ChrisWeigant.com

GOP's Swamp Creature Of A Tax Bill

[ Posted Wednesday, December 20th, 2017 – 17:59 UTC ]

President Trump, in his victory celebration over the passage of the Republican tax bill today, said it was a big Christmas present to the American people. More properly, however, it is really a gigantic Christmas present to the Democratic Party, because it provides a ready-made single issue to construct their campaign platform around, for next year's midterm elections. The bill is already wildly unpopular, so Democrats should spend much of the next year reinforcing this already-baked-in perception among the public. There is a window of opportunity to do so, since nobody will really be sure how the new tax system is going to work out for their family until April of 2019 -- months after the midterm elections happen.

The basic theme Democrats should use is unfairness. Republicans are hobbled by the facts, and so far have done an abysmal job of selling their tax cut to the public. Instead, the public is already overwhelmingly convinced this is nothing more than shoveling money at the wealthy and Wall Street, at their expense. They're right, and all Democrats need to do is to agree with the public, essentially. The big lie of "trickle-down" has finally lost its appeal, to put this another way, which Democrats have been saying all along. The opportunity to make this case has never been better, in fact.

Speaking against the bill, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi did a great job of pointing all this out, on the House floor this week. Here is just part of what she said:

Yesterday, our Republican colleagues stood on this floor and voted for a GOP tax scam that the American people oppose two-to-one. Our Republican colleagues stood on the floor and cheered, they cheered a bill that will raise taxes on 86 million middle class families and hand a staggering 83 percent of its tax cuts to the wealthiest one percent. Shamefully, the Republicans were cheering against the children -- as they rob from their future and ransack the middle class to reward the rich. So today, the Republicans take their victory lap for successfully pillaging the American middle class to benefit the powerful and the privileged.

. . .

The GOP tax scam is a monumental con-job. But who got conned? President Trump will sign a bill, whenever he signs it (I thought it was supposed to be today, but I hear the special interests are weighing for him to delay it for some reason or another). President Trump will sign a bill that betrays the promises he made in the campaign. President Trump promised to eliminate the carried-interest loophole. Yet the Republicans wrote a tax scam that not only continues this outrageous loophole, but even has more loopholes [for] the wealthy and well-connected. President Trump promised to stop corporations from shipping jobs overseas, but Republicans wrote a tax scam that gives corporate America even bigger incentives to ship jobs overseas. President Trump promised a tax reform focused on the middle-class families -- tax breaks for middle-class families. Republicans wrote a tax scam that raises taxes on 86 million middle-class families in our country. President Trump promised he would protect Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. But Republicans wrote a tax plan to explode the deficit and use it as an excuse to cut Medicare [and] Medicaid -- they have made no secret of their plans and they have even said this week [they want] to raise the Social Security age.

So who got conned? Did the people get conned by the promises? Did the president get conned by the Republicans? Is he signing a bill that betrays his promises to the American people? It's all about the Republicans in Congress. They have in their DNA trickle-down economics. Tax breaks for the rich. Tax breaks for corporations.

Democrats need to hammer these points home, over and over again. The public already thinks this bill is a total swindle, so this is going to be fairly easy to accomplish. Republicans have been losing votes from suburban and college-education Americans already, and they're the people who are the least convinced that this tax bill is in any way fair to them (or to anybody else not worth millions, for that matter).

What follows is a draft of a speech any Democratic candidate for office next year should consider using. Republicans so successfully demonized the Affordable Care Act in 2010 -- a bill that was even more popular at the time than the GOP tax bill now is, it is worth mentioning -- that they picked up 63 seats in the House. Republicans have now handed Democrats a huge Christmas present tied up in a big red bow, by providing the same situation in reverse. Republicans will now be the ones who have to make the attempt to defend an incredibly unpopular bill. Democrats can use this as a springboard to energize voters to throw the bums out next November, if they can muster the same sort of voter outrage exhibited in 2010. Here is how I would go about accomplishing this.

 

Draft Democratic 2018 Midterm Stump Speech

Donald Trump got elected by making a lot of promises to what he called the forgotten Americans. He swore up and down that he'd reform the tax system so the fatcats wouldn't continue to get away with murder. He promised he'd end the enormous tax break for hedge fund managers. He promised he'd close all the loopholes that special interests used to game the system. He promised that wealthy people like him would hate his plan, because it would cost them more money. He promised to drain the swamp. He promised to fix the deficit. He promised all the benefits would go to the middle class.

Allow me to put this in the simplest terms possible: Donald Trump sold you out. He sold you down the river. He sold you a bill of goods. He sold you a pig in a poke. He flat-out lied about all of it, in fact. Instead of draining the swamp, Trump created the biggest scariest swamp creature ever seen. Far from draining the swamp, the swamp won -- big time.

Instead of the pie in the sky Trump promised to the forgotten Americans, his tax plan instead hands almost all of the tax cuts to the wealthiest of the wealthy and to giant corporations. He took a rigged system and rigged it even further away from helping the little guy. He forgot about the forgotten Americans he promised to help. He borrowed a trillion-and-a-half dollars and handed almost all of it to the fatcats. He did not end the tax break for the hedge fund managers. He did not close loopholes big businesses use to pay little or no tax -- instead, he expanded them. He made this even worse by taking away deductions from regular American families. He didn't close loopholes -- he made it worse for you instead.

Donald Trump will quite likely save tens of millions of dollars on his taxes each and every year due to his tax plan. We don't know exactly how many tens of millions of dollars, because he still refuses to publicly release his own taxes. What is he hiding? Could it possibly be the fact that he'll save more in one year than the average middle-class family earns in an entire lifetime?!? That's really the only conclusion possible. He has sold you out so he can line his own pockets, and the pockets of all the other millionaires and billionaires.

He's not the only one, of course. Almost every Republican in the House and every single Republican in the Senate voted for this swamp creature. One lone GOP senator, Bob Corker, initially voted against the bill because -- for a very brief moment -- he still had a shred of backbone when it came to fiscal responsibility. He knew full well that Republicans were borrowing an astonishing 1.5 trillion dollars that our kids will have to pay for. But then Republicans bought his vote by including the "Corker Kickback" -- a provision tailor-made to save Corker millions on his own taxes. Corker took one look and promptly flipped his vote. So the only Republican who showed any sort of fiscal discipline at all was paid off, by the other Republicans stuffing money in his pockets. Oh, and as if it weren't bad enough already, the Corker Kickback will also benefit Donald Trump to the tune of millions as well.

That's how this bill got so many Republican votes. By buying them. Business as usual in Washington, folks. And you know what's next on their list? Slashing Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security. You know what they're going to say? "The deficit is too high, so we simply have to slash social spending that millions of Americans rely upon." This is the second half of the con job they've been planning for years.

Remember when Republicans couldn't shut up about how awful the deficit was? Remember when they touted themselves as the party of fiscal responsibility? Remember all that? Well, you're soon going to be hearing it all again -- while they hope you'll conveniently forget about their swamp creature of a tax bill.

But they now have zero credibility to make this claim. They will be lying through their teeth and hoping you all won't figure it out. They are simply no longer believable on the subject, since they just blew a multi-trillion-dollar hole in the deficit just to hand it all to Wall Street. Don't believe them when they whine about deficits instead of paying for hurricane relief. Don't believe them when they whine that they can't possibly pay for children's health care because of deficits. Don't believe them when they cry crocodile tears over any amount of money short of one-and-a-half trillion dollars, since that's what they just borrowed from your kids and grandkids just so Donald Trump can save tens of millions on his taxes. And to give every company on Wall Street enormous tax giveaways. These are the priorities of the Republican Party, so do not let them get away with complaining about deficits and the debt because they quite obviously do not care one tiny bit about this when it comes to showering money on the wealthiest Americans. Children's health, or tax breaks for billionaires? We already know what's more important to them. It's obvious, and it'll get even more obvious when Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell come gunning for Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, early next year. Paul Ryan is even openly admitting this already, in case you have any doubt.

It has been over 80 days since Republicans allowed the Children's Health Insurance Program to be completely defunded. They spent all of that time putting together this swamp creature of a tax bill. Their priorities are on full display, folks. They are much more concerned with further rigging the system to benefit themselves and the Trumps of this country. They have "reformed welfare" by creating a huge welfare program for millionaires and billionaires, and they're now going to say they just don't have any money for poor people or the working class.

They swore you would be able to do your taxes on a postcard, but what they really did is make the tax code even more complicated. They cut taxes on businesses by forty percent, but they sure didn't cut your taxes by that amount. You may see a few extra dollars in your paycheck next year, and then again you may not -- nobody's really sure who will wind up paying more taxes under this swamp creature of a tax plan. Even if you do get a few more bucks back, you will have no idea if you'll just owe it back at the end of the year, because Republicans purposefully made all of these changes so complex and dense that you won't know until you sit down to do your taxes whether you'll win or lose. And even if you do get a few hundred bucks back at the end of the year, your tax cut will be disappearing after a few years, while Wall Street's monstrous 40-percent cut is permanent. Republicans said this was necessary so businesses could plan for the future -- meaning they don't care about American families who also have to plan for the future. Meanwhile, your deductions will be limited and you will lose your personal tax exemption of $4,000 per person -- while Wall Street actually gets more deductions. That's how Republicans view things -- you and your family are a hated "special interest," while big business is worthy of even more loopholes to exploit.

That is flat-out unfair. It is, in fact, nothing short of a scam. Republicans have forgotten the forgotten Americans once again in order to lavish money on their donors. Call it the "Donor Party," slogging through snow in the deep of winter. And guess who is on the menu? You are. The Republican Party, to paraphrase one of its founders, is now the party "of the wealthy, by the wealthy, and for the wealthy." Period.

The Republican Party sold out the middle-class, plain and simple. They forgot the forgotten Americans, once again. They put over a trillion bucks on the nation's credit card to give big businesses a 40-percent tax cut. Fully 83 percent of the benefits of this plan go to the wealthiest one percent of Americans. A whopping 86 million middle-class families will eventually see their taxes go up because of this monstrous con job. At best, you and your family might see a few extra dollars for a few years, before your taxes get even worse. That's at best, mind you -- you might actually see your taxes go up next year.

In conclusion, Wall Street and Donald Trump's family will get a gigantic ice cream sundae from the Republicans in Congress. You know what you'll get? Peanuts. If you're lucky, that is.

Republicans need to understand that people are not happy about the swamp creature they just passed into law. And the best way for them to get this message is to vote them out of office, starting next November. Because that's really the only way the Washington swamp is going to get drained -- by kicking out the party of the wealthy and voting in some Democrats who actually care about families like yours.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Cross-posted at The Huffington Post

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

129 Comments on “GOP's Swamp Creature Of A Tax Bill”

  1. [1] 
    Michale wrote:

    Republicans need to understand that people are not happy about the swamp creature they just passed into law.

    Republicans need to understand that HYSTERICAL NEVERTRUMPERS are not happy about the swamp creature they just passed into law.

    There.. Fixed it for you.

    "Yer welcome"
    -Maui, MOANA

    :D

  2. [2] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Did April Fools Day come early for next year or were you serious?

    The Big Money Democrats will not be able to use your pathetic excuse for a campaign strategy to "throw the bums" out in November because they are also part of the bums.

    The strategy of pointing out how bad the Republicans are is no longer believable. The Big Money Democrats have no credibility when complaining about the Republicans serving the Big Money interests as long as the Democrats take Big Money.

    And any Big Money Democrat making the claim that they represent ordinary citizens while taking Big Money contributions should be challenged at all campaign events, townhalls, interviews and news conferences to explain the contradiction between their claims to represent average citizens while taking Big Money.

    And if they Democrats aren't willing to make the commitment to represent ordinary citizens then they do not deserve, nor should they get, the support and votes of ordinary citizens or be elected to office anymore than Republicans.

    Democrat first or American first?

  3. [3] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "And all the Democrats have to do is agree with the public."

    Like the 80% that want the Big Money out of politics- including a majority of Republicans?

  4. [4] 
    neilm wrote:

    Simplifying things:

    Three messages for 2018:

    1. You need somebody that isn't thinking only about the 1%
    2. Democrats have the right ideas about healthcare - Republicans have no ideas
    3. Trump is not good enough to be our President.

  5. [5] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @michale - wishful editing. the bill sucks, two thirds of the population knows it sucks, and donald j is stamping his name on it in glided iron pyrite.

    @don - thank you sir for flogging the dead old chestnut, may i have another?

    @neil - when mencken said "no one ever went broke..." i think perhaps even his imagination faltered.

    JL

  6. [6] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Update -

    OK, I am chastened. For the first time, I have had to update the pledge drive thermometer twice in the same day. I guess the kitten was convincing!

    In any case, thank-you emails will be going out soon, and we're closing in on our yearly goal. Woo hoo!

    Thanks to everyone who has donated!

    :-)

    -CW

  7. [7] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW
    6

    For the first time, I have had to update the pledge drive thermometer twice in the same day.

    We are nothing if not movers and shakers. :)

  8. [8] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Don Harris -

    You're really getting more than a little tedious, my friend. I mean, this isn't exactly the way to convince me your crusade has merit.

    You're "Dems are just as bad as GOPers" and "there's no difference between the parties" refrain continues to ignore relevant facts.

    How many Democrats -- even the "big money Dems" you love to decry -- voted for this bill? Hmmm? If you're right, then a whole bunch of them must have done so, to repay their fatcat donors. I mean, it's your own logic I'm using, here.

    What's that? NONE of them voted for it? Not a one?

    I judge politicians on their records. Talk is cheap, but votes in Congress show their real priorities. Which is why, every Friday, I castigate Dems who stray from the straight and narrow.

    For you, on the other hand, a purity so virgin and crystal-clear that even Saint Francis of Assissi would have been impressed by it is required before you even allow them to assume the mantle of "Democrat."

    Seriously? Please name ONE such Democrat, in real life. Just one. Pure enough for you, in other words, untainted and like unto the driven snow.

    My blog is dedicated to "reality-based politics," not Utopia or some fantasyland where unicorns fart rainbows and the pixies frolic in the meadow. And I believe in both hitting politicians when they err as well as praising them when they do the right thing. For whatever motive, a vote is a vote in Congress. And yet NONE of their votes added to this swamp monster. But that's somehow not remotely good enough for you? Wow.

    Sure, money in politics is a problem. Sure, things could be better. There are indeed ideas for how to achieve these things (many of them, in fact, some more achievable than others). But only the most naive would call for all other politics to essentially come to a grinding halt until such perfection is achieved. You advocate not just a litmus test, but sanctification, it seems.

    Yes, there are differences between Democrats and Republicans. Sure, Democrats don't always walk the walk as well as we'd all like to see. Sure, the Clintons' DLC ruined the party for over a decade, in a lot of ways. But they're struggling to find their way back these days.

    But when they take steps towards that goal, in my opinion, they deserve more than just another heaping helping of scorn. At least, in the real world.

    NO Democrat voted for this swamp monster. So please tell me, how does that fit into your sweeping condemnation of them all? Why, if they truly are bought and paid for, lock, stock, and barrel, did not ONE of them vote to please their Big Money masters?

    Hmmmm?

    -CW

  9. [9] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Kick [7] -

    That thermometer got a real kick in the ass late today, if you'll forgive the pun.

    :-)

    -CW

  10. [10] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Don,

    I suggest you take the clear message in [8] to heart and reassess things.

    The differences between the Republican and Democrat agendas are as stark as night and day and to state otherwise is to live in a fantasyland. This is probably more true today than at any other time in the history of your country.

    I would hope that you are able to recognize that because only then can you make progress, one step at a time, toward limiting the influence of big money in politics and, more importantly, toward finding workable solutions to the pressing challenges of our time.

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    Joshua,

    @michale - wishful editing. the bill sucks, two thirds of the population knows it sucks, and donald j is stamping his name on it in glided iron pyrite.

    Yea??

    Prove it without the use of polls..

    You can't...

    554

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    NO Democrat voted for this swamp monster.

    And NO REPUBLICAN voted for the train wreck that was Obamacare...

    Does that mean TrainWreckCare was horrid???

    I mean, if THAT is the standard, then it must be applied equally, no??

    555

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    Joshua,

    I mean, if polls are sacrosanct, why didn't ya'all listen to the polls when the American public spoke loud and clear about TrainWreckCare??

    Because you are only for polls that say what you want to hear..

    It's called CONFIRMATION BIAS and Democrats stink with it...

    Now, let's postulate a scenario where the polls are ALL wrong.. Completely and utterly WRONG...

    I know, I know.. That's never happened before.. Oh, but wait.. It HAS happened before.. And lo and behold, the SAME person involved in THAT poll-flame-out incident is ALSO involved in THIS incident as well..

    If ya have been so totally and utterly and completely burned by polls in the past, why oh why would you want to quote polls now??

    Because they say what you want to hear...

    CONFIRMATION BIAS

    556

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's called CONFIRMATION BIAS and Democrats stink with it...

    Which isn't to say that Republicans don't ALSO stink with it. They do..

    But ya'all claim that Democrats are BETTER than Republicans..

    Of which I see no evidence to support...

    557

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    The differences between the Republican and Democrat agendas are as stark as night and day and to state otherwise is to live in a fantasyland.

    And yet, Democrats use the same methods to achieve the same goals...

    Accuser: Linda Sarsour said sexual harassment 'doesn't happen to someone that looks like you'
    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/12/20/accuser-linda-sarsour-said-sexual-harassment-doesnt-happen-to-someone-that-looks-like.html

    All women are to be believed.. EXCEPT for women that go against the Democrat Party line...

    Don's solution and methods to achieve that solution may be out of whack.. It may not be. I don't have enough facts or knowledge to assess that one way or the other..

    But he *IS* dead on ballz accurate in identifying the problem and pointing out that, when it comes to big money in politics, Democrats ARE no different than Republicans..

    And he deserves credit in not only recognizing the problem and pointing out the problem but also for doing more than just paying lip service to the problem..

    Ya'all are willing to ignore the problem if it means more Democrats get elected... Don is not..

    It's really that simple...

    558

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    Americans might really like the Trump tax cuts. What will Democrats do then?
    http://theweek.com/articles/744211/americans-might-really-like-trump-tax-cuts-what-democrats

    That's the question ya'all have to ask yourselves..

    What if ya'all are WRONG about how Americans feel about Trump's tax plan, as ya'all have been WRONG about practically EVERYTHING Trump to date???

    Whatcha all gonna do then???

    559

  17. [17] 
    neilm wrote:

    What if ya'all are WRONG about how Americans feel about Trump's tax plan, as ya'all have been WRONG about practically EVERYTHING Trump to date???

    How will you tell? You deride all polls, so what measure are you going to use?

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    How will you tell?

    More money in my pocket and more money in the pockets of every American who has a job.. :D

    You deride all polls,

    Yes.. I deride *ALL* polls..

    Y'all only deride the polls that say things ya'all don't like.. :D

    So, tell me.. What are you going to do if you are WRONG about Trump's tax plan??

    What are ya'all going to do if Americans LOVE IT??

    Admit ya'all were wrong?? :D

    Something about a 'cold day' and 'hell' comes to mind.. :D

    560

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya'all are willing to ignore the problem if it means more Democrats get elected... Don is not..

    I am also constrained to point out that Don is following very sage advice. The advice I give ya'all ALL the time..

    Don is cleaning his OWN house first... Which is what MUST be done in order to have any shred of credibility...

    561

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    Business groups lauded the plan’s anticipated impact on economic growth and investment. AT&T Inc. said it would make a one-time $1,000 payment to more than 200,000 workers once Mr. Trump signs the bill.
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-cheers-gop-tax-overhaul-slams-democrats-who-opposed-it-1513795294

    More money in Americans' pockets

    Merry Christmas, America..
    President Trump

    :D

    What kind of GRINCH would oppose putting more money in middle-class Americans' pockets???

    562

  21. [21] 
    John M wrote:

    [20] Michale

    "More money in Americans' pockets

    Merry Christmas, America..
    President Trump"

    YEP, Merry Christmas America! HERE'S THE REALITY:

    "Republicans’ tax overhaul will completely change the way employers figure out how to withhold income taxes from millions of Americans’ paychecks, potentially disrupting payroll departments as they figure out how to switch to the new system with little guidance and just days to spare.

    As of Jan. 1, the Republican plan dumps the entire concept of personal exemptions that workers now use to calculate how much should be taken from their pay on the tax forms known as W-4s. That means forms could need to be rewritten, and millions of workers will need to submit new ones. At the same time, the GOP plan doesn’t specify exactly what should happen, leaving it to the IRS to figure out.

    Employers are especially confused because the bill says Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service could decide not to change the payroll withholding system until 2019, a move that could mean some workers have a lot less than they actually owe withheld from their checks under the new law. Some could end up facing tax penalties."

    - Brian Faler writing in POLITICO

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    YEP, Merry Christmas America! HERE'S THE REALITY:

    Nope.. That's yer spin because you can't handle the FACT that President Trump just scored a MAJOR legislative victory and Dumbocrats are going to look like idiots when Americans come to LOVE President Trump's legislation..

    Do you know who we'll know when Dumbocrats realize they have egg all over their faces??

    When they start claiming that President Trump had nothing to do with the legislation or it's success. :D

    Just like ya'all are trying to give Odumbo the credit for Trump's moves.. :D

    564

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    Do you know who we'll know when Dumbocrats realize they have egg all over their faces??

    Do you know HOW we'll know when Dumbocrats realize they have egg all over their faces??

    grrrrrr

    565

  24. [24] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    CW-
    Thank you for BEGINNING the conversation. I have to drive someone to the airport this morning so I will respond to your comment later.

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    You see, what ya'all don't get is, unless you know the breakdown of WHO the polls are polling, the data is meaningless..

    If ALL the people being polled are ALL anti-Trump then that skews the poll and make the conclusions based on the polls moronic...

    And, as has been WELL established, Trump supporters don't do polls...

    So, when I say that the polls ya'all crow about are simply the polls of the NeverTrumpers, it's NOT "wishful thinking"...

    It's the likeliest of possibilities...

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    Like I have pointed out in the past..

    If ya'all can't give President Trump credit for *ANYTHING* then the problem isn't President Trump...

    567

  27. [27] 
    John M wrote:

    [22] Michale

    "Nope.. That's yer spin because you can't handle the FACT that President Trump just scored a MAJOR legislative victory and Dumbocrats are going to look like idiots when Americans come to LOVE President Trump's legislation.."

    You mean like Americans have come to LOVE Obamacare???

    That just has to stick in your craw. That's why you deny reality so much. Please do go on living in your fantasy world, just like Roy Moore hoping for a non existent recount that ain't never going to happen, because he LOST.

  28. [28] 
    John M wrote:

    [25] Michale

    "You see, what ya'all don't get is, unless you know the breakdown of WHO the polls are polling, the data is meaningless..

    If ALL the people being polled are ALL anti-Trump then that skews the poll and make the conclusions based on the polls moronic...

    And, as has been WELL established, Trump supporters don't do polls...

    So, when I say that the polls ya'all crow about are simply the polls of the NeverTrumpers, it's NOT "wishful thinking"..."

    Oh PLEASE Michale. That's all just more meaningless whistling in the dark drivel from you. Even when they have polled Republicans exclusively, Republican voters did not even support the tax bill.

    And if it even was ONLY Trump voters, that still would not mean anything. Since only 46 percent of those who voted, voted for Trump. So even only Trump voters by themselves would never even constitute majority support, even if a majority of them were in favor!

  29. [29] 
    John M wrote:

    [25] Michale

    "If ALL the people being polled are ALL anti-Trump then that skews the poll and make the conclusions based on the polls moronic..."

    Talk about moronic. Look at YOUR own logic Michale. Because you just made my own point for me. If, by definition, ALL those polled were exclusively ANTI-TRUMP, and skewed the poll, then the poll should have been 100 percent AGAINST TRUMP's tax bill. Since it wasn't, then it could not have been all anti Trumpers, could it? See how logic works? Since why are 100 percent anti Trumpers going to like or give Trump credit for anything?

  30. [30] 
    John M wrote:

    Put it another way, even if 100 percent of Trump supporters were in favor of the tax bill, since they constituted only 46 percent of the total electorate, even 100 percent of them, still would not make a majority of the population.

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    You mean like Americans have come to LOVE Obamacare???

    Facts to support??

    {cchhhiirrrrppp} {chhiirrrrpppp}

    yea, that's what I thought...

    Oh PLEASE Michale. That's all just more meaningless whistling in the dark drivel from you. Even when they have polled Republicans exclusively, Republican voters did not even support the tax bill.

    Newsflash for you sunshine.. Many Republicans are as hysterical NeverTrumpers as you people are...

    THAT'S the fact that you don't get..

    A poll on Trump's performance that DOESN'T include Trump supporters is nothing but useless data...

    Talk about moronic. Look at YOUR own logic Michale. Because you just made my own point for me. If, by definition, ALL those polled were exclusively ANTI-TRUMP, and skewed the poll, then the poll should have been 100 percent AGAINST TRUMP's tax bill. Since it wasn't, then it could not have been all anti Trumpers, could it? See how logic works? Since why are 100 percent anti Trumpers going to like or give Trump credit for anything?

    Thank you for proving my point that ALL polls are based on nothing but ideology.. :D

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    On the other hand, if there are people out there who don't support President Trump but WILL give him an honest assessment (I know, I know.. NO ONE here like that) then that would explain the polls..

    Couple that with the fact that not ALL Trump supporters are poll-averse and that would explain the poll numbers.

    Once you understand that the majority of Trump supporters do not do polls, then the poll numbers are put in their proper context..

    It's only political ideologues who cherry pick polls to support their ideology that crow incessantly about polls..

    570

  33. [33] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Nypoet22-5

    RE second paragraph: More like floggin' a popular marine mammal often associated with Sea World if you catch my drift. :)

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    Put it another way, even if 100 percent of Trump supporters were in favor of the tax bill, since they constituted only 46 percent of the total electorate, even 100 percent of them, still would not make a majority of the population.

    And yet, ya'all fanatically supported TrainWreckCare with a LOT less support..

    If the polls are sacrosanct, then why??? Why would you so hysterically support something that the VAST MAJORITY of Americans were against???

    Because ONLY the polls that SAY WHAT YOU WANT TO HEAR are sacrosanct.... You ignore all the others...

    The logic is impeccable...

    571

  35. [35] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    There are basically two things that account for Dems/Libs' antagonism toward the Rep tax bill:

    First and perhaps foremost is ideological, based on the fact that the main benefits go to corporations, and Dems/Libs hate corporations. That has always fascinated me, seeing as how most of them are employed by corporations, and they all give damn near ever $ they earn to corporations!! I ask you, is that weird or what??

    Second reason pocketbook, meaning that because the way the income tax is structured (the top half of earners pay 97.2% of all income taxes paid), they suspect there will be fewer free gov't goodies for them.

    No big surprise, perceptive people realize that those twin issues, ideology and pocketbook, inform pretty much everybody's voting patterns. Of course, the unperceptive disagree, and claim that while THEY (the political 'elite') always vote pocketbook and/or ideology, that the great unwashed masses all vote based on TV political ads.

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    First and perhaps foremost is ideological, based on the fact that the main benefits go to corporations, and Dems/Libs hate corporations. That has always fascinated me, seeing as how most of them are employed by corporations, and they all give damn near ever $ they earn to corporations!! I ask you, is that weird or what??

    It's called hypocrisy and it's not a bug it's a feature..

    No big surprise, perceptive people realize that those twin issues, ideology and pocketbook, inform pretty much everybody's voting patterns. Of course, the unperceptive disagree, and claim that while THEY (the political 'elite') always vote pocketbook and/or ideology, that the great unwashed masses all vote based on TV political ads.

    A man who gets it.. :D

    572

  37. [37] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    CW-
    "You're really getting more than a little tedious"

    Good. Because apparently it takes getting tedious to get you to respond. You could have avoided the tedioscity(?) if you had just answered when I asked nice.

    "Your "Dems are just as bad as the GOPers" and "there's no difference between the parties" ignores relevant facts."

    That would be a valid point if I had ever made those claims. But I didn't. Are you confusing me with Ralph Nader?

    I said that the Dems were not as bad as the GOPers but they were still bad and not as bad is not good enough.

    How many Dems were needed to pass the tax bill? NONE?
    If Dems were needed they would have secured a few Schumer Crumbs and caved in like they always do.

    "I judge politicians on their records."
    Me too. And not the false bravado of voting against a bill that will pass without your vote or voting for a bill that will not pass even with your vote, but the entire record.

    And when the vote counts for something the Dems do not deliver. The Dems are not free from responsibility for the last thirty years of the war on the middle class.

    "Which is why every Friday I castigate Dems that stray from the straight and narrow."

    Claiming to represent ordinary citizens while taking Big Money and representing the Big Money interests is NOT sticking to the straight and narrow.

    When was the last time you castigated any Dem for that?

    "For you, on the other hand, a purity so virgin and crystal-clear that even Saint Francis of Assissi would be impressed by it is required before you will even allow them to assume the mantle of Democrat."

    Ah, the purity dodge. Demanding that candidates finance their campaigns only with small contributions has nothing to do with purity. It is a starting point. A minimal requirement.

    In that sense it is no different than demanding that a candidate not be a climate denier, will allow "Not One Penny" in tax cuts for millionaires or any other litmus test issue that citizens demand before considering supporting a candidate.

    But it is different in the sense that it effects every other issue and if the candidates of any party are taking Big Money then they are representing Big Money on the other issues no matter what they say while campaigning.

    And I have no problem with Democratic candidates taking Big Money. But should they do so knowing that if they do they will not get my vote and the votes of many other citizens that no longer buy the extremely tedious look how bad the Republicans are so Dems are your only other choice no matter how bad the Dems are lie.

    Democrats need us- we don't need them. Have you learned nothing from 2016?

    "Please name one such Democrat, in real life. Just one."

    Is this a trick question?

    There are none. AND THAT"S THE PROBLEM!!!!!!!!!

    "My blog is dedicated to "reality-based politics"..."

    So a candidate that takes Big Money and represents ordinary citizens is reality?

    I'll believe when I see it. Right now it is the same answer to your trick question- there are none.

    "Sure money in politics is problem. Sure things could be better."

    Only the most naive would believe that a politician that takes Big Money will represent ordinary citizens.

    When did I say all politics should come to grinding halt? The small contribution candidates still have to take positions on other issues.

    In fact, I am actually advocating participation and the utilization of the political process provided by our founding fathers.

    When politicians do something you don't like (such as taking Big Money and representing the Big Money interests) you vote against them. If you keep voting for them anyway they will keep doing it. That is basic democracy. So if your are against citizens doing that then you are the one that wants politics to come to a grinding halt.

    So I have answered every point you tried to make.

    Your turn.

    How do you reconcile candidates taking Big Money contributions and then claiming they are not influenced by the Big Money?

    If 15-20% of citizens participated in One Demand in 2018 could it result in 10-50 small contribution candidates elected to Congress (includes the Senate) in 2018? If not, why not?

    That is if they DID participate and COULD it work. If they will participate and if it would work are a separate question (Feel free to answer that ALSO).

    If it did work wouldn't it be a good thing?

    Bernie has shown that small contribution campaigns are possible, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. The Tea Party has proven taking on the establishment candidates in the primaries can be effective. And the Women's March and other internet efforts have accomplished things in much less time than previously thought possible.

    One Demand combines these proven approaches and I said that all these things could happen BEFORE they happened.

    Or is this not part of your reality?

    Reality is what you make it. Supporting and voting for Big Money candidates has created the current reality. You can accept it or try to change it.

    Repeating the same mistake of supporting and voting for Big Money candidates will not change the current reality.

    But citizens utilizing the tools provided by our founding can and is the only realistic approach.

  38. [38] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    And one more point on the purity claim.

    It's not purity I demand- it's integrity.

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    House gives final approval to tax bill, delivering victory to Trump
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-tax/house-gives-final-approval-to-tax-bill-delivering-victory-to-trump-idUSKBN1ED16V

    And the WIN goes to President Trump and the American people!! :D

    573

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    Year One List: 81 major Trump achievements, 11 Obama legacy items repealed
    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/year-one-list-81-major-trump-achievements-11-obama-legacy-items-repealed/article/2644159

    President Trump.....

    Making America Great Again

    574

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, just with the simplest "napkin" calculation on the median annual Police Patrol Officer salary in New York, NY... $63,169

    https://www1.salary.com/NY/...

    That would mean they pay in Federal Taxes under the new brackets compared to the old...

    http://www.savingtoinvest.c...

    Old: 9325*.1 + (37950-9326)*.15 + (63169-37951)*.25 = 11.53k

    New: 9525*.1 + (38700-9525)*.12 + (63169-38701)*22 = 9.84k

    For a difference (and increase in yearly take home pay for the officer) of approximately $1,690.

    For the tax write off (assuming they aren't just taking a standard deduction which they probably are anyway) to be more than that they would have to be spending in the range of $10,000 on their uniforms, dry cleaning, and guns/ammunition every year.

    Since a single round of 9mm ammunition costs about $0.16, they would have to blow through approximately 62,500 rounds of it to spend $10,000 (assuming they aren't reloading their own spent brass). Or a combination of that and O.C.D. level cleanliness requiring multiple uniforms and near constant dry cleaning.

    https://www.wikiarms.com/gr...

    Nope, pretty safe to say the officer is better off under the new tax plan. Isn't napkin arithmetic fun? :-)
    -Deplorable Despot

    No matter how ya'all want to spin things, people..

    President Trump's tax plan is good for Middle Class Americans...

    575

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, just with the simplest "napkin" calculation on the median annual Police Patrol Officer salary in New York, NY... $63,169

    That would mean they pay in Federal Taxes under the new brackets compared to the old...

    Old: 9325*.1 + (37950-9326)*.15 + (63169-37951)*.25 = 11.53k

    New: 9525*.1 + (38700-9525)*.12 + (63169-38701)*22 = 9.84k

    For a difference (and increase in yearly take home pay for the officer) of approximately $1,690.

    For the tax write off (assuming they aren't just taking a standard deduction which they probably are anyway) to be more than that they would have to be spending in the range of $10,000 on their uniforms, dry cleaning, and guns/ammunition every year.

    Since a single round of 9mm ammunition costs about $0.16, they would have to blow through approximately 62,500 rounds of it to spend $10,000 (assuming they aren't reloading their own spent brass). Or a combination of that and O.C.D. level cleanliness requiring multiple uniforms and near constant dry cleaning.

    Nope, pretty safe to say the officer is better off under the new tax plan. Isn't napkin arithmetic fun? :-)
    -Deplorable Despot

    No matter how ya'all want to spin things, people..

    President Trump's tax plan is good for Middle Class Americans...

    575

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    Remember how ya'all went hysterically chimped out about "banned" words from the Trump Administration??

    No, the Trump Administration Didn’t ‘Ban’ 7 Words at the CDC
    https://amgreatness.com/2017/12/18/no-the-trump-administration-didnt-ban-7-words-at-the-cdc/

    Don't ya'all feel like idiots now, eh?? :D

    576

  44. [44] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    [37]

    Tedium ad infinitum.

    I don't think another name change will help your cause, such as it is.

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    The tax picture is long and complicated. The left is lying about it not being a tax cut; it is for probably 95% of people... assuming it doesn't sunset in 8 years... which is a big if. Most of the stuff the dems were complaining about got added back in (some SALT; student loan %, teacher supplies, bigger child tax credit). I've had a long conversation with spaceman in the past; not worth my time or yours.
    -Rory

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, is this true??

    Is the Left lying when they claim it's not a tax cut when, in fact, it IS a tax cut for 95% of Americans??

    Rory is a tax guy who does taxes for a living...

    Is he wrong??

    Or are ya'all???

  47. [47] 
    Kick wrote:

    CRS
    35

    First and perhaps foremost is ideological, based on the fact that the main benefits go to corporations, and Dems/Libs hate corporations.

    Isn't it Trump who is supposed to be the anti-corporatist? I wish the Trump cock-holsters and sycophants would make up their addled "minds."

    That has always fascinated me, seeing as how most of them are employed by corporations, and they all give damn near ever $ they earn to corporations!! I ask you, is that weird or what??

    It's not just weird, it's totally fabricated utter nonsensical bullshit.

    Second reason pocketbook, meaning that because the way the income tax is structured (the top half of earners pay 97.2% of all income taxes paid), they suspect there will be fewer free gov't goodies for them.

    That figure is from 2013, and that's because in 2013, you only needed to have a meager AGI of $36,841 or more in order to land in the top half of earners. There were 69,000,000+ filers who fell into the "top half" category in 2013, and this figure illustrates nicely the widening divide in income inequality.

    How much AGI would one need to fall into the top 50% in the latest IRS figures from 2015? A mere $39,275.

    https://www.kiplinger.com/article/taxes/T054-C000-S001-how-you-rank-as-a-taxpayer.html

    Contrary to popular myth, the majority of government "goodies" are actually being paid to working-class whites and older rural poor people... those who overwhelmingly voted for Trump.

    If only Trump hadn't promised to be the voice of the "forgotten" Americans instead of the "forgotten corporations," **/sarcasm off** there might not be a growing number of voters out there who feel they were conned and/or baited and switched by Trump.

    No big surprise, perceptive people realize that those twin issues, ideology and pocketbook, inform pretty much everybody's voting patterns. Of course, the unperceptive disagree, and claim that while THEY (the political 'elite') always vote pocketbook and/or ideology, that the great unwashed masses all vote based on TV political ads.

    Then there's the "special kind of stupid" who insist on placing labels like "always" and "all" on others on a quite frequent basis while being seemingly oblivious to the fact that they're metaphorically like the projector blaming the screen for the moving pictures. :)

  48. [48] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    (43)-
    Yes, it is tedious to keep asking questions that don't get answered and answering the same mischaracterizations and ridiculous claims about One Demand over and over again.

    Of course, that was addressed in the second paragraph. You are directing your complaint to the wrong person instead of the person that could have avoided the tediumocity by responding a long time ago.

    Of course, for those that consider it tedious for me to point out the flaws in our political system, the Big Money Democrats and the excuses of those that support and vote for them either get used to it or grow a pair and stand up against the Big Money interests.

    You are right that another name change won't help One Demand. And repackaging the same old Big Money Democrats are not as bad as the Republicans will not help the Democratic Party or the country.

    All this time you have supported me and now that my persistence has finally got CW to begin to engage in a conversation it is tedious- what happened?

    It wasn't my choice for it to take so long.

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's not just weird, it's totally fabricated utter nonsensical bullshit.

    Says you..

    Any facts to back it up??

    {{{chhhiirrrrpppp}}} {{cchhhiirrrrppppp}}

    Course not..

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    there might not be a growing number of voters out there who feel they were conned and/or baited and switched by Trump.

    Any facts to support THAT???

    {{{chhhiirrrrpppp}}} {{cchhhiirrrrppppp}}

    Nope.. No facts once again...

  51. [51] 
    Kick wrote:

    [37] [43]

    et infinitum troglodytarum repetita

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    et infinitum troglodytarum repetita

    Like I said..

    NO FACTS....

    Just whiney bitchiness...

    582

  53. [53] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW to Don Harris: You're really getting more than a little tedious....

    et infinitum troglodytarum repetita

    DH to CW: That would be a valid point if I had ever made those claims. But I didn't.

    I call bullshit, Don. You lump the parties together all the time.

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/11/10/ftp461/#comment-110298

    And when people are only offered a choice between two deceptive options it increases the possibility that they will be fooled. ~ Don Harris

    So Don, you're apparently not fooling CW because he called you exactly correct; you sure as hell are not fooling me, and I'd wager a large sum of money that far exceeds your paltry "One Demand" that you're not fooling anyone else either.

    Need more examples, Don?

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sure, it benefits the wealthy most, no argument there.

    But if someone on the street walked up to you, and then grabbed another person out of a Ferrari, and said they were going to give you $100 and Ferrari guy $1,000 but only if you both agree, would you turn down the $100 out of spite crying "that's not fair"? Take the $100 and be glad you have an extra $100 for crying out loud!

    Opposition based on calling it a "giveaway to the rich" just doesn't make sense (plus, there are other valid arguments against it anyway). Most everyone (who works and earns money ON the books) will benefit from this, it's a giveaway to most everybody.

    I've said it before, constantly comparing yourself to others is a recipe for unhappiness, I couldn't care less about "wealth inequality" as long as EVERYONE's standard of living continues to go up (which it has and continues to do, thanks democracy/capitalism/technology).

    NOTE: My objection to "wealth inequality" is purely for the super rich who can use it to buy political influence/power, THAT'S a problem in my opinion. If they weren't able to do that I wouldn't care at all.
    -Deplorable Despot

    You see, that's the point ya'all simply don't get...

    President Trump's tax legislation helps the vast majority of Americans.. THIS IS FACT...

    The fact that it helps some more than others?? Big deal..

    Ya'all act like it's a death knell for all but the super rich and that characterization is total bullshit based SOLELY on ya'all's hysterical PTDS...

  55. [55] 
    Kick wrote:

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/11/08/its-a-new-day-for-democrats/#comment-110208

    Big Money Republicans screwed people over and lost to Big Money Democrats.

    What's new about that?

    How is it any different than when Big Money Democrats screwed people over and lost to Big Money Republicans?

    This is the same cycle repeated over and over again. ~ Don Harris

    The same cycle repeated over and over again is your bullshit, Don, so you could at least own it and stop fooling yourself because you most likely aren't fooling anyone else. CW fairly and accurately described your posts, and he was a lot nicer than he had to be or I would have been if I were in his shoes and running my own blog that I endeavored yearly to remain free of advertisement.

    I would wager that there are quite a few readers of CW's blog who would like to see the site remain free of advertisement and also feel that you are damn lucky that CW allows you to post here at all. The way I see it is that CW owes you nothing; in fact, you owe him quite a large sum of money for your almost daily advertisements for your own business.

    In conclusion: Please "clue in" to the fact that CW owes you nothing... quite the opposite, actually. :)

  56. [56] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick-
    "Need more examples, Don?"

    No. An example would be sufficient.

    CW claimed I said Dems were just as bad as the GOPers and there was no difference between the parties.

    The statement you provided says no such thing. It points out a similarity in that both parties are deceptive just as pointing out that they are both beholden to their Big Money contributors points out a similarity. In no way do these statements declare them equal.

    Is it possible that when you can't refute the argument that you change the argument to something that you can refute and call bullshit on?

    It sure seems that way and I call bullshit on you.

  57. [57] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick (53)-

    That again?
    What's new about that?

  58. [58] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    CW-
    Should you choose to continue the conversation on One Demand and answer the questions provided in comment 37 and you are willing to admit that One Demand COULD work and that it would be good if it did, how about a new category for the awards that would qualify One Demand in that circumstance- The Biggest Longshot In 2018 That Would Be Good If it Happened?

  59. [59] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Kick [46]

    If it's "total fabricated bullshit' that Libs give "damn near every $ they earn to corporations" how about you share with us the last dozen things you purchased for which the purchase price was not remitted to a corporation?

  60. [60] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    There is too much heat around here in the comments sections and precious little light.

    It's a real shame.

  61. [61] 
    Kick wrote:

    Stucki
    58

    If it's "total fabricated bullshit' that Libs give "damn near every $ they earn to corporations" how about you share with us the last dozen things you purchased for which the purchase price was not remitted to a corporation?

    If you're going to quote me, then you should quote me correctly. I didn't say it's "total fabricated bullshit;" I said:

    it's totally fabricated utter nonsensical bullshit.

    If you're going to quote yourself, you might also want to quote yourself correctly. You said:

    ... Dems/Libs hate corporations. That has always fascinated me, seeing as how most of them are employed by corporations, and they all give damn near ever $ they earn to corporations!!

    If you and Michale would like to make nonsensical fools out of yourselves trying to prove that Dems/Libs hate corporations, be my guest because it will be a hoot to watch Michale make arguments against his own past statements wherein he's branded Democrats as being corporatists. If you'd like to further make yourselves look stupid by presenting any proof that "most of them are employed by corporations," please knock yourself out on that one too. Pay no attention to the fact that the largest employer in the United States is... indeed... the United States of America. If you and Michale would like to further make asses out of yourselves, please provide proof of your statements that "they all give damn near ever $ they earn to corporations!!" (emphasis added by me), then knock yourselves silly and good luck trying to prove they all do that.

    As far as me listing the "last dozen things" I "purchased for which the purchase price was not remitted to a corporation" would prove nothing toward your nonsensical argument about all Dems/libs because: (a) I'm not a "Dem/lib," and (b) I also don't spend a single dime that I actually earn.

    The last money I spent went to "Pamphleteering Press," and I am guessing Chris is NOT a corporation.

    Have a nice day. :)

  62. [62] 
    Kick wrote:

    DH
    55

    CW claimed I said Dems were just as bad as the GOPers and there was no difference between the parties.

    CW is exactly correct because your repeated theme contained in your posts and questions to him to the point of trolling him on his own blog are this:

    How is it any different than when Big Money Democrats screwed people over and lost to Big Money Republicans?

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/11/08/its-a-new-day-for-democrats/#comment-110208

    So just in case your repeated question/theme is unclear to yourself, please realize that repeated questions/comments that ask/state how is it "any different" implies that you believe there is no difference... and, yes, you do it over and over ad infinitum on his blog.

    In no way do these statements declare them equal.

    Oh, if only the word "different" weren't an antonym of the word "equal" in just about every dictionary... and simple English.

    Is it possible that when you can't refute the argument that you change the argument to something that you can refute and call bullshit on?

    CW called you on your argument and nailed it exactly right, and it looks to me like you've exactly described yourself since you're now trying to change your argument ad infinitum. :)

  63. [63] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale [13, etc] -

    Because you are only for polls that say what you want to hear..

    It's called CONFIRMATION BIAS and Democrats stink with it...

    Oh, puh-LEEZE.

    First, you love polls when they agree with you. Wasn't that long ago you were here bragging about one that actually put Trump over 50 percent (earlier this year).

    I spent eight years, once a month, covering Obama's polls. They went up, they went down, but I never decided "I'm going to end this column series because I don't like what the polls are saying."

    You, on the other hand, exhibit exactly the behavior you are now ascribing to others. Poll says GOP (or Trump) is up? You gleefully tout it and post links. Polls say GOP/Trump is down? "Polls can't be trusted!"

    I mean, seriously. Get a grip. Because if there's anything that proves confirmation bias around here, it is your refusal to belive any poll you don't like, while boasting about the ones you do like. That, plain and simple, IS confirmation bias. Deal with it, pal.

    -CW

  64. [64] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale [41] -

    This comment was held for moderation due to multiple links. I have approved it, but just wanted to point out to everyone not to do this because it delays your comments being posted.

    If you want to post more than one link, write more than one comment -- that's the way around the filter...

    -CW

  65. [65] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Kick [61] -

    You are right. I'm not a corporation. I'm a sole proprietorship...

    :-)

    -CW

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    First, you love polls when they agree with you. Wasn't that long ago you were here bragging about one that actually put Trump over 50 percent (earlier this year).

    "Love" is such a strong word... Every time I quote a poll, I usually (see what I did there?? :D) include the caveat that polls are meaningless...

    Usually, the only reason I even quote polls is to prove to you that there are polls that YA'ALL ignore... :D Throw them in ya'all's face, so to speak.. :D

    You, on the other hand, exhibit exactly the behavior you are now ascribing to others. Poll says GOP (or Trump) is up? You gleefully tout it and post links.

    I did???

    I mean, seriously. Get a grip. Because if there's anything that proves confirmation bias around here, it is your refusal to belive any poll you don't like, while boasting about the ones you do like. That, plain and simple, IS confirmation bias. Deal with it, pal.

    As I said, the ONLY reason I post polls that say things counter to the polls ya'all worship is to prove ya'all's
    Confirmation Bias...

    :D

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    This comment was held for moderation due to multiple links. I have approved it, but just wanted to point out to everyone not to do this because it delays your comments being posted.

    If you want to post more than one link, write more than one comment -- that's the way around the filter...

    I did not know that.. :D

    It was a quote from a guy I know who totally devastated ya'all's arguments that President Trump's Tax Cut is not really a tax cut..

    He included all the support and facts for his conclusion...

    I am not surprised it was ignored..

    FACTS that prove Weigantians totally and utterly batshit crazy wrong tends to be ignored around here.. :D

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    There is too much heat around here in the comments sections and precious little light.

    It's a real shame.

    Yep...

    That's the problem with letting hatred and intolerance fester... Even if it starts out directed at the "RIGHT" people, it often obtains a mind of it's own...

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    "Love" is such a strong word... Every time I quote a poll, I usually (see what I did there?? :D) include the caveat that polls are meaningless...

    Oh, and just in case ya'all weren't paying attention before..

    realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

    Obama's poll numbers continue to fall... He's approaching a 2-point drop in the last 8 days...

    Standard Poll Caveats apply..

    Michale
    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2014/06/06/ftp307/#comment-49425

    :D

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    As far as ya'all's #RESIST battle cry???

    I can not BELIEVE I didn't come up with this sooner!!!

    RESISTANCE IS FUTILE

    :D

    591

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    Elizabeth Warren just gave Trump a 2020 campaign ad
    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/elizabeth-warren-just-gave-trump-a-2020-campaign-ad/article/2644026

    Democrats are going to rue the day they did not jump on the MAKE AMERICA GREAT bandwagon... :D

    592

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    That’s the mistake of poll takers. Stop telling me what everyone thinks. What matters is what taxpayers think. Only those with “skin in the game” should be polled. Then you’d find out the real reason for the divide in America.

    Maybe I’ll start my own poll. It will be called “The Makers/Takers Index.” I’ll bet 70 percent or more of the people who actually pay taxes and/or create jobs (the makers) love the job Trump is doing. I’ll bet 90 percent or more of those who collect welfare, food stamps and free Obamacare (the takers) despise Trump.

    That’s the divide in America today.
    https://www.reviewjournal.com/opinion/opinion-columns/wayne-allyn-root/commentary-lets-celebrate-donald-trumps-christmas-miracle/

    Yep, yep, yep...

    That's the whole problem with "polls"... They invariably state unequivocally the position of the poll takers and not the pollees

    593

  73. [73] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick-
    Saying that two things, people ,etc. have one or more common traits is not saying they are the same in all ways.

    If I said that Hitler and Jesus both drank water it does not mean they are the same in every other way.

    Try looking up the words context and comprehension. Find out what those words mean and apply what you learned.

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    Try looking up the words context and comprehension. Find out what those words mean and apply what you learned.

    Yer kidding, right???

    594

  75. [75] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    CW-
    Hope you are too busy with the "awards" to continue the conversation about One Demand right now. That had better not be the end of the conversation that just got started.

  76. [76] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale-
    Are you implying that Kick being capable of learning is even less likely than the chances people here give One Demand of being successful?

    I prefer to at least give her the opportunity, though I'm not holding my breath in anticipation.

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    I prefer to at least give her the opportunity, though I'm not holding my breath in anticipation.

    Yea, I have given up on Veronica providing anything in the way of factual logical and respectful discourse...

    Yer a better man than I am, Charlie Brown... :D

    595

  78. [78] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Kick [61]

    I did not specify all the money you 'SPEND', I specified all the 'PURCHASES' you make.

    Whatever you sent to Chris did NOT constitute a "purchase", but rather a 'donation', as you received nothing tangible (goods nor services) in exchange.

    Pretty much all the goods and services you purchase do indeed involve "giving $ to a corporation" in exchange.

  79. [79] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "Yer a better man than I am, Charlie Brown."

    Probably not. But on occasion I do take a stab at it.

    If only I could get a chance to kick the ball....

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    I did not specify all the money you 'SPEND', I specified all the 'PURCHASES' you make.

    Whatever you sent to Chris did NOT constitute a "purchase", but rather a 'donation', as you received nothing tangible (goods nor services) in exchange.

    Pretty much all the goods and services you purchase do indeed involve "giving $ to a corporation" in exchange.

    "There you go again.."
    -Saint Ronald Reagan

    Using facts and logic against the hysterically irrational....

    596

  81. [81] 
    John M wrote:

    [71] Michale

    Democrats are going to rue the day they did not jump on the MAKE AMERICA GREAT bandwagon... :D

    YEAH. RIGHT.

    1.) That's making a lot of assumptions that AREN'T necessarily going to be true.

    2.) Is also ignoring the AMAZING FACT NOW, that EVEN with the economy doing as WELL as it is RIGHT NOW, Trump's approval is NOT CURRENTLY BETTER than 37%

    Sounds like a lot more whistling in the dark from you!!!

  82. [82] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @CRS,

    (the top half of earners pay 97.2% of all income taxes paid)

    i see what you did there.

    this statistic lies in two ways. first, when conservatives try to excuse giant tax giveaways to the ultra-rich, they represent taxes paid as a percentage of the national gross revenue, not as a percentage of their own income. when mitt romney pays 14% of his income, that's still a much bigger slice of the national pie than 100% of most people's income. second, dems have nothing against the "top half" getting a benefit - the top half is people who make over $56,517. the issue we have is with the top .01% getting a much greater benefit while the rest of the "top half" have to carry them.

    JL

  83. [83] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    All that needs to be said about One Demand can be found by clicking the hyperlink in Don Harris's name. And it's been that way for a while. I do so like a glass of sweet irony during the Christmas holidays...

  84. [84] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    nypoet [82]

    I did not "do anything" whatsoever, in the context of your statement. I simply quoted a statistic from the IRS website, and it's gotta be damn tough to claim that it's a lie, but go ahead if you're that crazy.

    And remember, when you cut somebody's tax, you are NOT "GIVING HIM ANYTHING", what you are doing is REFRAINING from taking something AWAY FROM HIM". He already earned it, it was his to begin with.

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    2.) Is also ignoring the AMAZING FACT NOW, that EVEN with the economy doing as WELL as it is RIGHT NOW, Trump's approval is NOT CURRENTLY BETTER than 37%

    Again, ALL you have are polls..

    W/o polls, which have been PROVEN to be bullshit, you got nothing...

    No argument, no facts, no nuttin...

    Nothing but polls that have been PROVEN to be total bullshit when it comes to President Trump...

    597

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    But hay... If ya'all want to live by the polls, you'll DIE by the polls..

    Democrats numbers are WORSE than Trumps!! :D

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    598

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:
  88. [88] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Bashi-
    Thank you for pointing that out. I check the email more than the site.

    I get the joke, but not the irony. Unless the irony is that you have been enjoying knowing without pointing it out but you can no longer stand not sharing how much of a dick you are.

  89. [89] 
    Michale wrote:

    JM,

    Lemme prove to you how utterly useless Polls are..

    RASMUSSEN POLL TRUMP APPROVAL 44%

    Now, ya'all will honor THAT poll the EXACT same that you would a poll that says what you want to hear, right??

    :D

    Of course ya'all won't.. You'll find a hundred different ways to PROVE that *THAT* poll is flawed and wrong and ONLY the polls that say what you want to hear are valid....

    It's comical in it's blatant transparency....

    600

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    I get the joke, but not the irony. Unless the irony is that you have been enjoying knowing without pointing it out but you can no longer stand not sharing how much of a dick you are.

    Ha!!!

    Somebody got took to SCHOOL!!!! :D

    601

  91. [91] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Aw come on "This page isn’t working" is the most accurate portrayal of One Demand I've read yet on your site. You should keep it.

    I'm not your system admin, I have a day job. If you can't be bothered to break away from pontificating on forums to check your site occasionally for problems, maybe it's not in your blood to run a website?

  92. [92] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    The dominant but unstated theme of all the discussions of tax reduction ('reform') here, as in all forums where Dems/Libs dominate the narrative, is that all production belongs to the gov't, and therefore, anything which you earn but which the gov't does not confiscate, constitutes a 'gift' to you!!

    How about we re-think that, and realize that what each person earns belongs to him as the fruits of his labor, and cutting a person's (or corporation's) tax is NOT a 'gift' to him, it's just leaving him with something that always belonged to him in the first place!

  93. [93] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    C. R. Stucki-

    Do actually believe that BS, or are you just trolling?

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    I think it was Margeret Thatcher who said that the Hysterical Left Wingery doesn't mind if the poor get poorer as long as the rich doesn't get richer..

    That's the attitude of the majority of Weigantians in a nutshell...

    602

  95. [95] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    BB [93]

    Sorry, I'm of the generation that thinks trolls live under bridges and harass billygoats and other harmless creatures.

    What ever the trolls of your generation do, it's highly unlikely that I'm doing that.

  96. [96] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    C. R. Stucki-

    Well, gosh and golly gee wilikers maybe I need to talk to the orderlies of your assisted living facility about monitoring your internet access...

  97. [97] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki
    78

    I did not specify all the money you 'SPEND', I specified all the 'PURCHASES' you make.

    I'm still NOT a "Dem/Lib" so providing it to you will still do nothing to prove the "totally fabricated utter nonsensical bullshit" you wrote in your comment, and I will further refer you to the USAF 22nd Military Airlift Squadron Black Ops motto...

    https://www.amazon.com/DONT-NOYFB-NONE-BUSINESS-PATCH/dp/B01KU0BHUG/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1513975221&sr=8-1&keywords=noyfb+patch

    ... a tangible example which can be purchased from a veteran owned business, which I am guessing is also NOT a corporation.

    None of Your "Freaking" Business, but 95% of the goods and services I purchase are made at Army & Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES) where I pay no sales tax. AAFES is a division of the Department of Defense that invests 100% of its profits back into the military community, which pleases me greatly.

    Whatever you sent to Chris did NOT constitute a "purchase", but rather a 'donation', as you received nothing tangible (goods nor services) in exchange.

    Thank you so much for that insight into your understanding (actually lack thereof) as to what constitutes a "purchase." *ROTFLMAO*

    Ahem... *looks right, looks left* ... I'll let you in on a little secret (actually a widely known fact) of which you seem blissfully unaware: Intangible goods and services are actually a "thing," and... you and I and the other people can actually "purchase" them.

    Examples of intangible products and services that one can actually "purchase" are:

    * Education (ain't purchasing a brain)
    * Insurance
    * Cell phone service
    * Airline travel (ain't buying the plane or the seat)
    * Music (downloads)/Radio service... Sirius
    * Newspapers
    * Magazines
    * Mobile apps
    * Movies
    * Software
    * Blogs... ding, ding, ding

    Virtually anything that is delivered in a digital form on the Internet is an intangible good that you can purchase. Just because CW provides his blog for free makes it no less an intangible good, and while it's true that I could still receive CW's intangible good for free, it is still no less an intangible good that he could choose to sell and that I could choose to purchase.

    Pretty much all the goods and services you purchase do indeed involve "giving $ to a corporation" in exchange.

    No, I do NOT believe you are correct (see above).

    Have a nice day, and might I suggest you purchase yourself an education.

    Clark, that's the gift that keeps on giving the whole year. ~ Cousin Eddie, Christmas Vacation

  98. [98] 
    Michale wrote:

    ell, gosh and golly gee wilikers maybe I need to talk to the orderlies of your assisted living facility about monitoring your internet access...

    Well, I am sure glad we're not being ageist around here :^/

    Jeezus, you people.. Attack anyone that doesn't toe yer frakin' ideological line...

    How sad.....

  99. [99] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Kick

    With the exception of Education and Blogs, every single one of your "intangibles" will almost inevitably come from a corporation. And regardless of whether you shop exclusively at stores on military bases, likewise the overwhelming majority of the things you buy will have originated with a corporation.

    I couldn't care less whether your are or are not `Dem/Lib', it all comes down to that 'duck'thing, you quack like a .., walk like a ...,swim like a ..., etc. and you STILL give most every $ you spend ultimately to a corporation, whether you're perceptive enough to realize it or not (most likely not).

  100. [100] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Bashi-
    I do check occasionally as I said. When I checked in October and November it was working. Your opinion on what was there when it was working is noted and appreciated even if you don't agree and even if you criticize or deride rather than debate or converse which may be more productive.

  101. [101] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Jeezus, you people.. Attack anyone that doesn't toe yer frakin' ideological line...

    I know, what was I think infringing on your shtick?

  102. [102] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    73

    Saying that two things, people ,etc. have one or more common traits is not saying they are the same in all ways.

    Point me to where I or CW said anything about "in all ways." So "is it possible that when you can't refute the argument that you change the argument to something that you can refute and call bullshit on?" Nice of you to personify your own exact words from [56] which I have conveniently quoted in the prior sentence.

    CW said that "your arguments that 'Dems are just as bad as the GOPers' [note that he did NOT say "in all ways"] and that 'there's no difference between the parties' [note again that he did NOT say "in all ways"] ignores relevant facts." You then incredulously denied ever taking these positions. I then said that CW described you exactly correct because you "lump the parties together all the time" and ask that CW explain (more like demand as of late) "How is it any different than when Big Money Democrats screwed people over and lost to Big Money Republicans?" Consistently lumping Big Money Democrats with Big Money Republicans and asking CW to explain how they're any different infers/implies that you don't believe there is any difference.

    You still need another example?

    However, I believe that credibility is established by being consistent. I was not diverting attention from Republicans to Democrats, I was including Big Money Democrats with Big Money Republicans. ~ Don Harris

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/11/29/how-democrats-should-solve-their-superdelegate-problem/#comment-111231

    Listen to yourself, Don. According to Don Harris, you were being consistent by "including Big Money Democrats with Big Money Republicans." That would be that whole lumping of Democrats and Republicans together thing that I spoke about. Believe yourself that you do this consistently.

    CW nailed you exactly right. He said "your arguments that 'Dems are just as bad as the GOPers' and that 'there's no difference between the parties' ignores relevant facts." No he did NOT say "in all ways." You don't want to own your own handiwork that you do on a consistent basis (according to Don Harris), so you insist you never said it because you never said "in all ways."

    If I said that Hitler and Jesus both drank water it does not mean they are the same in every other way.

    Is it possible that when you can't refute the argument that you change the argument to something that you can refute and call bullshit on? Nice of you to again personify your own statement from [56]. If you consistently included Big Money Hitler with Big Money Jesus and kept asking (demanding) that CW explain how Big Money Hitler and Big Money Jesus were "any different"... okay?

    Enough already. Yes, it is tedious, and it's your own argumentum ad infinitum... so at least own your own stuff, Don. Read and reread what CW wrote and get to know yourself... because he nailed it. :)

  103. [103] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki
    [99]

    With the exception of Education and Blogs, every single one of your "intangibles" will almost inevitably come from a corporation.

    So you concede a "purchase" doesn't have to be a "tangible" thing like you claimed, but... TIME OUT... time out... while Stucki does his Michale impression and moves the goalposts.

    So contrary to what you stated about "Dems/Libs hate corporations," and "most of them are employed by corporations, and they all give damn near ever $ they earn to corporations," you want to move the goalposts and claim that almost everything originates from a corporation. Not sure how that has any relevancy to what you claimed since... while we're moving the goalposts... everything actually originates from materials obtained from the Earth, which I can assure you is NOT a corporation.

    Reviewing what you said:

    If it's "total fabricated bullshit' that Libs give "damn near every $ they earn to corporations" how about you share with us the last dozen things you purchased for which the purchase price was not remitted to a corporation?

    So like I said, the overwhelming majority of things I purchase all the time, I did not remit my money to a corporation. You can move the goalposts and claim that everything inevitably comes from a corporation, and I can go you one better and claim that everything inevitably comes from the Earth, but that still doesn't change the fact that I don't purchase them from a corporation.

    So that's why an asinine statement like you made is exactly the way I characterized it.

    And regardless of whether you shop exclusively at stores on military bases, likewise the overwhelming majority of the things you buy will have originated with a corporation.

    But I don't purchase them from a corporation regardless of whether or not they originated from a corporation or the Earth so your statement is fabricated utter nonsensical bullshit. :)

    I couldn't care less whether your are or are not `Dem/Lib', it all comes down to that 'duck'thing, you quack like a .., walk like a ...,swim like a ..., etc. and you STILL give most every $ you spend ultimately to a corporation, whether you're perceptive enough to realize it or not (most likely not).

    No, dumb "duck," you can spin it however you want and move the goalposts as many times as you need to, but the fact is that I don't work for a corporation... never have and never will. I also don't hate corporations just because you claim I do. I also don't spend every $ I spend with a corporation.

    You lose, dumb "duck." You're wrong. Try NOT lumping everyone into a category that fits your right-wing utter nonsensical deep inside the conspiracy theory bubble worldview and then insisting they fit your ridiculous libelous made up dumb "duck" bullshit... people will think you're Michale and can't win an argument without making up circular bullshit and/or moving the goalposts. :)

  104. [104] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Kick

    There you go, everything we consume comes from the earth. How could I have missed that? Therefor, who even needs those greedy wicked corporations, that overcharge us for their products and underpay us for our labor. Let's just tax 'em right out of existence!!

  105. [105] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki
    104

    There you go, everything we consume comes from the earth.

    Hey, dumb "duck," you seem blissfully unaware that I used that as an example only to prove that I too could move the goalposts in the same fashion as you just did when you claimed that everything inevitably comes from a corporation in order to prove the stupid shit you had said before in your earlier comment.

    How could I have missed that?

    Because you're truly a dumb "duck."

    Therefor, who even needs those greedy wicked corporations, that overcharge us for their products and underpay us for our labor. Let's just tax 'em right out of existence!!

    I can assure you that I didn't say any of that... nor would I ever since I own a shitload of shares in said corporations that you insist that I hate because it fits your dumb "duck" worldview. I did say I don't hate corporations even though I've never worked for one and never will and absolutely do NOT spend every dollar I "earn" by purchasing things from a corporation. What part of that is confusing at all?

    That other fabricated utter nonsensical bullshit you made up and attributed to me is proving my point so thank you for the assist and repeating once again... for the special kind of stupid dumb "ducks"...

    Try NOT lumping everyone into a category that fits your right-wing utter nonsensical deep inside the conspiracy theory bubble worldview and then insisting they fit your ridiculous libelous made up dumb "duck" bullshit.

    Thanks again for the assist, and have a nice day. :)

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh Kick, Kick, Kick..

    You are so out-classed... :D

  107. [107] 
    Kick wrote:

    Thank you for your input, EQ, but as we here in Weigantia are constrained to point out, a reprobate and self-admitted liar/player/ground-pounding knuckle dragger such as yourself has absolutely no moral authority whatsoever to judge anyone else regarding "class."

    Your lectures about people who commit crime are so precious considering their source, and you and your ilk... as always... have my pity. :)

    Behind every crime is a story of sadness. ~ Enrique Peña Nieto

  108. [108] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bashi,

    I know, what was I think infringing on your shtick?

    Hay, ya'all set the standards around here..

    I just kick ya'all's ass by them.. :D

    609

  109. [109] 
    Michale wrote:

    Victoria,

    Thank you for your input, EQ,

    No problem, Victoria.. Always happy to show you up for the luser you are.. :D

    but as we here in Weigantia are constrained to point out, a reprobate and self-admitted liar/player/ground-pounding knuckle dragger such as yourself has absolutely no moral authority whatsoever to judge anyone else regarding "class."

    And yet, me pointing out how totally and utterly out-classed you are draws a desperate response. :D

    Funny how that is, eh? :D

    Your lectures about people who commit crime are so precious considering their source, and you and your ilk... as always... have my pity. :)

    Whatever you have to tell yerself to make it thru yer hollow and sad day, Victoria.. :D

    610

  110. [110] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick-
    The distinction that you are missing is that CW's statement is a general statement that "infers/implies" that my position is they are equal in all ways- there is no specific issue connected to that statement while my statements were comparing the two one a specific issue. So I did not change the context of CW's statement by using different words that mean the same thing in the context of the statements while you and CW did change the context of my statements and inferred things that were not inferred in my comments.

    But go ahead, keep digging. The way out of the hole has to be down there somewhere.

  111. [111] 
    Michale wrote:

    But go ahead, keep digging. The way out of the hole has to be down there somewhere.

    hehehehehehehehehehe

    Now THAT's funny!!!! Point to DH... :D

    611

  112. [112] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    I just kick ya'all's ass by them.. :D

    It's good you use the smile/joking emoji. I don't think you have ever kicked anyone's ass around here. You just flood posts until they go away. More of an ass slarming than kicking, really...

  113. [113] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bashi,

    I don't think......

    Exactly.... And THAT is your problem...

    613

  114. [114] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    That's the best you could come up with? Sad.

  115. [115] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sad.

    Yes.. It's sad that you don't think....

    I completely agree....

  116. [116] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michael
    109

    No problem, Victoria.. Always happy to show you up for the luser you are.. :D

    Your projection is so precious. Thanks for letting me know I rattled your cage in the doublewide, Michael.

    And yet, me pointing out how totally and utterly out-classed you are draws a desperate response. :D

    Hang tightly to your precious projection and what little you've got since you're only fooling yourself if you honestly believe you've got any moral authority whatsoever to lecture anyone regarding "class" or "crime" or "hypocrisy" or any number of the things for which you regularly pontificate from your sanctimonious high horse... I mean your swamp. :)

    Funny how that is, eh? :D

    I would NOT say it's funny; I would say it's pitiful and will always have my pity and then reiterate the fact that you have no moral authority whatsoever to lecture anyone who comments on this blog. #pot-kettle-black-black-black

    Whatever you have to tell yerself to make it thru yer hollow and sad day, Victoria.. :D

    I'm just fine, Michael. My day is great, awesome in point of fact. I'm now heading over to my local Exchange in order to "purchase" about a dozen or so of those 4K widescreen televisions for Christmas presents... probably 55- or 60-inch ones will do nicely, and then I'm taking a few of them over to several of the local Veterans' Administration facilities' rec rooms on Christmas Eve tomorrow and donating them to some very deserving people. It's never a sad day to speak facts to hypocrites like yourself and to give back to those who've actually sacrificed versus those who misrepresent theirs.

    Merry Christmas, y'all... more indictments coming... stay tuned in the Happy New Year! Who knew that committing federal crimes could be so complicated and require a real lawyer, a real good lawyer. Trump better lawyer up way better because he's got much, much further to fall and an even swampier swamp to fall into. :)

    A man reaps what he sows. ~ the Word... you know... of God

  117. [117] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    110

    The distinction that you are missing is that CW's statement is a general statement that "infers/implies" that my position is they are equal in all ways- there is no specific issue connected to that statement while my statements were comparing the two one a specific issue.

    That's what you're going with? Heh!

    Well, okay, but "all ways"... your words, not CW's... are such tiny little words and easily typed if an author wishes to do so, and CW doesn't strike me as the kind of author who has any trouble whatsoever making himself clear and meaning what he means and saying what he wants to say.

    So I did not change the context of CW's statement by using different words that mean the same thing in the context of the statements while you and CW did change the context of my statements and inferred things that were not inferred in my comments.

    You just interpreted his statement to mean "all ways." Okay then.

    But go ahead, keep digging. The way out of the hole has to be down there somewhere.

    It's your hole, Don, since you're the one who's expanding it and explaining how CW's written word means more than the ones he's authored. Only you know how far the rabbit hole goes since it's your interpretation.

    You take the blue pill, the story ends. You wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill, you stay in wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes." ~ Morpheus to Neo, the Matrix

    Now why is it, do you suppose, that I believe if you were Neo you'd demand that Morpheus explain to you how the pills were any different and then when he endeavored to do exactly that very thing you'd insist that he implied that the pills were alike in "all ways," even though they are obviously two different colors and could therefore NEVER be alike in "all ways"... you know, like the Democratic Party and Republican Party have two different names/colors and therefore could also NEVER be alike in "all ways." :)

  118. [118] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    CW's meaning is perfectly clear to anyone capable of basic comprehension which you keep demonstrating you are not.

    And if I was told the red pill would wake me up and the blue pill would put me to sleep and I had seen people take the red pill and get knocked out and I said that both pills would knock me out so I don't want either I would not be saying that both pills were the same in all ways, only that they would both knock me out and neither pill was suitable to meeting my interests.

    And I wouldn't believe Morpheus if he told me different anymore than I believe a candidate that takes Big Money will represent ordinary citizens instead of the Big Money interests.

  119. [119] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Of course, since these are CW's words we are discussing he could easily make clear how it was intended to be interpreted.

    I'm sure CW is capable of defending his own statements, should he choose to do so.

    It's clear (at least according to my interpretation) that Kick is not capable of defending CW's statement because in order to defend it you must first be able to understand it.

  120. [120] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    118, 119

    CW's meaning is perfectly clear to anyone capable of basic comprehension which you keep demonstrating you are not.

    Says the guy who insisted that Buddy Roemer was a successful "Small Money" candidate who ran several campaigns taking "Small Money" contributions because you didn't take 5 minutes to consult easily searchable FEC records that are publicly available to every human with an Internet connection and a keyboard. There are no "Small Money" candidates, Don, and never have been since their rhetoric versus reality are two wholly and distinct different things. Pardon me for stating the painfully obvious, but you lecturing anyone on "basic comprehension" is both super silly and supercilious... in all ways. :)

    As another commenter astutely pointed out, your website is dead, Don, and apparently has been for quite a long time. Why don't you run along and troll Ralph Nader some more "through multiple avenues"?

    https://www.change.org/p/ralph-nader-address-one-demand-campaign-financing-approach

    Or... here's a rather civilized idea that could go a long way toward illustrating your "basic comprehension" of the concept of common decency: Why don't you get your own "One Demand" website up and running versus making multiple demands of others on their websites?

    Of course, since these are CW's words we are discussing he could easily make clear how it was intended to be interpreted.

    CW's meaning is perfectly clear to anyone capable of basic comprehension which you keep demonstrating you are not. <-- Your exact words right back at you, Don. As yet another commenter pointed out, it was a "clear message." You really should read and reread it and let it sink in because CW absolutely and unequivocally nailed it.

    Enough Already!

    Merry Christmas, Don... OAO :)

  121. [121] 
    Michale wrote:

    Victoria,

    Dance, little puppet... DANCE :D

  122. [122] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Note how comment 120 doesn't address the issue of discussion other than to say that another commenter was also unable to comprehend the meaning of CW's statement.

    Two wrongs do not make a right.

    AS for the parts of the comment that are not related to the issue at hand, that stuff has already been debunked. I am not going to keep responding to this circular argument bullshit when something previously debunked gets brought up again when you run out of excuses to defend your argument on the issue at hand.
    This does not mean that I am conceding any of those points. It just means I am not wasting my time and letting you get away with changing the issue at hand when you run out of argument on the issue at hand.

    "Will the circle, be unbroken?"
    -religious song

  123. [123] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Kick,

    Common decency is largely missing around here of late.

    Let's do our part to inject more of it into our comments.

  124. [124] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Is OAO a new snarky ending?

  125. [125] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    121

    Dance, little puppet... DANCE :D

    As I have stated on numerous occasions, it's just best not to post your personal information on a blog, and that would include the way you're constantly talking about your "wee-wee" (your term).

    This comment of yours above is what is commonly referred to as TMI, and it really is too much information no matter who does it, you know, like that time your Orange Worship insisted on talking about his little puppet during a televised debate because "Little Marco" (Trump's term) pointed out the fact that Poor Donald has wee small toddler-sized hands. :)

  126. [126] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller
    124

    Is OAO a new snarky ending?

    No, ma'am.

    OAO - Over and Out

  127. [127] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Enough with the acronyms!

  128. [128] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz(127)-
    AOK

  129. [129] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    HEH

Comments for this article are closed.