How about you? (Me, I'm not answering. I'm maintaining my cruel neutrality.)
ADDED: Poll results:
१२ फेब्रुवारी, २०२०
What if, in the end, you have to choose between Trump and Bernie Sanders? Who do you pick?
My son John asks and answers the question here.
How about you? (Me, I'm not answering. I'm maintaining my cruel neutrality.)
ADDED: Poll results:
How about you? (Me, I'm not answering. I'm maintaining my cruel neutrality.)
ADDED: Poll results:
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
४४४ टिप्पण्या:
444 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»Keep in mind, if you do not pick Sanders, you are in fact a Russian asset and you risk a Mueller investigation into your crimes.
Give me a hard one. Like, "What if you had to choose between a kick in the balls and ice cream?"
No contest.
Trump.
Another crawlnacross broken glass to vote because if it’s too large, they can’t cheat.
If Bernie called Michelle Obama a cunt he'd pull in some straight-talk Trump supporters.
That wont be the choice.
All Bernie winning does is drive up Bernie's price for the eventual winner.
Nobody's taken on deep PC yet.
Which is HILARIOUS.
By getting rid of our close to energy independence, Bernie Berns the USA (revenge) by helping Russia and the oil ticks with a stroke of his pen.
And causes a recession, if not a full -fledged depression depending on the coronavirus fallout.
Of course I'd vote for Burnie for President of Zimbabwe! He'd be a great Zimbabwean President! Anyone who thinks otherwise is a South African Stooge and a Ugandan asset!
Tulsi has my heart and 3% of the vote. I am holding out.
Blogger Jupiter said...
"If Bernie called Michelle Obama a cunt he'd pull in some straight-talk Trump supporters."
Even if he called her a "dumb fucking cunt", he'd still be a stinking Commie.
Thurber's "The Greatest Man in the World" forecasts the fate of the deep PC challenger. Curiously a press coverup is involved.
Landslide.
What is this poll? A joke?! At least make it interesting, by assuming Trump has new articles of impeachment filed against him in the Senate around the third week in October. And make these articles about something actually dreadful, instead of him seeking to expose corrupt politicians. Maybe using counterintelligence investigations against journalists (whoops, Obama did that), or having the ATF run guns to Mexican cartels so new gun restrictions can be put in place in the US (whoops, Obama did that), or using the IRS to stifle political opponents in an election (whoops, Obama did that) or having the FBI declare him innocent of crimes he actually committed (whoops, Hillary did that) or having the CIA/FBI set up opposition campaign members for charges of lying to investigators, or colluding with Russians (whoops, Obama did that).
Heck, let's stick with Trump shooting somebody in the middle of 5th Avenue as the impeachable offense. At least that is possibly criminal and possibly not done by the previous administration.
The funny part - Sanders loves him some Soviet rail-car chandeliers and Castro healthcare.
Lets have that all-important “Which Way, America” election to clear the air. A choice of contrasts via Trump versus Bernie as the respective proxies for the two great approaches to government, one successful, one a failure whenever/wherever it’s been imposed
(A) The way of the Founders/Framers (limited government*)
or
(B) The way of the EU/USSR/PRC/UN/Islam model (unlimited government)
Under (A), rights are pre-existing and inalienable, inherent in each person by simply existing. Government is organized, with the consent of the governed, and most importantly with defined limitations, solely to protect those rights.
Under (B), rights are “granted” by government which exists unto itself regardless of the consent of the governed, acting as the final arbiter. Here, what government “gives” can as easily be taken away. And with (B), there are no limiting principles placed on governmental power.
*To varying degrees each one of the 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto has found its way into our laws; Bernie would take us full-bore. We should aim to see where we want to go on how we wish to do government: as citizens or as subjects.
I imagine that around here it'll be like 90% Trump unless there's some huge contigent of Socialist lurkers I'm unaware of.
But ultimately I guess it comes down to a question of proven success versus proven failure. As Reagan asked, are you better off? And what exactly has Trump done to you personally that is so awful? Have you lost your job because of something that Trump did? Did Trump pour sugar in your gas tank? Did he give you a wedgie? I totally get that people may find Trump personally offensive, but are things really so bad out there that we need to burn it all down?
I know the death toll from socialism. Why would I vote for that?
It's a great hypothetical question, I pose it to my friends all the time.
You have to emphasize, too, that in the hypothetical, no staying home or third-party throw away votes. (1) You must vote, and (2) the choices are Trump or Sanders. Period.
And what an answer it is;
"I don’t know if Sanders would be a better president than Trump. I don’t need to have an opinion about that in order to choose Sanders over Trump. There’s something larger at stake, which is the need to send a message to the world and to history: “Whoops, we screwed up in 2016. We need a different tone and direction.”
Seems like he has inherited his mother's fundamental lack of seriousness. "Sanders may destroy the economy and send millions of Americans to the Gulags, but at least the Samoans will know I meant well." Look, kid, the Samoans don't care about your virtue, and neither does the future. Hope you enjoy the executions in Central Park. You'll be delicious too.
The Constitution is not a suicide pact. Neither is an election. Trump
@Achilles:
That wont be the choice.
All Bernie winning does is drive up Bernie's price for the eventual winner.
That is a great prediction -- on par with Drago's famous prediction of chaos at the Dem convention, leading to Michelle Obama being drafted.
There is precedent, too. Jesse Jackson ran for Prez in 1988, and came in 2nd to Dukakis in the Dem primary with 30% of the vote. At that point, the price paid by the Dems to not have him run again, was very, very, very, steep (jet planes, lotta funding for Rainbow Coalition, carte blanche to shake down corporations with discrimination claims, etc, etc.).
You think that's what Bernie is doing?
Trump has already been a successful President regardless if he wins reelection, alhtough my feeling is we end up seeing a huge victory by Trump like Reagan reelection type dominance.
It's not even close. I'd vote for Trump over any of the possible Democrat challengers. Trump has done an excellent job. Is he somewhat of a blowhard jerk? Yeah. So is practically every politician. Normally I'd count that against him. In 2016 I did count it against him, being a Walker supporter and then an 'anybody but Trump' kind of guy. Now I think that it it vitally important for Trump to be a blowhard jerk. The Dem/media would tear a nice guy to pieces. Thank the heavens that Trump is a blowhard jerk. Long may he prosper.
Here's what the last three years have taught me: Trump is a better president than any of the other 15 or so GOP contestants in 2016 would have been. (Possible exception of Walker. Scott was low key, but he proved he was willing to stand up to hellfire here in Wisconsin.)
Thanks, Dems. You made it crystal clear that we on the right side of the aisle need to punch back twice as hard.
JAC admits he votes as a signal. Hardly to respected IMO.
Thought about that earlier today. It would probably be Trump. Reason being a Sanders loss would move the Democrats back towards the center or be the impetus for a new moderate party.
Bernie will probably destroy the US economy but at least he's Jewish and wants to legalize pot. So he's got that going for him.
@Jupiter:
Sanders may...send millions of Americans to the Gulags
Wtf?
So many young fools in this world. And so many old ones, too.
God, spare me from the consequences of their foolishness!
Your son must really hate Trump.
He wants to vote in a communist just so Trump isn't thought of pleasantly by history.
Trump, the guy who has brought us at least 3 years of peace and prosperity.
We are too spoiled.
It really isn't a hard choice, come to that.
Plus the "Devil you know" factor favors Trump.
First Trump gets the 67% of the voters that actually the man. But the Marxist Brownshirts are sent out as a "ground game" to threaten the other 33% to vote for Sanders or they will be among the first to be killed by The Party.
Finally as Stalin bragged, the winner totally depends upon who counts the votes.
If we reelect Trump, what will the neighbors think?
I believe the disconnect for a lot of people (who should probably know better) has to do with what role they believe the President of the United States is. I think a lot of people believe that a US President absolutely needs to appear as some kind of moral leader who acts as a sort of father figure. Specifically they believe that having a good personality, having the right temporment, is much more important than anything a president actually does. In their view things like having a strong economy aren't as important as having a likable, charming, and agreeable President who presents the image of a great leader to all the other countries in the world.
To them, the image is far more important than any actual deeds when it comes to selecting a President, especially how that person looks to the international community. Things like historic low unemployment for minorities and the like aren't as important for them if they dislike the president's personality.
In the event of a Bernie victory, let me state for the record that my "Trump vote" on this poll was purely cast for the purpose of luring wreckers and hoarders into a false sense of security. I will be glad to take my place in the firing squads in Central Park. Long Live the Socialist Revolution!
"(Me, I'm not answering. I'm maintaining my cruel neutrality.)"
Looks like there's a "veneer of" missing from that sentence.
Well I’m pretty biased as i wouldn’t vote for Washington if he was a democrat. Of course he wouldn’t be.
At my age I shouldn’t care so I don’t. If I were younger I’d say Bernie just to have one more “I told you so” when 55 million 401k investors and a whole host of public pensioners saw their retirement money go up in smoke. And it will.
Given the fact that I view all of the Democrat candidates as likely to destroy the economy, the choice of Trump was easy-peasy. Bernie would be the worst of the lot, greasing the skids for a Venezuela-like fate for America. I’m too old for that shit. I like luxuries like toilet paper, food and drinkable water.
Wow, John is really out there.
I think you may have miscalculated if you believe we can return to normalcy by rewarding Democrats for the scorched earth policy they've employed over the last 4 years.
I know the death toll from socialism. Why would I vote for that?
Don't worry! -- "If he turns out to be bad, we’ll be able to deal with that problem in other elections."
Bernie Sanders on breadlines:
When asked about breadlines in Nicaragua and Sanders’ support for Sandinistas, the senator quipped: “It’s funny, sometimes American journalists talk about how bad a country is, that people are lining up for food. That is a good thing! In other countries people don’t line up for food: the rich get the food and the poor starve to death.”
Yep, we definitely want this guy deciding how businesses will be run.
MAGA or the end of the America.
Tough choice there.
Also, I’m guessing jaltcoh doesn’t have a 401K. Only those with no skin in the game would vote for Bernie.
’Whoops, we screwed up in 2016. We need a different tone and direction.’
Who needs all that silly prosperity when we can have a different tone!! And bread lines...
@Clyde:
I like luxuries like toilet paper, food and drinkable water.
Which of Sanders policies, if implemented, would result in a lack of food, water, or toilet paper?
Jupiter: Seems like he has inherited his mother's fundamental lack of seriousness.
Nothing says "serious" like "sending a message".
Though I'd have to agree that electing Bernie would indeed be sending a message of serious import, regardless of the fundamental unseriousness of citizens who think the point of voting is to ingratiate ourselves with equally unserious people abroad, and "history".
Of course no one has to click the link to see how your son would vote. But by doing so you really get another example that he's an idiot.
I mean he flat out states that it doesn't matter to him who would be a better president, we must impress the world that we don't like Donald Trump. Policies don't matter. Results don't matter.
Oh, plus he's Jewish! And he might legalize pot!
Sanders won't send anyone to the Gulag. He and his wife will live out their lives on golden pond. A lifetime in government service rewards with perks. His Antifa guards will do the dirty work.
Wow!
What a wipe out!
Which of Sanders policies, if implemented, would result in a lack of food, water, or toilet paper?
Can you point me to a time where a Communist was ever honest about the long-term effects of his policies?
Heck, let's stick with Trump shooting somebody in the middle of 5th Avenue as the impeachable offense.
WHO did he shoot? Makes a difference, doesn't it?
Not to be a total Althouse lackey, but it ain't important who she actually votes for or her telling us who she voted for.
Her importance is off the charts by providing a forum here that permits the free exchange of ideas in accordance with her stellar commitment to the First Amendment.
If she came out and said, "I'm voting for Trump!", we all know what would happen. Various leftwing law professors would write 10-point letters, with a buncha signatures, denouncing her. And then the University of Wisconsin would disinvite her to some tea function. And then the next time she gave a public speech, some idiotic leftists would hassle her. And then The New Yorker would write a piece on the "rogue" liberal law professor who tolerates and enables a wacko, right wing commentariat on her blog.
Who wants that aggravation?
The Left does not believe in the free exchange of ideas. Althouse does. That's good enough.
JAC has basically admitted he votes based on what others will think of him.
Trump will have to pick Charles Manson as his running mate to make 2020 even close.
Sanders may...send millions of Americans to the Gulags
Wtf?
My FB feed still has people comparing Trump to Gulag-senders (and/or Concentration Camp-senders).
Either way would be entertaining.
But first I'd have to know Bernie's choice for VP.
Bay Area Guy - correct on Althouse. Someone may want to tell "Otto" this.
@I Callahan:
Can you point me to a time where a Communist was ever honest about the long-term effects of his policies?
I wasn't asking "a communist." I was asking a critic of Sanders which of his policies, if implemented, would have the long-term effect of making food, water, and toilet paper unavailable?
BAG: "Her importance is off the charts by providing a forum here that permits the free exchange of ideas in accordance with her stellar commitment to the First Amendment."
I concur. Brava.
What if, in the end, you are Bernie Sanders and have to choose between Donald Trump and Mike Bloomberg? Who do you pick?
I foresee a possible Trump-Sanders unity ticket.
@MadisonMan:
My FB feed still has people comparing Trump to Gulag-senders (and/or Concentration Camp-senders).
Of course. "Sanders will turn the US into the USSR" is simply the inverse of "Trump will turn the US into Nazi Germany."
"I'm maintaining my cruel neutrality."
What's cruel about it?
Anyway, I can understand not wanting to express a preference in public. But why neutral?
Are you neutral between socialism and capitalism? between open borders and immigration law enforcement? between holding China accountable and being a friend to Israel vs. not? between appointing more-or-less originalist judges vs. living constitutionalists? between people who supported the Russia hoax and impeachment vs. people and a candidate who resisted it?
I know that mere policy rarely figures into your vote rationalizations, but still: if you have any policy preferences, the alternatives are so clearcut that it is hard logically to claim to be neutral.
Again assuming that you do have policy preferences, the only way I can see you, a law professor!, maintain neutrality is to argue that the pros and cons of the candidates in light of your whole set of weighted preferences balance out exactly. For example, I could see you argue that abortion matters more to you than anything else, which would lead you to favor Bernie, whereas you prefer Trump on all other issues and relevant personal strengths, though you give them less weight. That would be an interesting calculation to see articulated, if you are in fact calculating in light of actual policy preferences--rather than "waiting to see what happens," trying to figure out who is more "serious," holding out against "chaos," etc. etc. In other words, is neutrality a considered judgment or a phony pose?
Charlie don't surf
"I'm maintaining my cruel neutrality."
Cruel neutrality would have done a using children in politics post about his year's State of the Union.
Nonapod said...
To them, the image is far more important than any actual deeds when it comes to selecting a President, especially how that person looks to the international community.
You're giving them too much credit. To them appearing virtuous is a function of embracing left wing politics. So while they often criticize the image they define any non-left politics as inherently not-virtuous. Ultimately the objection is to the underlying politics.
To test this consider that the left made the exact same complaints about Bush and Reagan. All it means is 'they aren't one of us' politically.
Jaltcoh said:
“Whoops, we screwed up in 2016. We need a different tone and direction.”
I'd tweak a bit, to:
“Whoops, we screwed up in 2016. We need a different media, an new, honest press, and a democrat party leadership who isn't so freaking corrupt all the time. People like Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi must go. Then perhaps we wouldn't get so much Trump."
There is no scenario on Earth that that would lend itself to me voting for that commie bastard.
However, a gun to my head with a certain trigger pull would probably be 50/50.
That's a very nice black and white straw man argument Sebastian. It's the kind of technique where you cannot be wrong and you cannot lose. Very clever.
"Clyde said...
Also, I’m guessing jaltcoh doesn’t have a 401K. Only those with no skin in the game would vote for Bernie."
"Jupiter said...
Seems like he has inherited his mother's fundamental lack of seriousness"
Like his mother he took his law degree and ran not to law firm, but to a government job. It doesn't have tenure, but the next best thing, civil service protections. He has awesome health care and a pension I'm sure, all paid by taxpayers. So he can vote for people because they are gay. Or black. Or Jewish. Or more appealing to foreign countries. Or whatever other stupid reason.
No one who has investments in the market would vote for Sanders. It's pretty simple.
This statement states it all: "...I don’t know if Sanders would be a better president than Trump..." Then your son "John" follows up with another dumb comment of: "...we screwed up in 2016..." Which says it all for me just another person who has infected themselves with the state run propaganda machine (MSM) with the TDS virus. Gees, "John" you admitted you voted for Gary Johnson, but cry about the mistake of 2016. Nothing about what President Trump has accomplished for America - only your poor cultural meme. Truly amazing logic on your part?
Of course. "Sanders will turn the US into the USSR" is simply the inverse of "Trump will turn the US into Nazi Germany."
Have you seen or heard about the Fed AB5 law based on Cali’s idiotic law?
Or the new immigration law?
Child molesters are A-OK.
This election won’t be a landslide.
That thinking will get Sanders. Oh, he’s going to win, I don’t have to vote.
A no brainer poll.
Which of Sanders policies, if implemented, would result in a lack of food, water, or toilet paper?
This is just what those who voted for Chavez asked. Obviously if it wasn't a policy it can't happen.
"We need a different tone and direction"
JAC: why?
Do you want less growth? More open borders? Living constitutionalists? Hostility to Israel? Friendship with the mullahs? No tariffs on China? More regulation? Higher taxes? A weaker military? Fewer deals like neo-NAFTA? NATO countries paying less?
And changing tone by rewarding the people who accused Trump of treason and tarred his supporters as racists?
"J. Farmer said...
@MadisonMan:
Of course. "Sanders will turn the US into the USSR" is simply the inverse of "Trump will turn the US into Nazi Germany.""
Trump doesn't have staffers advocating that. Sanders does. He knows about it. And they remain.
Ann, can you share whether the % of your commenters saying they'd vote for Trump surprises or doesn't surprise you? I was very surprised by 91%. Thanks.
@Seeing Red:
Have you seen or heard about the Fed AB5 law based on Cali’s idiotic law?
Or the new immigration law?
You're pushing on an open door with me regarding immigration and as someone who makes frequent use of independent contractors. Nonetheless, neither of those laws will turn the US into the USSR. They won't be good, but that's not the same thing.
As I have relatives who lived and died under communism, I will never vote for Sanders no matter who his opponent is.
I am so impressed and pleased with Trump, I can think of no person alive today that I might vote for instead of him.
So this choice didn't not take long for me to make.
@Curious George:
Trump doesn't have staffers advocating that. Sanders does. He knows about it. And they remain.
For example?
“We” screwed up because “We” are the ones “we’ve” been waiting for.
There’s a reason marxists were disenfranchised and should be disenfranchised.
What’s so great about the former USSR or Cuba today?
Bernie loved/s them.
You should do a follow up poll. I wonder how many readers here prefer Gershwin to rap music.
If she came out and said, "I'm voting for Trump!", we all know what would happen. Various leftwing law professors would write 10-point letters, with a buncha signatures, denouncing her. And then the University of Wisconsin would disinvite her to some tea function. And then the next time she gave a public speech, some idiotic leftists would hassle her. And then The New Yorker would write a piece on the "rogue" liberal law professor who tolerates and enables a wacko, right wing commentariat on her blog.
What utter bullshit. She supported the Iraq war and Bush's torture program (although she pretended it wasn't torture), and what you claim would happen didn't (and she was still teaching at the time). Hell, even the guy who blatantly provided cover for torture by ignoring well established definitions of torture is still teaching at Berkley, of all places, and is treated as an expert rather than a pariah.
You're pushing on an open door with me regarding immigration and as someone who makes frequent use of independent contractors. Nonetheless, neither of those laws will turn the US into the USSR. They won't be good, but that's not the same thing.
Sorry, sweetheart, it doesn’t work like that.
It ALWAYS ends the same.
"I don’t know if Sanders would be a better president than Trump. I don’t need to have an opinion about that in order to choose Sanders over Trump. There’s something larger at stake, which is the need to send a message to the world and to history: “Whoops, we screwed up in 2016. We need a different tone and direction.”
Whoever wrote that has a job as the next Academy Awards host. Although the election will be over then so never mind,.
Field Marshall Freder has returned!
The Iraq war you cite was in 2003 -- 17 years ago. Times have changed (gotten worse) on college campuses. Duh.
Not difficult at all. Trump
@Seeing Red:
It ALWAYS ends the same.
What is the "it" you are referring to?
Now that Trump has been successful in appointing federal judges, they call me threat under Sanders would be blunted by an activist judiciary. I just can't abide people who fail to have confidence in the United States Constitution and the pluckiness of the American people.
The sky has not fallen from Trump Bernie won't even make it rain. I predict he would have a Jimmy Carter like presidency where he would be stymied by his own party.
"it" is the dystopian fantasies that control his ego
Deedle deedle dumpling, my son John.
He lays eggs for gentlemen.
"The Althouse commentariat had to vote on whether they'd choose Trump or Sanders. You'll never guess what happened next!"
I’m pretty sure I’d pick Trump, but I voted “will decide later”. I don’t want to commit to a decision until the election’s upon us as a matter of course. Feels better to have all the cards on the table before I make my choice.
I’ll admit that I *have* been silently praying for NotSanders and NotJoe Biden From Space, just so it’s an actually difficult choice.
Bay Area Guy said...
You think that's what Bernie is doing?
It has been clear for a long time that Bernie is being paid by the globalists to deliver the Marxist base in November.
"We don't care about your damn emails."
"We don't care about Ukraine."
He consistently and fervently endorses whatever globalist the dems throw up no matter how corrupt they are. He was clearly trying to push Biden this time around. He fires them up then tells them to vote for the democrat. Rinse repeat.
Does the same thing every 4 years.
Most telling was Iowa. They were clearly screwing Bernie in Iowa.
But Bernie is acting like he is in on it. Not like an independent. He couldn't be more supportive of what happened in the Caucus.
For decades labor unions traded health care plans in exchange for smaller wage increases. Worked out great, since medical costs increased much faster than general inflation. Sanders wants to make those health care plans illegal . . . ‘cuz he’s for working people!
@Bay Area Guy:
Not to be a total Althouse lackey, but it ain't important who she actually votes for or her telling us who she voted for.
Totally agree.
If she came out and said, "I'm voting for Trump!", we all know what would happen. Various leftwing law professors would write 10-point letters, with a buncha signatures, denouncing her. And then the University of Wisconsin would disinvite her to some tea function. And then the next time she gave a public speech, some idiotic leftists would hassle her. And then The New Yorker would write a piece on the "rogue" liberal law professor who tolerates and enables a wacko, right wing commentariat on her blog.
Not to sound ungallant to Ann, but I think that vastly overstates her importance or level of involvement in public life.
You live in one of the two handfuls of states in America where you’d have to choose. Most of America by population lives in states where an individual Presidential vote will not make a difference because the state skews red or blue so dramatically.
Times have changed (gotten worse) on college campuses. Duh.
Thought you would make this bullshit point. Which is why I pointed out that John Yoo is still teaching at Berkley and has had several columns recently in major national publications (rather than rotting in jail, where he belongs).
@Rick:
This is just what those who voted for Chavez asked. Obviously if it wasn't a policy it can't happen.
Then your argument is...
1) Sanders gets elected
2) ??????????
3) Venezuela!
Obviously, given the nature of the comments section, Trump will win going away.
Interesting to me that there are over 650 votes and 86 comments.
I still don't think Sanders is going to be the nominee, but the Democrats face a challenge in actually defeating him. How they do it matters.
Farmer: "Not to sound ungallant to Ann, but I think that vastly overstates her importance or level of involvement in public life."
The left literally got a rodeo clown fired for wearing an obama mask and called for public and career (academic) destruction of a 16 year old high schooler who wore a MAGA hat on a field trip.
But seriously, forget about Sanders being a Socialist, Marxist, Communist! What has Sanders accomplished in his life, other than being a life-long politico. But that's more an issue for those idiotic voters in his state. How could they vote for such a person? That state doesn't think well of themselves continuing to vote in such a loser as Sanders. Voters truly are amazing and the biggest problem in our country.
Then your argument is...
Farmer apparently thinks winning arguments with himself means something.
But seriously, forget about Sanders being a Socialist, Marxist, Communist! What has Sanders accomplished in his life, other than being a life-long politico. But that's more an issue for those idiotic voters in his state. How could they vote for such a person? That state doesn't think well of themselves continuing to vote in such a loser as Sanders. Voters truly are amazing and the biggest problem in our country.
Trump landslide and Impeachment 2.0 incoming.
“Ann, can you share whether the % of your commenters saying they'd vote for Trump surprises or doesn't surprise you? I was very surprised by 91%. Thanks.”
Don’t know about Althouse, but it doesn’t surprise me in the least. It’s just as I expected.
I want to echoe Bay Area Guy and Farmer- this constant trying to get Althouse to declare a position is kind of tiresome. I like being in doubt about the issue even though I have a definite opinion on the matter.
"J. Farmer said...
@Curious George:
Trump doesn't have staffers advocating that. Sanders does. He knows about it. And they remain.
For example?"
Seriously?
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/01/15/sanders_field_organizer_there_are_a_lot_of_anarcho-communists_working_for_the_sanders_campaign.html
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jan/28/project-veritas-unearths-more-radical-bernie-sande/
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jan/21/guillotine-rich-project-veritas-exposes-another-ra/
https://dailycaller.com/2020/01/21/bernie-sanders-staffer-campaign-project-veritas-gulags-video/
https://www.projectveritasaction.com/2020/01/15/expose2020-part-2-bernie-2020-field-organizer-kyle-jurek-there-are-things-that-are-more-important-than-the-rule-of-law-in-the-united-states-declares-that-his-views-are-shared/
All are still employed by Sanders.
“Not to sound ungallant to Ann, but I think that vastly overstates her importance or level of involvement in public life.”
I think she might agree with you.
So sanity and the will to survive triumph over shitty Inga-ism!
There is a God!
I was very surprised by 91%.
Yeah, it is rather low, isn't it?
Drago said...The left literally got a rodeo clown fired for wearing an obama mask and called for public and career (academic) destruction of a 16 year old high schooler who wore a MAGA hat on a field trip.
There's a big difference between "want to" and "can". She's retired with a guaranteed pension. She's not giving public speeches and various media already refer to her as conservative. There's nothing the left can do to her that matters.
I tried to read John's essay but didn't get very far. The one great unintentional reveal of his essay is that the great thing about being just one in 125 million is that you're free to be a knucklehead if you want.
When you are a government employed liberal you can afford to base your vote on niche issues and "firsts!". You don't need to be concerned with the economic impact of your choices and can instead focus on emotional reasoning. You are untethered from those nasty rubes who are dependent on a healthy economy for their livelihood.
Trump has eliminated Biden.
By exposing the Bidens’ Ukraine scams. Nobody really bought it. Even impeachment as a ruse didn’t work to hide the scams.
I wouldn’t want to be the next Democrat candidate Trump gets in his sights.
Honestly, I'm enough of a enlightened academic to like the general goals of Sanders.
I'm in a area and in a field where he would far and away be seen as the only option with such a choice.
My problem is that I don't trust him. The wonder of Jesus in suggesting love and sharing and whatnot is that he also strongly preached against corruption and lived a life of love and sharing and whatnot. The Roman emperors in contrast got support for their growing privilege by promising free bread and free circuses and all the Barbarian's stuff. They didn't care about the actual people, but know they could get more power by bribing the people and creating divisions between Us and Them.
Socialist approaches work in Scandinavia, for the most part, because they have the lowest levels of public corruption in the world. The same goals in Venezuela or Russia or places with high corruption always devolve into authoritarianism. The most corrupt becomes the most important pig.
If Progressives really want to help people they would be absolutists against public corruption and illustrate in their lives that they really do believe in the goals. I know some Progressives who do this. The great majority, including all the national leaders are quite the opposite. They indulge public corruption and live lavish lifestyles.
They want to be Roman emperors, and are surrounded by the sycophants who benefit.
When you are a government employed liberal you can afford to base your vote on niche issues and "firsts!". You don't need to be concerned with the economic impact of your choices and can instead focus on emotional reasoning. You are untethered from those nasty rubes who are dependent on a healthy economy for their livelihood.
Isn't it amazing those the government puts in front of the line never worry about shortages?
@ J Farmer
Then your argument is...
1) Sanders gets elected
2) ??????????
3) Venezuela!
You have some sort of keyboard malfunction on step 2. It should read like this:
1) Sanders gets elected
2) Implements the policies he actually states he wants to.
3) Venezuela!
Freder Frederson said...
I was very surprised by 91%.
Yeah, it is rather low, isn't it?
That's what I was thinking. I figured 10 votes, tops, for Sanders. I assume people who clicked on "won't say" didn't notice the "view" button and thought they had to vote to see the results.
Where would you rather live: The USA or Venezuela? Texas or Cuba? Where would you prefer your children grow up and raise their families?
I have questions. What is it that you really dislike about Trump? Is it a real thing or just a widespread narrative that you would have a hard time showing actual examples of? If the media loved Trump and treated him like they did Obama, do you think your opinion of him would be different? Is that thing you dislike about him important compared to economic failure and widespread poverty, nations taking advantage of us, having us pay their share of obligations, having them steal our technology and hard earned advantages, having them feel safe in stepping on our interests? Is it worth all that?
If you needed someone to run a large powerful organization with a huge budget and many thousands of employees, would you choose Trump or Bernie? Which do you think our enimies take more serious?
Our enimies would love us to go socialist, especially the ones who know better first hand. They would love the U.S. to join the ranks of the failed, weakened, dependent states who have.
This is a ridiculously easy question, that only a fool could get wrong.
@Curious George:
All are still employed by Sanders.
Count me considerably unimpressed. Another in James O'Keefe's fearless journalism of secretly recording self-important nobodies saying stupid shit. Just like the dumb reporting by the AP back in 2016, "Donald Trump’s paid campaign staffers on their personal social media accounts have declared that Muslims are unfit to be U.S. citizens, ridiculed Mexican accents, called for Secretary of State John F. Kerry to be hanged and stated their readiness for a possible civil war."
Some low-level campaign staffer says something stupid, news at 11!
“Trump has eliminated Biden.
By exposing the Bidens’ Ukraine scams. Nobody really bought it. Even impeachment as a ruse didn’t work to hide the scams.”
Biden was never Trump’s greatest opponent, Sanders always was. Even in 2016, in almost every head to head poll Sanders beat Trump in a general election. So Trump’s election meddling did nothing, but get him impeached. Democrats and liberals rejected Biden not because of some fiction Trump cooked up, they rejected him because he is an old man who got confused very easily and put his foot in his mouth one too many times.
@Rick:
Farmer apparently thinks winning arguments with himself means something.
Well, Rick, it's hard to win an argument against someone who refuses to make one.
@Wa St Blogger:
You have some sort of keyboard malfunction on step 2. It should read like this:
1) Sanders gets elected
2) Implements the policies he actually states he wants to.
3) Venezuela!
Well then perhaps you will answer the question I've asked half a dozen times. Which of Sanders policies, if implemented, will result in the US turning into Venezuela?
Son John makes a good partial point, but then takes it in the wrong direction. There IS something larger at stake, and we do need to send a message to the world and history -- but that message is that the 2016 election, like the British Brexit, was an important turning point in which people reclaimed their sovereignty from a globalist, alienated, and ultimately neurotic elite that's become increasingly deranged as it loses control. So we need Trump for four more years if only to prevent us falling back into the bleak "situation normal, all fucked up" that Sanders or any of the so-called moderate Dems would like to impose.
Sanders would now seem to be the Democrat’s leading candidate.
I wouldn’t want to be in his shoes. He’s next in line to be sunk by Trump’s superior strategic vision.
Until Sanders goes down for the count, we’ll be told almost daily that the “walls are closing in” on Trump.
How will Trump take the crazy old commie down?
Sanders gives less that 1% of his income to charity.
Think on that.
Imagine the state of the world if there was not a strong, free-market United States for the last century. Imagine what would happen if we became weak, economically and militarily, becuase that is exactly what socialism in the U.S. would bring to the world. You have to have a severe blind spot to history and a naive, childish view of the world to miss how important capitalism, especially here, is to the world and its people.
Blogger Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...
I think you may have miscalculated if you believe we can return to normalcy by rewarding Democrats for the scorched earth policy they've employed over the last 4 years.
2/12/20, 10:31 AM
I consider this to be the perfect comment.
Well then perhaps you will answer the question I've asked half a dozen times. Which of Sanders policies, if implemented, will result in the US turning into Venezuela?
Sanders has repeatedly supported nationalizing the oil industry, and has advocated imprisonment for oil industry executives.
Precisely the lead-offs to the Venezuelan catastrophe.
Paddy O - 11:16
Wonderful and spot on.
I'd add that a corrupt press is another layer.
Sanders says he wants to change Washington, DC. The guy has been there most of his life and now he's promissing change? Ne never did much of anything all those years. Is he having a mid-life crisis at our expense? Buy a Corvette, and cruse downtown, you old poseur.
“Son John makes a good partial point, but then takes it in the wrong direction. There IS something larger at stake, and we do need to send a message to the world and history -- but that message is that the 2016 election, like the British Brexit, was an important turning point in which people reclaimed their sovereignty from a globalist, alienated, and ultimately neurotic elite that's become increasingly deranged as it loses control. So we need Trump for four more years if only to prevent us falling back into the bleak "situation normal, all fucked up" that Sanders or any of the so-called moderate Dems would like to impose.”
Don’t know about JAC, but your message is one that the majority of liberals and Democrats soundly reject. Isolation and antagonizing allies never made any country stronger. The FUBAR situation you speak of is one this country has been sucked into under a Trump. The economy would’ve continued to improve under most any president after nearly being on the brink of destruction under Bush.
Althouse says she's just going to be for Klobuchar. So to answer how Althouse would vote in a Trump vs Bernie election, we must first ask, is Klobuchar closer to Trump or Bernie policy-wise?
Also, is Bernie more boring than Trump?
And lastly, what do you think of Klobuchar's promise to change the name of Camp David to Hidden Valley Ranch?
Just like last time, I'll vote FOR someone else.
Biden used his power to enrich his son. His dead-beat son.
And the left re-name that corruption "election meddling by Trump!"
Only a hivemind idiot would drink that koolaid.
Farmer's method of argumentation emits a powerful odor of mendacity.
That's assuming he knows what he's doing.
No Farmer, I can't provide examples of mendacity's odor.
I threw away my vote last time. Not this time. Trump is more obnoxious than I thought he would be and he has been more effective policy wise than I expected.
I certainly hope Bernie gets the nomination.
The best example ever of 'cutting off your nose to spite your face"
For the Trump supporters this is a no brainer and silly question. What really needs to be discovered is what Democrats and Independents say they will do given that binary choice. I suspect (hope) the majority vote Trump.
"Socialist approaches work in Scandinavia..."
No they didn't and they don't. In much of their policy they have abandoned it years ago, becuase it was a failure. The are now in many ways more capitalist than we are. All socialism everywhere is only possible where capitalism is actually paying the bills, and carrying it on its back. Scandinavians and even hard core China have come to depend on capitalist engines to sustain them. Anywhere socialism is mostly on its own, it has failed its people in tragic form. Nowhere that has had a socialist experience is still moving more in that direction. They may continue with some policy, but only if they have capitalism shoring it up. Without capitalism, socialism must be maintained at the end of a gun.
J. Farmer said...
@Rick:
Farmer apparently thinks winning arguments with himself means something.
Well, Rick, it's hard to win an argument against someone who refuses to make one.
There's no point in discussion with people who misstate others comments in such stupid ways.
“For the Trump supporters this is a no brainer and silly question. What really needs to be discovered is what Democrats and Independents say they will do given that binary choice. I suspect (hope) the majority vote Trump.”
Oh boy. I suspect you are very wrong. I suspect you have no clue how wrong.
Inga....you think Trump "cooked up some fiction" that Biden and his son are corrupt? Is this truly what you believe based on all the evidence out there? I'm really curious. It appears to me that we can't even come to a basic mid point on actual facts. Biden admitted on record that he withheld aid until they fired the prosecutor that was looking into his son's corruption. Do you think that is fiction that Trump cooked up?
J. Farmer said...
@Curious George:
Trump doesn't have staffers advocating that. Sanders does. He knows about it. And they remain.
For example?
2/12/20, 10:54 AM
The pro-re-education camp guy?
Maybe, IDK. I live in a bluest of blue state and do not hear a lot of love and support for Bernie. And the outward signs of dislike for Trump have died down.
That poll is the one I'd find most interesting. Bernie didn't crack 30% in either Iowa and NH.
"Well then perhaps you will answer the question I've asked half a dozen times. Which of Sanders policies, if implemented, will result in the US turning into Venezuela?"
Pretty much all of them are exactly what happened there.
Imagine what would happen if we really did reign in all the wealthy and took their money. These are the very people who have proven that they know how to handle and invest money to produce wealth and success. So we take it from them and give it to exactly the people who have endlessly failed at using and investing it successfully. It's the national equivalent of giving your 30 year old unemployed son, living in the basement, full access to your bank accounts.
J. Farmer said...
Well then perhaps you will answer the question I've asked half a dozen times. Which of Sanders policies, if implemented, will result in the US turning into Venezuela?
I know you are not all that smart but here is a not totally complete list of his proposed polices:
1. Nationalizing the oil industry.
2. National ban on Fracking.
3. Raising taxes on incomes over 50%.
4. Nationalizing the entire health care industry.
5. Decriminalizing illegal immigration.
6. Providing "Free" Health care to illegal immigrants.
7. Tearing down all physical impediments at the southern border.
8. Gun "Buyback" schemes and gun control.
Though you are right. These policies wouldn't lead to Venezuela.
They would lead to something else.
Rick said...
Which of Sanders policies, if implemented, would result in a lack of food, water, or toilet paper?
This is just what those who voted for Chavez asked. Obviously if it wasn't a policy it can't happen.
2/12/20, 10:51 AM
J-Farm, you are becoming tedious, as if you are picking fights just for the thrill of disagreeing. I'm sure you would say that what you believe doesn't matter, but again, why don't you just take the flip side then?
To answer your apparently trenchant question about the shortages, I'm not up on his food and water policies, but I'm sure a pretty direct linkage can be drawn to the underarm deodorant industry taking it in the shorts.
Are you aware enough to understand what I am referring to? If not, perhaps you're not worth educating, or else the playing dumb act is no longer worth tolerating.
If you do recall Sanders' comments on the excessive variety of deodorants available in the marketplace, do you really need a diagram drawn for you on how such attitudes, driving policy, would lead to harmful pressures on the deodorant industry? Or again, are you not that stupid? Or is your point that there is not yet a bill with Sanders' name on it, the Preferred Underarm or PU Act?
If you further can see that a person who thinks that he knows best, and would like to act on his knowledge of, how industry should be organized in one field, might spread this insight (e.g. 'breadlines are good') to other fields...are we there yet? Or are you not yet done being obtuse?
Have the goodness to make your reply in declarative sentences expressing what you think, instead of the pseudo-Socratean quizzing which so quickly palls.
Isolation and antagonizing allies never made any country stronger.
What "isolation"? More evidence the left wingers make whatever statements they consider the most damaging even though those statements have no relationship to reality.
My take? An elitist raised by an elitist.
Should I vote for the man who wants me to succeed because it reflects well on him, who doesnt care how I live my life?
Or should I vote for the man who would cast aspersions about me if I did succeed, and would attempt to take the fruits of my success away from me, and dictate to me what is the proper way to live?
What a hard choice.
liberals rejected Biden not because of some fiction Trump cooked up,
Leftists, there are no Liberals anymore, are fine with corruption Sanders style. Without corruption what would Democrats do for money ?
Earlier today, an indictment was unsealed against the CEO of an online payment processing company, and seven others, charging them with conspiring to make and conceal conduit and excessive campaign contributions, and related offenses, during the U.S. presidential election in 2016 and thereafter.
Assistant Attorney General Brian A. Benczkowski of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and Assistant Director in Charge Timothy R. Slater of the FBI’s Washington Field Office made the announcement.
A federal grand jury in the District of Columbia indicted Ahmad “Andy” Khawaja, 48, of Los Angeles, California, on Nov. 7, 2019, along with George Nader, Roy Boulos, Rudy Dekermenjian, Mohammad “Moe” Diab, Rani El-Saadi, Stevan Hill and Thayne Whipple. The 53 count indictment charges Khawaja with two counts of conspiracy, three counts of making conduit contributions, three counts of causing excessive contributions, 13 counts of making false statements, 13 counts of causing false records to be filed, and one count of obstruction of a federal grand jury investigation. Nader is charged with conspiring with Khawaja to make conduit campaign contributions, and related offenses. Boulos, Dekermenjian, Diab, El-Saadi, Hill, and Whipple are charged with conspiring with Khawaja and each other to make conduit campaign contributions and conceal excessive contributions, and related offenses.
All Democrat donations. Millions.
Achilles - your list for starters.
-Free college debt relief and a big middle finger to the responsible people who paid it off without government assistance.
“Maybe, IDK. I live in a bluest of blue state and do not hear a lot of love and support for Bernie. And the outward signs of dislike for Trump have died down.”
Most people are very circumspect when discussing politics face to face with friends and neighbors nowadays. People are keeping their opinions muted to avoid uncomfortable interactions the next time they meet at some social function. I think one hears a more unfiltered opinion here on forums like this where one can be anonymous.
Sanders has a history of corruption similar to Biden but the numbers are smaller so far.
Read Schweizer's book.
“Leftists, there are no Liberals anymore, are fine with corruption Sanders style.”
Does that include your “leftist” children?
"I foresee a possible Trump-Sanders unity ticket."
Now THAT I would definitely vote for.
I may be the only commenter here who has actually voted for Bernie.
In 2016, in our open D primary. Because 1) I'd like to call the question nationwide: do we want S/socialism or not?, and 2) I loathe the Clintons.
That he was and is such a fan of the USSR etc disqualifies him from being taken seriously as a human being, much less president.
In the general, I cast a vice-signaling vote for the Libertarians.
Narr
Mine is a Duopolist state so it doesn't matter
Admiral Inga: "Most people are very circumspect when discussing politics face to face with friends and neighbors nowadays."
I'll bet yours certainly are.
bagoh20 said...
Imagine what would happen if we really did reign in all the wealthy and took their money.
Chavez / Maduro didn't just take their money. They replaced people with business expertise with politically reliable incompetents. As a result businesses broke down. Replacing expertise with political reliability means the organization changes its primary function from service delivery to political accomplishment. The natural state of a business is failure. service delivery must be relentlessly pursued to prevent that failure which cannot happen as a secondary or tertiary priority.
If the wealthy were reined in, you'd have a poor country.
Duh.
The Iron Lady did something or other with her hands while speaking before the House of Commons that demonstrated the point quite succinctly, I hear.
Weird.
Mr. Doom and Gloom himself (Farmer)wants to make the case Bernie is just a harmless old man. All those radical followers chomping at the bit? Well, they'll get nowhere near positions of power.
Yep, 'ol Bernie will fill his government with very sensible moderates that will be very conciliatory towards the MAGA crowd. Nothing to worry about.
The thing I love about Crazy Bernie is that he is 50 years too late. He is the same age as my parents (late 70s), who were bona fide hippies! New York to Univ of Michigan to San Francisco in the Summer of Love, '67. I grew up with these people!
The old hippies are way too old and decrepit to run national policy. Too much sex, drugs and RockNRoll has addled their brains. (In general, I am pro all 3 vices!) Heck, at age 78, they can barely figure out how the can opener works!
Bernie needs to be placed in a museum of American History. Like the old Japanese soldiers who emerged from the Atolls in the Pacific circa 1970, wondering how WWII ended, and whether they are permitted to leave their posts.
And, the funny thing is, nobody remembers what Bernie was actually doing in the 60's. He certainly wasn't a national figure, like Hoffman, Leary, Rubin, Carmichael. He was probably in a secluded cabin in Vermont, on welfare, writing soft porn pamphlets for underground newspapers.
Politically, the guy is a walking disaster for the Democrat party.
@ J Farmer
Well then perhaps you will answer the question I've asked half a dozen times. Which of Sanders policies, if implemented, will result in the US turning into Venezuela?
-Free College tuition
-Elimination of existing college debt
-Expansion of Social Security
-government takeover of Health care through medicare for all.
-Guarantee of affordability housing and housing for all
-Guarantee of food
-Global Warming
-Increase minimum wage
-Wealth Tax
-90% marginal tax rate
All these policies dis-incentivize investment and entrepreneurship. They dis-incentivize the desire to work and incentivize living on the dole. People who least benefit from college (the ones who don't attend) are the one who subsidize the people who will generate higher wages because they went to college. Government control of major institutions almost always result in lower quality, less options and more shortages. It removes freedom in exchange for security and dependence. When the subsequent shrinkage in economy generates more people needing government assistance concurrently reducing the number of people paying taxes means the government will have to either print money or eat more of the seed corn by taking the producers at higher rates to keep the proles happy. That is how you get Venezuela. Cause when the good times end, the government promises become harder to maintain but the need to maintain them becomes paramount to keep the leaders in power.
J. Farmer said...
Well then perhaps you will answer the question I've asked half a dozen times. Which of Sanders policies, if implemented, will result in the US turning into Venezuela?
It's interesting he thinks he's owed a response to his attempt to troll the conversation. The point was that unless he can tell us what policy Chavez supported which led to the current results his own question is irrelevant. By answering it you put yourself in a losing position - because the future cannot be proven - but Farmer will have wasted everyone's time and derailed what otherwise might be an interesting conversation.
Before this election, I would have said "abstain or vote third party." However, because of the NPVIC I'd feel a lot more pressure to vote for Trump.
Morkoth4682 said...
Sanders may or may not be an actual "Communist" (debatable) but he sure the hell loved him some good old USSR back in the day
I don't have a solid feeling about what he is either. If I were to guess, based on his history he strikes me as perhaps a bit more of a grifter than some kind of True Believer. The stories of him being kicked out of a commune for being too lazy, his never having (what I would consider) a real job in the private sector, his wife and daughter bilking some silly little college in Vermont out of half a million dollars... all these seem to indicate someone who is more of a lazy con artist rather than some kind of hardcore Stalin-like authoritarian.
Don't get me wrong, I believe he would bring utter disaster as President. I just don't think he would intentionally create gulags. I'll allow that if some of his most ardent followers were put into positions of power, it's possible that some nasty authoritarian policies might be implimented (especially those characters from the Project Veritas videos).
Inga said: The economy would’ve continued to improve under most any president after nearly being on the brink of destruction under Bush.
Most people forget that the 2008 crash was due to Bill Clinton appointee Franklin Raines and his policies (e.g., people without jobs were getting mortgages). It was not due to George Bush who made some (albeit weak) effort to rein in the Clinton/Raines mortgage problem before it became a crisis.
I will not include Inga in "most people" because she never knew what the leftist media did not tell her.
@ J. Farmer
Bernie Sanders is in favor of centrally planned economy. He's said this often, explicitly and implicitly. He, for instance, laments the abundance and variety of deodorant on store shelves "when children are hungry", completely oblivious to the fact that these things exist because people want and buy them, which drives production which employs many people who as a result can feed their kids.
Centrally planned economies are just what differentiate communist nations like the USSR, Cuba, and Venezuela (and pre- market reform China) from social democracies like Denmark. They have always resulted in shortages of food, medicine, clothing, houses, toilet paper, and everything else we take for granted in our rotten capitalist hellscape.
Sanders would know this, and understand why it happens, if in his nearly 80 years on the planet he'd ever learned the most basic concepts about how a market economy works.
It is significant that Sanders does not call himself a social democrat. He calls himself a democratic socialist. They are not the same thing. And Sanders is not one, he is the other. He says so himself.
Here's the hot, but ditzy Katy Tur of MSNBC interviewing a "Bernie" voter, who turns to be a Trump voter..
Too much fun.
stevew wrote:
"Bernie didn't crack 30% in either Iowa and NH."
I think in the primaries, Sanders has the hardest floor of support and the hardest ceiling. This is probably due to the fact that he is outside the party to a great extent. You won't likely see his support drop under 20% or go about 35% (30 may be the ceiling, as you point out).
However, with the structure of the primaries, 30-35% may be all you actually need to win the nomination outright. You have to get 15% of the vote to actually get delegates, and a 4 way race may result in 30-35% getting half the pledged delegates if one or two of those four end up with 10-14%.
I think Sanders has to, on Super Tuesday, breach 35% to have what I would consider a chance to get the nomination. He will have to prove it to me.
John basically states if we vote for Bernie and he screws things up, we can just undo that by voting against him in four years. That's not the way it works under communism. As they say, you can vote your way into socialism but you have to shoot your way out.
And all because he doesn't want President Trump to get any credit for the good things he has done. My goodness, how ignorant.
“Admiral Inga: "Most people are very circumspect when discussing politics face to face with friends and neighbors nowadays."
I'll bet yours certainly are.”
I bet your neighbors see you coming and run the other way, mumbling breathlessly “Run run away, pretend you didn’t see him. He looks manic today.”
Thank goodness for the "Massachusetts [secret] ballot." The people of Colorado, Oregon, Washington and West Virginia would be wise to get with it.
Inga: "I bet your neighbors see you coming and run the other way, mumbling breathlessly “Run run away, pretend you didn’t see him. He looks manic today.”
Yours probably roll their eyes while wondering "why does she keep saying Carter Page is a russian spy after Horowitz proved he wasn't?"
The good news is we now know what the next democrat Lawfare Sham-Wow-Peachment effort is going to be based on.
American universities are pumping out 10's of thousands of commies every year. Young, energetic, angry, and a very bleak outlook of the future.
yea, let's put their leader in the White House.
It'll be fine.
Blogger J. Farmer said...
@Curious George:
All are still employed by Sanders.
Count me considerably unimpressed. Another in James O'Keefe's fearless journalism of secretly recording self-important nobodies saying stupid shit. Just like the dumb reporting by the AP back in 2016, "Donald Trump’s paid campaign staffers on their personal social media accounts have declared that Muslims are unfit to be U.S. citizens, ridiculed Mexican accents, called for Secretary of State John F. Kerry to be hanged and stated their readiness for a possible civil war."
Some low-level campaign staffer says something stupid, news at 11!"
You asked for examples and when I produce them you go pfffft. WHat a tool.
I googled your AP quote, nothing. In any event, none of your likely bullshit quote has anything to do with Trump being a nazi.
Trump has eliminated Biden.
By exposing the Bidens’ Ukraine scams. Nobody really bought it. Even impeachment as a ruse didn’t work to hide the scams.
Democrats did the job. Most people would never have heard about it if not for the impeachment. Everybody here knew about it before the impeachment. Average working stiff and homebodies learned about it when tv pre-empted their soaps and reality tv for the clown show. Millions of dollars for a no show? Only hard core fanatics can rationalize that as being ok.
Next up, dems fucking up by claiming Trump interfered with Stone and four guys quit in protest. I really hope they run with that one too. Expose more of the corruption on the left. So obviously pre-planned that even I can see it.
-Free college debt relief and a big middle finger to the responsible people who paid it off without government assistance.
Most of government is a big middle finger to responsible people. Saying, "life isn't fair why did I have to be responsible and they don't?"isn't an effective argument. The question is whether debt relief like this would stimulate the economy. It would. All the money paying for loans would go elsewhere.
There's many industries and categories of people who get some kind of government assistance or bail-out for bad decisions or bad events that happen outside of their control. How many banks were bailed out when other banks were more responsible?
Life isn't fair, and that's part of living in society.
Though, I'm a Westerner, and a significant amount of people came west to get away from their debts and past mistakes to start things fresh. The bankers were frustrated, but it was good for society overall to give people a way to move forward. It's even Biblical. Year of Jubilee and all that.
Under socialism you have a system where even good people do bad things.
Sadly, the only one offering beyond a soupcon of pushback against Berno-nomics in Friday debate was Biden.
Farmer has proven himself a gadfly with an escape hatch of fatalism.
I suspect un-tethered to the private sector at some level.
Re "free" tuition, does nothing to address the "expodential" rise in brick and mortar college costs.
I know someone who left VZ as an adult. She has an apartment in Caracas that she has to station a family member in when between renters since the state will see it as an unused resource to be grabbed if it is empty.
during the subprime meltdown, there were folks in Madison clamoring to similarly assume SJ based squatter's rights on foreclosed homes.
You can bet they looooove Berno.
Has Kyle Jurek been fired?
Will any of the other candidates confront Berno on his thug brigade?
that seems to be a Scylla vs Charybdis choice, narr,
-Free College tuition
-Elimination of existing college debt
-Expansion of Social Security
-government takeover of Health care through medicare for all.
-Guarantee of affordability housing and housing for all
-Guarantee of food
-Global Warming
-Increase minimum wage
-Wealth Tax
-90% marginal tax rate
And, those are just the one he publicly talks about. The policies he believes will get him elected.
What else has been festering for the last five six decades?
DEAD IN THE WATER if those pass.
“ Earlier today, an indictment was unsealed against the CEO of an online payment processing company, and seven others, charging them with conspiring to make and conceal conduit and excessive campaign contributions, and related offenses, during the U.S. presidential election in 2016 and thereafter”
Of course, their last name isn’t “Clinton”. There has been a credible claim against Crooked Hillary, her campaign, and the DNC, stuck at the FEC without being investigated, precisely because of who the alleged perps are. It is apparently legal to bundle state and federal contributions in a joint fund, allowing someone to write one large check that doesn’t violate campaign finance limitations because the sub amounts wouldn’t. Here, the big check was chopped up into up to 43 different parts, which are sent to state Dem parties, which just coincidentally send them back to the Clinton campaign. Thus, an $80k contribution can be legally submitted, despite maybe a $2k personal limitation. The problem is that to make this work legally, there needs to be independence between all of these transactions. There wasn’t. All of the accounts were at the same bank, and one Clinton campaign staffer had signature authority over all of them. This means that they could do all of the 80+ transactions from their desk. But because of the transactions were all being authorized by people working for the Clinton campaign, the state Dem parties and the DNC were all legally alter egos for the Clinton campaigns, they all violated federal election laws. We aren’t talking maybe 1,000 rich Democrats who, probably unknowingly, committed election law violations (for roughly $90M in illegal contributions), and the Clinton campaign, along with the Presidential candidate who authorized this scheme, probably committed upwards of 80,000 campaign law violations. Of course, she has already walked on 60k Records Act violations, hundreds of Espionage Act violations, and possibly another 30k Obstruction of Justice violations (by deleting the 30k emails under subpoena). Figure 100k campaign finance violations and 100k email violations (200k felonies combined), and she is still walking around free, and still dreaming about getting a rematch with Trump with a brokered convention. And keep in mind that the Obama DOJ (and SDNY USA Preet Baharra) sent Dnish D’Sousa to prison for five months for two illegal contributions.
This post did prompt me to take a look at Senator Sanders's campaign website. Gosh.
“Yours probably roll their eyes while wondering "why does she keep saying Carter Page is a russian spy after Horowitz proved he wasn't?"
Your neighbors probably have secret signal to give each other as to when to break out an excuse like they need to go pick up their kids, or go home and shampoo their dog, when they run into you and with your wild eyed Trump worship.
The question is whether debt relief like this would stimulate the economy. It would. All the money paying for loans would go elsewhere.
Perhaps in the near term. But of course somebody ultimately pays for any sort of "debt relief" one way or the other. If you were to just declare $1.3 trillion in debt null and void, what does that mean for those debt holders? When it comes to student loans, most of the holders aren't even banks (though the originations of loans are usually banks) but third party loan servicing companies. So would they need to be bailed out? And if so, in order to pay for that bailout, would taxes need to be raised? And if taxes are raised, is that stimulating for the economy?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा