ChrisWeigant.com

Dare Trump To Face The Press

[ Posted Monday, March 19th, 2018 – 16:38 PDT ]

At the end of this week, President Trump will hit a milestone -- he will have gone a whopping 400 days since giving a formal solo press conference. In his entire 14 months in office, he has given precisely one such press conference, in February of 2017. So what is he so afraid of? The press corps needs to do a much better job of pointing this out, by absolutely daring Trump to hold another no-holds-barred press conference.

The timing couldn't be better to do so. The story's got a "hook" (the 400-day mark), and it might just be effective at this particular time. In the past few weeks, Trump has reportedly grown much more confident of his ability to manage his presidency himself, and key aides who have been instrumental in holding Trump's worst impulses back have either been fired (Rob Porter, Rex Tillerson), have already quit (Gary Cohn), or have announced they will soon be leaving (Hope Hicks). The effect of having fewer people around him who counsel him to be cautious has freed Trump up to do what his gut tells him more often (as on tariffs and North Korea, to give just two obvious examples). Trump famously hates any perception that he is in any way being "handled," and as the expert handlers depart, he's feeling more confident about just doing and saying whatever he feels like at the moment.

So what better time could there be, really, to goad him into holding a full-on press conference? All it would take would be a steady drumbeat all week of "400-Day Mark Approaches With No Presidential Press Conference" stories, complete with plenty of pundits saying things like: "Trump's downright scared to face the press on his own, because he knows they'll get the better of him," or perhaps: "I won't really believe Trump has freed himself from the GOP establishment puppetmasters until I see him hold a solo press conference -- that'd be the ultimate proof that Trump is now his own man." Push his buttons -- on cable television, where he'll hear it -- and I bet he'd respond just out of spite. Maybe compare him to Obama -- that'd be almost guaranteed to do it!

After all, Trump used to love sparring with the press. He'd give freewheeling press conferences on the campaign trail at the drop of a hat. He saw these as opportunities for verbal combat, and he always saw himself emerging as the winner of such contests. So the only possible reason he hasn't done so as president is that other people have been warning him not to -- people who didn't have confidence that he could handle himself well. They're pulling Trump's strings behind the scenes, because they just don't trust his abilities. They've been holding Trump back because they are worried that the media will look smarter than him, in other words.

There's only one way to really reach Trump with such taunts, and that is for the drumbeat for a Trump presser to get so loud that the folks on Fox News are forced to address it. If Sarah Huckabee Sanders is being tied up in knots over the issue, then Fox would surely rally to her, but if the president saw the entire exercise as one of making excuses for his own weakness, then he'd almost have to react.

The image of Trump cowering in fear of answering questions from reporters and hiding behind his Twitter account is a potent one. But, so far, the White House Press Corps has been letting him get away with ignoring them. For almost 400 days. Now, to be fair, Trump did essentially hijack what were supposed to be joint press appearances twice during that time, but even if you count these, Trump's total is still woefully low -- only three real press appearances in over a year's time. The most recent of these happened on October 16 of last year, or 155 days ago.

In the past, the White House Press Corps has started complaining about a lack of presidential press conferences roughly three months after the last one happened. It became an enormous story when Barack Obama went around six months without a presser, as I recall. It's now been over five months since Trump's last accessible moment, and thirteen months since his last real solo presser. So where is the outrage? Where are the stories pointing this out?

As mentioned, Trump seems to be revelling in his "let Trump be Trump" moment right now. He's doing things without consulting the pointy-headed handlers, he feels freed up personally by his quick actions, and he is apparently going to replace those aides who have left with yes-men who agree with him on just about everything he does. He's even reportedly supposed to be eager to sit down with Bob Mueller, because of his vast confidence in shaping his own narrative. If this is true -- if he's pushing to get the Mueller interview over with -- then why in the world wouldn't he also want to go a few rounds with the press corps? As far as he's concerned, it would only give him more ammo to attack the "Fake News" media, since he (obviously) would emerge on the winning side of any "gotcha" question they could throw at him.

The media needs to do their job, by appealing to Trump's vanity. They need to mercilessly taunt him with the fact that he's gone longer than any modern president without holding a presser. All it would take is one Fox News talking head referring to stories where Trump is portrayed as being fearful of a solo press conference for Trump to boldly call one (likely only hours after he saw such a report on television, during his "executive time" every morning). This ain't exactly rocket science, in other words.

Trump's not going to hold a press conference until the press corps itself dares him to hold one -- by relentlessly pointing out that all his handlers really don't want him to do it. "Trump stymied by GOP weenies into cowering from the press" headlines are really the only thing that'll trigger Trump's impulses. And, again, this would be the perfect week for the press to mount such an effort, since by week's end Trump is going to hit that 400-day milestone. So, White House Press Corps, ask yourselves: what have you got to lose?

 

[Editor's Note: For those interested in such things, last month the Washington Post ran an article about the lack of press conferences, and if you scroll down a page or two they have a handy "count-up" clock showing precisely how many days it has been since the last Trump solo press conference.]

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

94 Comments on “Dare Trump To Face The Press”

  1. [1] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Okay. Let me start off with an apology for not reading the whole article.

    But after a few paragraphs, I just had to comment.

    Do you think that this strategy could work on a blogger? I mean, if after repeatedly asking nice and this blogger still refused to take on....

    Oh shit. If you don't know where this going by now then there's a lot more to be answered then just the "what are [you] afraid of?" that you ask about Trump.

  2. [2] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Do you think that this strategy could work on a blogger? I mean, if after repeatedly asking nice and this blogger still refused to take on....

    There are two major factors that would need to be met for this to work. First, Chris would need to be as narcissistic and mentally challenged as Trump is. Second, Chris would need to be ignoring his obligation to interview everyone who believed they deserved to have their story published. As far as I can tell, neither of those factors have been met.

    If you want to get your story published, pay someone to create an article for you to use as promotional material. Clearly, CW isn’t interested in your story. Why you believe that he owes it to you to publish on his personal site a free promotional article about an “organization” that he does not support is beyond me!

  3. [3] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    LWYH_

    it is not really that CW supports or does not support the concept, it is more that DH wants others to write about it so others will come and then he will build it...VS the normal way of building a movement, you know, build it and they will come.

  4. [4] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    I think the tip of my tongue is rolling around somewhere in my cheek. Someone let me know if they find it.

    CW, How dare you demand the authoritarian in chief have a press conference.... those things are for OPO (other presidents only).

    Trump is the most trumparent presi of all time and he is more trumparent than Hillary during his campaign, we' all only have a problem because it is trump... said only one person ever.

  5. [5] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    What's the difference between fake news and a Trump presser?

  6. [6] 
    neilm wrote:

    Everybody seems to think the change since the election in his relationship with the press has been his handlers, but let's face facts, if he wanted to do a press conference nobody could stop him. He's a spoilt idiot, and I'm being generous.

    The reason he won't face the press is that he knows every word is being watched by Mueller and even he isn't stupid enough to know where the questioning will go almost instantly - dirty Russian money. And since he is as guilty as hell and so is his extended family, a press conference is the last thing he wants.

    Or any other venue where he can't control the conversation.

  7. [7] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Don Harris [1] -

    Want to start a blog? Here's some handy advice:

    https://wordpress.com/start/blog/blog-themes

    :-)

    Then you can talk about whatever you want, and control ALL the content! Woo hoo!

    -CW

  8. [8] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    LizM [5] -

    Entertainment value!

    Obviously...

    Heh.

    -CW

  9. [9] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    neilm [6] -

    Methinks you give him too much credit, personally...

    -CW

  10. [10] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I concur.

  11. [11] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    He doesn't want to hold real court with the press because he's not stupid enough to know that he sounds like a blathering idiot without a TelePrompTer.

    And, everyone knows that you can't hold a presser with a TelePrompTer.

  12. [12] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Well, there's that. And, the fact that he's afraid of any comparisons with Obama.

  13. [13] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    [11] may require an edit ...

    He doesn't want to hold real court with the press because he's not stupid enough not to know that he sounds like a blathering idiot without a TelePrompTer.

    And, everyone knows that you can't hold a presser with a TelePrompTer.

    ... but, I could be wrong about that. I'm not thinking clearly enough.

  14. [14] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    CW (7)-

    "Want to start a blog?"

    That would be a great answer if that was the question I asked. it wasn't.

    One reason I came to this blog because unlike many other comment sections the author actually interacts with the commenters. And it is supposed to be a reality based blog.

    Of course, I appreciate being able to post my comments here. But when I ask a question and get an answer to different question that I did not ask instead of the question I did ask, it makes me question why.

    While your answer shows there is more to be answered then "what are you afraid of?" it seems a good place to start, though I would much rather have you actually address and discuss the substance of One Demand.

  15. [15] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Listen-
    Well you got on your first point. Cw is nowhere near Trump on that.

    Your second point idea a bit weak. This has nothing to do with CW interviewing everyone that believes their story should be published.

    When CW writes something in an article and I use that quote to make a point how One Demand relates to the statement he made it seems reasonable to expect a response.

    And while I am asking him to write about it- why shouldn't I be able to ask him?

    And if I believe the statements he makes could also be applied to One Demand and that to remain consistent with his statements that he should write about One Demand, why shouldn't I be able to post my opinion?

    CW writes about things he doesn't agree with all the time. He writes about what they claim and his opinion on whether or not it is right or wrong.

    You couldn't be claiming that all the articles he writes about Trump means he supports Trump.

    That is all I am asking of CW. And I am even not asking only for him to write about it. I am asking that if he doesn't want to write about it to address it through the comments or by contacting me directly.

    A reality based blogger that chooses to ignore an issue rather than address it does not live up to the claim of reality based.

  16. [16] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    GT-
    Actually it is whether or not CW supports or does not support the concept. And why.

    And the normal way of building a movement is to contact people that can inform citizens about the concept because if citizens don't know about a concept or movement then they can't decide whether or not they want to support it.

    And according to Ralph Nader and many others you are supposed to keep asking until you get an answer.

    I DID build it. It is there right now ready for people to sign up.

    It is a reality right now. All it needs is for the people to come which they can't do if they don't know about it.

    So it's time for the reality based blogger to address this reality. That is my opinion and I will continue to post it until the issue is addressed or the blogger terminates my ability to post.

  17. [17] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Just got a reply from Nick Pemberton (he wrote the article on Counterpunch, Democrats can't save us, that I referred to in FTP comments).

    He said:
    "I love the idea of not voting for the big money candidates. We should all commit to that. Then perhaps the politicians would work for our votes rather than the campaign contributions.
    Best to you.
    Nick"

    It remains to be seen if he will write about the idea or if it will be published if he does, but it sure sounds like he thinks it is a good idea.

  18. [18] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    And Dr. Timothy Snyder (Yale) replied when I wrote to him about One Demand (still Voucher Vendetta at the time):

    "The 20% of citizens would make zero difference or close to zero if they were spread out across the country evenly."

    While I could not get him to say that it would work in the more likely outcome of the 20% not being distributed equally, it is not too much of a stretch to say that it is possible that it is at least implied.

    In this comment and comment 17 those are real people with real opinions on One Demand.

    Real reality. A suitable subject for a reality based blog.

  19. [19] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Don,

    No one has the right to dictate what a blogger should write about on his blog.

    Reality is a big topic and this blog covers quite a bit of it.

  20. [20] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Don [1/3 of comments today]:

    Here's an article about a woman with an idea for a political movement who knows how to move an agenda. Her medium of choice is a movie documentary.

    And I could definitely get behind a "Puffragette" movement. I already want to buy one of those T-shirts.

    But notice what else she's done: she's got imagery, lots of it, including a picture of herself in a pot field, and the aforementioned nifty tee. She's clearly put more work into it than putting up a website and bitching that folks won't join up or discuss it.

    Or perhaps the problem is that your idea just sucks. It's one thing to - as Conor Lamb did in his campaign - refuse to accept PAC money, it's quite another thing to ask candidates to deliberately limit the amount of cash they have to make their point. After all, nifty tees cost money up front, and without them, you might not get anywhere.

  21. [21] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    On Topic:

    I think that Trump is in a defensive crouch, rather than playing offense, as his recent tweet-storms might imply. He just hired Joe DeGenova, a former federal prosecutor known mostly for being a reliably anti-Clinton talking head. You don't look for that sort of backup when you're confident of your cause.

    To (sorta) quote Trey Gowdy again: "If your client is innocent, act like it."

  22. [22] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz-
    Thank you for joining the discussion.

    You are correct that no one has the right to dictate what a blogger should write about on his blog.

    But that has nothing to do with me.

    CW has bestowed upon me the honored privilege of being able to post my opinion on what he writes about and what I think he should write about on his blog.

    Isn't that what I am doing, not issuing an ultimatum?

    But as long as you are in the conversation, why not address what the conversation is about- should CW address One Demand either through an article, the comments or direct contact with me?

    Are not Nick Pemberton and Dr. Timothy Snyder real people with real opinions? Am I?

    Do their statements and my statements about their statements and my other statements address real issues, do they make any sense and if not, why not?

    Do my responses to CW and other commenters make any sense. Do their comments?

  23. [23] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    But as long as you are in the conversation, why not address what the conversation is about- should CW address One Demand either through an article, the comments or direct contact with me?

    That is entirely up to Chris.

  24. [24] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Balthy-
    Not what I got from the article.

    The article was not about an activist that decided to make a film to advance their cause. The article was about a film maker that made a film about weed.

    Her medium of choice was a film because she is a film maker. She used imagery because that is what film makers do.

    "1/3 of comments"
    So I am only allowed to post once and am not allowed to respond to anyone that responds to my comment?

    "perhaps your idea just sucks."

    It is possible. But the fact that you don't actually address the argument and avoid discussing it doesn't lend much credence to your assumption.

    I never suggested that candidates limit the amount of cash they have to make their point. In fact, my argument is that by limiting their contributions to 200 dollars they can easily raise enough money and actually have the potential to raise MORE money and more importantly GET MORE VOTES.

    So you can keep on arguing the points and/or claims that I don't make or you can actually discuss One Demand and make real arguments about whether or not it sucks.

  25. [25] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz-
    "That is entirely up to Chris."

    Cop out.

  26. [26] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Don, I'm pretty sure you don't want to be known as someone who tried to hijack this blog rather than participate through positive contributions.

  27. [27] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    I see no valid argument that I am trying to hijack the blog.

    In my opinion getting CW to address One Demand and write about it would be a positive contribution to this blog and trying to get him to do it is a positive contribution.

    It is also my opinion that it would be more of a positive contribution to this blog if you would address whether or not you think CW should address One Demand rather than come up with responses designed to avoid addressing that issue.

  28. [28] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    But as long as you are in the conversation, why not address what the conversation is about- should CW address One Demand either through an article, the comments or direct contact with me?

    No, I don't think he should. Personally I think he should feed your account info to the comments spam filter and call it a day. At this point that's all you are: Spam, spam, spam, eggs and spam.

    Campaign finance is an interesting problem I would like to see something done about. Your take on it, not so much. You have brought up the Field of Dreams "build it and they will come" metaphor. Your version is a roughly sketched diamond on a cocktail napkin and then lots of whining about how everyone is not breaking down the doors of the bar and carrying you off on their shoulders as hero. You haven't built squat. Your whole idea comes down to a single sentence. There are no tools to find these candidates. Stale articles. Your site was down for a month to six week from pure neglect. YOU need to make your idea valuable. At this point it's just half assed at best.

    Ah, free speech. There is the flip side. You can advocate your idea and we can trash it if we find it lacking and/or your methods annoying. And for many of us, it's yes to both.

  29. [29] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Well, Don, we're all entitled to our own opinions ...

  30. [30] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz-
    Yes we are. My point exactly.

    And why I asked for your opinion on whether or not Cw should address One Demand and not whether the decision is up to CW which we all seem to agree it is- even though for some reason we can't all agree that we all agree on that because I am constantly being accused of not agreeing with statements like "dictate what a blogger should write about" and "hijack the blog".

    I asked for your opinion because you have said some positive things in the past about VV/One Demand and usually are not as invested in defending the team as many other commenters here seem to do rather than actually discuss issues.

    And I only asked for your opinion- it was not an ultimatum. You are free to not respond with your opinion.

  31. [31] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Bashi-
    Thank you for entering your opinion on whether or not CW should address One Demand.

    I disagree that CW should eliminate me from commenting for many reasons previously stated.

    I did not hack into GT's post and bring up the "build it they will come" comparison.

    "your whole idea comes down to a single sentence."

    And yet it is too much for you to be able to address.

    "There are no tools to find these candidates"

    Haven't we established that there are none of these candidates? When there are the tools will be made available.

    And that fact that there are no candidates is the reason that I believe that an organization to create and demonstrate demand for these candidates can lead to those kind of candidates actually being there for citizens to find.

    So it doesn't have to solve every problem immediately. It can start small and grow the way that a political movement does. It is, in fact incrementalism.

    But it is different then the incrementalism employed by the Big Money Democrats that is designed to delay, avoid and suppress change, it is incrementalism designed to bring about change.

  32. [32] 
    Paula wrote:

    The way things are breaking now I'd be astonished if Blotus EVER has another presser. Show-speeches? Yes. Maybe an interview or two on FOX. But he now has crap coming at him from so many directions and no possible believable responses to them -- and his every word becomes fodder for obstruction of justice charges.

    Really, the media should be going after Republicans, who hold the power to do something about Blotus. They also seem somewhat more susceptible to public pressure.

    Follow the Cambridge Analytica story. CA turns out to be to social media what FOX is to "news".

    Cambridge Analytica was founded in 2013 by conservative hedge-fund billionaire Robert Mercer and his daughter Rebekah. They spun the company off from its British parent, SCL Group, expressly for the purposes of impacting American politics. At the head of this play was Steve Bannon. The Mercers were already the money behind Breitbart News, and Bannon convinced them that the way to shift America was not by just backing conservative candidates, but by planting stories and ads that shifted the culture. To do this, Bannon hired Canadian data analysis expert Christopher Wylie to combine the tools of military disinformation campaigns, with the power provided by social media, big data and targeted advertising tools. Together they built what Wylie called Bannon’s “psychological warfare mindfuck tool”—a device designed to tear open America along racial, gender and social boundaries, so that Bannon could take advantage of the discord.

    https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/3/20/1750459/-Cambridge-Analytica-was-built-to-destroy-democracy-by-any-means-necessary

    There are those who shrug off the significance of these efforts. But when you talk to Trumpers and you hear the mishmash of utter stupid garbage they still, stubbornly believe, against all reason, all fact, even all decency, you have to ask yourself just how these people got there. They live in America. They hold jobs (some of them, anyway). They have money. They aren't starving. Most of them aren't even struggling, although they positively hate people who ARE. They didn't wake up one day and become political morons/monsters. They were lead there.

    During the campaign I mentioned several times here how frustrating it was to see unbelievably stupid, slanderous crap about HRC being passed around on FB. It was incessant. And it felt wrong. The stuff people appeared to buy - bolstered by millions of comments that turned out to be made by Russian bots under fake and stolen identities - was ludicriously stupid.

    But there was also the anti-BLM crap -- messages that Black Activists were just hungering to go out and shoot white people. The misinformation about Antifa activists - all the garbage the spigot spewed, day after day after day.

    It was planted, it was spread, it was internalized.

    FOX News amplified much of the disinformation spread on social media. It will be interesting to discover whether that was deliberate -- or how deliberate it was.

    The key to CA effectiveness was not merely that it spread disinformation. The disinformation was tailored and targeted, i.e. the stuff sent to you was selected to appeal to your specific leanings - based on your own surfing behavior, and personality profiles gleaned from hosts of online "quizzes" - which Star Wars character are you?? - etc. Whatever you already believe, your feeds would emphasize it.

    Russian bots convinced people to show up at nazi rallies. They CREATED events that people responded to in real life.

  33. [33] 
    Paula wrote:

    And I just came across this article: http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/politics-columns-blogs/under-the-dome/article205946479.html

    Headline: Tillis and NC Republicans paid $345,000 to the data firm that’s now banned from Facebook

    WASHINGTON North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis and the state’s Republican Party paid $345,000 to a data company that is now under scrutiny for its use of personal information about Facebook users.

    How many other Republicans used Cambridge Analytica?

  34. [34] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Paula-
    If anyone accuses you of trying to hijack the blog and promote your agenda with your recent posts- I've got your back. :D

  35. [35] 
    Paula wrote:

    [34] Don: :-)

    The thing is, the CA story is THE story today. And it is part of why Blotus can't/won't do pressers. And why Repubs are ducking the press as much as they are as well.

  36. [36] 
    Paula wrote:
  37. [37] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula
    171 {copying this forward}

    Kush in trouble - yep. The big question: how much did he know? Cambridge Analytica was presented to us a year ago as just this really hip tech consultancy that made skillful use of Facebook ads. It's much, much more than that - much darker in every way.

    So about Cambridge Analytica, while I cannot fathom why it took so long to become a focus on the front pages of the so-called "MSM," a reporter named Harry Fox Davies writing for the Guardian had already broken that news in December 2015 in fairly great detail.

    https://tinyurl.com/kctlw6n

    And FB may be in some really deep doodoo.

    And Facebook knew this information was public yet hadn't reached the "front pages." Facebook then chose to lie publicly about the extent of their involvement, while "who knows what" is going on privately behind the scenes. You've no doubt seen the evolving statements of Facebook as this has played out over time, and I don't see now how there's not a few Q&A sessions under penalty of perjury between Mark Zuckerberg and a few investigative committees.

    In answer to most of your other questions about who knew: Mueller knows, and barring any unforeseen issues, those that don't make some sort of "deal" with Mueller will die in prison unless they live a really, really long time.

  38. [38] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    When I let my mind wander down the rabbit hole, I have wonder just how far fetched it would be to find that Manafort was directing the IRA and the IRA was using demographics data supplied by CA to know what to target.

    Manafort, CA, and the IRA all have one thing in common that seems to keep popping up, Ukraine.

    CA and the IRA is a marriage made in heaven. The IRA has a fully developed and weaponized disinformation program lacking the data analytics to make it fully functional. CA had the data analytics, but no PR wing to generate the content that could make use of the data. Both practice in using the finer points of Kompromat and indulge in the seamier side of information gathering. So why not get together and see what one could really do?

    To some extent Mueller has already illuminated two of these dots...

  39. [39] 
    Kick wrote:

    Karen McDougal, a Playboy Playmate of the Year, has sued the parent company of the National Enquirer to extract herself from the NDA agreement she signed wherein she's gagged from discussing an affair. Of course, this will naturally require a deposition from ol' what's his name: "David Dennison."

    I, for the life of me, can't understand why "David" wouldn't want to get near a microphone in order to have a press conference. ;) *wink*

  40. [40] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    And the thing is that Big Money in politics is part of every issue today and everyday and a big part of the reason your issue of today is the issue of today and we have Trump in office to avoid press conferences is because of the fact that both CMPs are controlled by Big Money so citizens are left with no other choice but Big Money candidates.

    Is it somehow wrong to offer citizens a way to achieve the opportunity for another, possibly better choice as a possible solution or part of the solution to the problem at hand?

  41. [41] 
    Paula wrote:

    [37] Kick: Yes, my husband has been asking the same question for the last week - reminding me that the essentials of the story some time ago.

    Our speculations? The original story was pretty technical, which always scares off MSM and most people. The Channel 4 story humanizes it via Christopher Wylie, the sinister Alexander Nix who talks about using Ukrainian hookers, etc.

    And when the original story came out we only suspected how disastrous a tRump administration would be - now we know and people are more receptive to learning about how the hell he got elected.

    Also, people very much resist the notion they may have been manipulated, as do reporters. The media has been an unwitting stooge at many points along the way.

    And, finally, CA has been ticking along, still doing their thing, this entire year. Many times on Twitter people have posted alerts that Russian-bots are swarming. They regularly appear after mass-shootings to try to derail conversations about gun-control, etc.

    Facebook banned Cambridge Analytica last week. British authorities are raiding CA offices now.

    Dem leaders have been saying Republicans are sitting on their hands about Russian interference as we approach the mid-terms. And the spigot is still regularly delivering his propaganda (witting or unwitting), so he's been receiving it. The machine, IOW, has been cranking along. The Channel 4 story has a whistle-blower, and used a sting to capture Hix talking about how they screw with people.

    And Mueller indicted a bunch of Russians for their election interference.

    So the story now may have the legs it didn't when it first came out.

  42. [42] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula
    41

    So the story now may have the legs it didn't when it first came out.

    Oh, it's now got legs alright... complete with shoes... and still quite a really big shoe to drop. :)

  43. [43] 
    Paula wrote:

    Part 3 of Britain's Channel 4 story is out:
    https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/3/20/1750614/-Part-three-of-Cambridge-Analytica-report-makes-a-liar-out-of-everyone-on-the-Trump-campaign

    Of special interest:
    In addition to bragging about their ability to make people believe any lie, and their ability to spread those lies in ways that make them look like actual news, Cambridge Analytica’s leaders were also anxious to share how they violated US campaign funding laws by coordinating between the Trump campaign and supposedly independent PACs.

    ... Mr Turnbull described how the company created the “Defeat Crooked Hilary” brand of attack ads, that were funded by the Make America Number 1 super-PAC and watched more than 30 million times during the campaign.

    And:
    In one exchange Alexander Nix revealed the company used a secret self-destructing email system that leaves no trace. He said: “No-one knows we have it, and secondly we set our… emails with a self-destruct timer… So you send them and after they’ve been read, two hours later, they disappear. There’s no evidence, there’s no paper trail, there’s nothing.”

    Jake Tapper tweets:
    "The Board of Cambridge Analytica has announced today that it has suspended CEO Alexander Nix with immediate effect, pending a full, independent investigation."

    Well, well, well.

  44. [44] 
    Paula wrote:
  45. [45] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    You Dems/Libs need to be careful how far you push this 'anti-disinformation' thing. If disinformation, fake news and the like ever becomes illegal, you guys wont be able to talk, write, broadcast or publish anything whatsoever!

  46. [46] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris

    So it's time for the reality based blogger to address this reality. That is my opinion and I will continue to post it until the issue is addressed or the blogger terminates my ability to post.

    CW answered you before as we've discussed on multiple occasions, and he's now answered you again at [7] above. He's also answered you every day since 2015 when he's chosen not to shill for your failed attempt at political activism.

    I see no valid argument that I am trying to hijack the blog.

    See above and see below.

    As for turning troll, when I have asked CW nice many times since 2015 and not got an answer it seemed to be time try another approach. ~ Don Harris

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/11/10/ftp461/#comment-110353

    You have now admitted multiple times that you will troll CW's blog until he answers, which is the very definition of "hijack."

    hijack

    take over (something) and use it for a different purpose.

    Why don't you run along now and "hijack" Ralph Nader's website until he agrees to devote his website to your failed political venture; at least if Ralph refuses to shill for you, you'll be trolling the SOB who asked for it. :)

  47. [47] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Trump announced today that he wants to go talk to Putin.

    Apparently, he needs more instructions.

  48. [48] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Don Harris [14] -

    Let's review. You posted:

    Okay. Let me start off with an apology for not reading the whole article.

    But after a few paragraphs, I just had to comment.

    Then you went off on a tangent that had nothing to do with the article, after admitting that you hadn't even read it.

    Then, in [14], you chide ME for going off topic?

    Hoo boy.

    Look, you've got something to say. You want the focus solely to be on it. More power to you. So as I suggested, perhaps you should set up a blog and write about precisely what you want to?

    https://wordpress.com/start/blog/blog-themes

    Worked for me.

    -CW

  49. [49] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Don Harris [27] -

    I see no valid argument that I am trying to hijack the blog.

    OK, let's put the question to the rest of the audience. How many think this, and how many don't? Readers? What do you think?

    -CW

  50. [50] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    goode trickle [38] -

    The IRA? Maybe it's just an extended Paddy's Day hangover, but how did we get to Northern Ireland?

    Guess I should be reading more about the CA story, I admit I haven't delved into it as deeply as I could...

    -CW

  51. [51] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Kick [39] -

    I bet Summer Zervos will get to depose the president, now that her case can go forward. That'll be one heck of a deposition to read, that's for sure!

    -CW

  52. [52] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    T: Vlad, what do I do? Mueller's getting close.

    P: Fire Mueller. Too bod you can't...

    T: No, I can't. I told you that. And by the way, thanks for knocking off the guy in England...what are you thinking? Do you have any idea how much pressure that puts on me?

    P: Ees not yur concern. Yoo deed gud. Thos sanctions were heelarious. Coampletley yooseless.

    T: I thought you'd like that. I thought of that, you know.

    P: Tell yoo vat. Yoo com zee me zoon. Ve haf lots to plan for ze mid-terms. I vill git som Ukrainian hostezezz for yoor veesit.

    T: Okay Vlad. Sounds great. See you soon.

  53. [53] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    OK, let's put the question to the rest of the audience. How many think this, and how many don't? Readers? What do you think?

    I vote that Don needs a blog of his own. Badly.

  54. [54] 
    Paula wrote:

    This: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/3/20/1750506/-Remember-the-Alamo-The-Trump-Cambridge-Analytica-scheme-to-suppress-votes-of-women-and-minorities

    But what was going on between Parscale and the quants from Cambridge Analytica wasn’t a casual idea worked up over campaign pizza and flat soda. It was a dedicated effort to keep Democrats away from the polls. And they gave their scheme a name: Project Alamo.

    The project was created in the San Antonio is the one where 13 members of Cambridge Analytica came to huddle with Donald Trump’s IT director Brad Parscale. And they launched a plan dedicated to making Democrats despondent, disinterested, and unwilling to get out to vote in the 2016 election. What they whipped up had three prongs:

    Convince black voters that Clinton secretly hated African Americans, but thought she could deceive them into supporting her during the election.

    Convince Bernie Sanders supporters that Hillary Clinton was a neo-liberal war hawk who had stolen the primaries.

    Convince younger women that Clinton was from a different era and didn’t understand their concerns while reminding them that Clinton stuck by “sexual predator” Bill Clinton.

    It gives me chills reading this - these were the exact arguments people were using on FB throughout the election season - DEMS. They were maddening.

  55. [55] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    CW-50

    Internet Reasearch Agency, otherwise known as the troll farm.

    They have been popping up since 2013, and they made their first big splash in 2014, where they became the subject of much discussion in the disaster management relm.

    Here is a great pre-election article on them.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/magazine/the-agency.html?_r=0

  56. [56] 
    Paula wrote:

    [50] CW: Guess I should be reading more about the CA story, I admit I haven't delved into it as deeply as I could...

    Delve, man, delve coz (I suspect) this is going to be pivotal!

    Also, agree Don should pitch his One Demand on his own blog, though general participation here is no problemo. It's just that 99% of his comments begin or end in the same place.

  57. [57] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don: I see no valid argument that I am trying to hijack the blog.

    CW: OK, let's put the question to the rest of the audience. How many think this, and how many don't? Readers? What do you think?

    Well, lookie here! I must be psychic today because I have already answered this question.

    My short answer is: Hell, yes, there is ample evidence that he is "trying to hijack the blog."

    My long answer is at [46] above:
    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2018/03/19/dare-trump-to-face-the-press/#comment-117762

    Thank you for asking. :)

  58. [58] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    OK, let's put the question to the rest of the audience. How many think this, and how many don't? Readers? What do you think?

    He definitely is persistent and boarders on hijacking / trollery.

    He claims to have built something that is ready for prime time but, he has yet to update his site to reflect current dates (something easily accomplished with find and replace) and seems disinterested in growing his base via his own website... If he was he would have some news on the folks mentioned in posts 17 and 18 in his news section on his website.

    Really, it is beyond me how one can expect others to lend their reputations that they have worked hard to cultivate via their own efforts to something that has no web presence and has low visibility in search rankings.

    A little bit of effort to make his web presence professional and an active and growing entity would carry him a long way. I would even venture to say it might even make others more comfortable about expending energy to talk about his cause...

  59. [59] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW
    51

    I bet Summer Zervos will get to depose the president, now that her case can go forward. That'll be one heck of a deposition to read, that's for sure!

    Oh, yes sir! The video will be even better. He crosses his arms a lot and has a tell when he's lying... a tell other than "his lips are moving"! ;)

  60. [60] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthasar
    52

    P: I spasibo chto ya ne vypustil videozapis' ;)

  61. [61] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    CW,

    OK, let's put the question to the rest of the audience. How many think this, and how many don't? Readers? What do you think?

    I think he has definitely attempted to hijack this site — or at least guilt you into an article that would give his “disorganization” a huge boost of credibility.

  62. [62] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    It gives me chills reading this - these were the exact arguments people were using on FB throughout the election season

    They're the same sorts of arguments that Altohone was making right here after Sept. in '16. He didn't get much traction here - we can (most of us) take some satisfaction in that. I remember being irked by the pro-Russian stance that many of the websites and articles he linked to had.

  63. [63] 
    Paula wrote:

    [62] Balthasar: Yep.

  64. [64] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    CW-
    Well, it's a start. At least you are responding to something.

    Let's review.

    You wrote an article about the press getting after Trump because he din't have a press conference to goad him to having one.

    I compared that to me getting after you for not addressing One Demand.

    I was commenting on the part of the article that I did read.

    And while I am asking you to write about One Demand I am also asking for your opinion on One Demand which is what the "what are you afraid of" question was about- addressing One Demand, not writing about it.

    If you took my pointing out that you did not answer my question as chiding you for going off topic maybe you are more sensitive than I expected so I will try to be more gentle in the future. It is also possible that you felt that I was only talking about about you writing about One Demand and did not remember that I have also been asking for opinion.

    "You want the focus to solely be on it."

    No. But I do think that it deserves more than an occasional dismissive comment that doesn't address the issue.

    "Okay, let's put this question to the rest of the audience."

    As long as it is am I trying to hijack the blog and not whether I should be able to comment here.

    I saw what happened to Andy Kaufman on Saturday Night Live.

    And this is an audience that is not very likely to be objective. Consider the sources when you consider the answers.

    But even with that working against me I am willing to also see what the audience has to say about whether or not you should address One Demand. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, I am holding out hope that some here will actually consider that question objectively if you ask them to and that you can determine the difference.

    And now that we have got past the dodges, can we start/continue a conversation about One Demand, whether or not it could work, why not if you think it couldn't work and why it is NEVER the topic to be discussed?

    Apologies to the rest of you, as I will concentrate my efforts on responding to CW if he continues the conversation on One Demand. I don't need to keep busy shooting fish in a barrel for the time being.

  65. [65] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthasar
    62

    Yes, sir. I remember it well. He kept prattling on and on... sounding just like Michale... about the lack of evidence that Russia interfered in our election. He didn't understand what I meant when I told him the facts back then, but perhaps he'd understand it now in retrospect:

    *LOL* M'kay. You are free to continue to prattle on and on about the lack of "evidence to support the Russia election meddling claims."

    https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

    I do realize that the Greenwald lefties and their ilk actually admitting that Russia did attack our election would mean that they'd also have to come to grips with the fact that Russian trolls spoon-fed them anti-Hillary lies while they gleefully spewed them back and became Putin's useful idiots. Like I said: When it fits the narrative or worldview, no evidence is required, but when it doesn't, no amount of proof is sufficient.

    With all the assertions being made, and all the leaks we've seen, aren't you the slightest bit disturbed that no actual evidence has been revealed, and disturbed about the potential consequences if none ever is?

    You'd be better served to concern yourself with the "potential consequences" of continuing to deny the evidence. There needn't be evidence of collusion to prove evidence of meddling. Keep this up and you might as well be begging to have your nickname changed from "Punk" to "Punked." ;)

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/06/12/three-court-cases-worth-noting/#comment-102582

    I tried to nicely warn him what was coming. :)

  66. [66] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthasar
    62

    Yes, sir. I remember it well. He kept prattling on and on... sounding just like Michale... about the lack of evidence that Russia interfered in our election. He didn't understand what I meant when I told him the facts back then, but perhaps he'd understand it now in retrospect:

    *LOL* M'kay. You are free to continue to prattle on and on about the lack of "evidence to support the Russia election meddling claims."

    I do realize that the Greenwald lefties and their ilk actually admitting that Russia did attack our election would mean that they'd also have to come to grips with the fact that Russian trolls spoon-fed them anti-Hillary lies while they gleefully spewed them back and became Putin's useful idiots. Like I said: When it fits the narrative or worldview, no evidence is required, but when it doesn't, no amount of proof is sufficient.

    With all the assertions being made, and all the leaks we've seen, aren't you the slightest bit disturbed that no actual evidence has been revealed, and disturbed about the potential consequences if none ever is?

    You'd be better served to concern yourself with the "potential consequences" of continuing to deny the evidence. There needn't be evidence of collusion to prove evidence of meddling. Keep this up and you might as well be begging to have your nickname changed from "Punk" to "Punked." ;)

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/06/12/three-court-cases-worth-noting/#comment-102582

    I tried to nicely warn him what was coming. :)

  67. [67] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthasar
    62

    Yes, sir. I remember it well. He kept prattling on and on... sounding just like Michale... about the lack of evidence that Russia interfered in our election. He didn't understand what I meant when I told him the facts back then, but perhaps he'd understand it now in retrospect:

    *LOL* M'kay. You are free to continue to prattle on and on about the lack of "evidence to support the Russia election meddling claims."

    I do realize that the Greenwald lefties and their ilk actually admitting that Russia did attack our election would mean that they'd also have to come to grips with the fact that Russian trolls spoon-fed them anti-Hillary lies while they gleefully spewed them back and became Putin's useful idiots. Like I said: When it fits the narrative or worldview, no evidence is required, but when it doesn't, no amount of proof is sufficient.

    ...

    You'd be better served to concern yourself with the "potential consequences" of continuing to deny the evidence. There needn't be evidence of collusion to prove evidence of meddling. Keep this up and you might as well be begging to have your nickname changed from "Punk" to "Punked." ;)

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/06/12/three-court-cases-worth-noting/#comment-102582

    I tried to nicely warn him what was coming. :)

  68. [68] 
    neilm wrote:

    There are a wide range of characters on this site. Don is right that money is a problem in our democratic process. He is persistent, but it doesn't bother me very much. I looked into his program with an open mind, but it would not work for me - I'm not a single issue voter - if two candidates are similar and one is only taking small donations I'll go for that candidate, but otherwise it is below progressive economics, gun control, opposing bigotry and healthcare (in no particular order).

  69. [69] 
    neilm wrote:

    Hey Altohone - you still out there?

  70. [70] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    goode trickle [55] -

    Aha! Thanks!

    I will read up on the whole CA situation, although (since we're on the subject of easy-to-misunderstand acronyms) I kind of cringe calling Cambridge Analytica CA, because of where I live....

    Thanks to everyone for posting good links.

    -CW

  71. [71] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Kick [57] -

    Thanks. I wrote that comment before I had read yours...

    -CW

  72. [72] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Kick [65-67] -

    Your first comment got held for multiple links. I cleared them all out of the filter so it'd see you as non-spam, which is why there's repetition.

    Sorry to everyone, and remember, only one link per comment!

    :-)

    -CW

  73. [73] 
    Mezzomamma wrote:

    As one who reads regularly, but rarely comments, I'd rather Don Harris kept more on topic. And yes, I know 'on topic' is loosely defined here.

    If you make more pertinent comments, Don, you could then include a link to your own blog or website for anyone interested in following up.

  74. [74] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @CW,

    depends on one's definition of "trying" - intent vs. process.

    in terms of intent, Don is "trying" to solicit all of our participation on his issue and his organization. his efforts directed toward hijacking the blog are a side-effect.

    JL

  75. [75] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @mezzo,

    excellent point. intelligent, on-topic comments with a link at the end would be both less annoying and more effective.

    JL

  76. [76] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Neilm-
    I have been wondering what happened to Altohone, also.

  77. [77] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    And let me apologize for the shooting fish in barrel comment. It really should not have been so broadly stated as it really only applies to some commenters.

    To those that actually want to discuss issues I will be happy to engage in reasonable debate. But some of the commenters don't address the arguments I make, they just come up with excuses to avoid the issue at hand and cherry pick a statement out of context and twist it to fit the argument they want to make rather than counter the argument that I made.

    A good example is the exchange I had with Kick (later joined by Bashi) in the comments on "Nail Biter in Pennsylvania".

    Many seems willing to jump in on whether or not I am hijacking the blog, does anyone want to weigh in on the bullshit that some people try to pass off as responses to my comments?

    And anyone want to weigh in on whether CW should address One Demand? And this doesn't mean you have to agree with One Demand, it just means that you think CW should address it.

    After all, the trolling, hijacking comments are a direct result of me asking CW to address One Demand and not getting an answer or just getting a dismissive answer that is just an excuse to not address the issue.

    If he would address the issue I wouldn't have to keep asking.

  78. [78] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    77

    To those that actually want to discuss issues I will be happy to engage in reasonable debate.

    Meaning, whatever topic is being discussed, Don will simply ignore it and twist the narrative to fit his solicitation of his failed political venture like he's done with CW for years now.

    But some of the commenters don't address the arguments I make, they just come up with excuses to avoid the issue at hand and cherry pick a statement out of context and twist it to fit the argument they want to make rather than counter the argument that I made.

    You're extremely slow, Don, so here let me spell it out for you in terms a 5th grader could understand: Could you please finally "clue in" to the fact that your sentence above exactly describes what you do with CW's columns on a near daily basis and for the love of God let it permeate your brain that others were giving you back exactly what you dished out? Realize how infuriating you think it is and stop doing it to others because people can give as good as they get... or way better too.

    A good example is the exchange I had with Kick (later joined by Bashi) in the comments on "Nail Biter in Pennsylvania".

    Boo effing hoo, Don. So you received a few doses of the same BS you dish out daily to CW and his readers. Would you like some cheese to go with your whine or would you like to stop dishing out the daily dose of shilling for your failed political venture until you get an answer because Ralph effing Nader told you to?

    Many seems willing to jump in on whether or not I am hijacking the blog, does anyone want to weigh in on the bullshit that some people try to pass off as responses to my comments?

    Oh, allow me, Don. Let it finally sink in as has been reiterated to you many times by multiple commenters in various assorted ways: No one on this blog owes you a thing... not CW, not me, not Bashi, no one.

    And anyone want to weigh in on whether CW should address One Demand? And this doesn't mean you have to agree with One Demand, it just means that you think CW should address it.

    Elizabeth weighed in above; others have weighed in multiple times. Allow me again, Don. How many times must it be said that CW owes you nothing? This fact has been explained to you in no uncertain terms on many occasions. CW has now nicely explained to you the benefits of having one's own blog. Clue in. We keep covering the same content as if it hasn't already been covered multiple times and already been hashed and rehashed because you seemingly for whatever ridiculous reason believe that your repetition and persistence are going to magically earn you a different answer when they could never and will never.

    After all, the trolling, hijacking comments are a direct result of me asking CW to address One Demand and not getting an answer or just getting a dismissive answer that is just an excuse to not address the issue.

    If he would address the issue I wouldn't have to keep asking.

    Get your own website, Don; devote it to "One Demand" and see what it gets you... oh, wait. At this point, such as it is, you're still writing comments blaming the author and his readers for the fact that you "have to keep asking," still persistent in your asinine belief that it's everyone else's fault that you won't stop forcing others to shill for you. Pathetic.

  79. [79] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW
    72

    Kick [65-67] -

    Your first comment got held for multiple links. I cleared them all out of the filter so it'd see you as non-spam, which is why there's repetition.

    Sorry to everyone, and remember, only one link per comment!

    Oh, look at the mess I totally unintentionally accidentally made.
    Apologies.

  80. [80] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick-
    I do not twist CW's statements to fit my argument. I take the concept the CW is using and ask him to apply THE SAME concept to One Demand.

    How many times must it be said that the question of whether I should have my own blog and whether CW should address One Demand are not the same issue?

    But at least there is no longer a need for anyone to go back to the "Nail Biter in Pennsylvania" comments to find an example of exactly what I was talking about.

  81. [81] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    And not only where is Altohone, but where is Michale?

    My alleged trolling and hijacking seem to be more of concern when Michale is not active.

  82. [82] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    80

    I do not twist CW's statements to fit my argument. I take the concept the CW is using and ask him to apply THE SAME concept to One Demand.

    Semantics, Don.

    How many times must it be said that the question of whether I should have my own blog and whether CW should address One Demand are not the same issue?

    How many times must it be said:

    Look, you've got something to say. You want the focus solely to be on it. More power to you. So as I suggested, perhaps you should set up a blog and write about precisely what you want to? ~ CW

    https://wordpress.com/start/blog/blog-themes

    But at least there is no longer a need for anyone to go back to the "Nail Biter in Pennsylvania" comments to find an example of exactly what I was talking about.

    It's highly instructive that you were under the nonsensical delusion that anyone would go back and read it. Clue in.

    What part of "no" don't you understand?

  83. [83] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    81

    My alleged trolling and hijacking seem to be more of concern when Michale is not active.

    You've admitted to trolling multiple times now, Don, and simply placed the responsibility for it on most everyone except yourself. Now you want to blame Michale's absence for people's concern?

    As CW would say: Hoo boy!

  84. [84] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "It's like Deja Vu all over again."
    -Yogi Berra

  85. [85] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Don Harris

    And anyone want to weigh in on whether CW should address One Demand? And this doesn't mean you have to agree with One Demand, it just means that you think CW should address it.

    We have all heard about One Demand directly from the source, and most every one of us has pointed out the major flaws we see with your disorganized organization. As someone who ran a non-profit for years and relied on donations to cover 100% of my budget, your horrible web site and lack of a clear game plan that sounds as if it has any chance of being successful are red flags that you won’t find donors willing to back you.

    What would CW tell us about One Demand that you haven’t? If you cannot get us excited about it, why would anyone else be able to? Your tunnel vision that getting people to choose small donor candidates will lead to great changes still doesn’t address why I would vote for the One Demand candidate who promises to have the gays rounded up and thrown into camps if they get elected!?!

    You point to the success of Bernie being a small donation candidate, but you fail to realize that his success wasn’t due to that single issue. It was his great message and vision that allowed him to be a successful small donation candidate, not the other way around!

  86. [86] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    85

    You point to the success of Bernie being a small donation candidate, but you fail to realize that his success wasn’t due to that single issue. It was his great message and vision that allowed him to be a successful small donation candidate, not the other way around!

    Exactly right... everything Russ said. Add to that the fact that I have told Don repeatedly that Bernie Sanders doesn't fit his definition either because a simple 2-minute search proves BS took in over $30 million in "Big Money." How do we easily discern this, as I have told Don many times?

    A simple check of the FEC's website shows that Bernie Sanders took in $30,320,646 that were not $200 or less small contributions as defined by Don in his "One Demand." Oh, I know Bernie campaigned bragging ad nauseam about his average campaign contribution being $27 dollars, but the rhetoric doesn't exactly match the reality.

    https://classic.fec.gov/disclosurep/pnational.do

    Thirty million dollars in "Big Money" makes Saint Bernard no different than any other candidate (where money is concerned, of course) and a bad example at the outset. In fact, you can check the 2016 campaign cycle and you will find tons more candidates on the GOP side who come closer to meeting Don's definitions, and Conor Lamb in PA-18 came way closer to Don's definitions, yet Don has trashed him multiple times. As I have said many times, the average American already contributes $0 to political campaigns and therefore already meets Don's definition.

    I'm not knocking Bernie's political skills either, just pointing out that he didn't remotely meet Don's definition even though Don holds him out as the "be-all-end-all" example; Bernie is not and never has been because rhetoric versus reality are two different things. :)

    ... continued

  87. [87] 
    Kick wrote:

    ... continued

    Read what happened when Bernie's rhetoric caught up to reality:

    You Say You Want a Revolution? Sorry, Bernie, Not for 27 Dollars Apiece.

    https://tinyurl.com/yagk393q

    Weaver has been unapologetic about cultivating major donors for Our Revolution, while trying to assure supporters he won’t exploit the rule that would allow the 501(c)(4) group to keep those donors secret, telling The Atlantic this week that the new organization “will have a policy to disclose larger donations.”

    Still, the new campaign seems a departure from the purity of the old. After the polls closed in the last primary state of California, Sanders declared, “we showed the world that we could run a strong national campaign without being dependent on the big-money interests whose greed has done so much to damage our country.”

    But even then, Sanders’ campaign-ending boast would have gotten only a “half-true” from the professional fact-checkers. He is correct that he ran a “a strong national campaign based on small donations. ” He raised $231 million from 2.7 million donors (the average donor gave a total of $86, not $27) which is about what Hillary Clinton raised if you don’t count her Super PAC. Most importantly, he outspent her by about $26 million. He didn’t lose because of money.

    But Sanders’ broader implication—that his victories in more than 20 states means soliciting major donors is no longer necessary to win, and his revolution can triumph without their money—was not at all proven.

  88. [88] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Listen-
    A declaration that the website is terrible and lacks a clear game plan is simply not true.

    There is a clear game plan. Citizens sign up to create and demonstrate demand for small contribution candidates. Citizens stop voting for Big Money candidates. Citizens write in a vote if there are no small contribution candidates to create and demonstrate demand for small contribution candidates in future elections. Small successes in the beginning are built on with each subsequent election cycle as people see the small successes and more people participate with each election cycle.

    I don't need the kind of funding you think I do. Just enough to run the website and for legal issues that may arise as the movement grows.

    The participants will send their contributions directly to the candidates so they won't be backing me they will be backing the candidates. Just a few participants that want to do more will be enough to fund the organization.

    And if you mean that there won't be enough money to fund the candidates, that is also not true.

    !0% of the approximately 125 million presidential election cycle voters investing just one hundred dollars would total over 1 billion dollars. That's at least 2 million for each congressional district and senate race in 2018. And since there would most likely be not be a candidate in every district or Senate race in 2018 it could easily total 5-10 million per election where there is a small contribution candidate.

    More citizens are participating making small contributions with each election cycle. And many things that never happened before have also been happening. So it can happen.

    "What would CW tell us about One Demand that you haven't?"

    I'll go you one better.

    "What would CW tell us that I haven't and those that have given an opinion on One Demand haven't? ( I really can't call most of it addressing One Demand because most of it was ridiculous declarations and/or misinterpretations used an an excuse to avoid addressing the issues)

    HIS OPINION.

    He can tell me (and others depending on whether he chooses to contact me directly, posts in the comments or writes an article) if he thinks there is anything good about One Demand, what he thinks could be improved and whether or not it should be part of the public debate and why not if it shouldn't.

    Why is it wrong for me to ask for that? Isn't that what people with an idea are supposed to do- ask for opinions and help from people like CW?

    I don't expect to get YOU to excited about it anymore than I expect a child to get excited about finding out Santa Claus isn't real.

    CW, on the other hand, has at times been much more open minded.

    The only reason you would vote for a small contribution candidate that promises to round up the gays and throw them in camps (Hummer camp?) is if you wanted small contribution candidates and you were a homophobe. (see write in vote)

    Never claimed Bernie's success was only because his campaign had more small contributions then previous campaigns.

    But it was the main reason I voted for him and many others also. In fact, there were many that voted for Trump because they bought the lie about him self-financing.

    And 80% of citizens want the Big Money out of politics, including a majority of Republicans. If 60% on other issues is enough for it to be made into an issue for Democrats why isn't 80% enough for this issue? Your not going to claim that CW and others here have not made that claim about that level of support for other issues, are you? If you can come up with a reason why this is different for the issue of Big Money in politics, I will consider it.

    It actually was the small contribution focus that made his other issues work. As many have pointed out there were a lot of similarities in Bernie's and Hillary's messages (Bernie and Bernie-lite?), but the small contribution focus was a big part of what made Bernie believable. And it was what made it possible for me to vote for him despite the similarities.

  89. [89] 
    Don Harris wrote:

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

    The Bernie comments were about as enlightening as saying the sun rises in the East and your claims about me holding him as the be-all end-all example is about as true as saying the sun rises in the West.

    I actually pointed out before anyone here did that Bernie was not running a small contribution campaign and explained how the 27 dollar claim was a deception. I supported him anyway because it was a step in the right direction and could lead to taking the next step- even though according to many here I never do that.

    I am surprised that with your ability to go back and find previous comments that you did not discover this. I guess you only find what you want to find.

    But what Bernie did do is get people to believe that small contributions can be effective- even CW said that in a recent column. So I am saying let's take the next step and do it right, not half way.

  90. [90] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Correction on 88-
    The !0% should be 10%.

  91. [91] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    89

    "There you go again."
    - Ronald Reagan

    Perhaps you should apply that lame Reagan quote to yourself.

    You won't listen to Russ, you won't listen to Bashi, Bathasar, Neil, or anyone else who's tried to help you, and I'm not wasting another word on your pathetic ass, Don, unless it's to tell you to bugger off or STFU.

    As far as I'm concerned, you're not worth another minute of anyone's time. :)

  92. [92] 
    TheStig wrote:

    CW-49

    My position on RH/VV/OD is already on the record. He wastes everybody's time, including his own. In the days of print journalism the editor would send a letter to him saying something like this:

    Dear. Mr. Ron Harris:

    I regret to inform you that a mentally deranged individual is sending our newspaper numerous crank letters using your name and address to conceal his/her identity. Naturally, we do not print these letters, but we thought you should know and perhaps consult an attorney and/or private investigator....etc. etc.

  93. [93] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick-
    If it applied I would. But it does fit you like a glove.

    Of course I listen and even consider what all of you have to say. I just don't agree.

    Many of you sure have a funny way of "helping".

    By "don't listen" is it safe to assume that you mean don't listen to their advice?

    If that is what you are saying it is wrong. I listen, consider it and follow it if I think it makes sense.

    But if you think that I should just do what they say without question or exception even if I think it doesn't make sense then you are suggesting that I follow orders rather than consider advice.

    Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.

  94. [94] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Stig-
    As referred to in comment 93- thanks for the "help"!

Comments for this article are closed.