Well, you seem to be capable of learning.

You don't.

In this case no is an acceptable response to "Try to keep up."

But alas, that was a response to someone else. Everything is not about you, Don, and you really don't quite seem to comprehend the concept of "freedom of speech" so let me help you. No one is required to give you an "acceptable response" or any response at all. I don't care if you don't like my answers; in fact, I'm quite proud of the fact that you don't.

So let's review:

No. Like my Daddy also used to say: "Let's don't and say we did."

Over and out.

Be nice to your fellow commenters, in other words.

Of course, that doesn't mean that you can't constructively criticize their arguments or make a general statement about the state of affairs.

It's not that hard, you know.

~donald trump

It's really starting to look like Trump's America …

Okay, this is awesome, Elizabeth!

For a whole 30 seconds there, it appeared you were serious about not saying "anything at all" unless you had something nice to say. :)

The perpetrators could take a lesson in civil discourse from Prime Minister Trudeau.

"If you don't have anything nice to say to someone, then don't say anything at all."

I'm going to cease fire myself.

Yes, sir. I hear you. :)

The poor bugger isn't a credible threat, just a navigational nuisance putting on airs.

Yep... trolling with the same stale bait over and over and expecting something different. ;)

NO does not explain how it would be better if voters that would vote in 2018 would stay home rather than participate in One Demand or what harm would be caused if people that would not vote in 2018 participated in One Demand.

Again, you seem to be missing the entire point that I and several other posters have made ad nauseam that "One Demand" offers nothing that those voters aren't already free to participate in if they choose to do so. Limits on individual campaign contributions already exist, the majority already contributes well below your "One Demand" in the form of zero, and "One Demand" supplies nothing that does not already exist wherein eligible voters could choose to vote and/or contribute in the future. It's not exactly a novel concept you got there when the federal government has beaten you to it, albeit in different amounts.

It is technically an answer, but not a very good one- even for someone of limited ability to understand concepts.

Your limited inability to understand concepts notwithstanding, we have now established that "no" is indeed an answer. Take it.

I never claimed CW owed me anything. MORE MADE_UP BULLSHIT!

Yes, Don, you have made up more bullshit if you're equating me stating that I know CW doesn't owe me anything is the equivalent of claiming that you said it. Focus, Don. That was me talking about what I knew and had nothing to do with what you did or did not say. Everything posted on CW.com is not about you or your pathetic ideas, Don, no matter how much you troll it to that end.

I have posted my opinion that someone claiming to be a reality based blogger which is part of the media has a responsibility to address reality and back up their statements and be consistent in their application.

Yes, Don... ad nauseam. It doesn't take a rocket science to discern that you feel like the author owes you something. Please keep making the utter asinine argument that an author "has a responsibility to address" something out of one ass cheek while claiming you never said he owed anything out of the other. Perhaps then you'll understand why you appear to be a complete ass to the rest of us. :)

Then if you're not afraid why do you keep spouting bullshit and avoid addressing the issue at hand?

See above where we have established that "no" is indeed an answer whether you like that answer or not. You refusing to accept the very valid comment that you provide nothing that doesn't already exist is addressing the issue at hand, whether or not you refuse to acknowledge it.

Do you just enjoy putting your stupidity on display?

I will give you a little Don Harris reasoning that even you can understand. If you'd "take responsibility" and accept "reality," there would be no need whatsoever for any poster to comment in response to your bullshit because you'd have long since accepted our answer.

Or is it the opposite, that the questions are too difficult?

The disconnect here is your inability to accept our answers. Your questions aren't difficult due to the fact that your concept and your intellect are mired squarely and inexorably at grade school level... and so shall they remain ever thus, I expect, since you refuse to make wise use of your time to educate yourself.

I guess the reason the name calling was brought for me to respond to in kind could be that you are right and that it will not cause CW to chime in.

It is the definition of insanity to keep doing the same thing while expecting a different outcome. Cursing the posters on this blog and the author for not addressing something they've addressed ad nauseam would also qualify as insanity.

Why don't I email the author directly. I have on a few occasions. What does that remind me of, email the author directly so no one else sees it?

Oh yeah, the NFL telling players they should wait in the locker room during the anthem and not protest visibly. Very Trumpian.

You should pay better attention, moron; Trump is against the players waiting in the locker room. Trump keeps whining ad nauseam that the players have a "responsibility" to stand on the field and perform in a certain manner for the benefit of the citizenry. Who does that sound like? It seems you and Trump share similar warped views of the concept of "freedom of speech."

Whether or not you are a Democrat you sure spend an awful lot of time defending them and cheering them on and certainly qualify to joining them in being more like Republicans than you think you are.

Idiots like you that feel the need to make up labels and apply them to everyone and thereby shove them into little boxes and dismiss them says more about you than it does about anybody else.

Take "no" for an answer, Don; we've established, and you've now accepted that it is one. :)

Huzzah! Nice shooting Captain Kick..you've straddled the bastard. I see secondary explosions. I don't he'll sink ' cause his hull is full of ping pong balls. I'm going to cease fire myself. The poor bugger isn't a credible threat, just a navigational nuisance putting on airs. A

Thank you for proving my point that you are full of shit.

If you'd pull your head out of your ass and open your eyes and ears, I promise you the shit will dissipate.

No one here is required to answer my questions. But claiming you have when you haven't doesn't make it true.

"No" is an answer, Don. You just don't like the answer.

I am not required to stop posting my opinions or to stop pointing out your bullshit.

One can dream, though. I would pay well beyond your "One Demand" to the author as long as he continues to ignore your bullshit, but even I know that CW owes me nothing. Clue in.

The fact that you want me stop and won't answer my questions when I answer pretty much all the bullshit and distractions and tangents and making stuff up and moving the goalposts, etc. over and over again proves that there is something about it that you fear.

Fear? Oh, wait. I see your problem now, Don. Your sanity has jumped the rails, and you believe there's a reason to fear you?!

Pardon me... just cleaning the liquid from my screen where I laughed so hard I spewed.

There seem to be an awful lot of Democrats here who are a lot more like Republicans than they think they are. Morons. Pussies. Feckless... well-you get the idea.

I'm still neither a Democrat nor a Republican, but I'm infinitely aware that your name calling of the posters on the board will not likely help your cause nor likely be a catalyst that would entice the author to come to your aid.

So do us a favor, Don... rather than hanging out with us mere mortals and "pussies" who are wasting your precious time, why don't you henceforth email the author directly and leave us out of it?

http://www.chrisweigant.com/email-chris/

Yep.

I assume BLONK = Big Liar Of North Korea. Bravo!

Yes, it does. Props to Paula, though; I just followed her term "Blotus" out to its natural conclusion to fit the other lying authoritarian.

Over promise and under deliver is the proven marketing approach of both these con men.

Yes, sir... but... oh, wait... BLONK is beginning to appear to deliver with the rolling of BLOTUS. :)

And even if I did shit in my hand there is no way it could be as full of shit as your head.

I think you have missed the point entirely that you have been shitting in your hand for the past two years on this blog and coming up empty, but then missing the point seems to be right up your wheelhouse.

<iBut go ahead. prove me wrong. see and respond to comment 41 instead of chickening out and coming up with more bullshit to avoid addressing the issue at hand.

The fact that your hands remain empty after two years of wishing, hoping, and trolling this board is not our problem. No one here is required to answer your questions. Nevertheless, we keep doing it and giving the same answer.

What part of "no" is at all confusing? Moron.

You wouldn't constantly hear about average contributions of 27 dollars, 40 dollars, etc. if there wasn't indications that there are a significant number of citizens that do think it is important.

Don, you should allow yourself to consider the fact that you're confusing campaign rhetoric and propaganda with reality. The obvious object of the exercise of the repetition of rhetoric... yours or anyone else's... is to give credence to bullshit, and that's exactly why Benedict Donald bleats out "no collusion" and "fake news" like verbal diarrhea and why the morons and minions spew it back despite all evidence to the contrary.

Stability. The amount of citizens making small contributions has increased and is trending to increase more.

The rhetoric has increased, and the population has increased. Statistics are pretty static, however, but the majority give well below your "One Demand" by continuing to contribute the amount of zero, but don't let facts stand in the way of your fantasy.

And just because no one here can accept that their worldview, which precludes them form considering participating in anything like One Demand, is not everyone's worldview and is no reason to assume that other people will not consider participating in One Demand if they were to learn more about it or learn about it at all.

Any individual who contributes more than zero to a given candidate is already "participating" in the federal government's version of your "bright idea" to limit their individual contributions to political campaigns. No one's "worldview" precludes their ability to participate... I promise. :)

Where are the data points I asked for on 41?

People can sign up for 2018 right now. People can understand the idea from the website as it is right now.

No they can’t. You pretty much don’t exist on the net...

Do people who are not likely to vote in 2020 even know CW exists?

So we don't want to withhold money from Democratic candidates, we want to actually lavish them with cash so that they can produce a government that works for all, not just for the few.

Winner, winner... chicken dinner!

And since the federal government already limits the amounts "we the people" as individuals may contribute to said candidates, Don's bullshit is simply an unnecessary and impractical load of utter superfluous nonsense. :)

Paula-
BULLSHIT.

None of you here are worthy of being taken seriously the majority of the time.

Then shove off, Don. You've already received your answer, and the rest of us are obviously not worthy of your brilliance. TYA, pal. :)

Banks admitted that he handed over telephone numbers for members of Trump's transition team to Russian officials.

Yes, ma'am. That same transition team for which Mueller has all their emails. Is it any wonder then why several of them have decided to retire abruptly and/or forego reelection? ;)

You don’t wear bitchy well, but OK I’ll give 41 a try. First off do you have any data what so ever that those who likely won’t vote in 2020 will not vote because of big money in politics? Or dare I say, even know the issue exists? Second, for the sake of argument let’s assume they are dedicated to your idea. How will they find you? Your name link is dead and One Demand in a google search does not bring up your site within 20 pages of results. Just because you have become fond of the word bullshit does not make any of the criticisms that you toss it at false. Your name link being dead and the inability to find your site with a search engine are easily verifiable. As nypoet22 can probably attest, fixing your name link is supper easy. I would say my criticism is far from bullshit and quite accurate...

http://time.com/4182502/campaign-finance-reform/

I assume BLONK = Big Liar Of North Korea. Bravo!

Over promise and under deliver is the proven marketing approach of both these con men.

80% of citizens may also like chocolate ice cream or hate reality tv, but that's not related to their intensity or salience as public issues. the rest of the evidence you cited is anecdotal (i.e. no numbers to back it up), and counter-evidence is much stronger. public research firms regularly take reports of top voter priorities, and sadly campaign finance isn't even in the top twenty.

JL

CRS - the current situation proves that the Republican Party cares little about free trade. They canceled TPP, they are letting Trump eviscerate NAFTA and they are cheering from the slidelines as he starts trade wars.

Libertarians are not a party, they are a high school glee group for the Republican Party, or at least that is their role in American politics.

DNC Quietly Adopts Ban On Fossil Fuel Company Donations

The Democratic National Committee voted over the weekend to ban donations from fossil fuel companies, HuffPost has learned.

The resolution ? proposed by Christine Pelosi, a party activist and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s daughter ? bars the organization from accepting contributions from corporate political action committees tied to the oil, gas and coal industries.

The DNC will consider a second resolution at a full board meeting in Chicago in August to ban contributions over $200 from individuals who work for the fossil fuel industry.

The war goes on, but the wargames have been canceled.

I seriously doubt that, and Dumb Duck Donald proves the depths of his ignorance and utter lack of fitness as commander in chief in even uttering the term "wargames." Moron.

The press has been mostly wide eyed and slack jawed about the whole thing. Hard to blame them.

Likely gobsmacked too at the faith BLOTUS places in BLONK... based on his "feelings."

It is notable that I agree 85% with your post.

Individual special-interest groups can gain by restricting free trade (think the UAW if we refused to allow foreign automakers to export cars to us), but the losses to the whole country invariably exceed the gains to the special interest group.

Unfortunately, the special interest groups all have lobbiests distributing "campaign contributions" (aka "bribes") but the general population has no lobbiests.

Stucki, you just named the lobbyists and the PACs of the "general population": the unions. <--- not to be construed as berating unions, far from it. :)

One Demand can begin being effective by 2020.

If only whining and trolling would make it so, but like my Daddy used to say: "Wish in one hand and shit in the other... see which one gets full first." :)

You're getting perilously close to turning your "OD" into 'OCD'.

good point about updating the link, just did that myself. my link was to my defunct livejournal from ten years ago!

JL

A photo op.

Yes, sir.

Did anybody expect anything else from this clown?

Cons will be cons. BLOTUS says he trusts BLONK, exclaiming what a great personality he has and saying he believes it's going to happen fast that "he's de-nuking the whole place."

BLOTUS admitted he might be wrong about BLONK but confessed he'd most likely blame somebody else. Believe him.

Trump gives new meaning to the word "moron," but he too shall pass. :)

what i mean by dimensions is that public opinion on an issue is rarely if ever a yes-no dichotomy. political scientists don't always agree on which dimensions to use, but five that tend to recur are direction, intensity, salience, stability and information.

direction is which way people lean, intensity is how strongly they lean that way, salience is how important they think the issue is, stability is how subject their opinions are to change as they learn more about the subject, and information is how much they already know. depending on the particular issue, these dimensions may correlate with each other, but they're not the same thing.

thus, 80% of people may agree that the involvement of large sums of money in politics are bad (notwithstanding questions about the sampling of data and how the question was worded), but that does not justify your conclusion that citizens think it is an important issue. these are two very different questions.

JL

And giving the lie to the GOP talking point that this is really all about the Democrats being sore that they lost the presidency.

The rest of the world has gotten wise to Putin's shenanigans. Germany is also investigating Russian interference in their elections.

Now if only they could convince the idiot that's running this country. Fat chance. We'll have to do it the hard way, ourselves.

Have you heard of the 80/20 rule? 20% of your efforts bring 80% of the results. Hanging around here whining about people not pushing your idea isn't bringing you results - it just makes you a pest and a bore.

BTW: you agreed with CW to limit your posts about OD to one per thread.

Doing real work is real work like updating your site or fixing the link in your name. Tasks you have proven unable to do. Pestering is not real work. Spamming is not real work. Both have likely made CW and anyone else with whom you inflict with your silly ego trip dig in their heels and ignore you on principle (to which I applaud). The most glaring flaw with your idea is you and your complete inability to execute. Until you fix that, I don’t see why anyone should give you even the time of day...

So the answer is no, of course, you can't think of an example that fits the theory. The Democrats' program is to build prosperity from the bottom up, while the Republicans still believe that you can build prosperity from the top down, despite all of the numerous examples from history of the folly and naivete of that approach. Their ideal system is called 'feudal'.

The answer is not to limit the amount of cash entering the system, but rather to direct it to ends that will result in more of it reaching the bottom, so that it will empower as many folks as possible as it inevitably works its way back to the top.

So we don't want to withhold money from Democratic candidates, we want to actually lavish them with cash so that they can produce a government that works for all, not just for the few.

So: MPs are calling for the police and parliament to investigate the links between the millionaire Brexit donor Arron Banks and the Russian government, after it emerged that he met the Kremlin’s ambassador to the UK three times, rather than once as he originally claimed.

Further down in the piece, Banks says: ...he planned to take a “hostile” approach when giving evidence to the committee. “As far as we are concerned, the committee has been creating fake news,” he said.

Right there he betrays himself.

Yep. In England it looks like they may be getting to the bottom of all this - maybe because England is not yet overrun by collaborators. Hopefully they will go after these Putin-puppets aggressively.

Really? Then tell me when the last time was that Democrats voted as a bloc for big spanking tax breaks for the rich when they didn't have to.

Speaking of big money in politics. ahem.

We actually always suspected that, didn't we? Sorta nice to hear one of them inadvertently blurt the truth once in a while.

The more that Trump insists that he was unaware of any collusion, the more me paints himself as a naif surrounded by wolves. And I am the King of Siam.

Sorry to interrupt the wall-to-wall hamburger and dictator coverage, but this a BFD. The billionaire who funded Brexit (Arron Banks) literally just told Nigel Farage in a live interview that "low level" Russian collusion maybe kinda sorta happened in the Brexit campaign.

Tweetstorm follows: https://twitter.com/RVAwonk/status/1006255372552818688

Key point: Enter Assange. Farage, flush with his Brexit electoral victory, cashed in his prior association with Trump; and Trump with Farage;and Roger Stone in the mix. FSB and GRU were knee deep in the Trump campaign...Assange was the conduit of electoral interdiction, Farage and Stone, the messengers."

Attached is a link to a summary multiple polls asking Americans to prioritize their voting issues (2008-2018). Big Money in politics doesn't win, place or show in any of them...it's too small to warrant mention, although it may contribute to "other" "none of the above" or "not sure" catch-all categories at the bottom of the list.

http://www.pollingreport.com/prioriti.htm

Once again, your reasoning is sloppy and misleading.

I'm sure the pod people will think that's just great.

Larry Kudlow had the good sense to have a heart attack - he may have found a way out of the WH cesspool that offers "cover" before his reputation - such as it was - tanks, like that of every other grifter/criminal/fool that goes to work for the traitor-in-chief.

Nope, you missed it. If the majority of Republicans really want Big Money out of politics, they could stop voting for Republicans who give big spanking tax breaks to big money donors. Democrats don't do that.

This puts the Dems at a perennial fundraising disadvantage, because although tax breaks aren't the only thing that congress can mete out to mollify donors, it is the most effective. As a result, Dems are usually far behind the GOP in fundraising. What we don't need is Democrats self-limiting their donation amounts. We need all that we can get, frankly, just to achieve parity.

Because that's not the way it shakes out in real life, Don. The biggest support for anti-money campaigns have always come from the left, not the right. Think Bernie.

And we just went through a cycle in which the Democratic nominee was successfully tarred with the charge of being a 'big money democrat', leading to enough abstention from the left to throw the election to the Big Orange Clown. We really don't want to do that again.

Concern about big money isn't bipartisan, Don.
See [20] for details.

And Trump's pre-conference unprompted support for Russia re-joining the G7 will be viewed as a big gift to Bob Mueller, not because it will aid that crucial investigation, but rather because it reminded us all of why there is a Mueller Investigation in the first place.

And why we're all left shaking our heads like we've got water in our ears.

Then I guess you missed the part where the Republican party, with the full support of most of their party faithful, gave immense tax breaks and a big wet kiss on the lips to their big money donors. It was informally called 'The Donor Boner Bill', even by its supporters.

So much for bipartisan support for getting big money out of politics. Sometimes Republicans mouth the words you'd like to hear, but trust me, they don't believe a bit of it.

It's beside the point to your direct [18], but I doubt the accuracy of the 37% reduction in milk consumption. Perhaps less fluid milk, but way more yougurt, cheese, etc.

"My party" (Libertarian) doesn't really count, and anyway, we're already in favor of free trade, but actually most Reps are too. It's the party of labor unions (i.e. Your party) that pushes anti-free-trade policies.

Poet

If it's true that Canadian dairy farmers "win big", by keeping out low-cost U.S. imports, that can only be because all the non-dairy farmer Canadians are losing MUCH BIGGER - law of economics.

If Canada were to put a big tariff on FL or CA citrus, potential Canadian orange growers could "win big" by growing oranges in hothouses, but all the rest of the non-orange-growing Canadians would lose MUCH bigger, resulting in a net national loss - same principle as the dairy thing.

OK, if you want the Canadians to cut tariffs, are you also willing to eliminate subsidies to to the U.S. dairy industry? Subsidies and tariffs are two sides of the same coin.

Dairy is a commodity, and, like coal, a commodity that has a shrinking market. We are drinking 37% less milk than we did in 1970. Dairy is also, like coal, environmentally problematic. Why are we concerned about this industry, instead of say, software, robotics, etc.?

Just in: Saints Rita, Jude Thaddeus, Philomena and Gregory of Neocaesarea are unanimous in their heavenly verdicts! "Give it up man! OneDemand isn't hopeless, it's just plain stooopid!"

canada restricts certain elements of trade and wins big. canadian dairy farmers stay in business, and canadian citizens support them. "free trade" dairy farmers in wisconsin are going out of business because there are no regulations to prevent an unstable price cycle.

@neil,

although his attempt at a solution is impractical for the reasons you outlined, don is somewhat right about the paradigm shift from people to money. there is a preponderance among both democrats and republicans who are looking out for the financial interests of their donors, not their constituents. that is why i strongly support NHrebellion and other attempts to reform campaign finance, and don't at all consider them to be a waste of time or effort.

@don,

even if 110% of citizens wanted "Big Money out of politics," no, that would not be sufficient. it's not BS, it's a different dimension of public opinion that your funding model ignores. just about everybody here has tried to explain to you why one demand won't work unless you solve a few fundamental problems, but you seem to see these criticisms or suggestions as "no true scotsman" rather than genuine engagement on the issue.

“Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable — the art of the next best”
-otto von bismarck

Thanks CRS. Can you convince the rest of the clowns in your party of this?

When anybody or anything whatsoever restricts or inhibiits free trade at any and every level (NOT just international), all parties lose!

Individual special-interest groups can gain by restricting free trade (think the UAW if we refused to allow foreign automakers to export cars to us), but the losses to the whole country invariably exceed the gains to the special interest group.

Unfortunately, the special interest groups all have lobbiests distributing "campaign contributions" (aka "bribes") but the general population has no lobbiests

No, it can't. I mean, if we lived in a parallel universe where Americans cared about electoral finance deeply and it was the major voting issue, then it could work.

But in this universe you need to find leverage points on the progressive voting base to get them to give the politicians who actually care about our country in power.

Wasting time and energy on an issue that only motivates the already motivated is pointless, and worse than pointless when there are issues that your time and effort could help to get progressive politicians elected.

You are just on an ego trip. We have a complete idiot in the White House, no oversight from Congress, and enough bigots motivated to vote to keep them there if we don't act effectively.

Strutting around on a hobby horse criticizing everybody else who isn't on your hobby horse isn't helping - it is distracting.

Exactly right, and fear is the through-line in near everything they do, the fear of being exposed as the ignorant, bloviating con artists and frauds that they are. Cameras don't lie and reveal that Justin Trudeau said nothing in his press conference that remotely resembles Trump's version of events, and the meltdown on Twitter is a psychological exercise in projection and classic example of a Trumpertantum.

In their summit, BLOTUS and BLONK allowed only interpreters and no others who could verify what they spoke about. This is the ideal scenario and quite the necessity for cons such as these who thrive on propaganda and the fictional narrative. Is there anyone out there paying attention who doubts that their versions of events will prove to be widely divergent?

So many little green men keep popping up in this story. It has all the attributes of a classic Russian intelligence operation. Trump gets a few days relief in Singapore, but it will all be hanging over him when he gets back home.

CW - I'm begining to suspect that Underpants Gnomes hold key positions in the Trump Admin. How do gnomes get security clearances?

Come to think of it, that is my second and final reaction as well.

Quit the BS that sane progressive policies are equal to the lunacy from the right at the moment because they both happen to use money to get their point of view out.

We get it - there is too much money in politics. But you know what is going to keep that in perpetuity? If one side uses it to win every single election because the other side thinks there are a majority of Americans who care about election finance policies. Find something that people care about and move the dial, the Don Quixote act is getting boring. Once we have sanity in the Supreme Court we can address Citizens United. That is going to take people voting against the current right wing regime.

Every policy seems to be tilted towards Russia's strategic aims - normalization of Putin and discord within the Western Democracies.

Now Dennis Rodman is in Singapore ... wearing a potcoin.com (marijuana financial services) shirt.

The lunatics are running the asylum - this is what happens when a sophisticated country gets taken over by the stupid and willfully ignorant.

JL