How splitters think

Poll Suggests Epic Presidential Battle Between The Lesser Of Two Evils–Please Give Us Another Choice

A race between a DLC Democrat such as Hillary Clinton and an establishment Republican would not differ significantly on policy, even if their primary rhetoric is different to attract two different partisan bases. 

Ron Chusid is not yet an outright splitter, but he already buys the idiotic and crucial splitter Tweedle-dee Tweedle-dum nonsense.

Odds are he'll get there.

Let's revisit reality for a moment.

Trump and Carson aside, all of the Republican candidates are conservatives dedicated to the complete elimination of every accomplishment of progressivism since McKinley, and have said so outright.

And Carson will not be the nominee.

Do we need the EPA, the FDA, and the rest of the regulatory state looking out for us, trying to keep the E Coli out of the lettuce, arsenic out of the toothpaste, sewage out of the drinking water, and explosives out of the air bags?

Are nearly all of us absolutely counting on Medicare and Social Security, and a whole lot of us on Medicaid and Obamacare and Food Stamps and CHIPS?

Do a whole lot of us need our backs covered by decent insurance against unemployment, perhaps even long term unemployment, in a bad economy?

Phooey.

The threat to me and my family posed by terrorism from any source, crime of any kind, feminism, gay marriage, secularism, abortion on demand, LGBT gender fantasies, black racism, the PC nitwits at Yale or Princeton or even the State Department, and/or illegal immigrants from anywhere at all is totally insignificant compared to the threat posed by movement conservatism and the Republican Party.

It is almost nothing compared to that threat.

But Trump is not really a conservative, you say.

All the same, do you really want to count on him to defend and consolidate the heritage of progressivism, and perhaps even expand it, against attacks originating in his own party?

What about attacks on Obamacare and the battles over the debt ceiling and the budget?

Would he resist Republican pushes for more austerity?

Would he even defend the IRS and the progressive federal income tax, financially crucial to progressive government?

Hillary would do much, much better than only defend key, basic pieces of progressivism.

And would we rather the politics of the next four or eight years be about his agenda or Hillary's?

It is stupid to hesitate for a moment.