Ryan starts off by saying that not voting for Donald Trump will help Hillary Clinton be elected. Quite true, but the questioner already gave his reasons why he could not do it. Ryan proceeds to say that he and others should speak out when they disagree with what Trump is saying, as the questioner has done. Then Ryan goes into how Republican policies will not got adopted if Hillary Clinton is elected and the direction of the Supreme Court will be set for a generation. Then he runs through the Ryan "agenda" which will not get done under Hillary because she represent a "third Obama term". He concludes with "It's a binary choice. It is either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. You don’t get a third option. One or the other. And I know where I want to go."
Now, he could have just stated that not every Republican or Democrat supports every policy laid out by their candidate but still support their nominee. And that he strongly objected to Trump's comments and xenophobic policies and he would oppose them if introduced as legislation but that he would still support the nominee. Instead, he actually was making the argument that racism and xenophobia were actually better than losing the election and the chance to pass some of his pet legislation. This really prompts the next question for Ryan. Would he still support a candidate who vowed to call a national emergency, declare martial law, suspend the Constitution, but would pass the Ryan agenda. Would that still be morally acceptable to Ryan. Where, exactly, would he draw the line?
No comments:
Post a Comment