Doctor Cleveland's picture

    The Republicans Are Now a Third Party

    Dear Republicans: I see you couldn't help yourself. You've nominated Donald Trump for President of the United States. Really. His obvious psychological problems didn't stop you, or his obvious stupidity. They may have even been selling points. You are going to rue this day for a long time. But what's really remarkable is that you, who have been one of the two major parties for a century and a half, have nominated a third-party candidate for president. Congratulations, I suppose.

    That is what Trump is: a classic third-party candidate, someone who is ultimately in the race as a protest against the establishment and who is there to advance issues that aren't on the major parties' agenda. Those candidates tend not to be electable themselves, and not to have the qualifications they would need to actually do the job, because they aren't in the race to get elected. They are there to change the conversation. And that's certainly true of Trump. He couldn't do the job, and no reasonable person thinks he could. He doesn't even know what the President's job is.

    ("Separation of powers" is apparently a foreign concept to The Donald, because -- let's be honest here -- The Donald is a terrible American.)

    You have nominated third-party-protest candidate Trump because you, the Republican Party, are now a protest-oriented third party. That's been increasingly true for a while, but now it's official. You're a third party in a second party's position, which has been bad for the whole country. The system is designed for two parties, and it breaks down if one of them acts like a third party instead. The country pays a heavy price for that behavior, but your party is going to pay a heavier one.

    You haven't had a governing agenda for years. I mean, you haven't even pretended. You've focused everything on opposing the Democrats, tearing down rather than building up, and you've focused most of all on things that you know you can never pass into law. That disregard for what can actually get done is the hallmark of a third party. What were all those dozens of votes to repeal Obamacare for, except to establish that you were a fringe party with no interest in anything but empty symbolism? When you vote for the same thing sixty-two times without doing it, you are telling the entire world that you don't matter and that you don't want to matter.

    What about your endless parliamentary shenanigans and hostage-taking, repeatedly threatening to default on the national debt if you aren't given whatever fairly small-bore demand you're obsessed with on that particular week? That is the textbook tactic of a minority party in a multiparty system, like the fourth or fifth party extracting concessions by threatening to leave a governing coalition. You're basically like some goofy faction in the Italian parliament, or one of those tiny Israeli parties composed of idiot rabbis. They also demand what they want by threatening to bring down the whole government, and they also do it for relatively petty goals. That's what being a third or fourth party is about: being free from the burden of doing anything.

    And then you pushed out your own Speaker of the House for the high crime of not actually shutting down the government or defaulting on the national debt. The crime of making deals. And there's nothing a third party hates more than making deals. They're usually free from that burden because they can't get to the bargaining table in the first place. That isn't your problem yet, but it will be. It might just take a while.

    Nominating Trump makes it clear what you have become. At this point, you are nothing but an ethnic party, a vehicle for aggrieved white people's tribal animosities. Trump excels as a standard bearer for that party. He is totally miserable at building the wider coalition you would need if you ever want to win another national election. But your voters have spoken, and that's not what they want. They want to be the aggrieved losers. The good news is that everyone who lobbies for that job eventually gets it. Palookaville has plenty of space for you, and you can stay forever if you like.

    Right now, the Trump Republican party is a rump Republican party, based on ethnic resentment. It's built on a coalition of the old Southern Dixiecrats and the uglier elements of the Reagan Democrats in the North and Midwest. Your party is now analogous to France's National Front, Italy's Northern League, the UK Independence Party, or the various right-wing nationalist parties in former Communist nations. Of course, there are many of you, and many long-term Republican constituencies, who don't fit in such a party. But right now, that race-based nationalist coalition is in charge, and the rest of you are being told to go along with the new party line or get out.

    The Trump Republican party is just looking for white tribal advantage. Its core appeal is identity politics, expressed as demonization of outsiders: blacks, gays, Latinos, Muslims, transgender folks who need to pee. That would be enough to win a nationwide election in 1904. But it's not enough any more, not when you throw in some woman-bashing and a candidate who's unfit to govern. The basic appeal of the Trump candidacy is that any white man is more qualified than a black man or a woman, intelligence, experience, and fitness for office notwithstanding.

    But this attempt to return to a white monopoly on political power comes just as demographic trends demand that a shrinking white majority share power with other ethnic groups. Indeed, it is largely a response to that truth, which Trump's supporters find upsetting. This white identity politics is enough to win you some elections, a lot of elections, on the state and local level, but not enough to win the White House. And that vote will only get smaller over time.

    Welcome to your third-party world, Republicans. Some of your party members will be leaving, of course, becoming independents or Democrats or members of some third party that knows it's a third party. A lot of your Wall Street and Chamber of Commerce wings will likely be heading for the exits. Maybe the next major party will coalesce in time around some of those ex-Republicans. Maybe the Democrats will eventually bifurcate. These realignments don't happen often in our history. Or maybe you'll turn it around and build your way back to major-party status. But you're going to spend a long time in the wilderness, because you're doing things that will take decades to live down. You can't run as the White Power Nationalist Front for one election and then just act like that never happened. Believe me, what you're doing right now is very, very memorable.

    You can't nominate an openly unqualified candidate and expect people to keep taking your party seriously. If you don't take yourself seriously, why should we? And your establishment figures can't endorse Trump and keep their credibility. Those two things don't go together. If you are willing to stand next to Trump and smile, like one of his beauty pageant contestants, you've established that there's nothing you won't do. Why should we ever think you are motivated by substance?

    You don't want to govern, Republicans. You've made that very clear. And you've also made it clear that you're no longer fit for the job. If that's not the message you meant to send, I'm sorry. That is the message that you have sent, and everyone else has heard it.



    Bravo, Doc.

    Excellent piece, Dr C.  I hadn't thought of it that way, but it is true.  Thanks.  

    Thanks, Oxy. Thanks, CVille.

    I've been reading a lot of analysis by practically everyone on how we got to this point. They talk about Limbaugh, Fox, Beibart, and Palin. No one yet has gone back to the one singular event that I think marks the decline of the republican party. Reagan and trickle down economics. The idea that government could massively cut taxes and get more tax revenue. That those tax cuts would generate such a large increase in GDP that there would be more revenue after the tax cuts. It was a crazy idea, voo doo economics as Bush called them, that should have been rejected out of hand. When it was tried the average deficit more than doubled, then tripled, then quadrupled. And this objective reality was denied by the republicans. Even today after 30 years of failure republicans in Kansas are replaying the tax cut strategy, and replaying it's failure.

    When facts no longer matter, when objective reality has no effect on policy or thinking then anything becomes possible. Any lie, any delusion, even any half baked conspiracy theory becomes a legitimate part of the conversation. There is no where to go but down when that happens.

    I just saw that Mittens is considering a 3rd Party run.  I find it hard to believe, since he would not have a chance to be successful, but who knows?  Just like all the other contesters in this Primary Season, they must have had a nugget of hope that they would make it.  It seems absurd to me.  Could Rick Santorum, who couldn't even get re-elected from his home state to Congress, and who is pretty much an internet joke for years, really have thought he could get the nomination?  Do they get to keep some money, or is it just the clothes they can charge to the campaign?  

    Carly Fiorina?   Mike Huckabee?  Ben Carson? Chris Christie?  The list goes on and on...Did all these losers (and others) think they could possibly be chosen as their party's nominee when they were so obviously (to me, anyway) completely unqualified?  

    Of course, I would have put Donald Trump in this same absurd group because it was inconceivable that he could BS enough rubes to be where he is now.  Of course the difference is that he is a purported billionaire, and toots his own horn.  He makes people who are angry at everyone they see as "takers" as "others"  - dark people, illegals, etc (untrue) even though many of those who love Trump get more benefits than those that they despise.  Somehow this billionaire has convinced them that he is on their side.

    I'm thinking that Mitt Romney will not run as a 3rd Party Candidate.  Why?  Because he is not brave; he does not have any real idealism.  He lost before and he knows he would lose again, and so why should he put himself through that?  An idealist might, but Romney is no idealist.  

    Neither is Trump. Far from an idealist, although he paints himself as one to people he never even sees except at his rallies.  Can anyone imagine him at a restaurant with his supporters?  Of course not.

     The Bernie supporters see themselves as idealists, but they aren't brave either.  They think they are.  They deny, or even demonize  any progress that President Obama has achieved as they ignore what he was up against.  The fact that Hillary wants to build on his hard--fought work, and keep moving forward does not pass the purity test.  The hideous adjectives used by Bernie supporters are accepted without any research.

    So, Yes, Dr. C.  Trump is a Third Party with all its patheticness.  But I do believe that Bernie's supporters are behaving in the same way.

    To What End?  The Susan Sarandans will never have any consequences of a Trump Presidency, except lower taxes.

    It occurred to me while as I read your comment that Sanders supporters, by and large, either argue positively for Sanders or negatively against Hillary and of course usually both. They do not spend much time as a group though, bashing Hillary supporters. Hillary supporters, on the other hand, spend a lot of time and a shitload of adjectives bashing Sanders supporters.  I guess you gotta be brave to do that. Are you brave? 

    Don't you realize that each side always thinks that about the other side? Each side always thinks the other side is especially nasty to their side. I always think this. I keep reminding myself when I think about how nasty the Sanders supporters are that each side always thinks the other side is far more nasty.

    I guess you think this is a fair and obviously true observation. But Hillary supporters see it as an insult. Really, how do you expect Hillary supporters to respond to this when we believe we could write the same thing just switching the names around? How would you respond if we did?

    Hmmm, thought Hillary supporters were focused on November and Bernie supporters wanted their pound of flesh. Most of the attacking on this site has been a person who uses labels like "war criminal" as a conversation starter. If that's how most Bernie fans speak, then I wouldn't be surprised, but I suspect he's somewhat an outlier.

    We are all more sensitive to criticisms coming in our direction, but I have seen no Bernie equivalent to:


    Wall Street Whore

    Hi Liar y

    Hillary Felon Clinton

    ....and others, casually used, and repeated as if every crime they imply has been proven.  


     I have called Bernie is Narcissistic, which I think he is, but I don't try to make it a name-label.  I have asked repeatedly why he won't release his taxes, never getting an answer (but I never called him for example, "Bernie the tax-hiding money-pit hypocrite"), nor have I seen anyone else write anything close to the demeaning and hateful things that I see routinely written about Hillary.


    Edited to add:  Am I brave?  I am brave enough

      CVille, If you read my comment again I think you should be able to see that your response is an example of what I stated. I said, in slightly other words, that Sanders supporters did two things, they speak supportively of Sanders himself and they speak critically of Hillary.  They say good things about Sanders and they say bad things about Hillary.  Hillary supporters, on the other hand, [remember, I said ‘by and large’ because I recognize that there are exceptions and I was pointing out what I see as a common tendency, but maybe my points of reference are too local] say good things about Hillary and bad things about the people who support Sanders more than bad things about Sanders himself.

    Calling Hillary “Shillary” is a rude way of calling her a shill but it is criticism limited to her, it is not bashing her supporters. Calling her a “Wall Street Whore” is what I have heard many people call many politicians, not just male politicians, because they believed that they shilled for Wall Street. Branding Hillary that way is only branding Hillary, rightly or wrongly, but it is not branding her supporters.  The same goes when Sanders supporters calls her a liar and likewise when they accuse her of being a felon because they are not, in those instances, calling her supporters liars or felons.   

    (but I never called him for example, "Bernie the tax-hiding money-pit hypocrite"), nor have I seen anyone else write anything close to the demeaning and hateful things that I see routinely written about Hillary.

    I would guess that is because you do not believe that he is in fact a tax-hiding money-pit hypocrite but if you did believe that he is you would probably say so. Wouldn't you? I think you would feel it was important to do so as part of the political discourse and I would also expect you to give supportive evidence just like the more thoughtful Hillary opponents do. I am not endorsing the calling of Hillary crude names but do you object to Trump with polite diplomatic language? 

      While you may have always referred to Sanders himself with polite verbiage, you have said,Trump is a Third Party with all its patheticness.  But I do believe that Bernie's supporters are behaving in the same way.”

     Sounds to me like you are calling Sanders supporters "pathetic".

     My asking you if you are brave was because you said that Sanders supporters are not brave and the connotation I read into that charge is that they are cowardly. I have never heard that charge as a compliment.  


    You act as though hate filled vile insults against Hillary are somehow separate from her supporters. It's a stunning lack of insight into human nature that you and Hal share and MW supports with his tos warnings.

    Let's move it out of politics for the moment. Prince recently died and many here were sadden by the loss of one of their most respected rock and roll icons. I never liked Prince's music. I could easily write a post explaining why in technical musical terms. I could also write it in the most insulting way calling Prince every vile name I could think of. All perfectly acceptable because I'm attacking a celebrity not the celebrity's fans. But every word would be an implied insult to the fans who loved Prince. Every vile insult would hurt those fans. Some here would be so hurt it would turn into anger and they would respond with insults directed at me. A tos violation. I of course could feign innocence claiming I simply criticized a celebrity musician. But I could cause people here to truly and deeply despise me just by attacking Prince if I was sufficiently vile and insulting in the way I did it.

    It's true, Hillary's supporters do not hate Sanders with the hot white burning anger that consumes some Sanders supporters. We see two flawed human beings, two politicians with pluses and minuses, and we prefer Hillary. In a moment of anger we might insult Sanders but we can't sustain the hate or sink to the level of invective against him that you and especially Hal and Jr can with Hillary.

    I'm annoyed with Sanders for the damage he's done to the democratic party. But what I feel for you, Hal, and Jr far exceeds that annoyance. Based on the level of hatred and invective you thrree have dumped on a person I like, admire and support. If you can't grasp that you just don't understand human nature.

    Based on MW's most recent post I suspect this might be my last post for at least a week.


    Prince analogy, good. But you missed the "but tell me what it is you could possibly like about his craven repetitive sellout money-grubbing music" repeated a dozen times or more despite a dozen explanations.

    Kat, don't worry, we won't penalize you for being honest, and I appreciate your articulation of your feelings. I understand why the invective against Hillary angers you, and I do urge people to show more respect to the candidates.

    That said, I hope you also understand why we can't prohibit that. If Sanders were to run as an independent, for instance, I expect that many people here would denounce him in no uncertain terms, much as people once denigrated Ralph Nader. It would then fall on Sanders' supporters here to hold their tongues and avoid the temptation to hit back at his critics.

    I often wonder what your purpose is in hosting this site. Has that purpose changed over the years? What are your goals if any? What is your cost benefit analysis? This isn't a request for information.  It could be that the costs in time and energy in sharing that with us exceeds any possible benefit for you.

    My job of the last five years living in a ghost town surrounded by miles of national forest wilderness has forced me to do a constant cost benefit analysis. Since my personal situation has forced me to think so often in terms of cost benefit I've begun to think about other situations in those terms.

    You have a simple rule you use to moderate this site. From what little I can glean in the vast majority of cases I agree with you and your application of your simple rule. Even when you've applied it to me. But there are times when personal insults against a non dagblogger even a politician, insults that would get a tos warning if directed at a dagblogger, personal insults that go beyond rational dialog of issues, become too constant and persistent over dozens of posts. At times that attack the integrity of the dagblogger. I do understand that you can't prohibit that. But imo there are times when complex situations require a nuanced response.

    In truth this may have nothing to do with whether we agree or disagree in theory. It may be about our, and everyone here, different cost benefit analysis in practice. The cost in the precious hours of your life weighed against any possible benefit you get from moderating your site. A nuanced response will clearly increase the cost side of the equation.

    Meta meta meta. I'm not very interested in that type of discussion. Cost. And now there are several comments looking for a response from me. While I think it's possible, even likely, that with more discussion we could reach an understanding I doubt that's possible with Hal or Lulu. Benefit, little to none. So unless you reply in a way that I sense is encouraging me to respond I'm going to let this one go.

    Thanks Kat - I hear that you feel something close to, if not actual, hatred for me.  That's fine.  Feelings are never bad.  Only some actions and words are bad.  I appreciate that you let me know in no uncertain terms why what I have written upsets you so deeply. 

    Nevertheless, I do not accept the Prince analogy.  Prince was an artist.  Like all artists, he spoke clearly and profoundly to some while leaving others cold.  I'm sure somebody somewhere isn't moved by a Bach cantata.  In the end, I did not love Prince's music but I can empathize with those who feel great sorrow at this time by considering how I still feel when I contemplate John Lennon's murder.   I do not argue that either Lennon or Prince was a greater artist.  They were different but both were transcendent talents.  In the end, hearing some chucklehead insult a recently deceased musician whose art gave you great pleasure is like hearing somebody insult a recently deceased spouse or parent.

    Politicians are not artists.  There are objective ways to measure a politician's worth.  One can look at votes, at decisions, at what ensued after a politician took a fateful action.  Bodies can be counted.  The cleanliness of a river can be tested.  The number of jobs lost versus those gained can be measured.  All of this is very different in kind than whether it's Purple Rain or Imagine that causes the hairs on your neck to stand up.

    I would never tell anybody that the hairs on her neck shouldn't stand up when Raspberry Beret comes on or somebody else that he should be moved to ecstasy by the chant in Give Peace a Chance.  But I'll be damned if I'm supposed to mute criticism of a politician (whom you happen to like, admire, and support) (1) for supporting trade deals that I believe have cost this country millions of good jobs or (2) whose pressure to depose a tyrant led to mayhem, chaos, and terrorism far worse than anything the tyrant was doing.  Contrariwise, your anger at me when I aggressively criticize a politician whom you greatly respect justifies a strong and pointed fact-based response, it does not justify personal insults or profanity.

    Hal, ocean-kat was not asking you to refrain from criticizing Hillary Clinton. He was asking for you to show her some respect. And while the ToS does not require you to do so, I think you'd get a better reception if you did.

    Michael - I have tried very hard to be respectful to folks who have shown me no respect including in my response to O-K's post.  Truly, I do not believe that what I just wrote here is in any way disrespectful.  It may be a tall order but can you point to a specific passage or more generally a theme I have followed that you believe shows disrespect to Ocean-Kat or to anybody here.  I am really interested. 

    I have reviewed my comments and posts and, with a few exceptions, I believe I have shown remarkable patience and circumspection in the face of strong provocation.  In fact, I think I have gone out of my way to find areas of agreement with people who seem to look for ways to pick apart my writing.  You can see this by all the comments I've posted that start with words like "agreed", "you're right", "thanks".  If I am wrong and I have been unduly provocative or disrespectful, please show me where and I promise to strive to do better.

    Okay.  I misunderstood what you were writing Michael.  You were urging me to show Hillary Clinton respect.  Here's the problem.  I don't respect her.  I do not believe she has acted in ways that are consistent with somebody who loves our country and wants what's best for it.   In fact, I believe her actions bespeak somebody who has contempt for America.  Moreover, I have repeatedly asked her supporters here to point to specific examples where she has acted in our best interests and to justify the many times that (in my view) she has not.  Basically, I see the blog equivalent of radio crickets.  If Clinton supporters want me to show respect for the woman, they'll have to identify areas where she's earned it.  Sorry if this hurts somebody's feelings.

    If Clinton supporters want me to show respect for the woman, they'll have to identify areas where she's earned it

    Apparently we have to teach you how to read, then to reason, then teach you what respect is, then splain to you where she deserves it, then start all over again because you forgot 3 minutes later and launched into warmonger and cabal speak or unlikeable and reask where she did this or that. Ad nauseum. Youre tougher than my ADHD kid. She doesnt cuss either. I handle that part at the end of my rope.

    I didn't ask you to respect her. I asked your to show her some respect.

    PS If you hear crickets, it could be that there's a problem with your ears.

    Michael - if you find something that I wrote or write to be unfair or disrespectful, please flag it for me and bring it to my attention immediately.  Re: the crickets, I urge you to read through some of the claims and arguments Clinton's supporters make for her here and elsewhere.  I find them thin to the point of anorexia.  I respect you as a reasonably fair arbiter.  If you identify for me facts or arguments that you deem to be powerful or persuasive, I promise to consider them very carefully and with an open-mind.

    I overreacted to this post Michael and let my anger and disappointment at Clinton and her supporters overwhelm my sense of proportion.  Hillary Clinton has done some truly admirable things in her career and likewise displayed admirable qualities.  It would be wrong for me not to acknowledge this.  She also is far better than the other party's candidate which is crucial to bear in mind.  So here are three areas where Clinton has earned my respect.

    1) She is obviously extremely hard-working and well-prepared.

    2) She has a long record of fighting to improve access to and affordability of healthcare in America.

    3) She has a long and consistent record of fighting for commonsense gun laws that will make our nation a safer place.

    There may well be other areas where she deserves more credit or less censure than I have given her.

    Based on the level of hatred and invective you thrree have dumped on a person I like, admire and support. If you can't grasp that you just don't understand human nature.

    And you think you do? The other two you have a problem with can speak for themselves as they normally do quite well. As for me, if you can link to any comment that I have made about Hillary that can legitimately be characterized as hateful invective rather than legitimate criticism I will put myself in the penalty box and volunteer to take a week off. Otherwise, I think you should cool off and realize that no one should be expected to hold back their critical opinions of a politician just because the subject is a person you like, admire, and support.  The only thing you got right in that comment is that there is a whole lot that I do not understand about human nature. But, a critical analysis of Hillary is not wrong just because she is someone you like, although I do understand enough about human nature to know that it is common that some people come to such simple minded conclusions.

    Clinton supporters at this site have called me: "shit", "fanatic", "delusional", "mean-spirited", "too fucking funny", "ass", "ridiculous fool".  My comments have been called "more bullshit", and "bleeding heart BS".  One commenter wrote I'd "rather just make shit up to insult Hillary supporters."  Another told me to "leave my arrogance outside".  I have been asked facetiously "are you going to be o.k.?"  I'm sure there are some more gems out there but I'm feeling a little sick at heart right now.

    But you like Bread like me Hal so I think you are all right. :) So after the primary lets talk bread again, and  other fun stuff, b/c now we know one thing for sure, we cannot let that orange buffoon into the Whitehouse. Nothing else matters, just that. 

    Thanks Tmac.  If only life were as simple as bread baking - now there's a complex topic actually.  I'm truly sorry that Clinton defenders take my criticisms of her actions and statements so personally.  It is very very unfortunate because it means we can't actually have a discussion about what she's done wrong and what she's done right.  I also would note I have not used language anywhere near as vile or vitriolic to describe Clinton as has been used to attack me.  Moreover, I defend all of my "insults" like "dishonest", "neocon", etc., with very specific examples that support the "insult". 

    Terms like "asshole" and "shit" don't really lend themselves to proof by factual example.

    By the way, I bought a kitchen scale to weigh the flour, water, salt, and leavening.  Results so far are promising smiley but my crust still doesn't come close to top NYC and New Haven joints sad.

    P.S. #NeverTrump

    Yes, #NeverTrump.

    You all fight about Hil so much Hal.  But we are all on the same side.   Bern has many redeeming qualities and some not so redeeming, but the folks around here get mad because you indicate Clinton has no redeeming qualities, that she isn't honest, and that she isn't progressive, she's never done anything for anyone. And then I and others have made some pretty good policy points about Hil, but it isn't anything you want to read, you want her to be Evil incarnate because you want your candidate to win. I get that because that is what our politics have become, nothing more than Atwateresque discussions about who is the best human being ever, but with no real acceptance of the complexity of humanity and all that it means. 

    At this point, there seems no need to continue to fight each other. If you and I were having a conversation in person it would be totally different wouldn't it?  You wouldn't seem like you're lecturing me because you think I am too dumb to vote for the best candidate as you see it.  I wouldn't seem like I am screeching at you saying, Hil's the best why can't you see that?   You and I would have a civil and hilarious conversation about Bern, Hil, and the Orange Dildo. The Orange Dildo would soak up most of our time, because holy shit, you have to be kidding me. Hil and Bern just aren't that different, they hold the same beliefs, almost exactly. 

    Your candidate lost this time. It seems counterintuitive to continue to disparage our candidate. I think it is fine to hold her feet to the fire on policy issues, but I do believe that very soon Sanders supporters must admit their candidate will not be the nominee.  No one likes to lose, but it happens.  But continuing to attack our nominee just gives the other side ammunition. We should not do that, it seems like it could hurt our efforts.  Okay later folks, gotta get ready for work!

    Whoa whoa whoa - you're telling me all this time we had the option to be discussing the Orange Dildo? What the effin' hell - why didn't you say so earlier? I've been busting my balls to discuss policy and tuff stuff like Idunno, invasions and wage inequality and new energy, and all this time we could have been talking about dildos instead? Not just any dildos, but The.Orange.Dildo™?

    I feel like I've been cheated out of years of my life, kinda like when I discovered Twinkies were actually food.

    (or maybe I wasn't invited.... that would explain it....)

    I should've warned you, and of course you are invited! Yes! The Orange Dildo, I think it fits him perfectly, and boy could this be a fun albeit bawdy discussion!

    Bawdy, eh? I've always wanted to use "bowdlerized" in a sentence. No idea what it means, but I think of a derby. Oops, Webster's says I don't wanna know...

    Thanks T-Mac.

    Considering how sensitive you are to the words "crap" and "bs" and how you have rejected arguments here that just have contained just those words, I would expect you to reject Sanders arguments for the same reason. Since crap and bs are a common part of his vocabulary. I would guess you have listened or read far more of his speeches than I have so you surely must know what I'm talking about.

    It's surprising that you have such sensitivity when you so fervently support a candidate who has written rape porn and written about his fantasies of looking at naked children and watching them touch each other's genitals.

    Folks, I would like to weigh in on a point that Lulu and Hal are making. There is an important difference between insulting a candidate and insulting a participant in the conversation. Imagine you're at a dinner table discussing politics, and someone calls Hillary Clinton a liar. That's obnoxious, sure, but not nearly as offensive as when someone looks across the table and calls you a liar to your face.

    While we encourage civil discussion at dag, we do not prohibit people from insulting public figures. If you can insult Donald Trump, then you can insult Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders. We moderators don't want the job of deciding which public figures it's OK to insult.

    Insulting other bloggers is different. That is prohibited at dag, and there have been many violations of this rule lately. I was just discussing with the other moderators whether we should institute a zero-tolerance rule where any ad hominem attack results in an automatic one week suspension.

    I hate to suspend people, so I don't want to have to go there, but if people don't start showing more respect to each other, that will be the rule until the end of the primary.

    Okay, Bernie Sanders is a dumb motherfucker, obviously halfway to senile who could only attract people who never watched a serious political debate in their lives, and most of his "policies" are recycled Spartacus Youth League manifestos that already sounded moldy and funny in the 60s, except obviously not in Vermont. For someone who seems to not care about money, almost everything he talks about is money, and it's impossible to make the Bernie cabal understand say that cops beating up blacks isnt about wage equality or gun control but its own thang. Bernie has too few rocks, to paraphrase Forrest Gump, and that's all he has. Education? Tax the rich. Health care? Tax the rich. Wage equality? Tax the rich. He makes Donald Trump's budgeting look semi-sane. It's not surprising he's built up a Jim Jones cult of wild eyed youth anxious for a free paradise of stuff, all lifted from the evil Wall Street. They all want their Woodstock, their dividing the loaves and fishes, their instant miracles. And the establisjment witch is the perfect foil. It's like a bad jr high play, only a lot of people are cught up in it and dont see how shitty and juvenile the dialogue is as long as they get to be on stage and wear some outfit. The good news is Bernie proved Citizens United doesnt matter. The bad news is he's too clueless to realize it. And some of his acolytes think that he and Trump are in the same anti-establishment boat, not noticing the nine zeroes behind The Donald. Though they do share resentment and obvious issues in anger management. Also in Bernie world, obscurity equals power. The fact that he excels in little backwater mom and pop caucuses and loses the big heated primaries (or ties if Hillary doesnt bother to show up) is seen as a feature, not a bug - like a comfy koffie klatsch on a cold New England evening. It's like Rober Frost came back as Mr Deeds and people took him seriously. Try to explain math to the Bernie herd on a national level and it just doesnt work. They think of it as an endless Grateful Dead tour. Delegates needed to win are the same as $ needed for some government program - there's always time to pull them from somewhere. Polls they insist are unreliable (as shown in the weeks before Michigan) become reliable if more than 6 months away involving Republicans. It's like someone sprinkles pixie dust, and a carriage shows up for the ball or White House, like the old college blackboard joke "and then a miracle happens". Sorry, aint gonna happen.

    Oh snap! This is something I can get behind!

    Yeah, well, you fart outta your mouth. 


    I object to the ad hominems coming from this lousy canadian ice-lizard muckety muck who seems to just show up to emphasize he once met Tony Blair and peddle 49th parallel socialism. And I can't help the mouth farts, it's an indigestion issue I've asked my doctor about...


    Yes, PP. This comment is permitted. But your previous comment on another thread in which you call another blogger an asshole is not. You've had your final warning. The next violation will result in a suspension.

    Michael, perhaps you dont get it, so I'll paste Hal here below. I stepped back and let him and OK and rmrd go round and round futilely, and stepped in here and there for a comment when things were too bizarre.

    I explained patiently that I disagreed with her on Libya and found my posts from a year and 5 years ago. I explained that the future is not that knowable, that all wars have reprisals, with examples, and that leaders had to make unknowable unpalatable decisions anyway, have to act often despite that, including examples good and bad from Bill's presidency. I discussed the alliance that meants she didnt decide and do this on her own - Obama her boss and 3 other countries signed off on this and helped.

    And all Hal can manage is 1) I defended her for 5 years despite knowing the truth, 2) I defended her because I'd supported her for prez, and besides 3) I called her an evil genius but she failed her bar once so she's obviously not smart.

    Hal's an Eddie Haskell and argues that way and smears other people with gratuitous blather and innuendo, but as long as he doesnt curse at people, he can pick fights and keep them going. Got it.

    Odd you're defending her since five years ago you correctly noted the aftermath of her decision to overthrow Gaddafi was unknown and might well be disastrous.  Any reasons for that besides the fact that you backed her early and hard for President?

    Odd too that you would refer to her as an "evil genius."  If that is supposed to represent my view of Clinton it is very wrong indeed.  I have noted that her many mistakes bespeak an intellectual lightweight.  Her failure to pass the DC Bar - one of the easiest in the country - lends powerful support to the theory she's not particularly smart.


    You haven't been smeared, but you have been warned repeatedly. If Hal's comments annoy you, ignore them.

    Yes, I've been smeared, through twisting my words, to make me a blind brainwashed participant in supporting an obviously bereft cloying money-grubbing architect of all that's evil in American politics, et al. You somehow don't see where it gets personal, but sure, I can live with your blindspot and focus on other stuff. I'm not sure whether I can point out for example Hal's hypocrisy and churlishness in chiding Hillary's organizing a conference to raise money and awareness for oceans as just another mark of her money-grubbing, so I'll just walk away. Certainly Bernie didn't say a lot of these things, so it's not really about Sanders at that point, and I've praised Sanders enough times to retain some balance.

    So true Doc. Nicely done!


    Latest Comments