Republican Congressman will vote for Hillary

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by vrDrew, Aug 2, 2016.

  1. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #1
    New York Republican, and construction business founder, Richard Hanna announced he would not vote for Donald Trump and would instead vote for Hillary Clinton.

    Rep. Hanna's letter really needs to be read in its entirety. But this stood out for me:

     
  2. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #2
    Good for him. I'd have even more respect if he was running for re-election.
     
  3. giantfan1224 macrumors 6502a

    giantfan1224

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2012
    #3
    I don't think the answer to that is the status quo.
     
  4. 0007776 Suspended

    0007776

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #4
    It certainly isn't Trump either, and staying where we are is a better option than making things worse in the hope that someday they may get better.
     
  5. LizKat macrumors 601

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #5
    I was struck by this:

    In his latest foray of insults, Mr. Trump has attacked the parents of a slain U.S. soldier. Where do we draw the line? I thought it would have been when he alleged that U.S. Sen. John McCain was not a war hero because he was caught. Or the countless other insults he's proudly lobbed from behind the Republican presidential podium. For me, it is not enough to simply denounce his comments: He is unfit to serve our party and cannot lead this country.

    Secretary Clinton has issues that depending on where one stands can be viewed as great or small. But she stands and has stood for causes bigger than herself for a lifetime. That matters. Mrs. Clinton has promoted many of the issues I have been committed to over the years including expanding education and supporting women's health care.

    While I disagree with her on many issues, I will vote for Mrs. Clinton. I will be hopeful and resolute in my belief that being a good American who loves his country is far more important than parties or winning and losing. I trust she can lead. All Republicans may not like the direction, but they can live to win or lose another day with a real candidate. Our response to the public's anger and the need to rebuild requires complex solutions, experience, knowledge and balance. Not bumper sticker slogans that pander to our disappointment, fear and hate.

    I would say that the bit to which I added bolding is a brief memo to Speaker Ryan, from a member of his own party. I wouldn't bet against Hanna having phoned or written the speaker, either.

    You're right in that one really should read the whole letter... and try to stand in Rep. Hanna's shoes as a REPUBLICAN writing this letter. It's clear he is pained not just by the unsuitability of Trump as national candidate. It's also the seeming inability of his party to make a course correction, as he points out, even with respect to being more inclusive of the Americans it needs to represent after the elections are over.

    Of course New York state is blue. But the Republican Mr. Hanna represents an upstate district, and we are not so blue up here. His district runs from the southern border w/ PA up to Lake Ontario, although not as far north as Watertown.


    NY22CDmap2016.jpg

    So there are some cities in the 22nd but some have many military families and there are a lot of farmers with pitchforks, too (to borrow from the days of Pat Buchanan's stump speeches) and some of them have probably been on the fence regarding national choice. They are not likely to go for Johnson as they're less liberal on social policy.

    In the end they may vote for Clinton at the top, on recollection of her attention to us while in the Senate, or skip the top tier and vote Republican down-ballot. The farmers do vote. Too bad they and Mr. Hanna are not in OH or FL where that letter of his might help swing the state. On the bright side, I have a feeling his letter will not prove to be unique among his peers in the GOP in the coming days.
     
  6. vrDrew thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #6
    That is a reasonable argument.

    But I think that you could describe the status quo as a situation where, thanks to naked, unprincipled partisanship - the House Republican caucus votes in unison against anything proposed by the President.

    It is difficult for me to imagine how electing Donald Trump would significantly alter that status quo.

    Trump would certainly face lockstep opposition from Democrats for most of his extreme proposals. And I suspect he would face considerable opposition from within his own party.

    Maybe the answer to changing the status quo is not - as Mr Trump seems to argue - electing a total outsider, with no knowledge of either the US political system, but international relations, economics, and the fundamentals of US and international law.

    Maybe the way to change the status quo is for Representatives and Senators of every party examining, and voting on measures based on their merit.
     
  7. giantfan1224 macrumors 6502a

    giantfan1224

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2012
    #7
    My comment was certainly not an endorsement of Trump. If change is what our political climate needs, Hillary is not the answer. It was supposed to be BHO but we know that was a campaign slogan made with smoke and mirrors. Hillary will only continue that facade.

    And let me just save you guys the time of commenting: I know, it was Congress' fault. It's always your opposition's fault. Amiright?
     
  8. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #8
    I do. The status quo has proven that it can advance society. The problems that we face today can be solved by people and parties working together. If our leaders can intelligently serve the public good instead of reacting with partisanship and obstructionism, then all of the problems we face are surmountable or survivable.
     
  9. 0007776 Suspended

    0007776

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #9
    But without a constitutional amendment to make things easier for third parties to win, and those third parties getting representation in Congress, this election we have two choices Clinton and Trump. They may be two bad decisions, but one of them will be president next January, you can wish you had another option but Johnson will likely not even win a single state. If you aren't for Trump you are for Clinton, and if you aren't for Clinton you are for Trump. The only other option is to decide that you don't care and sit it out, but that is about the same as supporting the one you like the least.
     
  10. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #10
    I'm puzzled by this statement. By analogy, you have a 100-year-old good, big, solid arts-and-crafts house with a good frame, but, it really, really needs new plumbing, which has never been updated. Do you tear it down and put in a new trailer, or, do you replace the plumbing? If you don't have the money to fix the plumbing right now, do you burn the house down out of frustration?

    Sometimes the status quo is better than the alternatives.
     
  11. tgara macrumors 6502a

    tgara

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2012
    Location:
    Connecticut, USA
    #11
    Who's Richard Hanna and why does anyone care who he will or will not vote for?
     
  12. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    #12
    Neoliberal policies have brought about the pain and anger that fuel the NeoFascist movement propping Trump up. My question to the Dems, seriously, is what is your plan to keep this anger and pain from being even more pronounced four years from now?

    I ask because they've made it crystal clear that the neoliberal system we have isn't going to be altered, at all, under either candidate. So yes, we're forced to vote for Clinton this go around, but next election things are going to be worse....so what's the plan to pre-empt it?

    What is going to change that's not going to make this a holding pattern going forward: Elect a raving lunatic, or the very status quo that has bred resentment as nearly every American's standard of living has declined. Does no one realize how cyclical this has the potential to become?
     
  13. vrDrew thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #13

    Life doesn't always present you with ideal choices.


    Sometimes its not picking between Rocky Road and Cherry Garcia. Sometimes it not even picking between Rum Raisin and and a tiny lump of freezing poison.

    Sometimes its the choice between a a somewhat stale peanut butter sandwich; and a very large lump of freezing poison.

    You might not enjoy chowing down on the peanut butter sandwich. But its still the better choice.
     
  14. AsherN macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 11, 2016
    Location:
    Canada
    #14
    At this point in time, you don't need a third party President., You need significant third party representation in Congress and the Senate. A third party President would change nothing as he would be opposed by both D and R in the House. However, a 3 way split of the House would force more of what is supposed to happen. Negotiation and compromise.

    I can tell you from experience North of the border, that while it is easier when we have a majority governmnt, a minority government always results in better legislation, because it needs to support of at least one opposition party.
     
  15. giantfan1224 macrumors 6502a

    giantfan1224

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2012
    #15
    I'm convinced we're being offered two crap sandwiches, it just depends on which crap you like better (or hate less). :(
     
  16. LizKat macrumors 601

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #16
    The thing is, the choices offered us as of the close of the primaries are Trump, and Clinton. If you live in a swing state, those are really the only two options.

    Vote for the sane one. That's Clinton. Set aside the baggage. Trump’s impulsivity completely disqualifies him for taking national office.

    The other thing is, incremental change is in fact possible. One line in a bill makes a difference. Clinton’s good at negotiating in the margins, and she knows Senators and Representatives who are good at that too. From across the aisles, in happier congressional times. They respected her work ethic. They would listen, because she had done the homework.

    Keep it simple. Of the two of them, Clinton or Trump, push come to shove, standing in the voting booth, thinking which candidate I should hire to get on a plane and go get the “USA” sign set in front of their place at some table in Brussels or Jakarta or wherever... I’ll take Clinton. Oh I will take Hillary Clinton at those tables any day.

    I’m all for change, but I’m not for change that results from some head of state taking offense at a Trumpian tweet and then deciding to overreact in kind. I like the kind of change where two or more parties agree there’s a need for change, and work on how best to define the challenges, and then propose, refine and implement some solutions. That’s not how Trump works, so I’d far rather cast my lot with Clinton and see how it goes at the margins.
     
  17. CalWizrd Suspended

    CalWizrd

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Location:
    NYC/Raleigh, NC
    #17
    What a remarkably intelligent comment.
     
  18. LizKat macrumors 601

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #18
    He's a Republican member of the House from a mostly rural upstate district in NY that has a lot of conservative farmers in it, a lot of military families in it, a couple of cities in it, and a lot of pissed off anti-establishment voters in it who don't care for either national candidate.

    And he's saying Trump is unfit to be president and he's voting for the Democrat, Clinton.

    Think of Hanna as the equivalent of the governor of a swing state for a moment, if you zoom in from state level to district level: he'd be the GOP governor in a reddish-purple state who just came out for the Democratic candidate for President, three months before the election, in a major metro newspaper.

    Sure, Hanna's just a pol saying hold nose, vote for Clinton. But he's in the GOP. She's the Democrat.

    I can say it but who am I. I'm a Demo so "of course" I might favor the Democrat.

    Hanna's a Republican member of Congress who has said it, and Republicans who actually voted for him might think he has a point. And say so to their friends. Etc. Drops of water fill the bucket.
     
  19. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #19
    He's the dumb half of Hanna-Barbara.
     
  20. APlotdevice macrumors 68040

    APlotdevice

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2011
    #20
    If he's dumb then Trump must be completely brain-dead.
     
  21. iShater macrumors 604

    iShater

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2002
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #21
    I must admit, this did make me laugh. :p
     
  22. DrewDaHilp1 macrumors 6502a

    DrewDaHilp1

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    All Your Memes Are Belong to US
    #22
    He's now a confirmed RINO.
     
  23. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #23
    Republicans - Party Before Country.
     
  24. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #24
    I'm gonna go out on a limb here and predict a lot of "moderate, common sense" republicans will be voting for Clinton in November even if they publicly say they aren't.
     
  25. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #25
    Here's the part that stuck out for me:

    Character is what this comes down to, let alone leadership. A Leader is there to serve others; causes greater than themselves. For those Christians, Can any of you remember reading the Bible and seeing Jesus talking about only himself and doing everything he did only for himself? Or did he have a greater belief in the causes that he championed, especially for those that believed in him?

    A leader is there to serve people, not to bask in their vanity. They are to admit their mistakes, learn from them, and get better, instead of blaming others or weaseling out of the consequences of their failures. I've been in business with people who easily could have walked away from their financial and legal troubles, who instead knew that the causes that got them into the troubles they were in were bigger than themselves, and brought themselves to near bankruptcy to make it better for us to have the advantages we had in business. Why? Because their cause was bigger than themselves.

    Trump's ego and narcissism will be his downfall; not only just in this election; but in his entire life, and his legacy.

    BL.
     

Share This Page