ChrisWeigant.com

Three Californias? Don't Hold Your Breath...

[ Posted Wednesday, June 13th, 2018 – 17:25 PDT ]

Primary election season for the 2018 midterms continues apace. Last night, voters in Maine reaffirmed their commitment to their new "ranked-choice" voting system. Two Democrats in Wisconsin proved why Governor Scott Walker was so right to be scared of holding special elections, as two more state-level legislative seat flipped from Republican to Democratic (which makes 44, and counting...). A brothel owner in Nevada won his primary. In Virginia, a man who defended the white supremacists in Charlottesville won the GOP nomination and will take on Senator Tim Kaine. So there's plenty of election news to talk about today. But instead of addressing any of these, I simply have to chime in on the fact that in my home state of California a ballot measure has now qualified for the November ballot which will allow voters to decide whether to support the idea of splitting California into three states or not.

Now, proposals to split up California are nothing new. They've been around for decades, in fact. Geographically, California is huge, even among Western states. It contains the lion's share of the Pacific coast within the contiguous 48 states. It contains beaches, endless forests (including giant trees), spectacular mountains (including volcanoes), stunning National Parks, abundant farmland, enormous deserts, big cities, lakes, rivers, and even tectonic fault lines for extra excitement. There's a lot to California, meaning it's not ridiculous to consider whether it has enough land for three whole states.

Demographically, California is the biggest state in the entire country. Fully one-eighth of the national population lives here. We have 53 congressional districts -- more House members by far than any other state. So we've easily got enough people to make three states, and even then those three states would probably still all be in the top 10 most-populous states.

Most proposals to split California have been limited to splitting the state in two. These have either consisted of a region which essentially wants to secede from the state (the far northern counties have long dreamed of doing this), or proposals for a clean geographic split, probably an east-west line that would cut the state somewhere around the parallel of the Monterey Bay. Some more creative proposals have suggested a north-south division line instead, which would have the benefit of neatly dividing the state on political lines -- putting all the coastal liberal areas in one state and all the inland conservatives in another.

The proposal under question would split the state into three. It's kind of a combination of the two methods described above. First, the state would get split roughly from the Monterey Bay eastward. This new state would be called "Northern California," and would include everything from the San Francisco Bay Area (including San Jose and Oakland) northward to the Oregon line. The southern remainder would then get roughly split on a north-south line, which would carve out Los Angeles and the coastal regions into its own state, leaving a third state which consisted of the bulk of the inland areas as well as the coastline around San Diego. The San Diego part would be known as "Southern California," while the L.A. coastal state would remain just "California." Adding San Diego to the inland portion helps balance the new states out in terms of population (because much of the new Southern California is thinly-populated desert).

While at first glance this might seem a reasonable proposal, it is simply never going to happen. It is a fantasy, plain and simple. One rich guy got a bee in his bonnet and has been trying to get the idea on the California ballot for years (his last proposal would have split the state into six new states!). He finally got enough signatures to do so. Full disclosure: one of those signatures this time around was mine, because I thought it would be amusing to see the state vote on such lunacy. But even if the proposal passes, it is just never going to happen in the real world. Oh, and I won't be voting for it, because I consider the entire idea a very expensive windmill to be tilting at (when the costs of the inevitable lawsuits are factored in).

Say the measure passes, just for the sake of argument. California voters back splitting their state in three. But just because we vote on it doesn't make it reality. Far from it. First, the state legislature would have to approve the measure. Long story short: they won't. Even assuming popular opinion was against them, they would know that splitting the state in three means diminished power for themselves. It's a pure question of self-interest. Secondly, even if they did support the notion, it would be entangled in lawsuits for years to come. How would the state's pension system be split (it's the largest in the country)? Which states would get what amount of the state budget? Who would get the tax money? What about water rights (a very big issue out here)? The number of legal challenges to splitting the state would be overwhelming, and, as mentioned, very expensive to fight.

But again, just for the sake of argument, say that the state legislature agrees to it and all the legal issues get worked out. Even then, it would not become reality. The rest of the country would get to weigh in on the issue, and the rest of the country is never in a million, billion years going to give California four more Senate seats. The idea would be loudly laughed out of Congress, with the peals of merriment quite likely coming from both sides of the aisle.

There are two large reasons why the rest of the country would never go along with the idea, one political and one psychological. The political case is easy to make: the Senate. Now, Californians are indeed incredibly short-changed when it comes to Senate representation. We hold one-eighth of all the seats in the House, but are limited to only one-fiftieth of the seats in the Senate. Each California senator represents 20 million people (half the state's population). Compare that to Wyoming, where each senator represents something like 300,000 people. Californians' power is diluted in the Senate, in other words. So having six senators would reduce the disparity (if the state divided equally in population, each senator would then represent only 6 or 7 million people). But that's merely how people in California see it. The rest of the country sees it differently, to put it mildly. To them, adding four more senators in the various new Californias would be nothing short of a naked power grab. Their own collective influence would be diluted by giving California four more senators, and they would fight against it for that reason alone.

Making the case even more political, California's Senate delegation would likely go from the current two Democrats to a new mix of four Democrats and two Republicans. This is if the new Southern California would be conservative enough to elect Republicans, which isn't even a sure bet. So it could be even more unbalanced -- perhaps five Democrats to a single Republican, or a sweep of six Democrats. Republicans elsewhere are obviously not going to get on board with that. It could be argued: "We'll be adding senators in balance, with two new Democrats and two new Republicans," but it's kind of doubtful whether that would actually convince anyone outside the state.

But the final reason California won't be splitting up any time soon is psychological in nature. The rest of the country has a real love/hate relationship with the Golden State. And even that's being charitable, because often there's not a whole lot of actual love -- if anything, it could be called an envy/hate relationship. The California dream lifestyle is one plenty of Americans consider as somewhat of a fantasy. It's like wondering what it'd be like to live in Neverland, or Oz. Since the post-war period following World War II, the California lifestyle has been both longed-for and mocked, to varying degrees. Add to that the fact that California drives nationwide societal trends in two major ways: Hollywood and Silicon Valley. Movies are made here, as well as the devices you carry around in your pocket. Those are both pretty influential to American culture at large, to state the obvious.

But the envy part of the relationship between California and the rest of the country is waning. Millions of people used to flow in to California on a regular basis, fueling its population explosion since World War II. But that flow has now tapered off, while the flow of people moving out of California has increased. For the first time since the war, in 2010 California got zero new House seats during reapportionment. The state grew, meaning it didn't lose seats, but it didn't grow as fast as other states -- Texas picked up four new House seats, for instance, in 2010. In 2020, California could actually lose a House seat. This isn't that enormous a deal (even at 52 seats it'd still be the largest House delegation by far), but the post-war trend will have reversed.

The hate part of that relationship still exists, as well. I know this is a dated reference, but the feelings of non-Californian Americans towards the state are best exemplified in a series of television ads in the 1980s for wine coolers (remember those?). The ads showed people drinking California wine coolers while ranting about why they hated California. The subtle message was that they didn't hate it enough to stop drinking the wonderful products from the state, but the effect was a kind of national venting on why the flakes and nuts on the left coast were so consistently annoying. And this was long before we elected Arnold Schwarzenegger governor, mind you.

Californians and the California dream lifestyle both annoy the heck out of a whole lot of other Americans. I say this as a non-native Californian, one who was born elsewhere and moved here as an adult, so I've seen both sides of this equation. Californians are considered smug, elitist, full of themselves, shallow, insanely liberal, way too politically correct, and generally clueless about how the rest of the country lives. All of these accusations are true to some extent or another, I have to fully admit. Take just one simple example: most Californians have no idea whatsoever what "winter" means. Most of the state's residents have a very reasonable (for their climate) attitude about snow -- when you feel like playing in the snow, you jump in your car and drive a few hours up to Tahoe. You certainly don't shovel it out of your driveway or anything. Perish the thought!

In general, the attitude of the rest of the country towards Californians can be summed up as: "They've all spent too much time in the hot sun, and it has baked their brains." So why on Earth would anyone support giving four more senators to such lunatics? This, more than any other reason, is why California is not going to split into three states any time soon, no matter what California voters have to say about it in November. The rest of the country simply would not stand for it. So for those either eagerly anticipating (or downright horrified at the prospect of) three Californias, my advice would be simple: don't hold your breath.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

104 Comments on “Three Californias? Don't Hold Your Breath...”

  1. [1] 
    karen rusk wrote:

    I agree, three states just isn't going to happen. Honestly, if California has the kind of enthusiasm to make any such change, I'd vote for us to just become our own country! :-D

  2. [2] 
    Kick wrote:

    Good. :)

  3. [3] 
    TheStig wrote:

    I agree with karen rusk - it would make more sense for CA to become a country...except it's not gonna happen, joining The Union is like entering a political black hole from which there is no realistic chance of a Constitutional escape. Sort of like those famous LA tar pits. Might as well enjoy the wine coolers, beaches, mountains and high prices.

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    California splitting into 3 states is as likely as... as.. Donald Trump being president!! :D

    "Oh puulleeese... Teleportation is as likely as.. as time travel!!"
    -Jeanie Miller, STARGATE ATLANTIS, McKay & Mrs Miller

    :D

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    California splitting into 3 states is as likely as... as.. Donald Trump being president!! :D

    "Oh puulleeese... Teleportation is as likely as.. as time travel!!"
    -Jeanie Miller, STARGATE ATLANTIS, McKay & Mrs Miller

    :D

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    I agree, three states just isn't going to happen. Honestly, if California has the kind of enthusiasm to make any such change, I'd vote for us to just become our own country! :-D

    As would the rest of the country.. :D

    Oh and, by the bi..

    "Welcome to the party, pal!!!"
    -John McClane, DIE HARD

    :D

  7. [7] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "Full disclosure: One of those signatures this time around was mine...."

    What the fuck, CW.

    If you were willing to put your signature on this turd and write an article about it, then you had better put your signature on my Ralph Nader petition, the Giants petition and write about the Nader petition and One Demand.

    And as per the email I sent you yesterday, you'd better do it NOW!

  8. [8] 
    neilm wrote:

    And as per the email I sent you yesterday, you'd better do it NOW!

    Or what, Don? You'll post another 50 comments in this blog?

    You need to separate means from ends. Everybody agrees with your end goal, but your proposal to get there isn't working.

    Find another way. And if that doesn't work, find another. And perhaps to get to the end goal you might need to achieve some interim goals - such as support politicians that are sympathetic to your cause that have a chance to win.

    How about a simple "Voter Bill of Rights" where you outline 3-5 finance reform goals, and ask your local politicians to sign a letter of intent, that, if legislation that supports one of these goals is proposed, they will back it - you aren't asking them to do anything except make a promise - Politicians are good at that. Once you have pleasantly badgered enough politicians in a legislature (start local, work your way up) you can then see if you can find one to propose a bill.

    You can, at the same time, ask people to agree to call their politicians if a bill supporting the "Voter Bill of Rights" comes up - again you aren't asking anything of them up front, just a promise.

    Then when you get a bill you support (even if it only covers one of the articles on the Bill of Rights) you can call in your promises - people don't like to be inconsistent, so you can pleasantly remind people they agreed to vote/call and make it really easy for them to do so.

    Flaming and threatening are not going to work. The above proposal might.

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    Flaming and threatening are not going to work.

    And yet, that seems to be the GO TO for many Weigantians..

    I guess that is acceptable for those who think in "approved" ways...

  10. [10] 
    neilm wrote:

    And yet, that seems to be the GO TO for many Weigantians..

    Cry me a river Michale ...

  11. [11] 
    neilm wrote:

    Michale:

    Your team better close down the Mueller investigation quickly. It is spinning off secondary investigations now and has the potential to become a many-headed-hydra that will be impossible to kill just by cutting off the head (do you think Mueller planned this?).

    After the November elections you might not have a chance to stop the justice system, so you'd better act now.

    I mean, it isn't like the rule of law is important any longer for your team.

  12. [12] 
    neilm wrote:

    Why do Republicans support sanctuary companies? I mean, they get all hot under the collar when a mayor states that they don't want their cops acting as border patrol guards, but they stop the border patrol from doing anything effective about illegal immigration to protect their owners.

    I guarantee you that 5 televised perp walks for CEO, COO or CFOs of large corporations that have an above average number of illegal workers would cause a mass exodus of illegal aliens as well as cut the economic migrants to a trickle.

    The Republican Party support for sanctuary companies is a disgrace and it needs to stop now!

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    Your team better close down the Mueller investigation quickly. It is spinning off secondary investigations now and has the potential to become a many-headed-hydra that will be impossible to kill just by cutting off the head (do you think Mueller planned this?).

    Whatever you have to tell yourself to sleep at night.. :D

    It's funny though..

    Hysterical Democrats attacked and vilified Ken Starr during the Clinton years for doing EXACTLY what you are describing..

    NOW you are all for it..

    Hypocrisy much. :D

    It's ALL about the -D/-R... Nothing else is relevant..

    After the November elections you might not have a chance to stop the justice system, so you'd better act now.

    It's abundantly well documented that the Big Blue Tsunami you have been pinning your hopes on has morphed into a Red Wave... :D

    President Trump is going to be in a BETTER position, politically, after the mid terms..

    Wanna make a wager??? :D

    I mean, it isn't like the rule of law is important any longer for your team.

    This has NEVER been about the rule of law.. This is SOLELY about and has ALWAYS been about nullifying a free, fair and legal election because a bunch of whiney and bitchy sore losers couldn't handle the FACT they they lost the election...

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    Cry me a river Michale ...

    Just the facts.. It's sad to me to see all the support such actions have..

    I had honestly thought you people were better than that..

    It's quite dis-heartening to see I was wrong about that..

    If I travel'ed back in time to Sep 2006 and told the denizens of Weigantia what has become acceptable political discourse in Wegantia 2018;

    1. Extortion

    2. Doxing

    3. Attacking and Doxing Commenters' families

    4. Name-calling..

    5. Attacks based on skin color..

    .... the Weigantians of 2006 would think me daft....

    And yet, the facts are clear...

    Sad.... Really sad to see...

  15. [15] 
    neilm wrote:

    And yet, the facts are clear...

    Well I did ask you to "cry me a river" and you did ;)

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    President Trump is going to be in a BETTER position, politically, after the mid terms..

    Wanna make a wager??? :D

    Anyone else want to make a wager??

    I am putting up that the House and the Senate will remain in GOP hands after the mid-terms..

    Any takers??

    I doubt it.. Ya'all KNOW what a bad track record ya'all have and what a good track record I have when it comes to President Trump... :D

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well I did ask you to "cry me a river" and you did ;)

    Just the facts.... I know, I know.. No one cares about FACTS around here..

    So, no wager??

    "Whatsa matter, McFly?? Got no scrot!?"
    -Thug, BACK TO THE FUTURE PART II

    :D

  18. [18] 
    neilm wrote:

    This has NEVER been about the rule of law

    Then why are the Republicans attacking a Republican investigator? And why are the Republicans trying to close this down?

    If you are right, the Mueller investigation should be the best thing that ever happened to your team. That is why it seems odd that you are trying so hard to stop a Republican from investigating you.

    Remember, if you lose either house in November you are going to have two years of the Democrats verson of Trey Gowdy chasing this day-in-day-out - with investigation after investigation and spin-off investigations - just like Benghazi!!! - you better just hope that, like Benghazi!!! there is no there there.

    somehow, given Trump's financial history I think there is going to be a lot of dirt.

    And this is another reason the Republicans should be supporting Mueller - he isn't leaking or making findings public - do you think the Democratic version of Gowdy is going to be so restrained leading up to 2020?

    A poop storm is coming and most of the poop in it came out of Trump's ass.

    That analogy just put me off my popcorn ;)

  19. [19] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    neilm-
    Thank you for your suggestions. I will continue to do the things you suggested that I have already done and will not follow your suggestions (or advice if you want to call it that instead) if they do not in my opinion seem like good suggestions or fit what I believe should be done.

    That is the nature of suggestions and advice. Just doing what you say would be following orders.

    For example, I will follow your suggestion not to make threats. My comment was a simple comparison between the idea to split California and One Demand.

    There was no threat included. I did include a suggestion on what CW should do.

    This is another example of you seeing what you want to see to fit what you want to believe.

    And whether you want to believe it or not, in my opinion voting for Big Money Democrats (or any Big Money candidates) has not been working and I am suggesting another way that I believe should be tried.

    Perhaps you should follow your own advice and try something different like One Demand.

  20. [20] 
    neilm wrote:

    Wanna make a wager??? :D

    Sure - what's the wager? I usually do a cheeseburger - but that isn't so easy given the continent between us - how about $10 gift card for a burger place of the winner's choice?

    Let's be clear on the rules - I'm predicting that the Democrats win at least one of the branches - house of Reps or Senate - agreed?

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Remember, if

    Yea.. You keep saying *IF*...

    But ironically, ALL YOU HAVE is "if"... :D

    Let's be clear on the rules - I'm predicting that the Democrats win at least one of the branches - house of Reps or Senate - agreed?

    Agreed...

    If I win, you join me in condemning Victoria AKA Kick for her extortion and her attacks and doxing on myself and my family...

    If you win, you can name your price...

  22. [22] 
    neilm wrote:

    Perhaps you should follow your own advice and try something different like One Demand.

    I don't think that big money is the real problem with our government - I think that the real problem is polarization and that is being driven by social causes that are not being addressed at any level at the moment.

    If big money was distorting our politics that we'd see a rush to the middle where large organizations want government to be - they want loose economic policies; sane, stable and simple rules and regulations that they can work within; politicians that don't inflame social issues that impact their business practices (i.e. having to stop advertising on this show or that one because small, stupid issues get blown up to Washington DC level fiascoes; etc.

    When to be concerned about money in politics is when everything is bland and the populace are overwhelmingly in support of one viewpoint. Take Russia as an example of what money in politics really does to a "democracy".

    Sure there is more corruption than there should be, but big money doesn't like corruption - what starts as the rich controlling politicians can quickly become the politicians using the powers of the state to rob the rich - again look at Russia.

  23. [23] 
    neilm wrote:

    If I win, you join me in condemning Victoria AKA Kick for her extortion and her attacks and doxing on myself and my family.

    Getting involved in other people's online battles is a lose-lose and I always stay clear.

    Let's keep it simple - the results of the November election will identify the winner of a cheeseburger. OK?

  24. [24] 
    neilm wrote:

    BTW, to the point of the article, I'm willing to take Chris' side and offer to get on a plane and buy a cheeseburger for anybody who will bet me that California will vote to split in November and actually achieve it within 5 years.

    Note: I have a cheeseburger bet with my friend's son about gun control that ends in 22 years (we made it three years ago for 25 years in the future - he has already forgotten but I have the evidence - I'm like that).

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    Getting involved in other people's online battles is a lose-lose and I always stay clear.

    I never see such reluctance from you when joining the majority around here..

    'S ok... I know that Party slavery is strong.. It's hard to be the sole voice of reason..

    Trust me.. I know....

    Let's keep it simple - the results of the November election will identify the winner of a cheeseburger. OK?

    I'm watching my weight.. :D

  26. [26] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Not that I want to get in on the predictions between Michale and neilm, but as long as we're making predictions I have two.

    1.CW continues to ignore One Demand and no matter what the results between Democrats and Republicans we'll be having the same arguments/discussions about how things keep getting worse and whose fault is in 2020, 2022 and 2024 that we have been having for the last 20-30 plus years.

    And as I predicted that people that previously opposed GWB would be looking back fondly at GWB with Trump as president, people that are opposed to Trump now will begin looking back fondly at Trump when the new president in 2024 is even worse.

    2. CW will write about One Demand and some of the 20-30% of citizens that vote in presidential elections but do not vote in off year elections will participate in One Demand in 2018 rather than waste their vote by not voting.

    This will total anywhere from 5-15% of the vote in 2018.

    This will inspire some of the people that still didn't vote in 2018 to participate in One Demand in 2020. And even some of the 40% that don't vote at all will be inspire to start voting or start voting again and they will participate in One Demand in 2020.

    This will result in many small contribution candidates running in the primaries and general election in 2020.

    By 2022 the victories in 2020 will inspire even more citizens to participate and candidates will have to make the small contribution commitment in order to elected in most congressional districts.

    I think everyone here should take neilm's advice and try something different. As opposing CW writing about One Demand has not stopped me from commenting here, you should all encourage CW to write about it.

    Then if you are all right and I am wrong, my second prediction will not come true and that will be the end if it.

  27. [27] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    neilm-
    I would disagree that Big Money is not a real problem, though it is not the only problem.

    80% of citizens think it is a real problem or they wouldn't want it out. You can say they don't think it is a major problem , but you don't know that any more than I know whether or not they do.

    We don't know if they don't consider it important because of the lack of proper polling to determine how important it is because the Big Money interest are controlling the polling and even if they found that out they wouldn't tell us.

    We don't know if they just feel it is too difficult to get done or if they knew about One Demand that they then might feel that it could get done.

    You cannot honestly discuss the resolution of any other issue without taking into account the influence of Big Money on the issue.

    But please tell me with all your nonsense about why Big Money just isn't a big problem, why would you oppose citizens that were going to waste their vote in 2018 participating in One Demand instead if they feel that Big Money is a problem?

    Should only people that agree with your assessments of money in politics have their voices heard or be encouraged to vote?

  28. [28] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Don H.

    Can't speak for neilm, but for myself, I definitely think that way. Women shouldn't even be allowed to vote, and only men who agree with me should be.

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    I don't think that big money is the real problem with our government -

    You just HAVE to know that such a statement will come back and bite you on the ass.. :D

  30. [30] 
    Paula wrote:

    Blotus and his grifter kids sued by SDNY over his fake charity - he for self-dealing and they for failure to do their oversight jobs as board members. Blotus vows to fight it. That should be fun.

    Meanwhile, the administration has to hold a job fair to try to get WH staff:
    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/06/no-one-wants-to-work-at-the-wh-so-its-having-a-job-fair.html

    Blotus has pictures of himself placed in the signs around the internment camps where children are being imprisoned. They can all look at those pictures and internalize the fat-orange-face of the bastard who ripped them away from their parents and thus will always have a mental graphical representation of evil to fall back on. Hatred for DT is spreading to all corners of the world - he will definitely be a record-holder for that. He will end his life as the most hated man by the most people in the most places in history.

  31. [31] 
    Kick wrote:

    If I win, you join me in condemning Victoria AKA Kick for her extortion and her attacks and doxing on myself and my family...

    OMG!!!!! Cry me a river is right. I live rent free in your head along with Barack "Odumbo" and "Bubba" Clinton.

    You want to condemn the person who posted your personal information and the information of your family? Find a mirror and take a good long look. No one threatened your family, and you "doxed" yourself and your family so I hereby condemn you for that.

    In the meantime, you look pretty stupid whining incessantly about "extortion" and then expecting to be taken seriously as "law enforcement." *LOL*

  32. [32] 
    neilm wrote:

    You just HAVE to know that such a statement will come back and bite you on the ass.. :D

    :)

    So, not interested in the wager then?

  33. [33] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris: And as per the email I sent you yesterday, you'd better do it NOW!

    neilm: Or what, Don? You'll post another 50 comments in this blog?

    OMG! It's extortion! Somebody condemn this NOW!

  34. [34] 
    neilm wrote:

    Don:

    why would you oppose citizens that were going to waste their vote in 2018 participating in One Demand instead if they feel that Big Money is a problem?

    People don't get out of bed to vote because of campaign finance. That is just a fact. I wish they would, but they simply don't.

    Your approach isn't working even here, a place where you have a sympathetic audience (or had, you're getting somewhat confrontational). Learn from that - I gave you a suggestion (not an order) because I try to give constructive feedback.

    Do you think I'm the reason One Demand isn't working?

  35. [35] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    CRS (28)-
    Thank you.

  36. [36] 
    neilm wrote:

    Can't speak for neilm, but for myself, I definitely think that way. Women shouldn't even be allowed to vote, and only men who agree with me should be.

    Thank God for some common sense around here (or whatever deity CRS prostrates himself to, if any).

    I'm not even interested in letting other like-minded 'Y' chromosome holders me vote - I want a one person, one vote democracy - and I'm the one person.

  37. [37] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick-
    Another example of your total lack of comprehension, not only of what I write but what you write.

    You quoted me making an emphatic suggestion to CW and then quoted neilm suggesting that I add an "or else" and imply that I am attempting extortion.

    Delusional.

  38. [38] 
    Paula wrote:

    [37] It sounded like a threat to me:

    then you had better put your signature on my Ralph Nader petition, the Giants petition and write about the Nader petition and One Demand.

    And as per the email I sent you yesterday, you'd better do it NOW!

    I realize you don't have anything to threaten with really, but still.

  39. [39] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    neilm (34)-
    Maybe you don't- but I do.

    And the people that feel it is a problem may or may not. Just because you say people don't doesn't mean it's true.

    As I said before- voting for Big Money candidates isn't working and there is plenty of evidence over the last thirty years to suggest that is true including but not limited to Trump being elected president.

    I never said you were the reason One Demand hasn't worked yet or that you were a reason at all. There is rarely one reason that anything happens.

    But one reason One Demand hasn't worked yet is because we haven't tried it. That kind of guarantees it won't work.

    The same goes for why people haven't joined up. They can't join up if they don't know about it. That's why I keep asking CW to write about it which is following advice form Ralph Nader and many others instead of following yours.

    I do not expect my approach to appeal to you. the question is why do you oppose people that might agree with me from finding out about One Demand?

    Whether you choose to actually engage in reasonable debate or just continue to avoid answering legitimate questions regarding you position on One Demand makes no difference to me.

    But to all but yourself and those here caught in their own delusional bubbles you will expose the lack of substance to your arguments.

    CW, on the other hand, has been more open to considering different ideas in the past and I hope will in the future so I keep encouraging him to do so again and include One Demand.

  40. [40] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    37

    Another example of your total lack of comprehension, not only of what I write but what you write.

    Oh, really?

    You quoted me making an emphatic suggestion to CW and then quoted neilm suggesting that I add an "or else" and imply that I am attempting extortion.

    Thank you for the recap, Don.

    Delusional.

    It was sarcasm, Don; I was kidding. Thank you so much for making my point in the exact manner I anticipated. :)

  41. [41] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Paula-
    That's okay. You can't be expected to understand everything all on your own.

    It started with "if you did this" and ended with "then you should do that". A comment on CW remaining consistent.

    If you take the "then you should do that" out of context it could appear to be a threat- if you really wanted it to, I suppose.

    Hope you understand now that it has been clearly explained to you.

  42. [42] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick-
    So you were actually agreeing with me that I was not making a threat?

    I've got to admit I never considered that was a possibility and it caught me totally off guard.

    My apologies. I clearly misinterpreted that one.

  43. [43] 
    Paula wrote:

    See the receipt from Blotus authorizing using his "charitable" donations to pay off a Mar-A-Lago legal bill.

    https://twitter.com/jonswaine/status/1007276360715382784

    Good times.

  44. [44] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Oh, no. Are we about to have another 'talk about Don' day? Didn't we just have one?

    There's more interesting stuff breaking!

    I've been watching closely the roll-out of the IG Report, since I'm sure there will be some parallels between this roll-out and the future presentation of the Mueller Report.

    And as I predicted, the Administration is getting some early spin out to try to get ahead of it.

    The first leak seems to be a 'new' (i.e., not yet discussed to death on Faux) email between Strunk and Page, the FBI lovebirds who were summarily fired by Mueller once it was learned that they were using DOJ email servers to hide the affair from their spouses. Something about "this will stop Trump from becoming president". Too bad it didn't.

    Also that Comey probably broke some rules with his first lengthy press conference in which he criticized Hillary Clinton while simultaneously announcing that there was nothing to charge her with. Well, duh, we all knew that was weird.

    What I don't hear yet is any evidence that Mueller and his team are inherently biased against Trump, or that the DOJ covered up serious charges that could have been brought against Hillary.

    Trump must be furious.

  45. [45] 
    Paula wrote:

    [44] Balthasar: you beat me to it! Yes, looks like the IG report is going to underline the obvious: Comey broke rules/protocol by doing his disastrous press conference; his conference hurt HRC and helped Trump - although neither outcome was intended by Comey. There's no smoking HRC gun hidden by the FBI or evidence the FBI did anything to hurt Blotus.

  46. [46] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Will Republicans want to investigate the IG now? Maybe that's getting a little bit too far out ahead of things.

  47. [47] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    42

    So you were actually agreeing with me that I was not making a threat?

    I was making a similar point about what "extortion" is and is not.

    I've got to admit I never considered that was a possibility and it caught me totally off guard.

    I can slip up on people like that, Don. It comes from years and years of training.

    My apologies. I clearly misinterpreted that one.

    No apologies. I actually expected it. Thank you. :)

  48. [48] 
    Paula wrote:

    Meanwhile, in the lawsuit against the Blotus foundation we're learning several things:

    From NY AG: Our investigation found that the Trump Foundation raised in excess of $2.8 million in a manner designed to influence the 2016 presidential election at the direction and under the control of senior leadership of the Trump presidential campaign.

    The Trump Foundation also entered into at least five self-dealing transactions that were unlawful because they benefitted Mr. Trump or businesses he controls.

    In light of this misconduct and total lack of oversight, we are also suing to dissolve the Trump Foundation under court supervision and bar @realDonaldTrump and the other members of the Trump Foundation’s Board of Directors from serving on the board of any other New York charity.

    https://twitter.com/NewYorkStateAG/status/1007272628560826368

  49. [49] 
    Kick wrote:

    neilm
    36

    Thank God for some common sense around here (or whatever deity CRS prostrates himself to, if any).

    You just know it's a woman.

    I'm not even interested in letting other like-minded 'Y' chromosome holders me vote - I want a one person, one vote democracy - and I'm the one person.

    Sounds very Trumpian, Neil. Will you be saluting the North Koreans too? ;)

  50. [50] 
    Paula wrote:

    [46] Balthasar:
    "Will Republicans want to investigate the IG now? Maybe that's getting a little bit too far out ahead of things."

    Blotus will probably demand it and he and Hannity will be screaming that the Deep State is lying, blah, blah, blah. I suspect top Repubs will duck because they know they got nuthin'.

  51. [51] 
    Paula wrote:

    I am also seeing people claiming the report says Comey used a private gmail account occasionally to do official business. I'm sure his "extreme carelessness" was different, somehow, from that for which he accused HRC.

  52. [52] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    I suspect top Repubs will duck because they know they got nuthin'.

    Sorta like they all clammed up after seeing proof that there was no FBI 'spy' in the Trump campaign, and no wiretap on Trump Tower.

    Of course those zombie lies are still ambulatory down in Alex Jones world, eating brains.

  53. [53] 
    Paula wrote:
  54. [54] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "Are we going to have another talk about Don Day?"

    I'm not forcing anyone to comment on One Demand, so blame me. I'm just answering.

    But it has generated a lot of comments recently for something that doesn't interest anyone.

  55. [55] 
    Paula wrote:

    [52] Of course those zombie lies are still ambulatory down in Alex Jones world, eating brains.

    Yep.

  56. [56] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula
    43

    See the receipt from Blotus authorizing using his "charitable" donations to pay off a Mar-A-Lago legal bill.

    https://twitter.com/jonswaine/status/1007276360715382784

    Good times.

    Isn't that precious? Tangible evidence of crime.

    There's the proof also that Mueller and the State of New York are working together. They have been for a long, long time. Trump cannot pardon himself and others for crimes against the State of New York, now can he?

    Exactly. :)

  57. [57] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick (47)-

    Well, I can't be expected to understand everything all on my own any more than Paula.

    But this does bring to mind another important point.

    It is another example of something actually happening that seemed impossible until it happened. :D

  58. [58] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    correction to 54
    DON"T blame me. No one here needs encouragement to blame me for anything. :D

  59. [59] 
    Paula wrote:

    I like this quote from Josh Marshall:

    The issue in IG Report is not that it somehow fails to prove Trump's arguments. Democrats need to be on the attack. Because it shows that -whatever the motivations- the FBI and DOJ damaged Clinton dramatically. They're vindicated. She was cheated, mistreated, has a legit beef.

  60. [60] 
    Paula wrote:

    Per statement from Adam Schiff:

    Importantly, the IG confirms that it continues to investigate improper disclosure of non-public information by DOJ and FBI employees involved in the Clinton email investigation and plans to submit a separate report once these investigations are concluded. It will be vital that the IG thoroughly review whether these leaks informed public statements by Trump campaign surrogates, including Rudy Giuliani, who boasted of foreknowledge about DOJ and FBI actions in the weeks prior to election day.

    (https://twitter.com/RepAdamSchiff/status/1007355595714854917)

    The real bastards were the anti-Clinton FBI agents leaking to Giuliani and other DT campaign scumbags. I will be interested in THAT report.

  61. [61] 
    TheStig wrote:

    DH-54

    The "lot of interest" amounts to people asking you to stop flogging a dead horse. You are pitching a product people don't want. Change your product to meet customer needs or move on to a new town. Why is that simple marketing concept so hard for you to grasp?

  62. [62] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Paula [53]: The actual report:

    Interesting Report. But here's the bottom line, helpfully labeled: conclusions.

    1. "While we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative actions we reviewed in Chapter Five, the conduct by [Strzok and Page] cast a cloud over the entire FBI investigation and sowed doubt about the FBI’s work on, and its handling of, the Midyear investigation."

    So, alot of sound and fury signifying: nothing. The IG looked for the slightest bit of bias introduced into the investigation by either agent, and came up empty handed. The IG, however, made clear that it looked really bad. It 'implied' he states, "a willingness to take official action to impact a presidential candidate’s electoral prospects", but is accompanied by not one example of either agent taking any such action. The one thing that is pointed to is "Strzok’s failure in October 2016 to follow up on the Midyear-related investigative lead discovered on the Weiner laptop", but somehow leaves off the end of the sentence the fact that the narrative reveals that everyone in the Agency knew about the emails on the laptop in late September. It wasn't even his call to make, I don't think. By then, the Clinton investigation had been declared officially closed.

    So maybe back to the other theory: Strzok and Page were just blowing off steam. As reasonable as any.

    2."..in key moments, then Director Comey chose to deviate from the FBI’s and the Department’s established procedures and norms and instead engaged in his own subjective, ad hoc decisionmaking. ..by departing so clearly and dramatically from FBI and Department norms, the decisions [made by Comey] negatively impacted the perception of the FBI and the Department as fair administrators of justice."

    Again, the IG says that the worst part is that it might have impacted the 'perception' of the FBI and DOJ.

    The story of the interaction of all of these characters, especially Comey, is dramatically presented, and screenplay-ready. One can almost sympathize with Comey's ultimate decision, but also feel strangely compelled by the interaction between Yates and Lynch when Comey again wanted to go it alone on the letter to Congress. They were afraid to confront Comey directly about his decision, fearing perhaps that to do so would be viewed as interference. There is a lot of talk about how something is 'viewed' or 'perceived' in this document, far less about anything wrong being actually done.

  63. [63] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Kick - 56 As far as I can tell, the State of NY is only pushing this as a civil action, not a criminal one. That seems very discretionary to me. Sort of a warning shot across the bow. What is NY trying to accomplish with this warning - and what is their next move if Trump shrugs, pays the fine and moves on? At some point, somebody is going to have to aim at the masts and rigging to stop this pirate....who seems up to his buccaneers in actionable skullduggery.

  64. [64] 
    neilm wrote:

    Sounds very Trumpian, Neil. Will you be saluting the North Koreans too? ;)

    I'm converting to the dark side.

    Talking of the dark side, there are a series of event today to protest the separation of children from their asylum seeking families:

    https://familiesbelong.org/

    This is not U.S. - we need to remind the world that Trump and his asshole supporters only represent a hate filled minority and are not real Americans.

  65. [65] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Stig [63]: The lawsuit is a predicate for prosecution for tax evasion, which comes later, after Trump is found guilty of these shenanigans.

  66. [66] 
    Paula wrote:

    [62] Balthasar: in the end all of this was a triumph of the rightwing/GOP media machine which has successfully bullied MSM and government into compliance. Rightwingers scream and cry and throw tantrums and assert nonsense and media, in fear of being labeled partisan, treats rw bullshit as legitimate. Except - because it's bullshit and they're afraid to say so - they temporize via bothsiderism. Comey's overriding worry was being hammered by Republicans and conservative propagandists. That overwhelmed everything else. Meanwhile Republican traitors were ACTUALLY being traitors and getting away with it.

    A pox on all of them.

  67. [67] 
    Paula wrote:

    [61] TS: seconded.

  68. [68] 
    Paula wrote:

    This is good: https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2018/06/here-are-three-excerpts-from-the-igs-comey-report/

    He concludes:

    Hillary Clinton’s emails are going to go down in history as one of the great gaslighting campaigns of all time. After it was all over and the full weight of evidence began trickling out, it turned out that pretty much everyone—including the FBI—concluded that:

    * Clinton should have used a State.gov email address for her non-classified messages, but otherwise didn’t really do anything seriously wrong.

    * Confidential material was handled just as carefully by Clinton and her aides as it was in other administrations.

    * Clinton and her aides took care to phrase things carefully when they were using non-secure email—which includes both State.gov accounts and Clinton’s personal email. Again, this is the same as how other administrations have handled this.

    * The FBI’s investigation of Clinton’s email was perfectly reasonable and their conclusions were correct.

    * James Comey should not have editorialized about Clinton when he announced the end of the email investigation in July.

    * He should not have released his October Surprise letter to Congress.

    *No one in the FBI appears to have handled the investigation in a biased way. The one possible exception was the New York field office, which favored Trump and was suspected of being ready to leak news about the Weiner laptop if Comey had kept quiet about it.

  69. [69] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Paula, remember that an structure made of bullshit is easily washed away. Right wingers have always been attracted to demagogues (Wallace, Buchanan, etc), and Trump's celebrity and political strength among the racist right have cowed most moderate Republicans into silence, but George Jr. actually had better approval ratings among Republicans at this point in his presidency, and they all treat him like shit now. Trump's 'movement' is a thousand miles wide but only two inches deep. He'll be as dated as The Macarena two years from now, and have an uphill battle for a second term for sure.

    So that's good news.

  70. [70] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Paula [68]: Well written and accurate summary. Republicans have stayed mostly mum, awaiting talking points...

  71. [71] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'm sure you all remember that refrain that Trump kept on and on and on about throughout the campaign ... the system is rigged, ad nauseam.

    I'm sure this impacted on Comey's thinking about being as transparent as possible. That is especially so when you consider that very few people expected Trump to win.

  72. [72] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Stig (61)-
    I am pitching a product that some people don't want- specifically the people that comment here.

    And the product that the commenters here want is Big Money Democrats which is a product I don't want.

    If the rest of the country agreed with the commenters here there would not be a President Trump.

    As explained in comment 27 and 39 the people that don't want the Big Money Democrats or Trump are the people I am marketing to and to CW as he has been more open to new ideas and approaches and I will continue to encourage him to be again- not to you or the other commenters here.

    Why is that simple concept so hard for you to understand?

    Why do you object to my trying get people that may agree with me from finding out about or participating in One Demand?

    If it is as you say not going to interest anyone then an article by CW would have no effect.

    The only reason you could object is that you fear that other people might actually like the idea and you would no longer be able to feel superior because you support the only other choice besides Republicans.

    Do you lack the confidence in the Big Money Democrats message of we're not as bad as the Republicans that you fear citizens having another option?

    I'm not afraid to find out if I'm wrong- but you sure seem to be.

  73. [73] 
    Paula wrote:

    [72] Why do you object to my trying get people that may agree with me from finding out about or participating in One Demand?

    As TS said, you've made the pitch multiple times and gotten your responses. Time to take it to new pastures since this one is dry.

  74. [74] 
    Paula wrote:

    [70] Balthasar: "Republicans have stayed mostly mum, awaiting talking points..."

    I thought they would do exactly that. This report is not the slam dunk Blotus was expecting AT ALL and the smarter Repubs don't want to go out on shaky limbs. They will wait until FOX and the rest of the machine dig up some quotes from the report - out of context - and do some trial runs. If something sticks at all they'll repeat it. Otherwise they'll hope it fades away like a Devin-Nunes press conference.

  75. [75] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Paula-
    I have gotten responses from the commenters, which were mostly bullshit that fit their ideological bubbles.

    As explained, the commenters are not my target audience for being here.

    CW gave two responses that were also insufficient. But CW claims to be a reality based blogger and a reality based blogger has a responsibility to address reality.

    So I will not stop commenting until CW actually addresses what One Demand is instead of the versions of One demand he did address which in reality were not what One Demand is.

    So if you want me to stop commenting the only way to accomplish this is to encourage CW to address One Demand and the 20-30% of voters that vote in presidential elections but don't vote in off year elections.

    It's time for all of you to take to take it to the new pasture of encouraging CW to write about One Demand because the one where you keep asking(?) me to stop commenting is dry.

  76. [76] 
    Kick wrote:

    TS
    63

    As far as I can tell, the State of NY is only pushing this as a civil action, not a criminal one.

    Operative words there being "as far as I can tell." :)

    They have ample hard evidence in the form of his signature "under penalty of perjury" along with his past settlements for nonpayment of taxes to pursue a criminal action. Fact.

    So the State of New York could simply obtain sealed indictments and pursue this action after Trump is no longer BLOTUS. It's not like he can pardon himself or his co-conspirators (the Trump spawn) for crimes against the State of New York, now is it? I believe that is what Mueller would advise... if you know what I mean. :)

    What is NY trying to accomplish with this warning - and what is their next move if Trump shrugs, pays the fine and moves on?

    I do not believe for a single second that this is a warning. Campaign laws were violated too... federal ones. Ooops. :)

  77. [77] 
    Kick wrote:

    neilm
    64

    I'm converting to the dark side.

    Well, you did become a U.S. citizen so I believe I see your point there.

    Talking of the dark side, there are a series of event today to protest the separation of children from their asylum seeking families:
    https://familiesbelong.org/

    But, Neil... the little elf and the mouthpiece in pearls insist they're being Christ-like.

    This is not U.S. - we need to remind the world that Trump and his asshole supporters only represent a hate filled minority and are not real Americans.

    Amen. You know something is FUBAR in America when they're blaming their Trumpian policy on nonexistent laws that they claim are justified by Biblical scripture. Pathetic. It will come to pass that Trump too shall pass. :)

  78. [78] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthy
    65

    Stig [63]: The lawsuit is a predicate for prosecution for tax evasion, which comes later, after Trump is found guilty of these shenanigans.

    Balthy is correct. Also consider the possibility that the sealed indictments I have been posting about for a long, long time actually do exist... because they do. :)

  79. [79] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula
    68]

    Awesome summary. Dead on. :)

  80. [80] 
    neilm wrote:

    Amen. You know something is FUBAR in America when they're blaming their Trumpian policy on nonexistent laws that they claim are justified by Biblical scripture. Pathetic. It will come to pass that Trump too shall pass. :)

    Wisdom. Thanks. Needed that.

  81. [81] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Kick-76

    I take your point, but the sealed indictment approach comes with a 2 to 6 year minimum delay. That's ignoring vital repairs for a long time.

    Go for state tax evasion. Bloti McBlotus can't pardon himself for that. Or other state laws offering up hard time. The law may be an ass, but it's also a hydra. Also, state prisons tend to be nastier than Fed. That would affect Trump's calculus. Maybe lead to to a Nixon style resignation. I would see that as good outcome, even factoring in a few years of Pence. Uuuuuhhhh.

  82. [82] 
    TheStig wrote:

    73- DH. You offer up a false dichotomy. Commentators around here don't want big money politics. They simply conclude your solution won't work, because the contracts upon which it depends can't be enforced except at the ballot box - which is exactly the problem we voters face now. Put bluntly, they don't want to invest their time and effort into what they perceive as a faulty product. Your game theory has no teeth...so stop flapping your gums until you can offer up something with real teeth or at the very least high quality dentures that can chew.

  83. [83] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Stig (82)-

    It's seems without realizing it that you are beginning to understand.

    "They simply conclude your solution won't work, because the contracts upon which it depends can't be enforced except at the ballot box."

    You are correct that it is more about the votes than the money.

    But if you are saying that voting is not an important way to hold politicians accountable and using votes to influence politicians and hold them accountable can't work, then I think you have reached the wrong conclusion because you are saying democracy can't work.

    Again , the issue at hand is the people that vote in presidential elections but are not going to voter in 2018 participating in One Demand in 2018 instead of wasting their vote by not voting.

    These are people that do not want to invest their vote in what they believe to be the faulty product being offered by the Big Money Democrats or Republicans.

    They are people already registered to vote and they do vote in presidential elections.

    They do not need to invest any money in 2018 and only have to take a small amount of time to register at the website and vote in November.

    THAT'S IT.

    So stop flapping your gums until you actually address the points I make and the issue at hand and explain why you think democracy can't work.

  84. [84] 
    Kick wrote:

    TS
    81

    I take your point, but the sealed indictment approach comes with a 2 to 6 year minimum delay. That's ignoring vital repairs for a long time.

    Go for state tax evasion. Bloti McBlotus can't pardon himself for that. Or other state laws offering up hard time. The law may be an ass, but it's also a hydra.

    Yes, sir... exactly right... and in the meantime you indict and prosecute the co-conspirators for federal and state crimes, with the unavoidable side effect that Bloti McBlotus [LOL, love it] gets tried in the Court of Public Opinion while the co-conspirators are being "shaked and baked" for their unpardonable "sins."

  85. [85] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    83

    So stop flapping your gums until you actually address the points I make and the issue at hand and explain why you think democracy can't work.

    Don, no one is required to address your points. Let that permeate. :)

  86. [86] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick-
    No one is required to address my points, but when people make false claims about One Demand or provide a ridiculous argument against One Demand I am allowed to respond and call for them to back up their statements.

    They can avoid the issue at hand with whatever excuse they want, but it only exposes that they cannot defend their argument.

  87. [87] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Speaking of addressing issues-

    Stig has asserted that the commenters here have concluded that One Demand "won't work because the contracts it upon which it depends can't be enforced except at the ballot box."

    Do you all agree with that statement by Stig? (Taking into account my response in comment 83 and how avoiding the issue will appear as described in comment 86)

    It may not bother any of you when someone makes a statement about what I believe that may not be true as many of you have no problem doing it yourselves, but this is Stig making a statement about what you believe so I thought I should point it out in case it bothers you.

    Stig also claimed that the commenters here "do not want big money politics."

    Was he right about that?

    If so, then why do so many of you keep voting for Big Money candidates?

  88. [88] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    CW-
    And speaking of people making statements about what other people believe, while you have been ignoring me, many of the commenters have made statements about why you will not address One Demand, including but not limited to that you have already answered me or that not answering is an answer.

    I have then responded with some theories on why you haven't answered and some statements about how i feel you have not answered me because the answers you did provide did not address what One Demand is.

    Could you please address why you have not addressed One Demand properly yet so we can find out directly from you instead of only being left with speculation from other people?

  89. [89] 
    TheStig wrote:

    "if you are saying that voting is not an important way to hold politicians accountable and using votes to influence politicians and hold them accountable can't work, then I think you have reached the wrong conclusion because you are saying democracy can't work."

    I am not saying that. I am saying something similar to what Winston Churchill said, which he probably borrowed and improved from somebody else*.

    "No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

    I favor strategies that offer a good prospect of improving representative government. I have evaluated your concept and have found it wanting. It boils down to another variant of spoiler politics, which plays into the hands of big money politicians who adore divide and conquer strategies. I see you as a boiler room operation, minus a working boiler. You have signed up 6 people the last time checked....and I can't even be sure those 6 are real.

  90. [90] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    86

    No one is required to address my points,

    Fact.

    but when people make false claims about One Demand or provide a ridiculous argument against One Demand I am allowed to respond and call for them to back up their statements.

    You are asking him to "back up" his opinions when you have refused repeatedly to do that yourself.

    They can avoid the issue at hand with whatever excuse they want, but it only exposes that they cannot defend their argument.

    Pot-Kettle, Don. :)

  91. [91] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Stig-
    BULLSHIT.

    That is exactly what you said.

    And by responding by avoiding the issue you have proven that your argument has no credibility.

    One more time for the conceptually challenged-
    It is not about whether you believe it can work.

    That has been established and I am not arguing that point.

    The issue at hand is about the people that have evaluated voting for the Big Money Democrats or Republicans and have found that strategy wanting. Specifically those that would not vote in 2018.

    It is about whether CW as a reality based blogger has a responsibility to address this reality and whether he should inform the citizens in question about One Demand so they can decide if they want to participate.

    So how exactly, if some of these citizens that would not vote in 2018 participated in One Demand would it not be a good thing? What harm would it cause?

    How exactly is it spoiler politics when the citizens in question would be wasting their votes by not voting if they didn't participate in one Demand?

    How exactly does it play into the hands of Big Money politicians?

    Seems to me to be just the opposite of what Big Money politicians want- 5,10,15% of the vote in 2018 consisting of citizens casting write in votes to create and demonstrate demand for small contribution candidates in 2020 and creating the basis for a national organization to support small contribution candidates.

    And how is this divide and conquer when all citizens can use this to work together on on all parties and candidates on one common issue no matter what they believe about other issues?

    The amount of people signed up would be a valid point if this idea had been discussed in the media at all over the last few years.

    But people can't sign up if they don't know about it. Until they do it is still possible they if they find out about it they will sign up.

    Once again I have addressed every bullshit point you raised and you have avoided defending them choosing instead to repeat ridiculous claims that have already been debunked or switching off to a new excuse.

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

  92. [92] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    87

    Do you all agree with that statement by Stig?

    I believe we all believe TS can read and is entitled to his opinion. :)

    Stig also claimed that the commenters here "do not want big money politics."
    Was he right about that?

    See above.

    If so, then why do so many of you keep voting for Big Money candidates?

    Why do you keep voting for them, Don?

    It may not bother you when someone makes a statement about what "so many" of us do that may not be true as you have no problem doing it yourself, but this is you making a statement about what "so many" of us do so I thought I should point it out in case it bothers you.

  93. [93] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick (90)-
    Bullshit.

    I have backed up what I say.

    The evidence is there in black and white (or black and blue depending on the background of the comment).

    Just because you choose not to see it or ignore it doesn't mean it is not there.

    Thank for acknowledging that you you cannot back up your argument by once again avoiding the issue and trying to distract with a false equivalency argument that does not stand up to scrutiny.

    Care to double down again or are you ready to defend your position?

  94. [94] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick-
    "I believe we all believe that TS can read and is entitled to his opinion." "see above."

    Cop out. Once again you avoid the issue. What courage!

    I have voted for Big Money sometimes, but most of the time I vote for a small contribution candidates that is closer to what I want than the Big Money Democrats or use the write in slot to register a vote against the Big Money candidates.

    That question is you just making stuff up and like the rest of your comment that follows just "I know you are- but what am I?"

    Very Pee Wee Hermann and on the same intellectual level.

  95. [95] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Apparently Kick is okay with commenters making statements about what other commenters believe because she said in comment 92 you all believe TS can read and is entitled to his opinion.

    Do you all agree with what Kick says you believe?

    If so, then why am I not entitled to my opinion?

  96. [96] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    CW-
    On a semi-related note, even if you can't find the time to address One Demand or the 20-30% of citizens that vote in presidential elections but don't vote in off year elections, you really need to find the time to watch "Idiocracy".

    Then you will be able to truly understand how while I wait for you to address One Demand, etc., I feel like Joe (Not Sure) trying to explain to President Camacho's cabinet why the crops should be irrigated with water instead of Brawndo in what passes for discussion here.

  97. [97] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    93

    Thank for acknowledging that you you cannot back up your argument by once again avoiding the issue and trying to distract with a false equivalency argument that does not stand up to scrutiny.

    I simply took your argument about TS and applied it to your own argument. If you think your own argument is avoiding the issue, then at last we've identified the problem: YOU! :)

  98. [98] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    95

    Apparently Kick is okay with commenters making statements about what other commenters believe because she said in comment 92 you all believe TS can read and is entitled to his opinion.

    No I did not, you lying piece of spit. I said:

    I believe we all believe TS can read and is entitled to his opinion.

    You then quoted me in 94 verbatim... So what part of I believe is confusing at all? You are either incapable of comprehending the English language or you're a liar... or both.

    Over and out.

  99. [99] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick-
    It doesn't make much difference if you say I believe before you make the assumption of what other people believe, you are still making an assumption of what other people believe.

    It doesn't change my question to everyone else if they believe what you say you believe they believe.

    As for taking my statement and trying to turn it back on me- not even close. In what way am I avoiding any issue? I have answered every point made.

    In order to turn something back on me it has to actually be real and not just whatever you want to make up to once again avoid addressing the issue at hand.

    Pussy.

  100. [100] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I hope the Don and Kick show stays on this thread and doesn't find its way to the rest of this blog.

    If for no other reason than the boring nature of the tedious back and forth.

    I'm sure there is a place for this sort of thing but it ain't here.

  101. [101] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz-
    Well I have to do something to keep busy until CW mans up and addresses One Demand.

    That has been a simple solution to this situation right from the beginning.

  102. [102] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Your tactics are not a winning strategy.

  103. [103] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Actually, the tactic of doing what I was asked and being nice was not a winning strategy- CW still ignored me, I was still attacked by other commenters for doing what I was asked and have endured misinterpretations and misrepresentations of my positions and other assorted bullshit.

    Since I was advised to change my tactics that were not working by several commenters, I tried taking their advice and changed tactics. Of course, I did not follow their advice exactly which was to stop commenting- but I did follow it in principle.

    Perhaps you should try a different tactic and work on solving the problem at it's source- encourage CW to address One Demand which could have resulted in avoiding all of this had it been done as it could have been done at any point since 2015.

    Do you not feel that someone claiming a reality based blog should be called to task for ignoring reality?

  104. [104] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Try something new.

Leave a Reply

[If you have questions as to how to register or log in, to be able to post comments here, or if you'd like advanced commenting and formatting tips, please visit our "Commenting Tips" page, for further details.]

You must be logged in to post a comment.
If you are a new user, please register so you can post comments here.

[The first time you post a comment (after creating your user name and logging in), it will be held for approval. Please be patient (as it may take awhile). After your first comment has been approved, you will be able to post further comments instantly and automatically.]