i've read all of CW's comments and did not encounter anything factually inaccurate. if you can cite and provide the permalink to whatever it is you're talking about, and explain what specific statement of fact you think is untrue, i'll consider it. otherwise, your argument looks a lot like the "no true scotsman" fallacy.

also, today's thread is about the war of 1812, and is not even remotely related to campaign finance. kindly refrain from any further comments there.

JL

i strongly disagree - support for an idea has a lot to do with its content. if people don't support an idea, perhaps something in the content is lacking. if something in the content is not lacking, perhaps it's something in the marketing that is lacking. if something in the marketing is lacking, that's the responsibility of the idea's supporters to fix, not the responsibility of everyone else to overlook.

As to CW's comments, he did not mis- or in any other way represent your idea, he simply said he wasn't all that interested in it, and advised you on better ways to market it so people eventually would be interested. he's actually been incredibly consistent in that stance, which is why you haven't yet been banned from this site for trolling the blog's owner and soliciting its members.

good luck in your endeavors, and i really do hope you get your act together and build one demand into something worth supporting.

JL

the rest of us don't think you're being very realistic at all about your idea's chances of success. yes, if you can convince 50-75 million people to vote based on your idea, it might work. but getting to that number requires a coherent strategy for winning followers. CW should discuss what he wants to discuss. he has made it clear that he's not interested in your organization, and doesn't consider it important enough to spend a column commenting on. this is his blog, and that's his decision. if you want him to change his mind about you, the way to do it is by marketing your idea elsewhere and gathering enough followers so you can't be ignored. currently you can be ignored and are being ignored.

7,542,753 people voted for Kamala Harris.
0 people voted for Don Harris.

that's why presidential nominees can not ignore her questions, and anybody who feels like it can ignore yours.

JL

https://www.mitrodigitalmarketing.com/digital-marketing-for-political-campaigns/

i had a comment swallowed up by the filters, and probably just as well. the main idea is that in order to convince people that your idea is worth discussing, you need to stay positive and do a better job of marketing. that part is your responsibility, not everybody else's, and certainly not CW's.

the one million figure was arbitrary, maybe just start with a few thousand, but numbers do matter, because they prove that people are (or aren't) interested. if you search for advice on successful marketing, two of the most common suggestions are exactly what CW and bashi mentioned, do a regular blog/podcast, and keep a well-maintained website. also prominent are using social media and finding a receptive audience. browbeating a non-receptive audience will get you nowhere. so, take our advice or don't, but whatever the tone, be aware that for the most part it's intended to be helpful. if you don't take it to heart, you've only yourself to blame for the results.

JL

Total lack of comprehension unworthy of detailed response.

You're fooling no one but yourself alone, Don, if you buy into the ridiculous fantasy that your utter nonsensical repetitive bullshit is the least bit complicated, but you couldn't swing a cat on this blog without hitting a commenter who didn't agree that your verbal diarrhea was "unworthy of detailed response." *LOL*

i realize you see a similarity between your own questions and those of senator kamala harris. however, there are a few key differences between the questioning engaged in by kamala harris and yourself:

1. she was refusing to accept an intentionally evasive answer, you are refusing to accept an answer that indicates genuine disinterest.

2. she was asking on behalf of the forty million residents of california, whom she represents. you were asking on behalf of yourself, your idea, and perhaps the ten friends and family members who have signed up on your website.

3. she was asking in the context of a public hearing, after which she was obliged to vote, based on the answers to her questions, to confirm or deny a presidential appointment to the federal government. you were asking in the comments section of a journalist's blog.

4. she was asking with some political leverage and public support behind her. you have been asking with very little of either in your corner.

maybe someday soon you'll have thousands or even millions of members and make your dream a reality. but before any serious journalist takes you and one demand seriously, you need to demonstrate in the real world that your organization (not bernie sanders, not ralph nader, not cynthia nixon, you) can get a significant part of the way there without their assistance.

and sure, CW has indicated that he'll tolerate your incessant kvetching and solicitation, but it seems to me like a gigantic waste of your time and effort.

JL

https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/chrisweigant.com

Are you really sure you want CW to write about one demand?

Would he not be obligated to point out the multiple flaws with your website?

Putting aside JL's standard for publication by CW, the even lower standard would be having a current website to begin with... It does not inspire to go some place to read about your movement only to have to make substitutions for the year.

It is not that hard to take your source code and do a find and replace in word of all things and upload the revised copy. you have been doing the website update for a really, really long time now.

Perhaps taking 25% of your time spent here and dedicating it to putting fresh information and "news" up on your site might also help.

Fun fact, according to Alexa your site ranks 18,012,373 in the world. You don't even get enough monthly traffic to cause a blip in the tracking data.
https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/onedemand.com

Politics, Movements, and Political punditry reputations are not a "talk about me and I will build it" kind of thing. Go out and put some effort into your own movement and then perhaps CW will talk about you... even if he still doesn't want to talk about you at least your whining about his lack of wanting to talk about it would be justified. As it stands now it is not...

Rachel asked a question last night that bears repeating: why are Republican committee chairmen who are clearly allied with Trump being allowed to see the names of undercover sources right in the middle of an on-going federal investigation, against all precedent and standard practice, especially since they know that to do so 'burns' that source permanently, perhaps allowing Trump defenders to preemptively undermine that source if (his or her) testimony is ever needed?

Perhaps that source's information wasn't all that helpful and they reason that it was a one-off use of that source anyway, so why not give the GOP goon squad a big fat bone to chew on for awhile.

It's one explanation for an otherwise odd and ill-advised capitulation by the Justice Department.

Pretty sure me starting my own blog was someone else's idea.

You seem oblivious to the fact that more than one person can have the same great idea. Why would you insist of others what you're not willing to do yourself? You lack the courage of your convictions, and there's a word for that... several words, in fact.

And it's you that don't take me seriously.

You mustn't take that personally, Don, it's just something about trolls.

And possibly CW. It is impossible to know for sure until CW actually addresses One Demand.

He already did.

But it appears from my perspective that it is also possible that he does take it seriously and is avoiding addressing it because he prefers be able to make the argument that citizens have no other choice than to vote for the Democrats.

And what problem could you, CW or anyone possibly have with people that were not going to vote in 2018 participating in One Demand instead of staying home and wasting their vote?

You seem to have fallen victim to your own repetitive bullshit, Don, but more pathetic than that is that you appear to believe that others on this blog are as invested as you when they're simply not.

Should people only be encouraged to vote if they are going to vote for Democrats or Republicans?

Every American should be encouraged to vote regardless for whom they choose to vote, and every American should be encouraged to contribute to the candidates and causes they deem worthy whether or not Don Harris likes the amount they choose to contribute.

Now bugger off, Don, your own blog is sorely in need of your brave input and rapt attention. :)

Have you ever noticed the uncanny physical resemblance between Trump and his mother? Warning: Disturbing Image...swallow and secure your beverage container before viewing!

When Scotland sends its people, they're not sending the best. They're sending people that have lots of problems and they're bringing those problems. They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime...

The problem with applying this procedure to N.Korea is the very first step. Trump doesn't know his rube-he is the rube.

Bingo... and simply extrapolate that fact and apply it to darn near everything in the Trump orbit. It's sad enough when the rubes fall victim to the con, but it's positively pathetic when the con falls victim to his own bullshit.

He'll need a war soon to try to make himself popular and important.

Yes, sir... and in lieu of an all out war, remember the object of the exercise, who is pulling the strings, and the many ways in which Syria could factor into the equation. :)

Aren't you supposed to be busy bravely writing your own blog right now like you suggested?

All this needs to get started is one brave reality-based blogger to inform citizens about this opportunity now.

Serious Question: How is it that you expect anyone to take your repeated BS seriously if you don't?

Asking for a friend. :)

Great, can never UNSEE that!

CW is not required to respond to the same question multiple times. since you've asked it multiple times, i'll refresh your memory. his response is that he doesn't place donor-driven campaign finance reform very high on his priority list, and doesn't see it as very realistic. as it happens, this puts him squarely in line with most voters. while it's probably true that the participation of ten percent of the electorate in your group would have an impact, that's still over 20,000,000 people. once your membership demonstrates its viability and reaches one twentieth of its goal (i.e. one million), i'm sure CW would be happy to publish about it.

JL

Trouble is, is that it's not on anyone's radar right now - the neocons are distracted beyond repair by the prospect of invading Iran, which has been a goal of theirs since puberty. They had her poster on the wall of their dorm rooms in college. Yemen's just a bad girl from the south side compared to their desire to invade princess Jasmine. It's a creepy obsession they've been stalking for several years, and Obama's agreement to "just be friends" drove them insane.

On the other hand, Yemen and Venezuela aren't exactly as easy as they look. These would be very expensive forays with questionable ends. As Bush learned the hard way, the most important question is: what does the morning after look like?

Know Your Rube

Over Promise

Under Deliver (Cheat)

Litigate...Litigate....Litigate

Declare Victory

Find new rube

The problem with applying this procedure to N.Korea is the very first step. Trump doesn't know his rube-he is the rube.

Have you ever noticed the uncanny physical resemblance between Trump and his mother? Warning: Disturbing Image...swallow and secure your beverage container before viewing!

http://americannewsx.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/trumphair.png

-CW

...especially hally826, whose first comment had to wait in the moderation queue all weekend long (sorry 'bout that...).

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2018/05/18/program-note-65/#comment-119119

-CW

Now that you mention it, Granada has been getting rather uppity lately...

Heh.

John M [2] -

OK, that was depressingly realistic. But how about Cuba? Bay of Pigs 2.0? Anyone? Bueller?

Heh.

Sorry, I should be taking this more seriously, I know...

-CW

"Iran might be a tough one though - likely to crash the markets and upset the Republican's owners. I'm guessing it is time to invade Granada again, or something like that."

Trump has 3 choices for going to war:

1) North Korea: This option would be the most costly, however you want to cut it. In terms of lives lost, both civilian and American service members, financially, and in terms of domestic political support. But it would also be the easiest to justify, and the one with most allied support, even if we are dragging South Korea and Japan into it kicking and screaming, they would have almost no choice but to support whatever America does.

2) Iran: This option would be the one having Bolton and the neocons salivating the most, along with the Israeli hardliners. It also has the advantage of at least having hard line right wing American domestic support. On the downside, it would also likely be the one most strongly opposed by both China and Russia, and lack any significant European, British or French support as well. Except for possibly Israel joining an American bombing campaign, we'd be fighting it totally alone by ourselves. It would also unleash a wave of international terrorism the likes of which we have never seen before.

3) Venezuela: This would be the surprise dark horse candidate, but the one I would choose if I were Trump, especially given what he has said previously about the poor plight of the Venezuelan people fighting against oppression. It certainly would be the easiest or least costly in military terms by far. Though the effect on our relations with the rest of Latin America would be catastrophic, it would also probably garner the least amount of anxiety among the general domestic American public. Trump's version of Reagan's Grenada, but lacking international support.