Bernie and Socialism Must Be Rejected; Or: Looks Like Another Protest Vote for Patterico
In recent posts — and yesterday’s The Flight 93 Election in Reverse — I have expressed that I have been tempted to vote for the Democrat — any Democrat — to reject Donald Trump. The comments yesterday convinced me that this temptation was wrong, and that another stupid protest vote will be my best choice in the general election. I wanted to say a few quick words to elaborate on the temptation and why I am rejecting it.
In my view, Donald Trump has done the same great job on judges that a Ted Cruz or a Marco Rubio would have done, and has taken positive steps on immigration (witness yesterday’s Supreme Court lifting of the stay on the new green card rule, which I hope to write about soon) that Cruz and Rubio probably would have shied away from. His deregulation has done much to counteract the effects of his submoronic tariff policies. He kept his promises on things like moving our embassy to Jerusalem.
That’s some of the good stuff. But there’s way more bad stuff.
Trump has also lied more than any public figure in our lifetime. He has destroyed critical norms of noninterference with criminal justice, and behaved in every conceivable way like a criminal. He has attacked allies and given comfort to murderous dictators. He has profited off government service like the cheap grifter he is. He has made a mockery of classified information and security clearances, denying the latter to honorable former servants while granting them to his grifter son in law over the objections of screeners who saw Jared’s screaming red flags of dishonesty, carelessness with IT security, and skeevy financial dealings. I could go on and on and on. Donald Trump has always and everywhere put Donald Trump first, his immoral and ignorant children (OK, three of them) second, and America a distant third.
Because he is such an awful human and such a dangerous president, the natural inclination is to vote him out. Nothing else works. As I said yesterday:
With a two-party system in which Senators of the same party of the president will almost never vote to impeach him, it is impossible to remove him through impeachment. Given that fact, along with a Justice Department that refuses to indict a president who has not been impeached, we now know that a criminal cannot be removed from office, except through an election or through violence (which, again, is immoral, wrong, and unthinkable).
But the Democrats seem hellbent on picking Bernie Sanders. He calls himself a socialist, and I believe he is at heart a communist. It’s a bridge too far.
You are reading one of the most hardcore supporters of the free market you’re ever likely to read. Not the most articulate or knowledgeable, but one of the most hardcore. I believe the free market is the only system compatible with freedom. As I wrote in December 2008:
I’m skeptical of government intervention in economic affairs, because I believe they can lead to unintended consequences that are hard to predict. And I’m generally a believer in free-market principles. The idea is that the free market is the economic system most compatible with freedom, because rather than putting our trust in government to manage the economy, I believe we should trust the collective wisdom of consumers to make whatever decisions are best for them. As those decisions multiply, markets form as if by magic — and (in theory at least) it causes the best businesses to flourish while less useful ones fail. Put simply, a collection of choices, freely made, forms our markets.
I support “systemic processes that have evolved over time, building on the wisdom of humanity collectively — but stemming from individual decisions, not by a single group of philosopher kings, but by everyone in society.” I am “a believer in the price system, which directs entrepreneurs to move their resources into the lines of production most demanded by individual consumers. Like magic, this results in shortages being met by supply, and gluts being met by slowing demand, all providing for efficiency — but also, very importantly, in a higher standard of living for the least fortunate in society.”
Bernie is against all of that. He is for government intervention — which, taken to its logical extreme, results in true socialism: ownership of the means of production by the state. And that kills people. By the millions. History proves it.
I can’t vote for a guy like that.
But if you choose to do so, as a rejection of Trump, I will not criticize you. Let me say a little more about that as well.
I have never — ever! not even once! go back and check! — criticized anyone for voting for Trump as (in their eyes) the least bad alternative, as long as they did so with their eyes wide open to his faults. My criticism is reserved for his superfans who twist facts and logic to deny his faults. It has never been directed at sensible people voting realistically.
So yes, I can’t vote for Bernie, even as the strongest expression of rejection of Trump and his ignorance, corruption, and dishonesty. Bernie rejects some of the most important principles I believe in, and stands for too much I despise. But here’s my pledge to you. If you have decided to vote Bernie as a rejection of Trump — knowing that Bernie’s policies are destructive but believing that they will be reined in by divided government — I may disagree with your choice, but I will respect it. If you start waxing on about the glories of the state-run economy, I can’t respect that. But, just as I never once criticized the eyes-wide-open Trump voter, I will never excoriate you for taking any legal non-violent step you can take to reject Trump and Trumpism. This, I promise.
Welcome to the party pal.
harkin (cfa0dc) — 2/25/2020 @ 7:54 amWell said, Patterico. In 2016 my biggest concern with Trump was his vindictiveness. I thought that might lead to a stupid war. I’ve been relieved that his instincts appear otherwise. I think the case against voting for him is consequently weaker than it was in 2016, but I still do not think I can vote for him for the reasons you mention. Third party or no vote again, sigh.
Nathan Wagner (759e49) — 2/25/2020 @ 7:58 am8 more years
mg (4fed44) — 2/25/2020 @ 8:02 amProtest votes are a triumph of vanity over logic.
Munroe (dd6b64) — 2/25/2020 @ 8:06 amI like the way you think, Patterico. I concur.
Ragspierre (d9bec9) — 2/25/2020 @ 8:06 am12 more years
mg (4fed44) — 2/25/2020 @ 8:07 amProtest votes are a triumph of vanity over logic.
What a vain, illogical statement!
Ragspierre (d9bec9) — 2/25/2020 @ 8:09 amI think this is the principled position. To me, it’s fairly simple: If one can’t vote for Trump with a clear conscience, it makes no sense that the same individual would be able to vote for Sanders. Not even as a protest vote. Both Sanders and Trump are drawn to authoritarian state leaders. Neither seem to understand or take seriously the reality of what happens to the actual people who have to live under such regimes. There is nothing about Sanders’ policies that represent my views. Trump is, well, Trump. We are always free to sit this one out, or to write in another name.
Dana (4fb37f) — 2/25/2020 @ 8:24 amGreat post Patterico.
Here’s to hoping that Sanders falls flat somehow.
whembly (fd57f6) — 2/25/2020 @ 8:33 amI would be a likely voter for Trump over Bernie.
nk (1d9030) — 2/25/2020 @ 8:42 am“ Protest votes are a triumph of vanity over logic.”
Disagree. Voting for the person you deem most fit for office is completely logical, even if that vote presumably is meaningless in deciding who wins.
My declining to vote (for Presidential ticket) in 2016) was basically the same. I refused to endorse either of the two tickets I felt were ridiculous and destructive.
While I feel a DJT second term would be superior to anything the Dems are offering, I’m still not there on actually voting for him, nor do I see it ever happening. I still have no clue if that elevator goes to the top floor. He seems to be going out of his way to prove otherwise. If he just controlled his petulant and nonsensical utterings his approval numbers would be in the high 60s/low 70s.
Even the desire to deliver a huge middle finger to the Deep State/Dem/Media cabal is not strong enough.
The interesting thing is seeing usually sane conservatives saying they’d actually consider voting for Sanders. A better example of TDS is hard to find.
harkin (cfa0dc) — 2/25/2020 @ 9:17 amGiven two presidential candidates, both of whom are totally unacceptable, it seems to me a case could be made against making the incumbent a completely unaccountable lame duck.
A first-term president has some incentive to moderate their behavior to secure re-election.
A second-term president, particularly one like Trump who proudly claims to be above any law, and whose party will not impeach him even for blatant corruption and election tampering, seems like the more dangerous choice.
Dave (1bb933) — 2/25/2020 @ 9:19 amBreaking911
@Breaking911
·
SC voter says she is ‘terrified” of climate change.
STEYER: “I will use the Executive emergency powers of the presidency to tell companies how they can generate electricity, what kind of cars they can build, what kind of buildings we’re gonna have…”
__ _
Billy McBeath
harkin (cfa0dc) — 2/25/2020 @ 9:21 am@BillyMcBeath
Tell me again which side is authoritarian…
_
Trump has no independent existence outside his opponents. He has nothing that makes him fit to be President on his own merits.
nk (1d9030) — 2/25/2020 @ 9:26 amMoral vanity is usually defined as making a choice that insists on the maintenance of one’s personal virtue or private justice at the cost of irrepairable harm to a great number. Giraudoux’s Electra is a good exploration. We recognize limits to this, though. The husband of thr woman Petraeus had an affair with apparently decided the interests of the country took precedence over redressing the injury done to him, but I think we could hardly have condemned him had he chosen to expose the affair early, even knowing it would cost Petraeus his position. The point is that we recognize limits to the utilitarian logic essential to the charge of moral vanity.
In the case of a protest vote, in order for the charge of moral vanity to stick, two things have to be true. First, the utilitarian logic that irreparable harm will come to your country unless you hold your nose has to be compelling. Second, the sacrifice demanded must be of the sort that may properly be asked by the country of an individual – i.e. less than “allow your wife to keep having an affair.”
I doubt very much this election passes the first test, and I’m not sure it passes the second.
Would it do irreparable harm to the country to decline to vote third party if the consequence may be that Bernie is elected over Trump? Because Bernie is not likely to put an end to American democracy, I think we have to answer that question “No”. Whatever awful policies Bernie may pursue, he will be checked to a non-trivial extent by the limitations of presidential power. He may be voted out of office and his policies reversed or amended. The harm of a Bernie presidency, though real and consequential, is not of a nature that threatens the republic.
Moreover, there is a case to be made that a third party vote is in the best interests of the Republican party and the nation at large. If a non-trivial number of voters defect, even in the event Trump prevails, it becomes impetus for the party to nominate someone of better character (or at least more self-restraint) in the next round. For these reasons, voting third party is not ipso facto an act of moral vanity.
But even supposing that Bernie would do irreparable harm to the country such that the first test is passed, it is not clear that the second test is passed. Certainly we can name politicians so wicked or repugnant that one simply cannot morally vote for them. In the context of elections, there are therefore conceivable demands in voting that do not pass the second test.
To conclude that voting third party in this election is, ipso facto, an act of moral vanity, one must therefore conclude both that Bernie’s election would do the country grave and irreparable harm – much more harm than the election of a standard-issue Democrat – and that Trump is a politician for whom one may morally expect people to hold their noses and vote should duty to the country demand it.
I don’t think it obvious that these conditions are met, and so I don’t think the charge of moral vanity sticks.
Nathan Wagner (759e49) — 2/25/2020 @ 9:28 amSanders doesn’t take the question seriously because he’s ideologically committed to collectivism. Trump doesn’t take the question seriously because what happens to other people is never remotely as important as what happens to himself. Exhibit 3,067:
What Weinstein did to other people doesn’t matter. That he wanted Trump to lose an election is what makes him a terrible person in Trump’s mind.
Radegunda (f133c3) — 2/25/2020 @ 9:29 ammr president donald is a god who walks among mere men and regales us with a higher truth which is not truth at all but more like fertilizer
fertilizer for greatness
you can almost smell it at his rallies
Dave (1bb933) — 2/25/2020 @ 9:40 amTrump brags to strangers about doing what Weinstein was convicted of, so why would he see it as problematic?
If Weinstein were a supporter, Trump would certainly rail against the injustice of the process (see: Mike Tyson) and repeat Weinstein’s assurances that the victim(s) “wanted it real bad”.
Dave (1bb933) — 2/25/2020 @ 9:56 amMarkets have never been free during my 76 years on earth, nor are they likely to be during the lives of my children or grandchildren.
If you want to have a government, you are going to get socialism to some degree. If you think we benefit from having a justice system, try to figure out how we get one without having it owned and managed by the state. Try to find a politician who wants to run on a platform of eliminating Social Security, Medicare, the armed forces and the VA. There are many nations in the world that have socialist governments, but which continue to support democratic norms. I believe that the USA is one of them.
Wiith regard to the appointment of conservative judges, I believe that judges who are truly conservative are highly desireable, as long as they are competent. Donald Trump has been a spectator in the current appointment process. If you want to thank anyone, thank Mitch McConnell.
A protest vote may help somebody feel principled, but to paraphrase McCluhan, in a democracy there are no passengers, everybody’s crew.
John B Boddie (286277) — 2/25/2020 @ 9:59 amStill don’t get it: Americans don’t want to be governed; they wish to be entertained.
Trump curbed your enthusiasm? ‘Larry David’ may just be the ticket.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 2/25/2020 @ 10:01 amReally good post.
Time123 (353edd) — 2/25/2020 @ 10:04 amI’m still not convinced Sanders will win the nomination. (James Carville, who still has some pull, is vehemently opposed to him.) I know Biden won’t. (He’s losing it like a flop-sweat on off-Braodway.) I doubt Warren will either. (She’s Hillary-lite, without the connections.) I think the Democrats are heading toward a brokered convention, where the super-delegates will determine the nominee.
They could even choose someone who didn’t run in the primaries and caucuses. Just pull someone out of a hat, maybe a respected moderate Democratic governor. They can do that, you know.
What the Democrats, their donors and party mechanics, do not want is to offer up a sacrificial lamb to be utterly gutted by Trump. There’s a lot of behind-the-scenes, behind-closed-doors negotiations and machinations going on right now. Believe it. The Democrats want to field a viable candidate who can at least be competitive. But I don’t think that’s their agenda. I think they’re concentrating on governorships and state legislatures, increasing their majority in the House and regaining the majority in the Senate.
If they can accomplish that, Trump will be neutered, and his agenda castrated. Because he does not play well with others, he won’t be able to get anything passed or any nomination approved. And he could always be impeached again, if he goes hog wild on courting and accepting foreign influence or interference, executive orders and pardons beyond the pale. Only then, a Democratic Congress will impeach, convict and remove him from office.
This is not what the Framers intended. They could not envision, in 1783, the unfortunate consequence of establishing the electoral college–hyper-partisanship in a two-party system, which Washington specifically warned against in he Farewell Address. That and excessive debt, and interference in foreign conflicts. Washington’s Farewell Address was the most widely published and read document in the United States–it was mandatory reading in public schools–for over a century.
Then in the early 1900s, the progressives took over both the Democratic and Republican parties. Thank you, Teddy Roosevelt. In the century since, look at us now. Hyper-partisan, deeply in debt and interfering in foreign conflicts.
I am not an isolationist, but I’m not an interventionalist either. I believe the federal government has three functions: provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare (i.e., the well-being of society), and protect the citizens from fraud.
This–these presidents, these representatives and senators, these judges–is not working. And the fault lies not with them, but with us.
Gawain's Ghost (b25cd1) — 2/25/2020 @ 10:09 amI assume everyone’s seen the Project Veritas hidden-camera videos of various Bernie Sanders’ campaign volunteers and staff talking about wanting to re-educate Republicans, put them in gulags, or … worse?
Make America Ordered Again (23f793) — 2/25/2020 @ 10:10 am> I’ve been relieved that his instincts appear otherwise
as shown by the way he is systematically purging the white house of anyone who cooperated with the congressional impeachment investigation. he’s not vindictive at all.
aphrael (971fba) — 2/25/2020 @ 10:13 amIf you have decided to vote Bernie as a rejection of Trump — knowing that Bernie’s policies are destructive but believing that they will be reined in by divided government…
This is a false hope, and really not very defensible. More like a rationalization actually.
1) If the Democrats win the WH, they will keep the House. No party has won the presidency and lost a house of Congress in the same election.
2) The GOP has 23 seats up versus 12 for the Democrats. A loss of 3 seats would put control back with the Democrats, who would then nuke the filibuster in its entirety. Were Bernie to take the WH, this would be likely. As it stands Republican seats in AZ, CO & NC are tossups (although AL is a likely flip to R). In any election that would elect an extreme candidate like Bernie, more seats would come into play (GA (2), IA, ME are “leans R” at the moment).
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 2/25/2020 @ 10:14 am@19. With age comes wisdom.
Well said.
Though believe judges, for the most part [there are exceptions] securing lifetime appointments owe nothing to the ideologies that put them in place and tend to be loyal to the law.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 2/25/2020 @ 10:15 amWhat Kevin said. Plus, Bernie is a communist as are many of his volunteers and staff. If you want tyrants in charge of America (after they successfully took over the huge countries of Russia and China during the last century, thus proving they can do it), this is how you get tyranny.
And then what? Do you think Russia and China are going to fight a 45-year cold war to liberate America?
Make America Ordered Again (23f793) — 2/25/2020 @ 10:18 amI guess it is possible that Bernie’s policies would be opposed by “moderate” Democrats, but I note that even the more mild reforms to Obamacare in 2017 (e.g. Ryan’s plan to stop screwing middle-aged policyholders) was opposed unanimously by the Democrat House. Not one vote.
If there are moderate Democrats left in Speaker AOC’s House, they’d be hiding.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 2/25/2020 @ 10:18 amMaybe the Supreme Court would stop Bernie, but the new 19-member court would not.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 2/25/2020 @ 10:20 amBut besides this quibble, Pat, I agree with your conclusion. If I still lived in California, I’d be voting my conscience rather than choosing the lesser evil. As it is, Trump is competitive in NM against Sanders and given that, my vote has meaning. More’s the pity.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 2/25/2020 @ 10:23 am>>>Protest votes are a triumph of vanity over logic.
What a vain, illogical statement!
Indeed. A vote is a statement of personal preference, and even “NOTA” is a clear statement. No more, no less. It is owed to no one.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 2/25/2020 @ 10:27 amIf you want tyrants in charge of America (after they successfully took over the huge countries of Russia and China during the last century, thus proving they can do it), this is how you get tyranny.
Do you confuse the US with China or Russia? Amazing!
Can you speak instead of screaming? We all have heard your hysteria. Take a breath.
Ragspierre (d9bec9) — 2/25/2020 @ 10:42 amI’m pretty sure Patterico just wrote a post warning about a communist President taking over the United States. I swear I remember doing that recently.
Make America Ordered Again (23f793) — 2/25/2020 @ 10:44 amRe 24
I didn’t mean he wasn’t vindictive: he certainly is. I meant only that his vindictiveness is restrained on the international scene by a reluctance to us arned force.
Nathan Wagner (759e49) — 2/25/2020 @ 10:50 amRagspierre, you’re certainly entitled to disagree with Patterico about this.
However, I see it as a genuine risk if you elect a communist. And, unlike when communists seized power in other major countries, yet had the U.S. and other powerful countries to oppose them for decades, who exactly do you imagine would continually oppose a socialist/communist America and how would they do so?
The risk for the United States and the rest of humanity is too great. That must not be allowed to happen.
Make America Ordered Again (23f793) — 2/25/2020 @ 11:04 amWhat a president bernie wants he will not get from congress. He will get less then trump got with both house and senate republican. Both partys are now mostly populist controlled. Coservative free trade libertarianism is for wealthy elitists who have been discredited with the populist majority. Sanders in 2020 or AOC 2024 deal with it!
asset (e0fab0) — 2/25/2020 @ 11:48 am#16.
I have now agreed twice today with ragspierre. I have to check my meds.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 2/25/2020 @ 11:50 amA protest vote may help somebody feel principled, but to paraphrase McCluhan, in a democracy there are no passengers, everybody’s crew.
In California, you are either Democrat or you’re in steerage.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 2/25/2020 @ 11:52 amI think Ragspierre basically agrees with me here; after all, all I’ve done is add some points in agreement with and furtherance of Patterico’s post here, which Ragspierre already said he likes. But Ragspierre doesn’t like me so has found some things to nitpick, such as me bolding some things (as Patterico did in his post, that Ragspierre likes).
Anyway, let’s all agree that letting communists take over would be unwise.
Make America Ordered Again (23f793) — 2/25/2020 @ 11:54 amIf Bernie wins, he’ll have kept and expanded the Democrat lead in the House and probably won the Senate, too, for the reasons Kevin M said above, such as the surge Bernie would have needed to win and more GOP Senate seats up for grabs.
Plus I don’t recall many communist leaders being restrained effectively by their parliaments. Do you recall that?
Make America Ordered Again (23f793) — 2/25/2020 @ 11:55 amThis is all such a nightmare, Patterico.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 2/25/2020 @ 12:02 pmHe unilaterally changed the law as it is has come to be understood, and not with any kind of rigorous logic either, and it can be proven that Congress did not intend that change because they set a income level for a sponsor at X% of the poverty level – something which assumed that public charge refers to only include, more or less, someone who would have been supported by the public in 1885, the year such a requirement was first put into law, and not someone who might take advantage of more modern government benefits they were not legally barred from.
Sammy Finkelman (9966eb) — 2/25/2020 @ 12:11 pmPatterico: Trump has also lied more than any public figure in our lifetime.
The late Rocky Zweig (see my comment #291 on the Flight 93 thread) wrote on this point:
Close to that, maybe.
Sammy Finkelman (9966eb) — 2/25/2020 @ 12:15 pmThat balanced budget, wall, and the end of obamacare are proof!
Dustin (2590f6) — 2/25/2020 @ 12:22 pmMunroe @4: “ Protest votes are a triumph of vanity over logic.”
harkin @11.
The problem with voting for a third party candodate is that most of them are even less fit than the major party candidates.
You don’t usually get a Ross Perot.
But maybe nobody is paying careful attention to the qualifications of third party candidates, so if the person is not too bad, it might not be a bad signal.
Sammy Finkelman (9966eb) — 2/25/2020 @ 12:26 pmExpect Bloomberg to remind you why maple leaves in Vermont turn red in October. 😉
DCSCA (797bc0) — 2/25/2020 @ 12:26 pm44. Dustin (2590f6) — 2/25/2020 @ 12:22 pm
As I said, Rocky Zweig wasn’t completely right about that.
It would be more accurate to say that Trump tries to satisfy everyone who keeps track of his campaign promises.
Sometimes that’s actually impossible, because they may be stupid or contradictory.
The budget: Nobody is bothering him about it, and what he said, unlike what he said about appointing conservative judges, is totally impossible to even approach. so he ignores it, except for trying to keep the government’s interest payments down, which he seems to have noticed.
The wall: He’s doing his level best to pretend to be fulfilling that campaign promise, including the part about Mexico paying for it.
Obamacare: He’s attacking Obamacare in the courts, while at the same time keeping his pledge not to harm anybody with pre-existing conditions. And the most unpopular part about Obamacare, the individual mandate with penalty or tax, was repealed (tax was set to $0.00 in the 2017 tax bill, which the Congressional Budget Office accounting for as saving money for the government because fewer people would be pushed into Medicaid or subsidized insurance.)
You can say maybe that Trump may be more honest about his policies than some other politicians, or at least you can tell what he will do on the big things. (there was his secret suspension of aid to Ukraine. That turned out not to last, or even be capable of lasting.)
Sammy Finkelman (9966eb) — 2/25/2020 @ 12:40 pmHe said he would eliminate the national debt in eight years by making better trade deals — because he didn’t understand the difference between a budget deficit and a trade deficit.
Then someone asked about it, but slightly misremembered it as “in ten years,” and Trump said “I never said I’d do it in ten years” — which might be true in the most literal sense, but logically “in eight years” means it’s done within ten years.
So Trump made an absurd statement about how he would accomplish a goal that he obviously was not serious about, and then he lied about the promise.
Radegunda (f133c3) — 2/25/2020 @ 12:40 pm40. Make America Ordered Again (23f793) — 2/25/2020 @ 11:55 am
He’s not a Communist! He was once a peacenik.
Elizabeth Warren is accusing Bernie, correctly, of not wanting to see the end of the Senate filibuster o legislation. He also doesn’t support packing the court (because the court could just be packed some more after the Republicans came in. He supports completely changing the composition of the Supreme Court, so that judges would rotate off and on it. Probably from Appeals Courts I would guess. That might not be reversed by Republicans, who would concentrate on filling the seats that mattered. If enacted, it would give the Dems some 15 years maybe of control of the Supreme Court.)
Sammy Finkelman (9966eb) — 2/25/2020 @ 12:47 pmKevin M (ab1c11) — 2/25/2020 @ 10:20 am
That not quite his proposal. It must exist somewhere but what I found is that he said something abiut justices rotating off and on it.
A 19-member court, 9 sitting at a time? All Chief Judges of the 11 Courts of Appeals included? Something like the Open Market Committee of the Feerakl Reserve Board with some permanent members and others rotating?
It’s something that the people who came up with the idea think a Republican President and Congress would not undo or top because they coudkl regain control of the court soon enough without doing that..
Sammy Finkelman (9966eb) — 2/25/2020 @ 12:55 pm22. Gawain’s Ghost (b25cd1) — 2/25/2020 @ 10:09 am
you need bipartisan support, because you need a 2/3 majority in the Senate. But if he goees hog wild…he’ll probably manage to save himself.
But by 1796 and especially by 1800 they knew of all the possibilities, and they amended the constotution before the 1804 election
Hyperpartisanship is since Jimmy Carter.
Sammy Finkelman (9966eb) — 2/25/2020 @ 1:03 pm“Disagree. Voting for the person you deem most fit for office is completely logical, even if that vote presumably is meaningless in deciding who wins.”
harkin (cfa0dc) — 2/25/2020 @ 9:17 am
The word “protest” has meaning, and it’s being attached to a vote. Together it means you think someone will take notice of how you voted, when in fact nobody will care. (No offense intended. It’s just reality.)
Nobody remembers how many third party votes were cast in FL in 2000. The tens of thousands who voted for Nader (mostly), or Buchanan, or whoever, may have been lodging protests but nobody showed up at the parade. All anyone remembers is that Bush won by a sliver, and most probably don’t know that he won not because of hanging chads but because Dems cast tens of thousands more protest votes than Republicans.
If the Dem protesters were happy with the end result because they got to lodge their protest with a vote, that’s just vain and illogical.
Munroe (dd6b64) — 2/25/2020 @ 1:06 pm25. Kevin M (ab1c11) — 2/25/2020 @ 10:14 am
Bernie’s against that actually. He’d want the filibuster retained to restrain a Republican president. And so would some Democratic Senators. Who might also expect to lose the Senate in 2022 if they did anything too partisan.
Now he might be amenable to Schumer using the threat of absolishing the filibuster to prevent filibusters.
Sammy Finkelman (9966eb) — 2/25/2020 @ 1:14 pmI thought you still lived in CA? Is there a chance your individual vote would matter for either major party candidate?
I’m in MA. I go in thinking that it won’t matter who I vote for President. If my vote mattered for whether or not a Democrat won Massachusetts, then that Democrat was bound to lose anyway. My greatest contribution as a voter would be to vote for third party candidate (Libertarian or Green or whatever Vermin Supreme is running under) in the hopes of getting them a large enough percentage of votes to qualify for FEC matching funds.
Xmas (eafb47) — 2/25/2020 @ 1:17 pmSorry, I meant percentage to qualify for ballot access. The FEC matching funds was a different thing.
Xmas (eafb47) — 2/25/2020 @ 1:25 pmI’m pretty sure Patterico just wrote a post warning about a communist President taking over the United States. I swear I remember doing that recently.
Then your memory is a lying T-rump cultist. Cite to paragraph and line, please.
I think Ragspierre basically agrees with me here; after all, all I’ve done is add some points in agreement with and furtherance of Patterico’s post here, which Ragspierre already said he likes.
There you go, lying like a Commissar.
But Ragspierre doesn’t like me so has found some things to nitpick, such as me bolding some things (as Patterico did in his post, that Ragspierre likes).
I hate a lier. I also hate any hysteric cultist SCREAMING…hysterically.
BTW, Herr Goebbels, this is not your space. You can get your own blog to scream on like a little girl. Be sure to let us know that that works fer ya!
Ragspierre (d9bec9) — 2/25/2020 @ 3:13 pm?
Make America Ordered Again (afc191) — 2/25/2020 @ 3:13 pmThis one?
Make America Ordered Again (afc191) — 2/25/2020 @ 3:15 pmI mean, do you just argue just to argue or something?
Is it clear now?
Make America Ordered Again (afc191) — 2/25/2020 @ 3:16 pmBernie or Trump? The two parties are getting crazier by the day.
I think we need Biden or Buttigieg to save the country since the Republicans are refusing to do so. Although, if I were Mayor Pete, I would point out that he has earned twice the delegates of Joe….. including all three of Biden’s campaigns for the presidency…. combined.
noel (4d3313) — 2/25/2020 @ 3:31 pmBernie is against all of that. He is for government intervention (so is you cult leader…who does it all the flucking time while lying about his authoritarian BS)— which, taken to its logical extreme, results in true socialism (or what I’ve been saying for decades; fascist economics where ownership is nominally left in private hands, but central planners control how it is used and who gets what): ownership of the means of production by the state. And that kills people. By the millions. History proves it.
Yep, both forms of evil that is Collectivism…Bernie’s and
T-rump’s…have killed millions and robbed many times those millions of a decent life.
Patterico did NOT write the post you lied about at any rate. There was a point he was making, and it was NOT about “warning of a communist takeover”.
Is that clear now, Commissar?
Ragspierre (d9bec9) — 2/25/2020 @ 3:38 pmBTW, Duh Donald and Bernie have both been highly complimentary of the other’s trade and economic thinking. And, if you’ve had the snap to read both, you’d know that you can’t find any daylight between what they’re on record saying.
One more word about fascist economics, of the three forms of Collectivism, it is the MOST dangerous for America because it APPEARS to respect private property.
Ragspierre (d9bec9) — 2/25/2020 @ 3:45 pmYeah, it was. According to Patterico’s post, it looks like a communist is about to be nominated by one of America’s two largest political parties (the one that actually controls the HOUSE right now). He can’t support this.
He can’t support it ethically, contributing to the election of a communist, and practically, either (no doubt for the welfare of himself and his family).
There’s a lot I don’t agree with him about (he has a worse impression of Trump than I do), but here we are two peas in a pod. If you’re saying I’m misrepresenting and he is not warning about the consequences if the person who he said is essentially is a communist gets into the Presidency, take it up with him, man.
Because I’m done talking with you about this.
Make America Ordered Again (afc191) — 2/25/2020 @ 3:54 pmhttps://hotair.com/archives/allahpundit/2020/02/25/study-barring-unprecedented-youth-turnout-bernie-weakest-candidate-trump/
Ergo, before you let some screaming me-me hysteric buffalo you or anyone you know into voting for his man-crush, let things settle out.
Bernie may not make it to the convention.
Ragspierre (d9bec9) — 2/25/2020 @ 4:04 pmIf you’re saying I’m misrepresenting and he is not warning about the consequences if the person who he said is essentially is a communist gets into the Presidency, take it up with him, man.
That’s exactly what I’m saying.
His point of the whole piece was that he was re-examining his position vis Bernie, IN SPITE of his loathing and fear of your cult leader.
His coda was NOT waving his arms in the air and setting his hair on fire about the imminent commie take-over.
What it was about was a pledge not hold a vote against anyone reading his post.
If you have decided to vote Bernie as a rejection of Trump — knowing that Bernie’s policies are destructive but believing that they will be reined in by divided government — I may disagree with your choice, but I will respect it. If you start waxing on about the glories of the state-run economy, I can’t respect that. But, just as I never once criticized the eyes-wide-open Trump voter, I will never excoriate you for taking any legal non-violent step you can take to reject Trump and Trumpism. This, I promise.
Ragspierre (d9bec9) — 2/25/2020 @ 4:14 pm“ His coda was NOT waving his arms in the air and setting his hair on fire about the imminent commie take-over.”
I’m amazed that the Dems are seriously considering nominating an avowed Communist for the office of President. It’s especially troubling combined with the lefty academia often teaching our youth that America is a mistake and Communism/Socialism are preferable to the freedoms laid out in our Constitution.
Is that waving my arms and lighting my hair on fire?
_
Giancarlo Sopo
@GiancarloSopo
Incredible. Bernie Sanders doubles down on his defense of Castro’s “literacy programs.”
__ _
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen
@RosLehtinen
·
Yeah, Bernie “truth is truth”, as u say, and the “truth” is that Fidel Castro was, from the 1st day he illegally took power, a ruthless murderer, a sadistic killer who stripped Cubans of all freedoms.
Literacy programs were indoctrination.
I lived it as a child.
All lies.
__ _
Lol respecting anyone with an operating brain voting for that.
harkin (b64479) — 2/25/2020 @ 4:36 pm_
The 10th Democratic debate starts on CBS at 8 pm EST.
Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 2/25/2020 @ 4:40 pmThe reason this is happeneing is because if the censorship in China, which not on;y involves government wrongdoing, buut diseases, accidents and natural disasters;
https://gothamist.com/news/might-be-bad-cdc-says-americans-need-start-preparing-coronavirus-pandemic
There are four other corona viruses! And the flu.
The reason it can spread undetected is because most people don’t get very sick or sick at all.
The quarantine aboard the Diamond Princess cruise ship spread the disease.
Approx 1/6 of the people aboard got it.
Of the 3,700 people 2 elderly Japanese on their 80s died.
Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 2/25/2020 @ 4:44 pmI think we need Biden or Buttigieg to save the country since the Republicans are refusing to do so.
Uh… no:
Biden backs off calling South Carolina his ‘firewall …
https://foxwilmington.com/headlines/biden-backs-off-calling-south-carolina-his-firewall
February 24, 2020 By David Montanaro Former Vice President Joe Biden is backing away from pointing to the upcoming South Carolina primary as a virtual lock for his campaign, after previously describing the state as his “firewall.” On Sunday, he pushed back on the description — and even denied saying it.
Except he did. On tape.
Then there’s this:
https://pagesix.com/2019/04/22/mayor-pete-buttigieg-and-his-husband-met-on-hinge
Keep your shirt on, Vlad. Just smile.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 2/25/2020 @ 4:45 pm