I agree that Trump is a con artist. A con artist is a master manipulator that picks on easy marks. They do not try to manipulate everything which is why your list of what you think Trump would have accomplished is not relevant to what Trump manipulates.

It wasn't a list, Don. It was one example... health care.

So then Trump isn't all that bad, after all?

So then those you label "Establishment Democrats" aren't that bad after all?

Again I agree with you. It is simple. But it is not simplistic. But this, like the rest of your comment does not address the issue- it avoids it.

You're actually NOT agreeing with me; in fact, I'm saying you're being simplistic... treating complex issues as if they were much simpler than they really are when you make statements like: "Trump is doing the same thing to the people he is manipulating as the Big Money Democratic Party establishment is doing to the people they are manipulating." That's very Trumpian, too, to take complicated issues and blame them on a single thing or decide that people are "doing the same thing."

But you said that Trump was NOT a manipulator.

No, Don. I said Trump wasn't a "master manipulator," and obviously that's just my opinion. I believe that labeling someone a "master" denotes that they're actually an expert at something, and I see Trump as a con artist who believes his own bullshit that he's a "master" manipulator/negotiator. I see Trump as an intellectually challenged, pathologically lying con artist and traitor who couldn't negotiate his way out of a paper bag with a pair of scissors, who relies on bullying by lawyer and threats of injury to person(s) rather than negotiation. I also believe he is a "malignant narcissist" (a disorder that includes narcissistic personality disorder plus antisocial personality disorder with paranoia and delusional beliefs).

If you support the Big Money Democrats then you have picked a side.

Wrong, Don... I have chosen neither side. Not only that, it's quite possible I will support candidates on MULTIPLE sides... those who insist I can't contribute to their campaign beyond self-imposed limits and those who will accept my individual contribution in larger amounts that are already limited as mandated by law.

https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/limits.php

Honestly, I have not and will not pick a side. If some fool politician insists he/she will not take my $2,700 campaign contribution (the legal limit for 2016), I am likely to think they're barking mad but will gladly write a check for demonstrably less if that is their idiotic preference.

I vote for candidates as a whole. I don't think taking/having "big money" or taking/having "small money" is the measure of a man/woman.

"If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice."
-Rush

Utter nonsense when I am human and NOT remotely limited to one choice. I can and have supported multiple candidates in the past, and I am likely to do so again in the future.

I have demonstrated proven theory. The Tea Party proved that taking on the establishment candidates in the primaries. Bernie has proven the viability of raising small contributions and many internet campaigns like the Women's March have moved the public discourse in ways and time frames previously thought impossible.

No, Don. You haven't remotely demonstrated proven theory based on Tea Party candidates who are heavily financed by the Koch Brothers and/or Bernie Sanders who actually meets your definition of "Big Money" candidate.

What is utter nonsense is to believe that any candidate/legislator that takes Big Money will represent average citizens instead of the Big Money contributors.

Apply that to your support of Bernie Sanders, and you meet your own definition of "utter nonsense." No need to explain how Bernie got closer to your fantasy of a candidate who doesn't take "Big Money" because that's simply a case of Bernie's rhetoric versus Bernie's reality. There are no candidates at the national level who are "Small Money" candidates regardless of their campaign rhetoric.

And 30 plus years of broken promises and excuses while average citizens are stagnant or losing ground while the rich get richer is irrefutable proof that your contention that Big Money does not corrupt the candidates/legislators and our political process is utter nonsense.

I think your example is more indicative that trickle-down/supply side economics does not work for the "average citizen." "Thirty plus years of broken promises and excuses" from who? Democrats? Which promises are those? Minimum wage promises? You think a candidate wouldn't love to be King and fulfill all their campaign promises by edict? You think a person who only takes small campaign contributions couldn't break a promise and one that took larger ones couldn't keep a promise?

The real problem, of course, is more complicated than simply campaign finance. People that actually bother to vote tend to be more polarizing and extreme these days, and then there's the issue of gerrymandering wherein people's votes are diluted at the outset. So our system is currently favoring extreme candidates with polarizing messages rather than producing candidates that represent the "average citizen." If the "average citizen" would simply get involved and vote, I believe we'd have less partisan lawmakers and less extreme and polarizing issues and rhetoric, and that's where I believe your "One Demand" could be helpful. To encourage "average citizens" that they can contribute "Small Money" and make a difference by getting involved rather than allowing the far left and/or far right to govern by the dictates of the extremes on either side.

It's a good thing it's not rocket science as you seem to be having enough trouble comprehending 1+1= 2.

And therein lies your problem, Don. You've decided that a complicated issue has a simple solution and that anyone who doesn't agree with you 100% has chosen the other side, but the fact is that any time you're dealing with humans with different ideas about "big" and "small" and "right" and "wrong," it's best to remember that people aren't integers and when dealing with humans, 1+1 might produce a result of 3 or more... dependents that can be written off in order to lower your tax burden. :)

Your intentions are quite clear.

I support big money. And also, no whammies.

Hey, don't "press your luck," pal! :)

Remember when that game show was new and the board was predictable? The 4th and 8th squares counting from top left and clockwise always contained cash (square 4 with larger cash values) and never a Whammy in either and with an additional spin in round 2. All one needed to do was time the board to land on squares 4 and 8... until they fixed the discernible pattern and randomized it.

Trump is a master manipulator and what you are doing is buying into what he wants you to believe.

Congratulations, Don. If you honestly believe that Donald Trump is a "master manipulator" then it's actually you who are "buying into what he wants you to believe." It appears you have simply confused Trump's con artistry with master manipulation. A true "master manipulator" would have already gotten the ACA "repealed and replaced" in the manner he promised versus giving it lip service in multiple ways and then blaming his inability to accomplish anything on either/both Parties in Congress. A "master manipulator" also wouldn't have an excuse for failing to pass any major legislation because a "master manipulator" would have already gotten something substantive passed through Congress through the masterful use of his manipulation. A con artist, on the other hand, makes lots of promises and then blames everyone else and passes the buck when he can't deliver (and never could). Master manipulators don't need to deliver excuses because they're too busy delivering results through masterful negotiation.

Trump is not trying to win your vote, he is manipulating the people that think the things you find abhorrent are good.

Oh, I doubt that, Don... since there is quite simply not too many things I find abhorrent... had all that trained out of me decades ago.

And Trump is doing the same thing to the people he is manipulating as the Big Money Democratic Party establishment is doing to the people they are manipulating.

Your simplicity is on display here, Don... not at all unlike Don Trump's modus operandi, too.

As I said in comment 15 and 17, if keep voting for them they will keep screwing you. Pick a side.

No. I am NOT buying into what you want me to believe; I've got this radar against the rhetoric of manipulating Dons.

It's not rocket science.

Of course it isn't "rocket science;" that would imply it actually had some modicum of educated thought processes and proven theory contained therein... versus the utter nonsensical belief that anyone who has money or raises money is inherently evil. Duh. :)

For whatever it's worth, I probably need to point out that I have long been an advocate of single-payer national health care, not that I believe it's automatically the best possible system, but basically because 1), the current health care delivery system in this country is hopelessly mucked up. It was never designed, it simply evolved haphazardly, under the influence primarily of greed, and 2), because it's most likely the only viable and even remotely possible alternative at this stage of things.

Puritanical stereotyping. perfect. I'm assuming that anyone using this example had never smoked, drank, or been unemployed, lest empathy result in the urge to jump in to save him.

Because he shouldn't have to think that he's alone - there are millions more of us willing to give him a hand. Because he's a human.

What is asserted there is a hierarchy of deserved-ness, in which folks with healthier lifestyles are higher on the list. You're probably aware that there are other hierarchies based on income, power, sex, race and country of origin. One could, as one aspiring herrenvolk did, get even more granular, and filter for light skin, blond hair, and blue eyes.

The US is the last large industrial nation not to make health care available to everyone cost-free, and it's actually high time we did. There are tons of cost-effective models: most of those countries spend less for better outcomes than we do.

Then we can stop worrying about whether someone 'deserves' health care, and start worrying about whether everyone 'gets' health care.

You sketch out a seriously drastic (and unrealistic) scenario there. Maybe you'd allow me to also "put it another (more realistic) way".

Lets say the guy in distress here still has all his limbs, but maybe he, while never working a day in his life, smoked himself into lung cancer and actually fell into the pond he's in in a drunken stupor.

Yeah, I likely would be "shocked for being criticized for blaming him for not providing his own life raft".

.

"Perhaps that's true, but it happens every day, even in countries with gov't-paid health care. When your 85 yr-old granny needs a $600k heart-lung transplant in Canada, England, Denmark or wherever in order to live 90 days more, she's a goner, believe me.

In a world of limited resources, every system has to draw lines somewhere, it's just a case of where they will be drawn."

I don't disagree with you. No one says it doesn't. That's kind of sort of my point. But at least that's a debate about the degree of help given, not the merits of giving any kind of help in the first place. At least 85 year old grandma was helped in the first place. Not left in a state where we throw up our hands, say well it's all her own fault, she deserves what she gets, it's dog eat dog survival of the fittest, as some right wing politicians would have us run society. I've got mine, too bad about you, you're the way you are because your kind of person is simply not deserving of what I have.

Put it another way. If you, as a person in power, deliberately use your power to take away somebody else's arms and legs, then you throw them in the water and watch them drown, and then blame then for drowning saying it was their fault for them not finding their own life raft and hauling themselves up onto it, and you are shocked for being criticized for not providing the life raft, what other outcome were you really expecting?

Get ready for the UBI.

Google it if you have to. :)

Re "No one should die just because they're poor." Perhaps that's true, but it happens every day, even in countries with gov't-paid health care. When your 85 yr-old granny needs a $600k heart-lung transplant in Canada, England, Denmark or wherever in order to live 90 days more, she's a goner, believe me.

In a world of limited resources, every system has to draw lines somewhere, it's just a case of where they will be drawn.

John M [32] Also Yes!

"Actually, in an ideal world, all people WOULD have health care, all would have food, shelter, all the necessities of life, plus a nice car to drive and a garage full of fun big-boy toys, ALL of it paid for the same way infrastructure is paid for, and in principle, I'm totally in favor of an ideal world.

Unfortunately, we do not live in an ideal world, we just have the real world, and in the real world, whenever people have tried that system, it has broken down."

I would adjust that to say that in a modern, humane, and just society as rich and prosperous and democratic as ours is the the West, all people would be provided basic health care, food and shelter. No one should die, just because they are poor. There is absolutely no reason in fact why that cannot be the case. Nations less wealthier than the USA manage to do it. No one expects a nice car or luxury toys. Basic public transportation would do. Yours is just a straw man argument used to justify doing nothing to mitigate conditions where we can in the first place.

It's totally not true that wherever it has been tried in the real world it has broken down. There are many places where it has been an absolute success. Health care in Canada. The welfare state in Sweden, Denmark, Norway. Even here in the USA with a program like Food Stamps, which prevents a famine taking place here like happened a few years ago in North Korea.

If you want to make any sensible argument at all, then it should be only one of degree, not of kind.

And an alternative to your "binary" nomenclature could be "Help the unproductive", or "Screw the productive".

I have to take issue with that. That seems like dangerous ground. Blaming the victim. Saying that the unfortunate are somehow unfortunate totally through their own fault, which is not always the case. Kind of like the Ayn Rand / Paul Ryan Republican philosophy, which doesn't take into account real external factors at all. That's like blaming the slaves in the 1860's for the condition of slavery that they were in, instead of the slave masters who totally controlled, set up the system, and deliberately stacked the deck against the slaves through the power they held, acquired and accumulated at the deliberate expense of others.

Actually, in an ideal world, all people WOULD have health care, all would have food, shelter, all the necessities of life, plus a nice car to drive and a garage full of fun big-boy toys, ALL of it paid for the same way infrastructure is paid for, and in principle, I'm totally in favor of an ideal world.

Unfortunately, we do not live in an ideal world, we just have the real world, and in the real world, whenever people have tried that system, it has broken down.

I'm on the side of delivering as much health care for as little cost to as many people as possible.

What about being on the side where all people should have healthcare, whether they think they need it or not, and it gets paid for in the same way that infrastructure gets paid for.

In other words and to quote a wise president, "...you didn't build that."

That last bit was specifically aimed at C. R. Stucki.

You state that "The 'We Built That' philosophy of Romney . . . misses entirely the government-provided infrastructure upon which their wealth is premised."

I perceive that you mean to imply by that that because said infrastructure is "government provided", that it is the fruit of the labors of those "lowest paid workers" in equal measure as it is of the labors of the high income earners.

A quick visit to the IRS website belies that belief. The bottom half of American taxpayers pay just a whisker over 2% of all the income taxes collected, which go to create that infrastructure.

The "government-provided infrastructure" is the fruit of the labors of those same highly productive people "upon whose wealth it is premised", is it not?

All true, and therein lies the disagreement that I have with both.

The problem with the way that Trump plays the media, is that it requires that he keep upping the ante, lest their attention wanes. As we've already seen, that's a potentially dangerous prospect.

And the problem with the 'We Built That" philosophy of Romney, all sticky with the goo of stereotyping and racial and economic superiority, is that it simply isn't true. It misses entirely the government-provided infrastructure upon which 'producers' rely - from the roads and utilities to the regulatory structure on which their wealth is premised.

It also misses the sweat and toil of the lowest paid workers in our society: comedies are written about the rich trying to do the work of the poor. No member of the underclass is spending their weekends jetting to Florida for a few rounds of golf. That's only for 'producers'. hah.

So let's see: I'm on the side of delivering as much health care for as little cost to as many people as possible. The Republicans are not. Most Democrats would agree with me, however.

I am on the side of sane and well considered foreign policy, domestic policy and military posture. I favor diplomacy over force of arms, whenever possible, to advance the interests of the US in the world arena. Most Republicans do not. Most Democrats would agree with me, however.

I agree with the Keynsian philosophy that government should invest in, not just provide for its populace. I believe that a well-regulated market is more prosperous and stable market, and that we should be ever mindful that individual prosperity is not equivalent to general prosperity, a lesson that should have been learned in the middle ages. Republicans oppose every bit of that. Most Democrats, however, would tend to agree.

I haven't yet mentioned my support for science, women's reproductive rights, all lifestyle and gender choices, free expression, freedom from religion, and a raft of other issues ranging from stem cell research and evolution to racial expression and the justice system, all of which I disagree with Republican majorities, and find well represented in Democratic ranks.

D'ya get the idea? These aren't slogans or mere talking points, they're important to me and to millions of others. There are SIDES to these issues. Pretending that there is no difference between the parties does no one any good, and advances your own set of priorities exactly zero.

You claim that spoilers have no chance to win is based on outdated conventional political wisdom that is no longer valid.

Have you noticed which spoilers have been winning? The Nationalist Right, mostly by dividing their opposition, and shouting down the establishment.

Where the left has prevailed, it has done so by way of mainstream politics (i.e., Trudeau in Canada). Only by way of coalition building can majorities promote progressive agendas and resist populist fantacism and divisive fear-mongering.

And an alternative to your "binary" nomenclature could be "Help the unproductive", or "Screw the productive".

You need to pick a side. Your "big money vs. small money" paradigm doesn't exist beyond the local level of politics anymore, and both sides are engaged to the point that any serious effort to disarm both camps would have to be negotiated like a strategic nuclear arms deal. You have the Citizens United ruling to contend with, an advantage that corporate players won't give up without a fight. There are tax code provisions that foster and promote bundling, shell entities, non-profits, NGO's, and a host of trade associations, private and public interest groups, and other special interest groups who would certainly assert their constitutional right to throw money at their candidate of choice. And all of that comes before the candidate's personal choice of donation amounts is taken into consideration.

For instance, although Bernie was rightfully proud of all of the $25 donations he received, he was also the beneficiary of tens of millions of dollars spent by anti-Democrat and anti-Hillary interests,
much of which continued to be poured into the campaign even after he'd dropped out of the race and thrown his support to Hillary.

And even if you could pull off the legislative and constitutional wrangling that you'd need to remove most of the money from the formal process, how do you assert that special interest groups (SIGs) like the NRA, Planned Parenthood, The Club for Growth, and Black Lives Matter have no right to participate in the campaign as a first amendment issue? The big money would simply shift over, as it did after McCain-Feingold, to the SIGs, and you're back where you started, but with less control over the spending.

And even if you could somehow get a handle on all of that, there is still the issue of 'dark money' and 'dark influence' that's become a feature of modern elections - money from anonymous sources, spent below-the-radar by groups and individuals that is untraceable and largely unseen. How, in an open-internet world, do you keep actors like the Russians from spending billions to influence the election from afar?

You would also have to find a way to ensure that the media treated all candidates with equal respect, and not, for instance, accidentally or deliberately give one candidate massive amounts of free air time, as they did for Trump in 2015-16 (close to $2 billion dollars worth, by some estimates).

"Well," you would reply,"it's what the candidate pledges he will do that matters."
Sure it is. But as I've explained above, the wishes of the candidates themselves hardly matter. Politics is a team sport, and just because one player decides that he won't play 'dirty' to win, doesn't mean that his entire squad will follow suit. Remember: there are no reliable referees on the field.

Besides, the candidates themselves could just be disingenuous. Trump famously declared that his campaign was 'self-funded', but we learned later that he was taking huuuuge donations from his billionaire buddies, and billions more worth of donated services from the likes of the Mercers, whose data-mining operations helped turned the BREXIT vote.

In the end, none of that money and outside influence matters. It's about one man (or woman) with one vote, which can't be bought outright. That voter can be influenced, manipulated, lied to, cajoled and recruited, but can't be forced to cast his vote for anyone in particular, yet.

In my opinion, it comes down to a binary choice: you're either on team "help the downtrodden" (Democrats) or team "screw the downtrodden" (Republicans), and any vote that isn't cast for one helps the other, because the spoilers have no chance to win, and the margins are slim.

So pick a side. It's not rocket science.

I actually don't think I have ever heard it described better. You hit the nail right on the head. That all makes so much sense.

Maybe Trump is shrewd in one sense.

He is not shrewd; there is no grand plan for _____ <--- insert topic here. He is NOT a brilliant negotiator and isn't a great businessman. He has a short attention span and so cannot and does not have a strategy; he's an opportunist and pathological liar who just plays to win the day and thus contradicts himself continually and constantly... everything is impulse, whatever comes to his mind at that instant, playing to one needy crowd after another who want to believe, telling them what they want to hear. He is a bully who takes what he wants, doesn't care who is injured in the process, and then passes the buck to someone else to fix the mess that invariably follows in his wake... whether it's a team of lawyers or lately, Congress.

Above all else, he believes he doesn't get enough credit for his perceived brilliance and believes the measure of a man is money. That is who he is and has always been... a needy sociopath seeking praise and wealth in a world that could never contain enough to satisfy him, and he'd turncoat on his own country for his own glory and when caught in the act would insist "to the inhabitants of America" that it was done to save the country. Sound familiar? He's Benedict Donald.

With all due respect, I disagree with you both. 'News' and 'fake news' are separate things.

News is traditionally a summary of current events, presented with varying degrees of context. It may or may not be factually correct, depending on the reliability of the information being reported.

"Fake News" is the deliberate reporting of information known by the reporter to be factually incorrect.

But there should be a third category: False news.
'False News' is the reporting of information that is factually correct, but misleading, due to omitted facts or context. We've been barraged by false news in the form of advertising all of our lives.

I'd bet that 4 out of 5 stories labeled 'fake' are actually 'false' - with much of the disagreement being the result of our present media environment. And most of American media is controlled by just seven companies, each eying market share and audience numbers as they decide what you will watch.

So how many news stories do you think will mention that Harvey Weinstein's company, Miramax, which used used company lawyers to quash complaints about his behavior, is owned by the Disney Corporation?

Is our present political gridlock really a result of deep philosophical differences between Democrats and Republicans, or actually just a cable market-share battle between Comcast and 21st Century Fox?

Food for thought.

Because of the hold the Republicans put on Obama's appointments, Trump will end up filling HALF of all federal judges. That is a Democratic and liberal nightmare that nobody except the right wing seems to care about!

Some of them have been downright nasty individuals. One example, The Senate confirmed John K. Bush to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. This is the same John K. Bush who; compared abortion to slavery, and wrote that consensual homosexual sex should be illegal. Only John McCain among the Republicans voted against him.

Why is no one loudly reporting about this?

Can you imagine the wanton destruction this clown will try to invoke if he suffers a humiliating defeat to Kamala Harris in November 2020?

It is obvious that he doesn't understand the implications of his actions, and it is quite clear from Republican sources that they are basically trying to keep crazy Grampa from going completely out of the ball park even at the best of times, but if he truly understands how hated he is, and is a lame duck to boot so is irrelevant to even his own party, the fun could really start.

Some possible EOs:

1. Insist that Paper Towel throwing be the primary response to all future disaster recovery efforts
2. Abolish Germany
3. Declare war on Rosie O'Donnell
4. Establish a new government department to "Declare Donald Trump the Best Ever President of the United States"

Yeah, just poking fun at CW!

i'm guessing CW meant twenty or thirty million. also guessing you knew that. you get the credit though, since i was too lazy to point it out.

JL

Health insurance for twenty or thirty Americans is on the line, but that doesn't seem to concern him a bit.

Being a tab bit conservative, aren’t ya? I am guessing it’s gonna be a few more than that...

Wouldn't that be some righteous karma!

(This comment was posted to the wrong thread and really belongs here)

I had a non-brief dissenting comment all set to go Re. MDDOTW based on your desire to see DiFi retire.

Then I read your two columns on the subject, in their entirety, and concluded that your arguments win the day. They were very persuasive. So much so that the two pieces form a kind of primer which should be read by anyone who wishes to win an argument based on reasoned analysis of the facts. And, that goes especially for me!

In essence, I was reminded, once again, why I love your blog so much!

A pox on them all.