinton victory, and McMullin has not received a dime from Goldman Sachs: Donald Trump’s Wall Street ties are actually much stronger than McMullin’s.

A lot of disturbing things have happened and are happening in this election cycle. However, nothing in this election cycle has disturbed me more than the blind faith that many in the evangelical crowd give to Donald Trump. I have seen their arguments all over the Internet, but this pastor has collected all of the main arguments into one place. Having read his piece, I cannot help but issue a point-by-point rebuttal of this flawed reasoning, which, I must say, is nothing short of frightening.

Donald Trump’s stated positions on numerous issues are directly contrary to the Republican Party’s platform. This is the case for things ranging from abortion to economics to civil liberties to foreign relations. And if you think that the Republican Party is going to be calling the shots for Donald Trump rather than the other way around, you apparently do not know the first thing about Donald Trump or the office of President. Sitting Presidents have long shown themselves to be more powerful within their respective parties than official party leaders, and everything about Donald Trump’s personality shows that he will push that paradigm to the limit.

At some point, you need to have minimum standards. “I would rather deal with a church attendee who is blatant and brash in his sinning than one who is devious, lying, cunning and deceptive.” Wrong. Absolutely wrong. Both are unacceptable. Any difference is so small that it does not matter. And even if a difference does exist, it will vary from one situation to the next. Will you sit by and allow someone to assume a leadership role in your congregation when he brags about his sins, says he does not need God’s forgiveness, and openly encourages others to sin? Actually, I will take a quiet hypocrite over the brashly proud sinner, because that person has less of a tendency to influence others.

There is much more uncertainty to Trump than to Clinton. The whole problem with Clinton is that, in a nutshell, she represents everything that is currently wrong with Washington. That being the case, though, we know exactly what to expect from her: more of the same. Trump, on the other hand, is absolutely unpredictable. Donald Trump took five different positions on abortion in three days. How can anyone possibly say that they know what to expect from him? Having contributed significantly to the corrupt system that is now in Washington (and, interestingly enough, having contributed to Clinton’s campaigning in the past), Trump also represents what is wrong with Washington. He has essentially admitted to this. But on top of that, he also brings a high level of uncertainty. Clinton may not have real principles, but she claims to, and she generally acts as one faking those principles would be expected to act. Trump, on the other hand, does not even seem to know which principles he is pretending to have.

Trump does not have a history of scandals relevant to public office because he has never served in public office. Clinton and Trump come from different backgrounds. Even so, his scandals still challenge Clinton’s in severity: note that he does have plenty of scandals and purported scandals with at least as much substantiating evidence as the purported scandals for Clinton. For example, when asked if they think that Bill Clinton raped any under-aged girls while partying with convicted pedophile Jeff Epstein during their many activities together, Trump supporters will almost always answer in the affirmative. Under-aged sex slaves were being kept on Epstein’s plane and private island, so Clinton is at least guilty of something by association, right? And yet, the very Trump supporters who would accept this as fact upon hearing the accusation would disregard almost identical allegations against Trump by default - even though we now have three witnesses saying that he raped one of Epstein’s thirteen-year-old sex slaves. On several occasions, I have specifically seen Trump supporters immediately assume Clinton’s guilt but then say that evidence of Trump’s guilt is insufficient - even though there is more evidence of Trump’s guilt than of Clinton’s. It truly is a wonder to behold.

I demand evidence substantiating the claim that “Trump is slowly being surrounded by increasingly good people.” I will flatly tell you that, believe it or not, there are good people supporting Trump. It is mind-boggling to me, but it is true. That being said, I also feel the need to say that there are good people supporting Clinton. Again, I know such people. As for those immediately around Trump, though, I find it hard to believe that there is anyone of noteworthy moral fiber who will be influencing his decisions. I challenge any Trump supporter reading this to give me a short list. The author of the article to which I am responding failed to do so. It is just one of his many completely unsubstantiated generalizations.

The claim that “Trump is right on approximately 75 percent of the issues… Hillary is wrong on 100 percent of the issues” is based on absolutely nothing. I do not think the author put any real thought into this estimation. Does the author agree that we cannot address the substance abuse epidemic except through improved treatment, prevention, and training? Does the author think that we should shore up our manufacturing sector and bring back “Made in America”? Does the author think that we must fully commit to supporting veterans? If the author agrees with even one of those points, then he agrees with at least one major point on Clinton’s platform, which he probably has never read. Therefore, it is plainly false for him to say that “Hillary is wrong on 100 percent of the issues” by his own standard. Of course, he may think that Clinton does not really mean these things, but that is another issue entirely, and there is pretty objective evidence showing that Trump quite frequently says things that he does not mean. (Again, five different positions on abortion in three days. Come on.)

No Christian can say that globalism is “spiritual and demonic at its core”. Neither can a capitalist. (Anyway, Trump does not really oppose it - at least not the bad aspects of it.) We are all the children of God, and global capitalism has brought billions of people across the globe out of poverty. Time and again, protectionism has proven to be as much a flawed and self-destructive economic policy as communism. One does not need to look to the Keynsians and other “liberal” economists to see the dangers of protectionism: Hayek and Friedman were both adamantly against it. A nation cannot tax itself to prosperity, even (or especially) when those heavy taxes are applied to imports. Any real conservative should understand this. As for the author’s hysteria about “principalities and powers”, everything about Donald Trump - Mr. Two Corinthians - absolutely screams “evil tyrant pandering to Christians as much as possible”. If you cannot see that, I am sorry, but it is the obvious truth. I cannot imagine anyone testing the limits of constitutional powers more than Trump, who has already shown himself to be an enemy of the Constitution on numerous points.

I agree that not voting is not a viable option. Not going to argue that one.

Who would you vote for if the Republican nominee were Hitler and the Democrat nominee were Stalin? Clearly, there comes a point at which you cannot in good conscience vote for either of the major-party candidates you have been given. We have not been given Hitler and Stalin, but I submit to you that we have in fact crossed that threshold such that neither candidate meets minimum standards.

Virtually all of Trump’s positions are fluid. “Trump has moved pro-life.” Yes, he has. He has moved pro-life..and then pro-choice...and then pro-life...and then pro-choice...depending on his audience. Again, five different positions in three days. It is utterly ludicrous to think that any supposedly pro-life position he now supposedly entertains actually means anything. But if we are going to look at the evidence of what he has spent the most time being, he is pro-choice, recent lip service notwithstanding.

Trump cannot build the strong military he says he will build. And he does not know why we do not use nukes. For these two reasons, Clinton is better on defense and security than Trump. I will first address the first point. Trump says he will build a strong military. He also says that he will eliminate the national debt in eight years. There are three ways of eliminating the national debt: default, printing massive amounts of money, and massive budget cuts. He actually suggested the first two but then later backed down and said The Media was lying about him. As for budget cuts, if you think he can cut the $2.5 trillion (out of $4 trillion) from the national budget that he would need to cut in order to pay off the national debt within eight years without cutting defense, you do not understand basic math. As for the second point, in Trump’s own words regarding nuclear weapons: “Then why are we making them? Why do we make them?” (If we are not going to use them.) Obviously, we have them so that we never reach a point at which we might wish that we had them. If he does not understand that simple idea, he does not need to be in charge of our nuclear arsenal.

Clinton does not think “everything is fine.” Her platform - like the platform of the Democratic Party - is fundamentally based on the assumption that everything absolutely is not fine. That is what it means to be a “progressive”. The suggestion that she thinks “everything is fine” is unequivocally dishonest. Also, note the logical contradiction between this and point #3. You cannot say that Clinton represents uncertainty and then say that she represents the status quo. Well, I suppose you can, but you would be disagreeing with yourself.

Trump is worse than Clinton when it comes to government budget. Of course Trump says he will address the national debt, but he says a lot of things, and a lot of those things are contradictory. Again, you cannot seriously approach our government’s budget woes while promising to increase defense spending. We already account for roughly 40% of all defense spending for the entire planet. There is no rational plan to eliminate our national debt that does not include defense cuts. Trump himself said this! I quote: “I think you're going to have to do a lot more cutting. If you're going to balance budgets, you're going to be doing a lot more cutting — and there's no question about it.” Though, to be fair, that was before he was trying to woo Republican voters.

Trump has a long history of political corruption. He has been contributing to the corrupt political paradigm for decades. Again, he has even admitted to it. That being the case, I see no reason to believe that Trump will expose “crony capitalism” and destroy it. In fact, protectionist policies like what Trump proposes tend to revolve around the desire to reward government cronies. Trump supporters will try to combat this assertion by saying that Trump is incorruptible because he is self-funded. However, they ignore the fact that he is not and never was self-funded. The fact that he would so blatantly lie about it so many times speaks volumes.

It is no secret that Clinton is an advocate of big government. However, it is clear that Trump is as well. In fact, like Clinton, Trump loves big government particularly when it benefits him, such as when he used his corrupt influence on local government to utilize eminent domain powers to his advantage. (This is supposed to be something Republicans get riled up about, but they are apparently going to give a pass to people named Trump.) Beyond that, when he advocates shutting down places of worship because he does not like what they are preaching, Soviet-style, no one can honestly say that he opposes big government. Of course, his advocates will say that it is okay because he is targeting Muslims. But they will then fail to understand how it could happen that this same power could be extended to Bahais, Sikhs, Buddhists, and yes, Christians in the future. That is what happens when you create a precedent for constitutional overreach.

Trump openly opposes at least two of the three basic freedoms mentioned here. It is highly ironic that the author of the cited article states that “Trump fully grasps the loss of religious liberty” when Trump is the only candidate of the two who has called for closing down places of worship and banning people from the country based on religion. I challenge anyone reading this to give me an example of Hillary Clinton suggesting anything even remotely similar. Again, you may think that Trump’s suggestions are not dangerous for you because you are not Muslim, but once you give government precedent for such action, you are allowing government to do similar things to any religious group that it deems “dangerous”. This would be obvious to everyone if we were not talking about Muslims. As for economic freedom, note again that protectionism is the opposite of that. As Frédéric Bastiat wrote: “Slavery is a violation, by law, of liberty. The protective tariff is a violation, by law, of property.” Trump is selling us tyranny and mercantilism under the guise of “Make America Great Again”.

Trump’s list of Supreme Court nominees is meaningless. Again, five different positions on abortion in three days, and you expect this man to be true to his word and appoint justices who will advance conservative principles? He could not even make it to election day without being guilty of a complete reversal on one of his major selling points. And this is not an isolated instance. Trump is a dealer. He will say whatever will make the person he is dealing with happy at that particular time, and he will renegotiate anything at any point so long as it is beneficial for him to do so.

I also wish to honor the Lord Jesus Christ in every area of my life. That is why I cannot vote for Donald Trump. As written by the prophet Isaiah: “...this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men”. As a follower of Christ, I cannot vote for a man who embodies everything Christ was against simply because he quotes “Two Corinthians”. The author tells us: “Candidly, I want King Jesus. He rules in my heart.” That being the case, he should rethink #9. If Jesus Christ were running as a minor-party candidate, would he counsel us to vote for Trump out of fear that we are wasting our vote?

Hillary Clinton has been accused of many things over the years. From Whitewater to Benghazi to the email scandal, there is hardly anyone in Washington who has been implicated in more cases of wrongdoing. Her supporters insist that it is just a right-wing obsession: after so much effort has been expended for so long against the Clintons, if any of it were ever legitimate, you would think that something would have stuck - so they must be innocent of all wrongdoing. All of the hate in the face of a clear lack of convictions shows that she is fundamentally honest - despite the objective evidence that she is not, because who cares what Libertarians think?

But is it possible that at least one of the many damning allegations were actually true, and that Hillary Clinton escaped justice only because of technicalities and/or favors from friends? If it were possible, exactly how possible? It just so happens that there is one case in which there is an objective mathematical probability of her innocence. That case would be the controversy surrounding her wildly successful investment into cattle futures. In a nutshell, according to her, she invested $1,000 into cattle futures and turned that into nearly $100,000 over a period of 10 months. According to her critics, she used these transactions as a front through which to accept bribes for her husband, who was then governor of Arkansas. Assuming that her trades were legitimate, how likely is it that a novice could pull this off, with or without advice from savvy investors? The thing about this case is that experts are actually able to mathematically calculate the probability of her innocence. And, in this case, that probability - even making certain allowances in favor of the investor - is 1 in 31 trillion.

Thirty-one trillion is a huge number. It is difficult for us to wrap our minds around it. So to help illustrate just how unlikely her innocence is, I have compiled a list of some other highly unlikely things that are still much more likely than her innocence.

#1: Dying in a Shark Attack

Despite their prevalence in headline news, shark attacks are actually quite rare. Even rarer are shark-related deaths. The probability that a shark will be the last thing you see is about 1 in 300 million. But that is still at least 100,000 times more likely than Hillary Clinton’s innocence.

#2: Winning the Powerball Lottery

With a jackpot in the hundreds of millions of dollars, Powerball is huge. However, anyone hoping to win it is of course competing against millions of other people. So what are the chances of winning? They vary over time, but at the moment, if you were to buy a ticket today, the probability of you winning is calculated at about 1 in 292 million. Again, that is at least 100,000 times more likely than Hillary Clinton’s innocence. Let me restate that: It is about as likely for you to win Powerball 100,000 times (if there were that many prize rounds) as it is for Clinton to pull off the investment miracle she claims to have pulled off.

#3: Dying in a Comet, Meteor, or Asteroid Impact

Asteroids may not hit our planet very often, but when they do, the can cause colossal devastation. According to one astronomer, within the scope of all of history, “a human being has a 1 in 700,000 chance of getting killed by an impact from space in their lifetime.” (This is calculated for any given human in all of history, and not for any given human alive today.) So it is about 44 million times more reasonable to assume that you will die in a comet, meteor, or asteroid impact than to assume that Hillary Clinton has never accepted a bribe.

#4: Starting a Billion-Dollar Company

Well, if you are an aspiring entrepreneur, that is. For those seriously engaged in this pursuit, the chance of hitting the billion-dollar mark is a little bit better than 1%. (Obviously, if you are not now a serious entrepreneur, it becomes less likely.) That being the case, for entrepreneurs, starting a billion-dollar company is about 310 billion times more likely than what Hillary Clinton claimed to accomplish.

#5: Becoming President as a Libertarian

The folks at FiveThirtyEight have proven themselves to be pretty accurate in their calculations of who will win political elections. It’s not clear exactly what chances they are giving Johnson at this point, but the fact that they are even putting him on a graph that is denominated in units of one tenth of one percent shows that his chances of winning are far better than 1-in-31-trillion.

#6: Getting Sexually Assaulted by Bill Clinton

In addition to the various allegations of adultery that have been leveled at Bill Clinton over the years, there are also numerous allegations that he has actually engaged in sexual assault - including compelling evidence that he frequently partied with convicted sex offender Jeff Epstein on his plane and private island that hosted under-aged sex slaves. If just one of these sexual assault accusations is true, that would mean that the chances of any random female alive today having been sexually assaulted by Bill Clinton are roughly 1 in 3.7 billion. Again, that is thousands of times more likely than Hillary Clinton’s claim.

We have heard Trump supporters say it over and over: Trump may be a jerk, but Clinton is the devil, so vote for Trump. Since you will never be able to vote for someone with whom you agree 100%, you will always have to make some allowances. To some degree, you will always have to choose the lesser of two evils. To address that argument, I have a few mental exercises that I would like to run by Trump supporters.

Campaign Finance Hypocrisy

Any Trump supporter will tell you that Hillary Clinton has no principles: she merely has interests, and whatever policy position she currently takes is taken based on those interests alone. One example of this is the matter of campaign finance. For example, she has said that she is adamantly opposed to the “dark money” in politics that flows in through Super PAC frameworks. Not only do Super PACs allow billionaires to contribute limitless funds to political campaigns, but by going through a 501[c][4] “social welfare” organization first, said billionaires can even make such contributions anonymously. It is an outrage, and Clinton is campaigning on that outrage. However, contrary to her official position, Clinton has actually accepted millions through Super PAC frameworks to fuel her campaign, and she is no stranger to dark money either.

On top of Clinton’s hypocrisy regarding Super PACs, one must also consider her overt hypocrisy regarding the specific donors whose money she has accepted. In one of the Democratic primary debates, the candidates were asked “Which enemy are you most proud of?” to which Clinton responded: “Well, in addition to the NRA, the health insurance companies, the drug companies, the Iranians. Probably the Republicans.” And yet, she has accepted millions in donations from drug companies and health insurance companies. One must wonder whether she is a terrible enemy or a terrible friend. She has also excoriated Wall Street firms and blamed them for many of our country’s economic woes, even while she receives millions in donations from Wall Street. As any Trump supporter will tell you, the hypocrisy is mind-boggling.

But let’s entertain a hypothetical scenario. Let’s consider what Trump supporters would do if Trump were to prove himself a hypocrite and/or liar when it comes to campaign finance. Would they do as they expect Clinton supporters to do and abandon their candidate? For example, note how Trump has reminded us repeatedly about how his campaign is self-funded, which makes him beyond reproach and absolutely incorruptible. But what if we were to find out that he is not exactly self-funded, despite his claims? What if he had a big, fat DONATE button on his website this whole time, through which people, in a dizzying case of cognitive dissonance, gave him money because they were elated that he was self-funded? What if the vast majority of the funds that Trump himself contributed to his campaign were in fact loans that he could then pay back to himself from money donated by others later on? What if New York Times analysts were to conclude that “$2.7 million went toward reimbursing Trump-affiliated companies for services provided to the campaign, such as traveling in his own plane and helicopter”? Of course, we know those liberal shills would probably be lying, but what if they weren’t? What if Trump not only accepted money from Super PACs, but also allegedly coordinated with them in an illegal manner? And what if, after all his talk of being self-funded, Donald Trump were to follow up on a presumptive primary win by saying that he actually intends to organize massive fundraising efforts anyway? Would you consider abandoning your candidate at that point, Trump supporters? Of course you would, because you are fundamentally more principled than Clinton supporters are.

Bribery

When Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas, over the course of ten months, Hillary Clinton made a number of investments into cattle futures. As a result, she was able to turn $1,000 into about $100,000 during that period. That is some savvy investing. How savvy? So savvy that experts have calculated the odds of such success under the given circumstances to be 1 in 31 trillion. This would be a world-class performance even for a seasoned professional investor, which Clinton was not. Actually, given the probabilities, and assuming that everything was done legally and legitimately, her investment performance could make her the luckiest person in all of human history. 

Trump supporters will allege that this is all just too perfect, and that what clearly happened is that Clinton, rather than engaging in legitimate investing, used the investments as a front through which to accept bribes for her husband. They will say that the highly suspect nature of this whole affair is made even more evident by the fact that her broker’s records - the only hard evidence that could possibly incriminate her - were conveniently destroyed. Trump supporters will say that anyone thus involved in obvious bribery has no business being President of the United States.

In light of that, let us consider a hypothetical scenario to test the values of Trump supporters. Suppose that - hypothetically, of course - Donald Trump, over the course of a few decades, actively participated in the paradigm of corruption and cash politics in our government by effectively bribing politicians to suit his own business ends. Now assume that Trump were to say something like this while on stage in a GOP primary debate:

I was a businessman. I give [campaign donations] to everybody. When they call, I give. And you know what? When I need something from them, two years later, three years later, I call them, and they are there for me.

So, for example, if Trump were facing certain unsavory investigations or lawsuits regarding his business practices, he could have - hypothetically - given money to the future Governor of Texas Greg Abbott or Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi with the understanding that they would halt all undesirable actions against Trump in their respective states. Now assume that there were some blatant attempt to silence the whistleblower drawing attention to this hypothetical case of corruption.

Or here is another hypothetical situation: Imagine that Donald Trump, in duking it out with his GOP rivals during the Republican primary race, were to bribe one of those rivals - say, Ben Carson - into giving him an endorsement in exchange for a position in his presumptive administration, in violation of the following policy:

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 599, “[w]hoever, being a candidate, directly or indirectly promises or pledges the appointment, or the use of his influence or support for the appointment of any person to any public or private position or employment, for the purpose of procuring support in his candidacy shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if the violation was willful, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.”

If Trump (again, hypothetically) were suspected of being party to such illegal bribery, would Trump supporters level the same scrutiny at him as what they would level at Hillary Clinton? I am sure they would, of course, regardless of their concerns about Clinton. This is because principles are important to Trump supporters, and Trump would have lost all moral high ground under those circumstances. Hypothetically.

The Lolita Express

Jeffrey Epstein is a high-powered billionaire and high-society philanthropist. He is also a convicted sex offender who, according to witnesses, would frequently lure under-aged girls to his home and private plane on the pretext of getting them opportunities as models. Witnesses allege that he and his guests would then solicit sex from those under-aged girls. Epstein’s plane became so infamous in some circles, in fact, that it was nicknamed “The Lolita Express”.

Trump supporters may recognize Epstein’s name because they may be familiar with the fact that one of his good buddies - listed in his little black book and a frequent flyer on The Lolita Express - is Bill Clinton. Clinton flew on Epstein’s private plane at least 26 times, to be exact. With a Hillary Clinton presidency looming, presumably with Bill Clinton filling a high-profile role in government as well, Trump supporters will tell us that this should be a disqualifying association. They will tell us that, even if Clinton never had sex with any under-aged girls while hanging out with Epstein, it is clear that he knew what was going on and did nothing about it. Some will even go so far as to say that Bill probably did have sex with under-aged girls and that Hillary probably helped cover it up.

Now, I want to present a hypothetical. Suppose - and I know it’s highly unlikely - that Donald Trump were also listed in Epstein’s little black book. Suppose that he also flew on Epstein’s plane and also visited Epstein’s private island with sex slaves. Suppose that, after clearly having been exposed to him well enough to know about his activities as a sex criminal, Trump described Epstein as “a great guy.” Now, Trump supporters, suppose that at least two witnesses were to come forth and allege that, while partying with Epstein, Trump raped a 13-year-old girl four times and then threatened to kill her if she ever told anyone. After accepting the implications of Clinton’s association with Epstein at face value, would you subject Trump to the same level of scrutiny as Clinton? Would you say that these allegations would disqualify him for the presidency? Of course you would. Decency would demand it.