Don’t settle


Jen Fitz has a suggestion for those of you who, like me, will not be casting a vote for either Hillary or Trump in November:

If there were a morally acceptable candidate offered by either major party, of course you could vote for that person in clear conscience.  There isn’t, and therefore many people are settling for choosing the least-bad candidate.

Don’t do this.

Vote third party.


Voting third party is the most effective way for you to bring about a change of regime.

It’s more effective than a write-in campaign (barring a massive, united, nationwide campaign, which I don’t see happening).  It’s certainly more effective than abstaining — no one will notice you’re missing, and other than a few kind souls at the League of Women Voters, no one will much care that you couldn’t be bothered to show up.

When you vote third party, you send a clear, unequivocal message that is formally recorded and measured.  You indicate to the major parties, and to the rest of the citizenry, which way the reform needs to go in order to field a winning candidate.

Voting third party will not cause the person you cast your vote for to win.  It will, however, cause the next round of candidates, at every level of elected office, to seek to be more like what it would take to win your vote.

Candidates need your vote.  They watch the polls and try to read the wind and guess which way to shift in order to ride popular opinion.

By voting third party, you most clearly communicate what your expectations are and how the next cycle’s candidates need to be different.  Among other benefits, voting third party informs the major parties what kinds of candidates they should support at the local and state level — which candidates feed the system for the years ahead.

If you care about the future, don’t settle for the sick feeling that comes from knowing that you helped fuel the victory of some person whose policies you abhor.  Vote like you mean for your republic to still be a functioning democracy ten, twenty, even two-hundred years from now.

She cites others who have similar ideas so read the entire piece.

I’ve been thinking more and more about what I plan to do in November.  Earlier, I was seriously considering writing somebody, anybody, in for President as I know with certainty that I cannot in good conscience vote for Trump, whose moral failings, his lack of foreign policy knowledge and his constitutional ignorance rule him out.  Nor could I vote for for Hillary who I see to be the most corrupt politician in modern history and whose party has made a complete mess of things whenever and wherever they’ve been in power.

Roughly a week ago, I started seriously thinking about The Constitution Party as a plausible alternative though as of this writing, they’re not yet on the ballot here in my home state.

What say those of you out there who won’t be voting for either Hillary or Trump?  What will you folks be doing?

The country’s dying to know.


Originally published at Brutally Honest.

Weekend Caption Contest™ Winners July 22, 2016
The Nominees
  • Wild_Willie

    I say you are full of bullshit. How can you all of a sudden invoke a ‘moral’ litmus test when in real life Truman was probably the most moral and honest even to his making himself an island at times. What grown ups need to do is vote for the candidate that will put in conservative leaning SCOTUS. Hillary is not that person. Trump is. You need to realize that compromise is a good word and used in national elections always. Even your ‘write in’ candidate will be hulling some immoral luggage. Cheesh! People that don’t get their way are so immature at times. ww

    • Man in the mirror excluded of course, lol…

      • Kaiser Derden

        except he got his way and you didn’t …

    • LiberalNightmare

      Elections have consequences, or so I’ve been told.

    • LOL. Democrats are also crying about all the people leaving their half of the failed 2 party system too.

    • Commander_Chico

      I agree, but don’t care about SCOTUS. I care about nuclear war with Russia or China. The fallout will reach Spain.

      • Wild_Willie

        Just listing one of several very important reasons to keep Hillary out. ww

      • I fail to understand how anyone would think Trump would be any less a risk…

  • yetanotherjohn

    We live in a broken world. Our choice is not between pure good or pure evil, but more good or more evil. A symbolic action that permits more evil is not a moral act. It is enabling more evil. The question is not which candidate is perfect (neither is and none will ever be), but rather which is better.
    If Hillary installed Supreme Court justices who ruled that the Catholic Church is not protected by the first amendment because of “hate” it preaches, will you then smile and say that it does not matter because you kept your hems clean and voted for the constitutional party?
    I have no doubt President Trump will make decisions that will have me gnashing my teeth. But I suspect that he will make fewer of those decisions and ones with less far reaching consequences than Hillary.
    No one but Hillary and Donald have a chance of being elected president this year (absent some very bizarre circumstances). So the choice is between those two. You can’t escape the consequences by pious posing.

    • Pious posing? Not going to take that kind of arrogant presumption seriously.

      • Jeremy Stevens

        You’re stupid Rick. He’s right and you’re stupid. lol!

        • And you’re… what… in the 3rd grade, maybe the 4th, mentally?

    • Who’s the true poser and why specifically and particularly are you so gullibly buying his shtick?

      • Jeremy Stevens

        Hey Rick, why did Cruz want democrat money if that’s such a big deal for Trump? Why was Cruz seen on airforce 1 with Obama, Hillary, and Jarret before his stunt?

        • gbdollman

          Cruz was invited by Obama to go to Dallas after the shooting of the policemen. (Cruz is a Texas Senator)

      • yetanotherjohn

        I am not saying Trump is wonderful, honest in all things, conservative or even competent. What I am saying is that of the two people who will likely be the next president, he is the less evil one. That’s not a high standard.
        8 years ago I would have laughed at the idea of the supreme court interpreting the first amendment to not include the Catholic Church. 2 or 3 liberal justice by Hillary over the next eight years and I wouldn’t guarantee it won’t happen. Trump is less likely (not by any sense absolutely unlikely) to appoint those two or three liberal justices.
        Your solution makes it that little bit more likely of an outcome. You are contributing to increasing evil by that minute amount based on your posing. You can stand and ask all to admire your righteous stand but at the end of the day, your actions may make you feel better now, but are contributing to increasing evil in this world.

        • He’s less evil in your mind… not in my mind… in fact, from the perspective of Catholic teaching, and you won’t embrace this and that’s fine, that which he espouses is more evil.

          • yetanotherjohn

            Would a Trump presidency be more or less evil than a Hillary presidency? If you think Trump would be more evil, then support Hillary. If you think Hillary would be more evil then support Trump. If you really think a Trump presidency would be more evil than Hillary’s, I would be very interested in your reasoning as I came to the conclusion that Hillary would be more evil.

          • IllinoisPatriot

            You left out the option that if both are evil we should support neither one.
            That’s the option I will be going with. No amount of your blathering will change that.

          • yetanotherjohn

            The issue is which is more. If you argue that both are exactly equal, I would really like to hear your reasoning because that doesn’t make sense in any calculus I can imagine.

          • Rock I hope you check out the work of our group No More 2 Party System on Facebook and YouTube.

          • fustian24

            It’s probably true though, that a President Trump would be more constrained. He would have the democrats, the GOPe, the bureaucracy, and the media against him.

            Much harder for him to do much of anything. And, unlike Obama, there would be plenty of people just itching to impeach him.

            Hillary, on the other hand, could do anything she wants.

          • yetanotherjohn

            That’s part of my calculus on this. Trump may bumble into doing the wrong thing, Hillary would connive to do it. I think you are entirely correct that the checks and balances that have been missing the last eight years would remain missing under Hillary and back in full force under Trump.

      • Commander_Chico

        Shapiro is a God-damned chickenhawk.
        He is one of Trump’s excellent enemies.

        • Anything of substance to rebut what he’s saying in the video?

  • Par4Course

    Anyone who sees Donald Trump as less able to be President than the community organizer who’s finishing up his second term is a fool. Whatever you want to tell yourself, no third party will do better in 2016 than Ross Perot did in 1992, which was 19%. Other than when Teddy Roosevelt ran in 1912 and got 27%, no third party candidate has ever gotten over 20% of the vote. Hillary or Trump will win in November and will then be responsible for picking federal judges, including replacing Scalia and possibly a couple other justices, for the next 4 years. Trump has promised to pick constitutionalists and even listed some of his possible picks. If Hillary wins, we’ll have a terribly liberal Supreme Court for many years. Think before you stay home or vote 3rd party – you’ll be helping Crooked Hillary and her predatory husband to return to the White House.

    • yetanotherjohn

      And Teddy delivered the presidency to Woodrow which got us a federal income tax, prohibition and the subsequent rise of organized crime, a treaty at the end of World War I that contributed to causing World War II (50 to 80 million killed), tariffs that helped the rich and hurt the little guy, took us off the gold standard that made bank loans for those without great wealth harder, and helped to lead us directly to our current situation with unions. But hey, Taft wasn’t “good enough” so supporting a third party candidate who failed allowed for moral feel goods right.
      Imagine 100 years from now how much evil we will be able to trace to a Hillary presidency.

      • I would rather not, thank you.

        Trump’s the preferable alternative. It remains to be seen if he can win – but I think the debates are going to be positively brutal for Hillary.

        That is, if she actually debates.

        • Hgg61688

          Yes if she lowers herself to using schoolyard taunts like Trump. But she will not and the contrast in experience, knowledge and temperment will win out. Trump will be preaching to his own choir who will vote for him no matter what.

          • Ah… no. Her ‘experience and knowledge’ brought us the resurgent ISIS/ISIL, and the collapse of Libya and Syria, not to mention that idiotic ‘Reset’ button she gave Russia..

            Her documented temper is such I don’t want her ANYWHERE near the nuclear football.

          • Hgg61688

            You might check the history of the rise of ISIS. We have Bush to thank for that. Temper? The pugnacious and belligerent bully Trump tops her???
            I think not.

          • Hgg61688

            You might check the history of ISIS. That’s another gift we got from Bush.
            As for temper, the pugnacious,mocking, bully Trump wins hands down.
            You want an impulsive, angry mocking man who admires dictators with the codes? Good luck with that.

          • Yeah, check it yourself. Bush handed over an Iraq that was mostly peaceful. Obama dumped it, and ignored the usual negotiating strategies in the ME when it came to keeping a presence there. We say we want to keep 30k, they say none, we compromise on a middling number.

            But not Obama the light-bringer, the Peace Prize winner. He wanted to ‘bring the troops home’, so when they said “None” he agreed – which left a power vacuum.

            But hey, who really cares about reality, right?

          • Scalia

            You mean the kind of temperament that says she was named after Edmund Hillary? The kind of temperament that led her to repeatedly lied about dodging sniper fire in Bosnia? The kind of temperament that says the attack in Benghazi was the result of a YouTube video when her emails prove she knew it was a terrorist strike? The kind of temperament which demonstrates her total incompetence when it came to her private server and State Department emails?

            She’s both delusional and a pathological liar. If you choose to vote for Hillary because of her liberal politics, help yourself, but don’t pretend that her “experience, knowledge and temperament” make her a better candidate.

          • Trump has the same temperament… the only difference really are the details… so your argument against Hillary, a sound one, is my argument against Trump.

          • Scalia

            Which means that Hgg61688’s appeal to Hillary’s temperament is a nonstarter, and that was my point. My decision to vote for Trump has nothing to do with temperament, per se.

          • Hgg61688

            Well you see I say that Trump is delusional and a pathological liar. And if you think he “trumps” her on knowledge, experience and temperament I’d be surprised.

          • Scalia

            If you read my comments in this thread, you’ll understand what I am saying. I’ve never said any such thing.

    • Trump and Clinton both have bad favorability ratings in the polls. The Republicans have a #nevertrump problem. Democrats have a Bernie or Bust problem. Meanwhile Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party and Jill Stein of the Green Party are both polling higher each time they’re actually included in a poll.

      Combine that with:

      · Most Americans don’t vote
      · Most Americans want more choices besides Ds and Rs
      · Congress continues to break records for all time low ‘approval’ ratings
      · Millennials have less party affiliation allegiance than previous generations
      · Registered American voters are picking “independent” more than Democrat or Republican

      Lastly, people are not buying the tired old lesser of evil excuses about spoiler effect, SCOTUS, Duverger’s law, Electoral College, 12th amendment, “wasted vote” / “they can’t win,” “most important election of our lifetime” fear mongering anymore.

      Like it or not, the end of the failed 2 party system is inevitable.

      • yetanotherjohn

        We may shuffle the players, but I really doubt there will be an end to the two party system.

        1) The only “third party” that has ever been successful in US politics is the GOP which effectively replaced the Whigs. That’s more of a shuffle than a true third party.

        2) Even in parliamentary governments, it essentially boils down to two parties, the ins and the outs. You can think of the different constituents in our two party system as sub-parties in a parliamentary government (e.g. security hawks and chamber of commerce in the GOP). Even where there really are multiple “major parties” (e.g. UK) one is dominant enough to have a majority on its own, two or more join together to make a coalition government (i.e the ins) or there is a unity government during a major crisis (e.g. WW2).

        3) Compare the parties over time. There was a time in my life time that California and New York would usually vote Republican and the south would usually vote democratic. Not set in stone, but the way to bet. Now it is the opposite. That sort of shuffle is much more likely to occur than a truly disruptive presence of a third party where all three parties are as likely to win the next election.

        Beyond all that, the best a third party can hope for in THIS election year is to act as a spoiler. Taking enough votes from one side to hand the election to the other side. So my argument as to which side is more evil (and hopefully you then decide to support the less evil side) remains at least for this election year. Fantasizes all you want of a new and purer third party rising to lead us forward, it isn’t happening this year. Reality can suck, but not facing reality isn’t a solution.

  • Jeremy Stevens

    Complete garbage. All of it. You have no concept of what is at stake in this election, do you?

    • Turk Turkleton

      There’s a lot at stake. And neither Trump nor Clinton can be trusted with the power of the office of the President.

      • Jeremy Stevens

        Sooooo you want to hand it to Hillary why then?

        • Turk Turkleton

          Nope. If I wanted to hand it to Hillary I would vote for her.

          • Jeremy Stevens

            Being a Republican that doesn’t vote for the Republican nominee essentially means you’re some kind of democrat spy. You’re certainly no conservative nor are you a Republican of any kind if you truly feel this way.

          • Turk Turkleton

            Sorry- my ultimate allegiance isn’t to the Republican party. If it was then I could justify voting for literally anyone who happened to be running as a Republican.

          • Jeremy Stevens

            Well why do you call yourself a conservative? I certainly hope you never considered yourself a conservative in any way, and i ESPECIALLY hope you never EVER attempted to lecture anyone on conservatism, ever. If you did any of that, well you’d be a huge hypocrite piece of crap, now wouldn’t you?

            Good talk.

          • Turk Turkleton

            Why do I call myself a conservative? Because I support candidates who believe in the Constitution, Judeo-Christian values, limited government, liberty, etc., etc. If I thought Trump believed in those things I would vote for him.

          • Jeremy Stevens

            Doing things that help Hillary Clinton get elected is NOT conservative. Pretty simple stuff.

          • Turk Turkleton

            I’m not doing anything to help Hillary Clinton get elected. The people that are helping her get elected are donating to her, volunteering for her campaign, voting for her, etc. I will never lift a finger to help her- same as Trump.

          • Jeremy Stevens

            Advocating for Republicans to vote third party helps Hillary Clinton get elected. What world do you live in where that somehow DOESN’T help Hillary Clinton get elected? Care to explain how that somehow doesn’t help Hillary?

          • Turk Turkleton

            It helps Hillary to the same extent it helps Trump.

          • Jeremy Stevens

            No it doesn’t, because you aren’t trying to convince democrats to do this. You are ONLY trying to convince “conservatives” or Republicans. What planet are you on, idiot? lol

          • Turk Turkleton

            The planet where neither Trump nor Clinton should be President of the U.S.

          • Jeremy Stevens

            Doing something that only hurts Trump while doing nothing to hurt Hillary is helping Hillary by hurting Trump. You attempt to inflict damage upon Republicans and conservatives that you have no intention of attempting on democrats whatsoever. You are, in essence, working as a Hillary troll in an attempt to bring down Donald Trump, handing her this election.

            Taking this stance means that you have chosen: Hillary is the one you think should be President.

            You had to choose Trump vs Hillary and you chose Hillary in the name of conservatism. Now you’e trying to justify it like an idiot.

          • Turk Turkleton

            First off, Trump isn’t a conservative. If he was, I would support him- like I said.

            Second- I think it’s funny you are calling me an idiot, when you fail to understand I am not choosing Hillary. The people who are voting for her are choosing her. I am not. This is not a difficult concept. I am not responsible for how other people choose to vote. I am only responsible for my vote.

          • Jeremy Stevens

            Whether or not he is or is not a conservative was not part of this discussion you idiot. So no, that’s not first off.

            Second, I think you are retarded for not understanding that you HAVE chosen Hillary. Attempting to convince Republicans to vote third party means you want Hillary Clinton to win this election. You know that only Trump or Hillary is going to win this election. You aren’t deluded enough to believe that the third parties will win. That being said, attempting to dissuade potential Trump supporters from voting Trump is de facto support for Hillary, ESPECIALLY if you aren’t really looking at third parties in a serious fashion; it is just a passing interest because you’re butthurt. You don’t actually care about the third party you vote for; you only care about your irrational hatred for Donald Trump.

            Unless you intend to tell me right here and now that you think the third party can win, then you must admit that your attacks on Trump and attempts to drive people away from the GOP help Hillary. What do you think Hillary wants? People going to the GOP in droves? You’re doing what she wants for her and you’re too stupid to realize it.

            You DO support Hillary and your comments above make this obvious. Why else would you try to dissuade people from voting GOP when you know the election is really between two people?

            You and all like you bear the responsibility of a GOP loss should it occur. However, should your efforts fail, your idea of what “conservatism” dies forever. A foolish gambit for idiots who care nothing about the constitution, freedom, or the first and second amendment.

            Cruz fooled you all. He fooled me once but not anymore. You retards need to snap out of it.

          • Johnson’s a spoiler, whether he means to be one or not. Perot in ’92 handed the win to Clinton. I’d be just as glad to not see Hillary get it this time.

          • pennywit

            You’re not describing political philosophy. You’re describing a sports team. Or maybe a mob mentality.

      • I hope you check out on Facebook and YouTube No More 2 Party System

  • Jeremy Stevens

    Now, the critics of Trump will say, “Are you certain about this? Pinning your hopes on Trump, I mean. We all have our doubts and with all due respect, his abilities are an unknown quantity with respect to the government. We don’t have the first idea of what he will or won’t do. If he can’t beat ISIS or worse, he loses on us, all the efforts of the movement will be lost for nothing.”

    They make a good point….. perhaps we ought to give ourselves up to ISIS and the democrats willingly!

    Personally, the idea makes me sick. I’m a sore loser. You’d think I’d be used to it. I’ve been stuck on the losing side since day 1. I’m a stubborn old fool though. Just once, I’d like to know what victory feels like, even if I have to resort to extreme measures.

    I suppose we will just have to wait and see. Trump’s abilities may be an unknown quantity, I’ll give you that, but I’ll take him over the known quantity of our options.

    • IllinoisPatriot

      You apparently mistake the tolerance we show to you on this site for indecisiveness or weakness. It is neither.
      #NeverTrump means “Never Trump”. It’s that simple.
      Go on back to Trumpbart now. You’re done here..

      • LiberalNightmare

        Who is this we you speak of? Have you a mouse in your pocket?

      • Jeremy Stevens

        I am done here when I say I’m done here. None of you retards can defeat me. Inevitably you’ll declare your superiority to me and give up in an argument. I DARE you to try, coward.

        • Scalia

          Jeremy, I’m glad you’re here, and I hope you continue posting.

          • Jeremy insults people, calling them retards and cowards, and you hope he continues posting because… he agrees with you.

            NM2PS posts substantively using no insults and you ban him because… he disagrees with you.

            Shameful display. No respect for this.

        • pennywit

          Personal insults? Really? That tends to dilute your argument, I think.

          • Jeremy Stevens

            I know but I can’t help myself and it’s an internet flame war with someone I find stupid 😛

          • jim_m

            I am shocked! SHOCKED!! that insults are being used here. This is normally an oasis of congenial discussion and intellectual exchange of ideas. Such behavior has never taken place between any of the participants here in the past.

      • Olsoljer

        . …………and who is “we”? You and the turd in your pants? Also why do you call yourself “patriot”?

  • jim_m

    The choice is simple and stark. There are 2 candidates with a shot at winning. You can choose between those or not. If you opt to not vote or to vote 3rd party, you essentially cast your vote for the winner, because by refusing to oppose them you have contributed to their election.

    If you want to salve your conscience by voting for a 3rd party candidate and claim some high minded reasons and strike a pose of moral superiority, I will say that you are only doing that: posing. You have abdicated your responsibility for helping to choose the direction of this country in favor of being able to pose.

    What is really happening is that you are choosing to let others decide your fate for you so you can be free to carp about the results. It would be different if this were a parliamentary system where seats were awarded based on a percentage of the total votes. But it’s not.

    But if you are willing to throw away the next 2 to 3 generations of Americans so you can feel smug, I guess that says a lot more about you than the 2 crappy candidates we have.

    • jim_m

      It’s really a simple concept: if you refuse to oppose evil, do you not facilitate it? And if you could choose less evil rather than more, but through your inaction facilitate more evil are you not morally responsible for that?

      We are told to be in the world but not of it. Any Christian owes the nation his duty to lead it toward less evil. It was one thing in biblical times for a prophet to rail against society or the government because they did not have a vote. They had no voice in choosing the way so they used their voice in the only way possible.

      But it is hard to imagine the prophets or Jesus saying do not vote. Christ said, “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s”, that holds with voting too.

      VOTE. Make a conscious choice for whom you think will be best(least worse) for this country and choose between those who actually might win. Casting a symbolic vote in order to strike a pose is no better than not voting.

      And if you are going to pose like the Amish, who believe their faith instructs them to not participate in government or voting, then do so, but stfu about the election and our government because you have no business opining upon that which you refuse to help or be involved with.

    • Not so, as I already explained.

  • pennywit

    As far as a “moral” choice goes, I can’t merely act based on what makes me feel like I’ve been moral. I also have to evaluate the results of my action. If I lived in a solid red or solid blue state, I would vote for a third-party candidate without hesitation. However, I live in a swing state, and whoever wins a majority of my state’s popular vote will earn all of my state’s electoral votes. If I vote third-party, then I make it more likely that the unacceptable candidate (here, Trump) will win my state.

    • Commander_Chico

      A vote for war.

  • Vagabond661

    If you vote third party, the dead, illegals, and felons will elect Hillary.

    Make voting honest again, then get all high and mighty and vote your religion.

    • Spoken like someone who pushes his faith to the sidelines…

      • jim_m

        Or maybe like some, his faith compels him to act in an efficacious way rather than take an outward pose of piety while turning a blind eye to evil.

        Be as high and mighty as you please but you are not the only person with religious conviction here and you do not have an exclusive understanding of God.

        A word of well intentioned advise: if you want to start denigrating everyone’s faith because they disagree with you(which you just did to vagabond), you shouldn’t be surprised when your comment section becomes a pissing match over religious views.

        • What I’m not surprised about is that you would become the thread’s biggest pisser…

          • jim_m

            It’s possible. But I’m not looking to become so.

      • Vagabond661

        Spoken like someone who covers his ears and pushes his head deeper in the sand. My faith doesn’t live in a vaccuum. It doesn’t want me to make ignorant choices.

        You are daring God to fix the problem that you don’t have the courage yourself to fix.

        • jim_m

          As my pastor has repeatedly said, “believe as though everything depends on God. Act as if everything depends on you. ”

      • Faith has little to do with practicality. That’s an ‘Inshallah’ model, where – if God wills it – everything will work right. Machines won’t break down, bullets hit the target, food will keep coming in. That works really well in the ME, doesn’t it? And how about Venezuela? They had faith in Chavez and his promises. Doesn’t put food on the table, but they still have faith. (Or at least the leadership does.)

        Faith can raise the dead. Democrats can get the dead to vote.

        Hillary loathes people and institutions she cannot control – and we can see that the rule of law doesn’t apply to her. The Dems themselves seem to only apply them when it’s convenient.

        This election, as far as she and the DNC are concerned, is for all the marbles. Once she’s elected, she can stack the Supreme Court. SHE might only last a few more years – but in those years she can set up the DNC so it’ll be in power for quite a while. That’s all they care about – their protestations of being ‘for the working man’ to the contrary.

        So – no third party vote. That’s simply a tacit vote for Hillary.

        Sometimes it really IS that simple.

        • Why wouldn’t a vote for third party be a tacit vote for Trump?

          • jim_m

            If you favored Hillary over Trump it would be. You have lurched, apparently accidentally, into the truth.

          • I favor neither over the other… I favor a third party candidate over both… that’s the only truth into which I’ve lurched.

          • jim_m

            Sigh. The point was that from the point of view of anyone who sees one of the major candidates as the lesser evil that a vote for a third party is effectively a vote for the candidate they don’t like.

            In your case you claim that there is no difference between Hillary and Trump. I find that to be not the case. Only if they are truly the same would a vote for a third part candidate make sense However, Scalia is correct that Trump has delivered a list of potential SCOTUS candidates that are far superior to Hillary. A vote for Hillary in any form is a vote that will see both the first and second amendment gutted.

          • We heard the same fear mongering with Obama, particularly as to the second amendment…

          • jim_m

            0bama has tried to undermine the second amendment. The fact is that the next president will have the ability to nominate at least 3, possibly 4 justices. That will significantly change the court and the nation. Trump has indicated that he will go a different path than Hillary and 0bama. The difference is certain knowledge of where Hillary will take us and the uncertainty of where Trump will. You call these two things to be the same and they are not. You cannot make a rational argument that they are. Your argument is an emotional one.

          • My argument is based on Trump’s history and my choosing not to be counted amongst the gullible who find him credible.

          • Delivered a list that in my view is meaningless…

          • If you want Hillary to win, but can’t quite bring yourself to vote for her, then definitely go 3rd party. We saw it in 2000 in Florida, we saw it with Al Franken – they’ll find the votes in ’empty’ ballot boxes, in the trunks of cars. I’ve seen it here in GA, where a race that had the R winning with 95% of the precincts reporting by midnight had the D winning at dawn. If it’s close, they WILL cheat.

            The margin of a Repub win HAS to be above an amount they can just manufacture.

    • Jeremy Stevens

      Your distinct pro-Hillary bias disgusts me

      • Your ignorance should be a matter of more importance than your disgust.

  • Vagabond661

    Here you go, Rick. Stand on the train tracks and ask … wait…..demand God to save you from the coming train wreck.

    I have heard the same arguments in 2008 and 2012. Where did it get us Rick? Are you vying for the destruction of America to bring on Armageddon? If so, do you presume that to happen here instead of the Middle East?

    Is your boss a Christian? The restaurants you frequent Christian? Do you buy clothes from Christian manufacturers? Do you type on Christian computers? Get real. There is only one Christian choice here. Voting Trump is defeating Hillary. Period.

    • jim_m

      Declaring that one will only support politicians or businesses of any particular religion is typically a hypocritical pose intended to impress the dimwitted with one’s piety.

      • Vagabond661

        Exactly. He buys merchandise from non-Christian outlets because he has too. If he followed the same thinking, he would only buy from Christian places of business.

        • I see you’re all in with arrogance, presumption and ignorance… you should work on that.

          • jim_m
          • How so? Be specific.

          • jim_m

            Personal opinion, but one I believe shared by others, is that you come across as all the things you just called Vagabond.

          • In this culture, every religious person who speaks publicly in any way about faith does… being charged with hypocrisy is as common today for the faithful as is being called a homophobe or a bigot.

          • jim_m

            No. You are called out for this because you act the way you do and you accuse others of those things. It is not because you are religious and the rest of us aren’t.

          • Publicly religious… you intentionally missed that…

            I’d be careful if I were you… Wizbang moderators are now liberally deciding to enforce the TOS…

            You’re high on my list of people who ignore those terms daily…

          • jim_m

            Yes, I have already contacted Kevin about your abusive threats to myself, Vagabond and Scalia.

            You and I had reached an agreement, which I have maintained. If you are the sort of person who goes back on his word then do as you wish. Everyone will know you for what you are.

            Oh, and the Bible has a number of things to say about public displays of religiosity.

          • Vagabond661

            Rick the Pious. Work on that bucko.

          • Vagabond661

            Why not just reply to the comment?

            One can only assume you can’t possibly choose only Christian outlets to gas up your car, watch all of your TV shows, attend all of your sporting events, see all of your movies, and buy all of your clothes. Why do that with a Presidential Candidate? Is it our place biblically to judge, Rick?

            You make the best choice you can. The best Godly choice is to keep Hillary out of the White House.

          • You’d have to define Godly.

          • Vagabond661

            Why not just reply to the comment? Surely, you know voting for anyone but Trump will put Hillary in the White House. No one has the time, money or resources to mount any kind of a successful third party run.

            Is your conscience clear knowing when you vote whoever you are voting for that you condemned the Courts, your kids and possibly grandkids future? Another 8 years of this lawlessness rampart march to socialism will be hard to turn around. Does that give Glory to God? Is that Godly?

          • You’d have to define Godly. You’d have to define giving glory to God.

          • Vagabond661

            No. I don’t. If you don’t understand “Godly”, do you understand “Deflect”? Cause that’s what you are doing, bucko.

            If you believe the Christian thing to do is give the keys to the White House to HRC, then by all means have at it. And no, I will not define “Christian”.

          • Vagabond661

            Reminds me of this story:

            A terrible storm came into a town and local officials sent out an emergency warning that the riverbanks would soon overflow and flood the nearby homes. They ordered everyone in the town to evacuate immediately.

            A faithful Christian man heard the warning and decided to stay, saying to himself, “I will trust God and if I am in danger, then God will send a divine miracle to save me.”

            The neighbors came by his house and said to him, “We’re leaving and there is room for you in our car, please come with us!” But the man declined. “I have faith that God will save me.”

            As the man stood on his porch watching the water rise up the steps, a man in a canoe paddled by and called to him, “Hurry and come into my canoe, the waters are rising quickly!” But the man again said, “No thanks, God will save me.”

            The floodwaters rose higher pouring water into his living room and the man had to retreat to the second floor. A police motorboat came by and saw him at the window. “We will come up and rescue you!” they shouted. But the man refused, waving them off saying, “Use your time to save someone else! I have faith that God will save me!”

            The flood waters rose higher and higher and the man had to climb up to his rooftop.

            A helicopter spotted him and dropped a rope ladder. A rescue officer came down the ladder and pleaded with the man, “Grab my hand and I will pull you up!” But the man STILL refused, folding his arms tightly to his body. “No thank you! God will save me!”

            Shortly after, the house broke up and the floodwaters swept the man away and he drowned.

            When in Heaven, the man stood before God and asked, “I put all of my faith in You. Why didn’t You come and save me?”

            And God said, “Son, I sent you a warning. I sent you a car. I sent you a canoe. I sent you a motorboat. I sent you a helicopter. What more were you looking for?”

            He is giving you a way to defeat Hillary but you refuse.

          • Quaint.

            But I’m disappointed that you didn’t include any Scripture references to support your eisegesis?

          • Vagabond661

            Avoidance much? I am beginning to believe you and “No More 2 Party System” are one and the same.

          • jim_m

            You provide a relatively strong negative example.

            Just providing a relevant reference point for discussion.

          • As if there were any measurable value in your reference points.

          • jim_m

            I agree. There is little of value in this particular reference point. It is largely empty and worthless.

            (Matt. 23:28), “So you, too, outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.”

            I think that is a great life quote for you.

          • jim_m

            “God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust,
            adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I pay
            tithes of all that I get” (Luke 18:11-12).

            I think you would agree with this definition of Godliness.

      • Except I never said that… and you yet again manifest your typical set of logical fallacies…

        • jim_m

          I’m sorry, I don’t recall that I was necessarily referring to you. I certainly was not responding to you.

          • Weasel words…

          • jim_m

            You have a hard time dealing with the truth.

          • Right.

          • jim_m

            I’m glad we finally agree.

          • We don’t.

          • jim_m

            I’m sorry. You said “Right” so I assumed that given the direct and simple meaning of the text that you were agreeing with me.

            My mistake.

            Nevertheless, My comment was indeed not specifically about you but about people who engage in the behavior described.

          • You were responding to comments made by another about me were you not?

            Please, you’re not credible here particularly given your history.

  • To expect every single voter to vote for a Democrat or Republican is not a realistic expectation. As any of you are mad about people not voting for Trump you can go on any liberal blog and see all the Democrats mad about the people leaning the DNC to vote for Jill Stein. Nothing stays the same forever (gay marriage, ending legal segregation, women voting) and the 2 party system will end soon.

    While NM2PS is nonpartisan, I would imagine if you’re Christian you’d be more allured to the Reform or Constitution Party. If you’re a “live and let live” type Christian you might be allured to the Libertarian Party.

    • Scalia

      I was firmly in the Never Trump camp until Justice Scalia died. I realized that another Clinton presidency will cause us to lose the court for perhaps 30 years. Not only that, she will fill other federal benches with liberal cronies who will strengthen their choke-hold on religious rights, gun rights, states’ rights, etc. As I said on another thread, the horrific damage the Warren Court and subsequent courts have wreaked on our country will continue if we don’t do something to populate vacancies with originalists. The invention of substantive due process, the perversion of the Establishment Clause, and the warping of Equal Protection, etc. have all but eviscerated our Constitution.

      I don’t like Trump, but he has submitted a list of judges that he would nominate to the courts. So far, that list looks impressive. Will he follow through? I don’t know, but there’s no doubt what Hillary will do. No third party has a realistic chance to win, so every Republican who goes third party will be taking votes away from Trump, not the Dems. That can only ensure a Clinton victory. I realized that my adherence to principle may give me short-term satisfaction, but it will have long-term ramifications that I won’t at all be pleased with. It’s like pro-life purists who want their candidates to publicly oppose abortion, even in cases of rape and incest. Of course such abortions are immoral, but the electorate clearly will not accept that. Consequently, we have to take what we can get, and if such exceptions (which comprise the extreme minority of abortions) can ultimately protect more lives, we can live with that. Pro-life purists might feel better about going third-party, but taken to its logical conclusion, they would end up destroying more lives. The long-term damage a Clinton presidency will do to this country is reason enough to go for Trump.

      I’ll be squeezing my nose really hard when I cast my vote for Trump, but I’m only voting for him because it’s easy to see the disaster that awaits our court system if Hillary wins. What an awful election.

      • I won’t be joining you. The courts are tyrannical either way.

        • Scalia

          If you don’t care about the direction of the courts, then you’re clearly not a conservative. This is a predominantly conservative blog, so our comments will reflect that.

          If “[t]he courts are tyrannical either way,” then adopting a third party won’t solve any problem. The “tyrannical” courts will block what you do. The only way around that is to consider the makeup of the courts and the judicial philosophy each judge uses as a guidepost in making decisions. Your observation is thus incoherent. Our court system needs judges who respect the rule of law and recognize the limits imposed upon the government by our Founding Fathers. There is but one judicial philosophy which closely corresponds to that ideal, and that is textualism.

          Dismissing that important issue to trumpet a third party ultimately undermines your efforts.

          • Same excuses every election cycle. No thanks to defending the failed 2 parties that collectively give us lie-based war, poverty, pollution, eradication of civil liberties and 18 trillion debt.

          • Scalia

            What’s that got to do with what I said? If you’re going to reply to me, at least address what I said.

          • Feel free to re-read it. Anyway, vote for the failed 2 party system if you must. I won’t be joining you.

          • jim_m

            Feel free to leave the country for your worker’s paradise of Venezuela.

          • LOL A Democrat told me the same thing on a liberal blog. How about both of you two leave and take the failed 2 party system with you? In any case, I’ll stay put and work to end the failed 2 parties thanks.

          • jim_m

            State clearly what you propose is the better system. You have not. There is no debate until you take a position for something. Otherwise it appears that you are simply against anything anyone might say.

          • Scalia

            He’s skirting awfully close to spamming…

          • jim_m

            Yep. He has nothing to say.

          • Vagabond661

            He is just promoting his website.

          • What part of “No More 2 Party System” is unclear to you?

          • jim_m

            So you offer a totalitarian dictatorship? An oligarchy? Monarchy? Multiparty parliamentary system? (never mind that the last always become 2 party systems over time).

            My guess is #1

          • pennywit

            I’m not aligned with “No More.” But I do think that a multiparty parliamentary system would be preferable to what we have now. A center-right party (let’s call them “Republicans”) and a center left party (let’s call them “Democrats”) would still dominate the political landscape, of course. But to actually govern, the major parties would need to form coalitions with one or more smaller parties. I think there’s at least some value to that sort of system.

          • jim_m

            There is argument that it may be exactly that. I would have liked No More to have engaged in such an argument.

          • Scalia

            I don’t need to re-read it. You need to re-read what I wrote because you didn’t reply to it. If that’s all you’ve got when challenged, you demonstrate how shallow your beliefs are.

            If you think that you’re persuasive when you ignore rational challenges, you’re sadly mistaken. I made a comment about the courts and you glibly replied that they’re tyrannical (without realizing that you’re undercutting your own case).

            If you care to address my comment, I’m all ears. Otherwise, you need to move on.

          • You have no case trying to defend failure. You have no moral defense trying to make excuses for the byproduct of the failed 2 party system’s lie-based war, poverty, pollution, eradication of civil liberties and 18 trillion debt. Concede or cling to the failed 2 party system if you must.

          • Scalia

            Your spamming of this blog is a violation of the terms of service. I’m politely warning you to desist.

          • jim_m

            Yep I have asked him several times to say what system he was preferring and each time he just repeats the same tired cant.

          • You will not remove Mr. NM2PS from my posts… I warn you politely.

          • jim_m

            You like people spamming your comment threads? Who knew?

            Seems that given a historical perspective you are an outrageous hypocrite.

          • Scalia

            Rick, respectfully, our job as moderators extends to all threads. We have terms of service that we are obligated to enforce. If we have a clear spammer, we have to deal with it.

            That said, we have a gentlemen’s agreement, more or less, to respect the integrity of each other’s threads. As I understand it, we do not, as a general rule, delete comments on another’s threads that we personally find distasteful or offensive. Even if we don’t want a person posting on our threads, we should not interfere with that person posting on other threads. As you know, I’ve kept to that, even to the point of restoring other posts that an “unknown” moderator has deleted.

            I respect your “space,” and will in the vast majority of instances, leave things as they are, but if libel or other criminal activity is involved, I’ll have to step in if you don’t. Similarly, if spamming occurs, I’ll also step in, and I’m certain Kevin will also agree.

            Again, respectfully,

          • Perhap we should together look at the Terms of Service and determine who else we’re going to have to delete for violating them.

          • Scalia

            I’m open to an email discussion of the TOS, and we can include Kevin in the dialog. I’ve spoken with him about certain posters and I can say that for the most part, he is opposed to banning longstanding members of this community. As you know from the most recent exchange, he was in favor of issuing a warning to a poster to drop a topic. Nobody involved was interested in banning anybody, including yours truly.

            Spamming is clearly prohibited no matter who is doing it.

          • jim_m

            Rick is obviously looking to ban myself and probably other people who he has previously threatened with the same. He is allergic to dissent. (which is probably why his own blog is devoid of virtually all commentary and those few who are allowed to comment share his ideology in full)

          • I don’t see anybody spamming here unless you define it broadly and if you go that then we have to delete others.

          • Scalia

            Okay, according to Wikipedia, spamming is:

            Electronic spamming is the use of electronic messaging systems to send unsolicited messages (spam), especially advertising, as well as sending messages repeatedly on the same site.

            The party in question, by my count, posted 17 times in this thread. Every post said essentially the same thing about the “failed 2 party system” and/or contained a suggestion to visit his Facebook page. In my view, one post had something substantive to say. He was repeatedly and politely requested to elaborate or engage the substantive counter arguments to his position. His reply again and again was essentially the same. That’s the very definition of spamming. In fact, the TOS warns against that type of repetitive posting.

            This has nothing to do with disagreement or the ability to express one’s view. The TOS encourages heated, vigorous debate, but Kevin wisely doesn’t want somebody posting the same thing over and over and over again in one thread. This also doesn’t anything to do with repetition, per se. You might run several threads in a row about the homeless problem in New York (or wherever), but that doesn’t constitute spamming. What “No More 2 Party System” is doing is over the top.

            Again, if you’d like to discuss the TOS via email, I’m very happy to do so.

          • jim_m

            Rick’s comments and behavior suggest that he is not in favor of heated debate. He in fact has exhibited behavior that indicates he wants monolithic agreement with his ideas and has threatened multiple commenters with banning.

            He possesses his own blog. If he wants an ideological monoculture he should retreat there and stay there.

          • Scalia

            Well, to me it’s very clear that “No More 2 Party System” was spamming. It doesn’t matter what his political position is. If his moniker were “No More Liberals on the SCOTUS,” I’d say the same thing.

          • jim_m

            I believe that your view was agreed upon by several others. I also believe that Rick wants him to remain not because of what he had to say, or because he wasn’t in violation of the TOC, but because of who he bothered.

          • Scalia

            It’s hard to argue with that. It might also be a turf thing, but a moderator’s job applies to every thread. This “leave my threads alone” is a gentlemen’s agreement which I am willing to abide by, excepting the heretofore-stated circumstances.

          • jim_m

            Rick and I reached a detente of sorts with which I have complied for my part. I take the implication of his comments as an indication of his desire to renege on that agreement.

          • No you haven’t… liar.

          • jim_m

            Well, since you have not communicated any complaints to me I have no way of knowing that you feel otherwise. IF your intent is to ban me again without any sort of warning or dialogue to express your concerns then I cannot stop you from doing so. But I will say that I believe it violates the spirit of our accord, sadly, in a way that does not take me completely by surprise.

            I find it sad that you feel the need to use your status as moderator to bully and threaten people on this blog. It seems your aim is to turn this into the mirror image of your own where no one comments except to praise you for your own piety. You have threatened me, Vagabond and now Scalia. Apparently, you believe that only you should be allowed to post “plain thoughts delivered roughly”. You seem to be worthy of special dispensation to criticize an question the faith of others here but if anyone disagrees they are subject to threats, deletions and bans.

            You need to check yourself.

          • You’re making stuff up… and passing it on as truth… this, if seen as liberally as Scalia sees violations of the TOS, using that perspective, a violation.

            I’m warning you, as Scalia did, to quit violating the TOS or face having done to you what Scalia is arbitrarily doing to others.

          • jim_m

            In order to help me comply can you point to specifically, what I have said that is untrue and what terms of the TOC I am supposedly violating?

            Are opinions a violation of the TOC? It has the appearance that you are objecting to opinions that you feel are incorrect.

            I am respectfully asking for clarification. Any person under threat of ban deserves such a clarification so they may comply.

          • You agree to not use the Service to: (a) upload, post or otherwise transmit any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another’s privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable…

          • jim_m

            I asked for specifics: Which part of my comments violates that. Where have I made racially or ethnically offensive comments?

            What is considered harassing? What passes the threshold of “tortious”? Defamatory? Can you defame someone who is anonymous? The same question goes for libelous. I would have to post something I knew to be false and which I did with malicious intent. You cannot libel an anonymous person. Even you are effectively anonymous here.

            I have not invaded someone’s privacy by posting private details of their life or the email or phone or address.

            Yes, I have been on occasion vulgar and possibly obscene, but nothing on this thread approaches that.

            And you have not said what specifically I have said violates any of those rules and you continue to make threats without providing guidance as to what I wrote that violated those rules.

            Please quote the text and cite the violation.

          • jim_m

            I will respectfully ask again: In reference to the comment directly above, which you responded to and claimed that in it I was “Making stuff up”, that you point out specifically what I made up, what is as you claim “abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, hateful, or otherwise objectionable…”

            You have made those claims in direct response to a specific comment. If they are not in reference to that comment, I ask that you point out the comments on this thread that violate the TOS in the manner that you describe.

            Otherwise your charges are vague and nebulous and I cannot act to amend my behavior.

          • Not playing your silly games…

            Did Scalia in anyway justify his banning of N2PS by singling out particular comments before he lowered the boom? No, he did not. He was as vague and nebulous as I’m being… yet you have no problem with the other guy being banned.

            Complete hypocrisy. A double-standard.

            You say you haven’t been defamatory, hateful, harassing, abusive or otherwise objectionable on this thread? Bullcrap.

            You have a problem really with Scalia who started this garbage, not me. I’m simply following his lead.

            This can be fixed by Scalia re-establishing N2Ps’s posting privileges.

          • jim_m

            I would respectfully submit that based on past history you will never find anything I write to not be “defamatory, hateful, harassing, abusive or otherwise objectionable”. Your refusal to point out any specific item ratifies my opinion that you are being arbitrary and capricious.

            I still ask how anything can be defamatory when written about an anonymous person. Can you defend that accusation? It seems that it would be unfounded.

            Is not an unfounded accusation itself defamatory? Are you not in violation of the TOS by doing so? Or are you by dint of your faith and moderator status beyond reproach in anything you do?

          • Again, and read this slowly so that you’ll comprehend… you have a problem with Scalia… not me.

            It is Scalia who has trotted out this TOS bullcrap to justify his arbitrary and capricious banning of a poster (and didn’t you upvote him in doing this?).

            And now that his standard of moderation is adopted by me, you have problems with it?


            So again I say, Scalia re-establish posting privileges for Mr. N2PS and I’ll drop this whole thing and you can be as abusive, vulgar, hateful, etc as you’ve always been on Scalia’s threads… but until then, if you act in any of these ways, I have the discretion, per Scalia’s precedence, to delete you.

            Talk to Scalia and solve this problem. Don’t talk to me.

          • jim_m

            So I take it that you will be applying this to just me and not to ALL posters. (your response above leaves open precisely that interpretation)

            I expect that I will outlast you here.

          • You, as usual, are wrong again… you I’m singling out because you I see to be the biggest offender of the TOS… and since Scalia is now choosing to enforce those rules, I see no reason why they shouldn’t be forced across the board, particularly against a consistent violator.

          • jim_m

            I have no problem with you enforcing the TOS in compliance with the standard that Kevin has apparently promoted as evidenced by Scalia’s comment –

            As to name-calling, that’s been a part of Wizbang long before I ever started posting here. With respect to Kevin’s encouragement of “heated” debate, he apparently doesn’t consider name-calling to be abusive so long as it is an expression of contempt for a person’s opinion. That appears to render abusive comments to something on par with telling a person to “F” off every time he posts.

            If you want to promulgate a standard that is different then I suggest you take it up with the blog owner or enforce it on your own barren blog on the dozen comments you get there annually.

          • Scalia is giving an opinion for which I’ve seen little substantiation. It is Scalia who as of yesterday evening is promulgating a different standard.

            Once again, your problem is with him.

          • jim_m

            My presence on this blog for over 13 years seems to militate against your interpretation.

            And I would respectfully suggest that your problem is with Kevin and not me.

          • The problem, again, is with the arbitrary and inconsistent enforcement of the blog’s TOS which to date has been largely ignored… until last night when Scalia decided to lower the boom on a poster whose crime was opposing Scalia… which in fact Scalia has done in the past.

          • You’re dead wrong… he had substantive things to say… you have a problem with what he had to say… while turning a blind eye to those who violate the TOS time and again… you even encouraged a commenter on this very thread who called people cowards and retards…

            Shameful display.

          • Scalia

            That’s wrong, Rick. I have no problem with a guy stating that he’s opposed to what he considers the “two-party system.” I have a problem if a guy says that over and over in practically every reply while ignoring the substantive objections to his broken record posting. That’s spamming.

            As to Jeremy Stevens, I’ve been called a racist, a homophobe, a Stalinist, butthurt, and a kook. None of those comments were deleted. If people think my views are kooky, that’s fine with me. To me, that’s part of advocacy and heated debate. In Stevens’ case, a stranger came here and told him to get out. I merely stepped in as a moderator and welcomed him regardless his views. And you know I have welcomed other visitors as well.

            Folks don’t have to be banned if they heed respectful warnings. When a person crosses the line, a moderator’s job is to warn h/er. If that person doesn’t listen, more persuasive means need to be adopted.

          • I have a problem if a guy says that over and over in practically every reply while ignoring the substantive objections to his broken record posting. That’s spamming.

            He didn’t behave in that manner… this is the problem. You dropped the hammer on a guy who in my view, and this is my post is it not, was not spamming this thread at all. He was substantively responding to others. And by the way, you have to click through to the man’s profile to find that he was promoting a website… just as you can do with my profile as well.

            Click through to the man’s Disqus profile and see for yourself that he leaves substantive comments all over the place.

            You don’t have the integrity to admit that you overstepped your authority on my posts…

            And so, as I see fit, I will do the same on yours unless you re-establish the man’s ability to post on my thread.

          • Scalia

            I read through every one of his posts here. I couldn’t care less what he’s done on other sites. I’m not responsible for them. I’m responsible for what goes on here. In this thread, he posted 17 times. Just one of them contained something substantive. The remainder was a repetition. There was nothing else substantive in his replies. No matter what the subject was and no matter how he was challenged, he came back with the same boilerplate. Under no rational standard could his replied be called substantive.

          • Under no rational standard could you apply the TOS only to him and not to others who also violate them and violate them consistently.

          • Scalia

            Like I said, I do the best I can. I’ve issued warnings to others and they were heeded. For example, when Buster posted something irrelevant, I told him that the thread was not open and he should restrict his comments to a thread’s topic. He complied and hence, no problem. On another occasion, somebody implied you were a sexual deviant. I immediately jumped in and said he was over the line. He apologized. Again, we moved forward. If said poster (who is an ardent conservative) persisted, I would have issued a warning and if it went unheeded, I would have banned him. I try to be consistent.

            As to name-calling, that’s been a part of Wizbang long before I ever started posting here. With respect to Kevin’s encouragement of “heated” debate, he apparently doesn’t consider name-calling to be abusive so long as it is an expression of contempt for a person’s opinion. That appears to render abusive comments to something on par with telling a person to “F” off every time he posts. I have no problem with personal insults. As I’ve stated, I’ve been called lots of things and have not deleted those posts. I don’t mind being called a hypocrite, etc., because a person’s opinion of what I believe or argue is part of a discussion. I only object when a person mischaracterizes what I’ve said. If you think I’m stupid for believing X, then at least get the X right. Don’t say I’m arguing Y when I’ve argued X.

          • This is not your best. By any stretch. Either enforce the TOS consistently, without making excuses for the terms you disagree with, or don’t.

            It’s that simple.

          • I will interpret the TOS on your posts as liberally as you’ve done here.

            My post is about third parties and this guy was contributing to the discussion as productively as anyone. You have an immature habit of deleting people simply because you can and because you disagree with them. It’s shameless.

            I’m asking you publicly not to delete anyone from my posts unless I’ve given the ok. You did so here without my permission and it’s over the top.

            You want tit for tat, I can play that stupid game.

          • Scalia

            I’ve banned very few people from Wizbang, excepting the spam that sneaks through every now and then. You say I have a “habit of deleting people” simply because I can, but again, I’ve deleted very few posts. I’ve deleted a small handful of Chico’s posts (the most recent one wherein he accused me of being upset because Michelle Fields wouldn’t sleep with me) and a handful of Bruce’s when he wouldn’t drop a topic I told him to close (including Kevin in consultation).

            I thought we were having a rational disagreement. Why in the world do you think it’s necessary to go ballistic to the point of falsely accusing me about deleting posts? Man alive, go drink some coffee.

          • Restore the man’s posting ability then we can have a rational discussion, otherwise, game’s on and I’ll enforce the rules as well.

          • Scalia

            If a person’s posts 17 times the same thing each post and refuses to engage rational challenges but rather continues to post the same thing. And if that person is politely warned to quit spamming and refuses to comply, then by all means drop the hammer.

          • MEMBER CONDUCT You understand that all information, data, text, software, music, sound, photographs, graphics, video, messages or other materials (“Content”), whether publicly posted or privately transmitted, are the sole responsibility of the person from which such Content originated. This means that you, and not Wizbang, LLC, are entirely responsible for all Content that you upload, post or otherwise transmit via the Service. Wizbang, LLC does not control the Content posted via the Service and, as such, does not guarantee the accuracy, integrity or quality of such Content. You understand that by using the Service, you may be exposed to Content that is offensive, indecent or objectionable.
            You agree to not use the Service to: (a) upload, post or otherwise transmit any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another’s privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable…

            Do you Scalia hereby promise to uphold all of the TOS?

          • Scalia

            Doing the best I can, Rick.

          • jim_m

            Rick, there were at least three of us who found his comments excessively repetitive and spamming as well as lacking content and responsiveness to the interrogatories of others.

            Your threat comes off as petulant and childish, something that is unbecoming of a moderator and certainly not consistent with the Christian you claim to be.

          • Vagabond661

            The third party is the one that failed, bucko. They haven’t won yet.

          • Vagabond661

            Actually the last two election cycles went just like you are proposing now…..and it failed miserably.

            What was the saying about doing the same thing and expecting different results?

          • What 2 parties have been in control for the majority of this nation’s existence?

          • jim_m

            To actually prove the point against you there have not been two parties in control of the nation since its founding.

          • I didn’t say there were. I repeat: What 2 parties have been in control for the majority of this nation’s existence?

          • Vagabond661

            So you are saying a third party has never won?

          • Answer: What 2 parties have been in control for the majority of this nation’s existence?

          • Vagabond661


          • jim_m

            Time for Thor’s hammer.

          • jim_m

            Been to Europe lately? War, poverty (they have much higher unemployment and their std of living is far below ours), pollution (their cities are filthy places full of graffiti), Eradication of civil liberties (need I remin you that in the UK truth is not a defense against slander, and that you can be imprisoned for harming a burglar?), an their national debt in many cases is even worse than ours.

            But you would LOVE to have Europe’s problems I’ll bet, even though you don’t know what they are.

          • So is that a good reason to vote for the failed 2 party system? Nope. All you’ve done is make the case for voluntaryism.

          • jim_m

            What I am saying is that it is not inherently flawed. You have not demonstrated that. Our two parties are currently flawed and that has more relationship to society an the degradation of ethics and morals and the prevalence of graft than it does about the system, which has worked fine up to the last 30 years.

            The biggest failure has been the dems success in co-opting the media so they control virtually all news and have done so for decades and only recently has that stranglehold been broken. With no media to keep the government honest it has gotten out of control.

          • Sorry but you won’t justify to me the 2 party system’s lie-based war, poverty, pollution, eradication of civil liberties and 18 trillion debt. You can convince yourself those things are ok, bu not me. If you vote for the failed 2 party system so be it. I won’t join you.

          • jim_m

            Idiot. The lie based war? I assume you mean Iraq. Where is the lie? That Iraq had WMD’s? Syria has already admitted to taking those weapons so the program did exist. There were over a dozen other reason for the war in the AUMF. Are you saying those were all lies? Some are demonstrably true and only a ideologue would claim that they were false.

            Poverty? Poverty is a relative state. The only nations to eradicate poverty are the communist nations that have eliminated all wealth so everyone is destitute. I assume you would prefer such a state.

            Pollution? Advance economies pollute far less than less advanced ones. We pollute far less than just about anywhere else in the world.

            Eradication of civil liberties? Yes it’s a problem, but we are better than most other nations and we maintain far more than just about any nation you would dare to name as an exemplar. The left is the US is the biggest enemy of civil liberty an you are adamantly opposed to stopping them.

            Debt? Yeah, it’s out of control. But that doesn’t make the US that different from nations that are dictatorships or multi party parliamentary democracies like Greece.

            You cast around a lot of bullshit accusations but you don’t define them. You demand everyone else defend their position without you defining or defending your ideas.

            Time for you to pony up an say specifically what you want.

          • Your efforts to justify failure are amazing to behold. You won’t persuade me to move past the failed 2 party system and it looks like you won’t let go of the failed 2 party system. It seems like the last word is important to you so go for it.

          • jim_m

            If you want to have a discussion you have to take a position. It is not sufficient to say that the current system is broken. You have to offer a proposal for what would be a solution.

            You have been requested rather politely to do so and have refused repeatedly.

            You clearly are not interested in discussion of ideas but merely shouting your slogans without having to explain or defend them. It seems like you lack the ability to articulate an argument .

          • Scalia

            It went from 7-2 to 5-4. Guess what the tally would have been had the Democrats appointed them. There’s little doubt it would have been 9-0. Moreover, we would never have gotten Emerson and other vital decisions.

            With the GOP, there’s always a chance. With the Democrats, there’s nothing.

          • Scalia

            My last reply was on the fly (I’m a poet!). Now that I have a little more time, let’s look at it a little more closely.

            McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission

            This 5-4 ruling struck down a cap on campaign contributions under the First Amendment. Justice Roberts wrote:

            Constituents have the right to support candidates who share their views and concerns. Representatives are not to follow constituent orders, but can be expected to be cognizant of and responsive to those concerns. Such responsiveness is key to the very concept of self-governance through elected officials.

            This important First Amendment ruling would not have been possible without the conservative majority built by Republican presidents.

            Town of Greece v. Galloway

            In another 5-4 decision, the SCOTUS ruled that legislative prayer does not violate the First Amendment. Moreover, prayer may explicitly represent a particular faith. Justice Kennedy wrote:

            The decision concluded that legislative prayer, while religious in nature, has long been understood as compatible with the Establishment Clause. As practiced by Congress since the framing of the Constitution, legislative prayer lends gravity to public business, reminds lawmakers to transcend petty differences in pursuit of a higher purpose, and expresses a common aspiration to a just and peaceful society.

            In spite of clear precedent, four of the court’s liberals wanted to strike down Greece’s legislative prayer. Without conservatives, the case would have went the other way.

            District of Columbia v. Heller along with McDonald v. City of Chicago

            These decisions affirmed that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms for personal defense. Both decisions were 5-4. In spite of the precedent set by Heller, the court’s four liberals nonetheless voted against that right as it applies to the states. This unmistakably signals the liberals’ willingness to ignore precedent in their effort to strike down Second Amendment rights. All they need is one more vote.

            And how about Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged v. Burwell? Although the lower court judgment was vacated, a potentially deadlocked court kicked it back to seek a compromise. Had Scalia been on the court, the Catholic Church would have won a clear victory for religious rights. As it stands, another liberal on the court will reverse course to compel contraceptive coverage.

            There are many critical issues hanging in the balance. Conservatives have won some critical victories, but we’ve also lost some key battles due to non-textualists like Kennedy. Without a president committed to nominating the right judges, we will lose everything. Just take a look at Canada to see where liberal dominance has taken that nation. I do not understate how critically important this election is to our constitutional republic.

          • jim_m

            And let’s remember that Citizen’s United was primarily about a Hillary Clinton attempt to suppress criticism. It wasn’t really about election financing, it was about a negative movie they funded and her attempts to shut it down so no one could say anything negative about her.

            If Hillary gets elected you will see a court that outlaws criticism of elected officials on the pretext of protecting the sanctity of elections.

          • jim_m


            So you believe that the only thing that SCOTUS has any impact upon is Roe v Wade?

            I’d call that myopic, but it’s more like just freaking stupid.

          • I believe no such thing… you’re doing again what you do best…

          • jim_m

            You create that impression when you counter a comment about the import of conservative judges with a complaint about RvW.

          • I fail to understand your litmus test for conservatives when voting for Trump is voting for anything but a conservative… in fact, it’s interesting that Hillary’s VP nominee is likely more conservative than Trump.

          • Scalia

            As I stated both here and elsewhere, my sole reason for deciding to vote for Trump is the federal judiciary. If you have a choice between two liberals, but one of them is an originalist when it comes to constitutional interpretation, then you choose the originalist. I don’t like Trump, and I think a lot of his policy positions aren’t true convictions, but he’s submitted an impressive list of judicial nominees. Will he make good on them? I don’t know, but there is NO DOUBT what Hillary will do.

            If the SCOTUS had a say, 7-2 or 8-1 conservative/liberal makeup, I probably would have held firm with No Trump. That’s not the case, and as recent deadlocked decisions have shown, true conservatives stand to lose everything for a very long time. This is an awful election, but I’ve got to look at the big picture not only for myself but also for the country.

            I can feel good that I’ve stood on principle while helping to contribute to a disaster in the courts for decades to come, or I can pinch my nose and vote for a distasteful person in the hope that we can preserve our constitutional order. With Trump, at least there’s a chance. With Hillary, forget it.

          • I fail to understand this far fetched notion that there’s this chance with Trump. What is it based on, his word?

          • Scalia

            If Trump has backed away from everything he’s promised, you might have a point. His history isn’t a 100% you-can’t-trust-a-thing-he-says. Sure, he’s broken promises, and he’s certainly backed away from positions, but he hasn’t backed away from everything in his life. That’s why there’s a chance he’ll follow through with his court nominees. With the alternative, we get nothing because there’s not a snowball’s chance in Saudi Arabia that Hillary will appoint a conservative.

          • I’m interested in learning what he’s not backed away from that wasn’t in some way completely self-serving.

          • Scalia

            I’d have to get into his mind to prove that, and that’s currently beyond the scope of my abilities. Even if appointing conservative justices is completely self-serving to him, I couldn’t care less. I care more about the Constitution than what might be going on in Trump’s mind when he nominates judges. Like I said, he’s done a lot of things that he said he would do, and I don’t put past him a double-cross on the judiciary, but as of now, it’s the best we’ve got. At least with him there’s a chance.

            You seem to be twisting mightily to press for 100% certainty. We don’t have that anywhere, and you wouldn’t get that with any candidate that you would vote for. Almost all politicians disappoint their constituents one way or another. If you’re willing to throw the judiciary away, that’s your business, but what we do in November will reverberate long after Trump and Clinton have left the scene. You’ve already seen the damage that a liberal judiciary has done to our Constitution. It will only get worse if we don’t stop it now.

          • Scalia

            Just for the record, Trump has followed through on his promise by appointing Gorsuch. There is no doubt what kind of judge Hillary would have appointed.

          • It’s a dead thread by someone who flounced…

          • Scalia

            Yes, but I know he’ll get it. I had run across it looking for something else and was amused by his insistence that Trump couldn’t be trusted to appoint the right kind of judge.

          • Scalia

            I guess your memory neurons aren’t firing correctly.

          • None of his purported neurons seem to be…

  • Commander_Chico

    First, I love Rick because he ignites big debates.

    Second, Rick is wrong because however vulgar Trump is, his instincts are in the right place. Hillary helped destablize Libya Syria and now Turkey and the EU as a result of the refugee crisis. She wants to beef with Putin, which could end very badly.

  • Paul Hooson

    Consider this. U.S. allies in Australia and in Europe are deeply concerned that Donald Trump will not stand in the way of Russian strongman Vladimir Putin’s efforts to undermine independent democratic states in Europe as he seeks to rebuild the old Soviet empire. Trump wants to undermine NATO to bolster Putin’s foreign policy goals. Putin has had a long history of being at odds with the Clintons, where Russian hackers were behind the hacking of DNC Emails. Mitch McConnell and other mainstream GOP leaders are deeply concerned with Trump’s views on NATO and his seeming support for Putin.

    • jim_m

      Paul you are an idiot. Hillary’s coziness with put in and willingness to let him slide is well documented. Add to the the fact that she has almost certainly been compromised by her emails being hacked, electing her would be tantamount to electing Putin

      • Paul Hooson

        The Trump Campaign always has tough words for China, but nothing bad to say about Putin. Read the Australian newspaper story link for the concerns there about Trump’s views on Putin and NATO.

        • jim_m

          First: it is an opinion column and not a news story. It seems to rely upon the Trump kissing Putin image which is like Chico claiming that Cheney masterminded the anthrax attack because he saw a hat.

          What you don’t know would fill the Library of Congress three times over.

          The FBI closed down a Russian spy ring because they were getting too close to Clinton.

          There there is this crap:

          Then there is the ongoing quid pro quo scandal concerning the Clinton Foundation receiving money from investors of Canadian firm Uranium One at the same time that the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which Hillary Clinton sat on, was deliberating approval of the sale of a majority stake in Uranium One to Rosatom, the Russian atomic energy agency.

          The CFIUS fast-tracked the Uranium One approval in 52 days, despite a mandatory 75-day review process.

          Uranium One’s chairman directed $2.35 million in contributions to the Clinton Foundation, a fact that was concealed by the Clinton Foundation despite Hillary Clinton’s promise to the Obama administration that all donations would be publicly identified.

          And as the New York Times reported, former President Bill Clinton received $500,000 for a speech in Moscow from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.

          Despite Hillary’s media apologists saying there is no evidence of a quid pro quo, the Treasury Department has obstructed FOIA requests related to the CFIUS approval of the Uranium One sale, prompting government watchdog Judicial Watch to file a federal lawsuit last December to compel disclosure on the approval process and any documents by Hillary Clinton related to the matter.

          Clinton is openly for sale and has already sold out to the Russians. But you are too stupid to see it.

          • Paul Hooson

            The hacking code contains identical information as well as Moscow time stamps identical to previous Russian attempts to hack the White House, Pentagon, as well as other critical government agencies. Trump embraced a convicted Russian mobster as one of his economic advisors and others with some connections to Putin. I find all of this very alarming because I do not trust Putin, nor do I want to see any connection between any candidate for president and a foreign rival like Putin. Putin would like to rebuild the old Soviet empire, and Trump’s policies to weaken NATO and praise for Putin alarms me.

            I’m an American first patriot, wary of Putin’s goals or his attempts to manipulate our politics or to help another billionaire who seems better suited to running for president of Russia than of the United States with too many xenophobic traits to give me much comfort here.

  • fustian24

    This would be lovely if there was any chance of a third party victory which there isn’t.

    Or if there were any interesting third party candidates, which there aren’t.

    Other than that, great article!

    I am second to few in my loathing for Trump.

    …and yet…

    …and yet…

    He is STILL better than Hillary.

    This is an EXTREMELY low bar to hurdle. I don’t even think hurdling comes into it.

    So, if by some miracle, his Orangeness is close to Hillary come election time, I will haul my sorry ass down to a polling place, hold my nose and vote for him.

    But, I’m not really expecting it to be necessary.

  • Zelsdorf

    If you do not vote for Trump, you are voting for Hillary. What befalls America after that will be partly on your head. If you have believed the BS about Trump, then you have become a useful idiot.

  • Kaiser Derden

    more virtue signaling from an idiot in a hard hat … not that anyone wearing a hard hat is an idiot, far from it, most guys who work in hard hats are far from idiots … but not this guy …
    the first signal is his tagline “plain thoughts are delivered roughly” … if you have to tell us that then 99% of the time the author is full of it …

    and if its Catholic morals you are measuring the candidates with … well … I’m certain you fail that morality test as well … (pretty much everyone does)

    just foot stomping children posing as the “morally” superior person … hmmm, isn’t that sort of thing a sin in the Catholic faith …

    I don’t want a moral leader … not by your definition … its been moral leaders (by their own definition) that have slaughtered millions in the name of their morality … men without self interest are the most dangerous people on earth … they’ll kill you for your OWN GOOD and sleep well at night …

    so when you act like you have no interest in the outcome of the election you are trying to claim you have no self interest in the outcome … which is nonsense on stilts and a lie … you just want to try and claim some sort of moral high ground but in fact what you are signaling to the world is that you are a childish idiot …