But, this hits at the point several here are making.

Once one finds trump acceptable as the “only” choice at preserving “conservative” principles in exchange for a “win” (the “sure thing” not clinton, without consideration of probable and potential downside), one has already then effectively bargained them away.

Worse, later on, nobody can trust their argument made in favor of such “conservative” principles, simply because there is no consistency, to say nothing about the hyperbole they oppose (being so sure, as they are, that nothing could be worse), when the reality hits and doesn’t measure up to the hyperbole.

Worst is their argument underwrites the alt-r argument at “preserving “conservative” principles” and MAGA, associating the range of ideas representing conservatism with their “deplorable” (to borrow a phrase) ideas that have nothing to do with conservatism. It allows the alt-r to continue to pollute, following this election, the best political vessel conservatives have (had?) to create the change needed.

It was and is an unnecessary capitulation to a minority who were convinced that it all needs to “burn down”.

I expected the diversion and condescension, it’s not a bug, it’s a feature.

In the midst of Reconstruction, Congress approved a broad reorganization of the federal courts. The Judiciary Act of 1869 increased the size of the Supreme Court, established separate judgeships for the U.S. circuit courts, and included the first provision allowing judges to retire without losing their salary. After a period of six years in which the number of authorized seats on the Supreme Court shifted from nine to ten to seven, the act of 1869 restored the number of justices to nine, the same number of circuits established in 1866.

I see Hillary Clinton defeating Trump 5 weeks from now by about 5 million votes nationwide with Hillary Clinton winning just over 300 electoral votes, more than the 270 required.

But I also think that by January 2021, the Republican will have control over both house of Congress and will have won the White House. This will enable Republicans to do something similar to what the Reconstruction Congress did in 1869, expand the US Supreme Court.

We could expand the court from 9 seats to 11 or 13 or 15 seats, whatever is necessary to give us a conservative majority on the US Supreme Court.

This seems implausible. The odds don’t seem to favor it. But I would argue that the odds of Trump being a failed President are nearly 100 percent, given Trump’s track record.

Fight against all Clinton judicial nominees. Here we have a template that we can follow. When Antonin Scalia passed away, Senator McConnell quickly announced that Scalia’s vacancy should not be filled until a new president was elected.

If Clinton is elected, it is likely that she will win less than a majority of the popular vote. Senator McConnell can say, the day after the election, “Hillary Clinton did not receive a mandate from the American voting public to appoint anti-constitutionalist judges. Therefore, we will resist their confirmation.”

I also think that the 1976-1980 time period provides a great blueprint for how conservatives should conduct themselves if Hillary Clinton defeats Trump in November.

I think that just as Jimmy Carter’s 1976 victory over Gerald Ford turned out to be to the advantage of the conservative movement, a Hillary Clinton victory over Trump could also be to the advantage of the conservative movement.

Trump has failure written all over him. Consider Trump’s nearly 1 billion dollar loss on his recently revealed tax return. Trump is simply not prepared to be president. If Trump is elected, he will fail and the conservative movement will suffer the collateral damage. If Hillary Clinton is elected and ends up a failure, we are likely to see a repeat of the 1980 Reagan Revolution, a resurgence of conservatism.

Your “plan B” seems just repeat of several questions posed as if that were the “plan”. If we are using your standard to measure against, you fell well short.

And, you’ve not said how and when you will deport the 11M (some claim 30M) people.

“Enforce the laws” is all a nice and high minded statement, but it is not a plan of any sort.

It lacks any serious consideration of just how that would be carried out. Are we talking building up of CBP / ICE forces? Are we talking a gradual decline on peoples own volition (e.g. Romney’s “self deport”)?

Your comments just lack any serious details to really have any credibility.

Mock us all you want, but you are not even living up to your own standards to which you want to measure the rest of us by.

Sadly, I expected better.

“Saying the reason people don’t “get” Trump is that, essentially, they are intellectual snobs and don’t like straight shooters or straight talkers or essentially pragmatic people is a tremendous oversimplication and just plain wrong … Saying that those who oppose him are basically clueless intellectual snobs and that’s why they oppose him reminds me of those who call Obama’s opponents racists. Some are, just as some of Trump’s opponents are intellectual snobs. But not all of them, and IMHO not most of them. There are plenty of other reasons to oppose each person. Plenty.” – Neo
.

Agree with Neo.

The kind of thinking / attitude reflected in this common alt-r claim / meme is scarily close to this description…

“An anti-intellectual, almost Orwellian atmosphere prevails in Communist China today… reflects (Mao’s) personal conviction that intellectuals … work against the regime at every opportunity.” – Repression of Intellectuals in Communist China, Released Secret 1966 CIA Special Report.
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/DOC_0001275005.pdf

Bill says,

“If Trump does not win, and HRC is installed as President, what’s your plan? Is there any other plan besides mounting a concerted defense of freedom, limited government, and doing whatever we can do within the law to limit the march of the left?”

and Big Maq chimes in with,

“Well, there is one, but it doesn’t meet his own standard for a “plan”, and completely ignores the “plan B” question.

Maybe DNW is formulating a better response. One hopes.”

and,

“…rather difficult to square the “not even a semblance of a plan” “criticism” with the responses provided thus far to Bill’s rather insightful questions, as they are no less relevant than the question asked of us about alternatives to voting trump.

Maybe DNW is yet to finalize his D-Day level detail of a plan for each, before he releases it for public consumption. One hopes.”

So, to Recap, Bill announced that he preferred Hillary in office to Trump; and Maq although voting for neither imagines a blossoming of freedom and the rule of law once again after another 4 to 8 years of Democrat administrative malfeasance and political subversion.

Both were asked to describe just how this rebounding will take place given the known trends, and they refuse to, or cannot say.

Much had also been made by them of the supposed costs to principle involved opposing Hillary.

So, in order to get some idea of what these particular parties would see as an acceptable social cost, a hypothetical was mooted. One commenter was asked if he would would be willing to see the immigration laws enforced (with due stipulations recognizing the hardship, but the morality and legality of it as well) in order to see a return to the rule of law.

And he honestly answered “No”. But then promptly tried to turn the question around by nonsensically asking to know how what he refused to do under the current law were it enforced, could be done in a way which satisfied his sensibilities. Seriously? What is this, a restaurant where you get to order a legal burger, but hold the patty?

To top it off we now have both commenters looking for my action plan “B” if Hillary is in fact elected instead of Trump.

This is just too comical to believe they mean seriously.

I had in fact just earlier addressed such a contingency, and asked if they would agree to any or all of the legal strategies for opposing Clinton should she be elected:

“So, given that, what lesser measures, in one two three, for instances. might a hopeful conservative authorize as in line with his conscience and scruples?

1. Would (and assuming solid Republican Congressional majorities) such a conservative agree to refuse to appoint any Clinton nominees to the Supreme Court and allow vacancies to build up, unless the nominee were somehow in the Scalia mold?

2. Would such a scrupulous and self-respecting conservative agree to supporting a long term “government shutdown”, if the Administration attempted to get unconstitutional budget items passed by Congress and threatened to veto any clean budgetary bills, unless and until?

3. Would the scrupulous conservative allow all lower court appointments to be blocked by a Republican Congress?

In other words, what practical and perfectly legal resistance would the self-respecting conservative support and see as morally allowable during Hillary’s administration?”

But the guys with no “conservative resurgence” plan at all; with no willingness to enforce the immigration law as it stands; with no willingness to risk Trump, even given the plan many have proposed for limiting his overreach should he attempt it; and who then further ignore a question concerning their potential assent to elements of an alternative resistance strategy laid out for crippling her administration if Hillary should take office and act to form …. demand to know where my “plan B” is if Clinton gets into office.

These men cannot be serious …

One is to rejoin forces against the left – that part will be rather easy in comparison.

The other one is a trust issue. One thing I foresee preventing this reconciliation is if folks hold onto the idea that trump was anything close to a good idea, and it is not just that he loses the election. As Spilakos says, principled critics and principled supporters of trump – principled.

The question is if trump wasn’t supported with great trepidation, can we say we shared principles?

If we are not fighting for the same vision, is there a fight to win?