ChrisWeigant.com

Friday Talking Points [490] -- Full Court Press

[ Posted Friday, June 29th, 2018 – 17:04 PDT ]

Liberals had a very bad week at the Supreme Court last week. There's no denying it. Almost all of the final decisions of the year went against them, and that was before the news of Justice Anthony Kennedy's impending retirement hit Washington like a bombshell. Fears that President Donald Trump will pick an ultra-conservative to replace him mean that bedrock decisions such as Roe v. Wade are now hanging in the balance. Democrats are vowing to fight hard against the next justice's confirmation, but this is quite likely a fight they are going to lose.

Mitch McConnell's naked hypocrisy is on full display in the middle of this fight. McConnell once swore fealty to the notion that the voters should weigh in on such an important manner (when Obama was in the Oval Office), but now he's singing a different tune, swearing he will act so hastily that the voters will not be able to weigh in on the matter. And since he abolished the filibuster for Supreme Court justices, the Republicans could indeed confirm someone before November -- or, at the very least, before January (even if the Democrats pull off a miracle and take back control of the Senate, the new Congress won't be seated until after the first of the year, leaving the lame duck Senate two final months to act).

There are a handful of senators whose votes are not certain, from both sides of the aisle. The importance of abortion rights makes this an even higher profile decision than is normal for a Supreme Court appointment. On the Republican side are two women who support Roe v. Wade as settled law: Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. There are also a handful of GOP senators who are stepping down and therefore do not have to fear the wrath of the voters. Someone like Jeff Flake could decide to end his Senate career by denying Trump a second pick, but this is less likely than Collins or Murkowski deciding to vote no.

On the Democratic side are all the senators from states that Trump won who are up for re-election this year. Some of them voted for Neil Gorsuch's confirmation, meaning they might be persuaded to vote with Trump this time around as well. The fact that this vote will likely take place right before the election must weigh heavy on their minds, to put it mildly.

The partisan divide in the Senate hangs on a knife edge, currently. While the GOP has a nominal 51-49 advantage, in practical terms this is only a 50-49 lead, since John McCain is physically unable to travel to Washington to cast his vote. With a 50-49 split, Republicans can't lose a single vote, unless they pick up a corresponding aisle-jumper from the Democrats.

This all sets up a historically epic confirmation battle. But, just to be realistic here, it is a battle that Trump is quite likely to win in the Senate. How it will play out in the wider political arena is yet to be known, though. Abortion was already a white-hot wedge issue, and this is only going to turn up the heat. It will motivate voters on both sides of the issue, quite likely, meaning the big question is which side it might motivate more. This is all going to play out, all summer long. As we wrote earlier this week, perhaps this will be the issue that teaches Democrats to value Supreme Court picks as a motivating force in presidential elections as much as Republican voters already do.

In non-court news, Republicans this week proved once again that they are the party of: "Government doesn't work -- elect us and we'll prove it!" For a second time in as many weeks, a Republican-written immigration bill (the misnamed "compromise" bill) went down in flames, with only 121 Republicans voting for it. Every Democrat voted against it, which is no surprise since they were completely locked out of the process of drafting it. Paul Ryan, to the end, is going to stay faithful to the "Child Molester's Rule" (formerly known as the "Hastert Rule") by only bringing up partisan legislation which will fail rather than working with Democrats to create legislation that can pass.

In Ryan's home state, Harley-Davidson announced that, due to the Trump trade war tariffs, it would be moving production out of the United States. This will allow them to avoid both the U.S. tariff on steel and aluminum as well as the European tariff on motorcycles. Trump, upon hearing this news, went ballistic. According to him, to be a patriotic American company means supporting Trump in everything he does, even when it slams the company's bottom line. What Trump failed to mention (of course) is that most Trump brand products are also made overseas. Why he gets such a gigantic pass on this inconvenient fact from his supporters remains a mystery. After all, if it's good enough for Trump ties and Ivanka's stuff to be made overseas, why not Harleys?

Buried in the petulance from Trump over Harley-Davidson was this other factoid from the heartland:

Mid-Continent Nail of Poplar Bluff, Mo., the largest U.S. nail manufacturer, cut 60 jobs on June 15 and plans to lay off an additional 200 workers in a few days, citing plummeting sales following the imposition of Trump's tariffs on metals. The company said it may not survive past Labor Day if it doesn't get relief from the tariffs.

Steel prices in America have gone up, meaning Chinese nail manufacturers can undercut American ones. This is basic trade war economics, folks. Even Republicans are beginning to push back on Trump's trade war. Today, Canada announced it will be levying tariffs on ketchup, which was aimed squarely at Heinz. Last week, Pat Toomey tried to explain the facts of life to the Trump administration, to no avail:

Republican Sen. Patrick J. Toomey of Pennsylvania, where Kraft Heinz is based, told U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross at a Senate hearing last week that he's worried about the effect of the Canadian tariff on the company's U.S. ketchup production in Fremont, Ohio.

"The solution for them to be able to continue to sell their product in Canada would be to shut down their U.S. factory and move it to Canada," Toomey said. Ross didn't respond.

But, of course, according to Trump, "trade wars are easy!"

In other news of outright delusion from Trump administration officials, Larry Kudlow just claimed that the federal deficit is "coming down rapidly." This is not actually true (the deficit is expanding rapidly under Trump's agenda), but that doesn't keep Kudlow from believing it. Kudlow is Trump's top economic advisor, it bears mentioning.

The first of Paul Manafort's criminal cases will be moving forward, after a judge in Virginia overruled an effort by Manafort's lawyers to toss the case out. This case could actually take place before the midterms, so it will be politically charged from beginning to end.

Let's see, what else is going on? A bill has been introduced in the House which would pave the way for Puerto Rico to become the 51st state. It is already supported by 14 Democrats and 20 Republicans, which is a good initial indication of bipartisanship, but its chances for passage are anything but certain.

The Bernie Sanders wing of the Democratic Party had a good primary night on Tuesday, from one exceptional race in New York (more on that in a moment) to two other significant victories. In Maryland, former head of the N.A.A.C.P. Ben Jealous won the nomination in the governor's race, and in Colorado Representative Jared Polis was likewise nominated for his gubernatorial race. Voters in Oklahoma (!) approved medical marijuana, as well.

We'll end for now on the most bizarre story of the week. Senator Joe Manchin broke at least one of Senator Claire McCaskill's ribs this week, but the story actually has a happy ending. They were both attending a lunch when McCaskill started choking on her food. Manchin successfully performed the Heimlich maneuver on her, but one possible side effect is always a cracked rib or two. McCaskill apparently didn't realize this had happened, and Manchin was unaware of it until informed later. McCaskill is back on her re-election campaign trail, but she is telling supporters that for now she must refuse their offers of hugs, for medical reasons. So while the story's headline could have been: "One Senator Breaks Bones Of Another," it was actually good news all around.

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

This one was pretty easy, this week. The Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the 28-year-old Latina who comfortably beat the fourth-ranking Democrat in the House this week in a New York primary election. An old white guy got beat by an energetic young woman of color, and his overwhelming money advantage didn't help him one bit. Her reaction to being announced the winner on election night (which was caught on camera) is astonishment so genuine that is downright heartwarming to watch.

This should give other senior (in two senses of the word) Democratic leaders pause for thought. However, Nancy Pelosi seemed a bit dismissive of Ocasio-Cortez, commenting that it was just "one district."

In an interview after her victory, Ocasio-Cortez responded:

Yeah, well, you know, I think that we're in the middle of a movement in this country. I feel this movement, but that movement is going to happen from the bottom up. That movement is going to come from voters. There are a lot of really exciting races with extremely similar dynamics as mine. It's not just one district.

. . .

I do think that we do need to elect a generation of new people to Congress in both parties. Some of the issues that we even have today may have to do with some of the calcified structures and relationships.... In certain seats where it's appropriate, I think a new leaf can actually mean a lot of opportunity for the party and our future. This is about diversity as well. We have to have a diversity of age represented in Congress, too.

Well said. Ocasio-Cortez ran a brilliant campaign, which began with a brilliant introductory campaign video. In it, she predicted victory in the face of a tough imbalance, saying of her opponent: "He has the money, but we have the people." That is a recipe that can work, as she just proved this Tuesday, even against a man who was being spoken of as a possible replacement for Pelosi (if she couldn't get enough support to be speaker again).

Joe Crowley didn't help his own cause by apparently phoning in his campaign. He didn't even show up for a debate with Ocasio-Cortez, which indicates a certain level of disdain for the voters in his district. Ocasio-Cortez ran as an unabashed Democratic Socialist, and based her campaign on an agenda Bernie Sanders could have written: Medicare for all, free college tuition, and a federal jobs guarantee.

She took on Crowley because he was "a corporate Democrat" who wallowed in PAC money. He voted for the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, the Iraq war, and for a bill that created a bankruptcy board for Puerto Rico's debt. Ocasio-Cortez tweeted how that last one was personal to her: "My grandfather died in the storm. Your acts shut schools and starved public services when we needed them the most."

Ocasio-Cortez ran a flawless campaign, from her excellent introductory ad to her campaign posters and buttons to her tireless efforts to pound the pavement and turn out the voters. She was outspent by a factor of more than 10-to-1, and she still won with a comfortable margin.

Speaking of margins, 78 percent of the NY-14 district she's running in voted for Hillary Clinton. Clinton beat Trump here by 58 points. In other words, the general election is going to be just a formality. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is going to be sworn in as a member of the House next January. And she's only 28 years old. This week, she is also -- easily -- our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week.

[As a rule, we do not link to campaign sites, so you'll have to do your own search for contact information for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, if you'd like to congratulate her.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

This week, the question of how much is too much in pushing back on the Trump administration loomed large in Washington. This is mostly one of those inside-the-Beltway things, where pundits all simultaneously clutch at their pearls and try not to swoon at something they feel is unseemly.

What set the collective set of the vapors off was a restaurant owner in Virginia who politely told Sarah Huckabee Sanders that she wasn't welcome to eat there. This set off a frenzy of reaction from both Huckabee Sanders and the rest of the Trump administration, which fell rather flat.

To put it simply, when you and the man who leads you continually wallow in the mudslinging with joy and abandon, then this absolutely precludes you from any attempt at taking a moral high road. This is why the first lady's anti-cyberbullying campaign is such a tasteless joke. As many comedians have pointed out, the pertinent question to ask Melania is: "Have you met your husband?" Likewise, the attempt by Huckabee Sanders to get up on her high horse over the incident is simply not believable or credible. Because Trump has already proven beyond a shadow of a doubt where he stands on civil discourse, politeness, and tolerance for others' political beliefs. As if to drive this point home, Sarah's father Mike Huckabee sent a vicious tweet out this week aimed at Nancy Pelosi. So it's pretty tough for Sarah to argue for civility when her own dad is out there being such a bad example. To say nothing of Trump, for that matter.

But what really lit the fire was Representative Maxine Waters, who responded forcefully to the story, exhorting her followers:

The American people have put up with this president long enough. What more do we need to see? What more lies do we need to hear? If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd, and you push back on them!

In a later interview, Waters clarified her remarks:

[Trump] loves the strongmen and the dictators of the world because he wants to be just like them. He wants to run the country like them. And I want to tell you, for these members of his Cabinet who remain and try to defend him, they're not going to be able to go to a restaurant, to be able to stop at a gas station, to be able to shop at a department store. The people are going to turn on them, they're going to protest, they're going to absolutely harass them until they tell the president: "No, I can't hang with you."

Now, to be absolutely clear, Waters' statements can be read as nothing more than a vigorous application of everyone's First Amendment rights, both to free speech and to let their government know what they think. But her statements, especially the first one, can also be read another way, if you read "push back on them" as literal. This crosses over from free speech to physical intimidation, which no politician should ever espouse.

People are getting gunned down on a regular basis in this country. The most recent example was the cold-blooded murder of five journalists in Annapolis, Maryland. Resisting the Trump administration is everyone's right (some would say duty), but there should be a very bright line that is never crossed in this resistance. By week's end, the story took an even uglier turn, as Waters was forced to cancel events due to plausible death threats being made against her.

We have no idea what Maxine Waters initially meant by her comment, as we do not possess the ability to read minds. But this is not a time for ambiguity. As a politician, Waters knows her words have weight. What she said gave the other side of the political divide an opportunity to point fingers and accuse Democrats of supporting anarchic violence (while their own side is issuing death threats to Waters, mind you). For leaving herself open to such accusations by a poor choice of words (or, even worse, by advocating physical violence), Maxine Waters has to be considered the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week.

We do understand that it's tough to take all the outrageous actions by the Trump administration lying down. We personally aren't calling for politeness above all, and we fully agree with the sentiments in our final talking point this week. But there still should remain that hard, bright line which political discourse should never cross.

[Contact Representative Maxine Waters on her House contact page, to let her know what you think of her actions.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 490 (6/29/18)

OK, a mixed bunch this week. As promised, we end with an excellent (and extended) excerpt in response to all the impoliteness this week. We begin on a positive note as well. So with no further ado, here are this week's talking points for your consumption.

 

1
   Money isn't always everything

We're going to start out on a very positive note.

"Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez just proved once again that money isn't always everything in politics. On a shoestring budget, she just defeated a 20-year veteran of the Democratic Party machine, even though he spent a pile of dough in his effort to win the primary race. This is good news for everyone who cares about representational government representing actual voters rather than just deep-pocket donors and super PACs. If it can happen to the fourth-highest-ranking member of the Democratic House caucus, then it can happen to any Democrat, anywhere. Democrats who care more about raising money than their own constituents have now been put on notice. The voters are not in a politics-as-usual mood this year. They want people who look like them and will fight for them. No matter how much campaign cash they've raised."

 

2
   High road not available, sorry

It is to laugh, no?

"Donald Trump's administration is laughably trying to take some sort of moral high road, claiming that those unruly Democrats are exceeding the bounds of propriety. I will pause here, so everyone can pick themselves up from rolling around laughing on the floor. Donald Trump in his very first appearance as a candidate, called Mexicans 'rapists,' and the list of slime and sleaze that has come out of his mouth and off his Twitter fingers since then is simply too long to review here. Just look at how he's treated John McCain, and that tells you pretty much everything you need to know. Any member of Trump's administration who attempts to take the moral high road on any issue whatsoever involving politeness should be confronted by a giant road works sign saying: 'This route closed to you -- turn around and go back to the swamp road instead.'"

 

3
   Trump lies about soldiers' remains

Following up on that previous thought....

"Donald Trump is now telling lies about dead American soldiers' remains. He has stated that 200 bodies have come back from North Korea, but in fact none have so far. Now just for one tiny moment imagine what Republicans would have said if Barack Obama had made such an obvious misstatement. They would have hit the roof, wrapped themselves tightly in the flag, and denounced Obama for 'disrespecting American heroes.' And that's just the nicest thing they would have said, when you think about it. However, when Trump lies about brave soldiers' remains being repatriated, what do we hear from Republicans? Absolute silence. Nada. Disrespecting dead soldiers' families is now par for the course for Trump and all his enablers, folks. There's no other way to put it."

 

4
   Not who we are

The chaos continues at the border, in the jails, and in the courts.

"A federal judge ruled this week that all children ripped from their parents' arms at the border and jailed thousands of miles away must be reunited with their families. Of course, he wouldn't have had to rule on this if the Trump administration hadn't singlehandedly created the crisis in the first place. The judge also wouldn't have had to rule if the Trump administration had actually reunited all the families. At the end of last week, we were told that over 500 children had been reunited with their parents. Since that time, we have not heard a peep about the other thousands of children. Rather than increasing the number on a daily basis while families were reunited, the Trump administration has apparently gone nowhere all week long. Hence, the court ruling. Trump himself is annoyed by the whole 'due process' thing, and is unconstitutionally calling for people to be removed from America without any court proceedings at all. Also revealed this week was that children down to the age of three years old are being tried in courtrooms without their parents being there. This is beyond Orwellian, it has crossed over into Kafkaesque territory. It needs to be said by everyone who is disgusted by the actions of the Trump administration -- this is not who we are, as Americans. Please stop this inhumane policy being carried out in all our names -- now!"

 

5
   What about those Trump ties?

Things aren't going according to Trump's plan, trade-wise.

"When a company is hit with tariffs going and coming, then the obvious answer for them is to move production to where neither tariff applies. This is precisely what Harley-Davidson decided to do this week, since they are now paying for Trump steel and aluminum tariffs as well as their motorcycles being hit with a tariff entering the European market. So they're going to make their bikes elsewhere, which avoids both problems. Donald Trump was apoplectic upon hearing this news, because he sees it as some sort of personal betrayal. He's now leading the effort to get Harley customers to walk away from the company, which is an extraordinary position for a president to take. But what I wonder is why he gets such a free pass on the stuff Trump and his family sell? I mean, both Trump and Ivanka have factories in China and elsewhere turning out their ties and clothing. Why is Trump allowed to make his stuff in foreign countries while calling on other companies to keep their factories here at home? Trump is finding out that trade wars are nowhere near as easy to win as he had thought, and it will likely cost a whole bunch more American jobs before he fully faces up to the mess he's made."

 

6
   Oklahoma, OK!

Stephen Colbert coined the term "Tokelahoma" this week. That's all the intro this one really needs.

"Oklahoma just voted to legalize medical marijuana use in the state, becoming the 30th state to do so to date. Oklahoma is about as deep red a state as can be imagined, but even there the voters are sick and tired of the destruction caused by the War On Weed. Marijuana reform activists are now considering a ballot measure which would legalize recreational use as well. In Oklahoma, for Pete's sake! Someone alert Merle Haggard, because the lyrics of 'Okie From Muskogee' are going to need a rewrite. The song famously begins: 'We don't smoke marijuana in Muskogee,' but that obviously isn't going to be true for much longer...."

 

7
   Don't get mired in paralysis by analysis

Our final talking point is an extended excerpt from an excellent article in the Washington Post by Eugene Robinson. In it, he pushes back on the pearl-clutching over Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Maxine Waters, and all the rest of it. The entire article is well worth reading, but the following stood out as the right way to thread the needle between outrage and inciting violence:

Let me get this straight. President Trump and his associates treat politics like a back-alley knife fight but his critics are supposed to pretend it's a garden party? I don't think so.

Those who see the Trump administration as an abomination have many things to spend their time worrying about -- most urgently, turning out a massive anti-Trump vote in the November elections that give Democrats control of one or both houses of Congress. Whether the resistance behaves less than graciously to Trump and his accomplices -- including his water-carriers in Congress -- is far down the list.

I'm not advocating rudeness for rudeness sake or a blanket policy of denying Trump aides their supper, as happened recently to press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders. But folks, get a grip. Stop all the hyperventilation and self-flagellation about how the Red Hen incident, and any further instances of incivility, could doom prospects for a "blue wave" in November and perhaps even reelect Trump in 2020. Banish any thought of turning the other cheek in the coming fight over Justice Anthony M. Kennedy's replacement on the Supreme Court. Don't get mired in paralysis by analysis.

. . .

A political strategy based on the idea that being unfailingly polite will somehow lull Trump supporters into a non-voting stupor is ridiculous. Trump is already out there holding rallies, whipping crowds into a frenzy of victimhood. Two years later, he's still railing against Hillary Clinton and calling for her to be locked up. Two years later, true believers still chant and cheer.

The assumption must be that Trump's most loyal followers will indeed vote in November. Democrats need to understand that walking on eggshells -- being unfailingly nice, declining to call out racism masquerading as economic anxiety, never uttering the word "impeachment" -- isn't going to make the people at those rallies like them.

What Democrats need to do is boost their normally anemic midterm turnout, and that means channeling the anti-Trump fervor we've seen in massive nationwide demonstrations against racism and in favor of women's rights, sensible gun control and compassionate immigration policy. Millions of voters are ready and willing to fight for an inclusive, forward-looking vision of America. Democrats have to show they are ready and willing to lead the battle.

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground

 

329 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [490] -- Full Court Press”

  1. [1] 
    neilm wrote:

    Two years later, he's still railing against Hillary Clinton and calling for her to be locked up. Two years later, true believers still chant and cheer.

    It is bloody pathetic. I remember repeatedly asking a Trump supporter before the 2016 election what he wanted Trump to do and this turned out to stump him.

    Trump is an emotional lightning rod for the over emotional.

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    We do understand that it's tough to take all the outrageous actions by the Trump administration lying down. We personally aren't calling for politeness above all, and we fully agree with the sentiments in our final talking point this week. But there still should remain that hard, bright line which political discourse should never cross.

    Countering Trump has very little to do with walking on eggshells or politeness.

    But, Democrats will not win by playing Trump's game.

    Democrats will start winning elections by countering Trump with aggressive push back on his policies and worldview. By aggressive, I mean fighting back against the lies with truth and speaking to voters with intelligence and persuasive arguments.

    In short, Democrats need to understand the big picture of Trump and his administration and develop a loud and winning message. All of which was missing from the last presidential election on the Democratic side.

  3. [3] 
    Paula wrote:

    The words I would use to convey my thoughts at your choice to diss Maxine Waters would send Elizabeth into a fainting fit that would last the rest of the weekend.

    Watered down: your white-man-blue-state-high-horse-perch is a very nice cushy place from which to deliver judgement on a black woman who lives under death threats and who had the nerve to speak real truth to real power at a point in time when the POTUS directs his armed and vicious thugs to hurt people who oppose him.

  4. [4] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    Democrats are vowing to fight hard against the next justice's confirmation, but this is quite likely a fight they are going to lose.

    But, what if Democrats take control of the Senate and keep control until the president resigns or is forced out of office or, slightly more likely, he loses in 2020.

    Can't Democrats just run out the big clock?

    Don't answer that!

  5. [5] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Of course, I suppose a lot of [4] will depend upon who Trump nominates and how the nomination hearing goes ...

  6. [6] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz-
    Judge Reinhold?

  7. [7] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Don,

    If Trump's overlords really want him to nominate a judge who will overturn Roe v Wade, then he won't want to nominate another John Roberts who says all the right things but doesn't always toe the company line.

    So, he'll have to nominate someone whose record is clear and strong on denying abortion rights. In other words, he'll have to pick someone who won't be able to gain the support of 50 republicans ...

    You may not know this but, I'm the resident cock-eyed optimist around here. :)

  8. [8] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    ... (even if the Democrats pull off a miracle and take back control of the Senate, the new Congress won't be seated until after the first of the year, leaving the lame duck Senate two final months to act).

    But, if the Democrats can hold off the confirmation vote until after the election and the Democrats take back the Senate in style, then McConnell couldn't possibly get away with holding the vote before the new Congress is seated, could he?

  9. [9] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: The first of Paul Manafort's criminal cases will be moving forward, after a judge in Virginia overruled an effort by Manafort's lawyers to toss the case out. This case could actually take place before the midterms, so it will be politically charged from beginning to end.

    It was comical to watch the righties get all excited about the standard verbiage a Court will generally include in rulings in order to make their verdicts unassailable in the event of an appeal. Pay no attention to that verdict, look what the judge said on page 6. *laughs* :)

    Mueller's case against Manafort is airtight because documents don't lie.

    Prosecutor: Mr. Manafort, you and your counsel having had a chance to look over Exhibit A... are these your accounts?

    Manafort: Yes.

    Prosecutor: Nothing further, your Honor.
    Your Honor, the People call to the witness stand Mr. Gates.

    Popcorn ready. :)

  10. [10] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Given Nancy Pelosi's tone deaf response to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's huge victory in New York, I think is time for her to go.

    This is a clear example of bad Democratic behavior of the kind that loses elections.

  11. [11] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I can imagine that Nancy Pelosi doesn't think that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is future presidential material ...

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Democrats will start winning elections by countering Trump with aggressive push back on his policies and worldview. By aggressive, I mean fighting back against the lies with truth and speaking to voters with intelligence and persuasive arguments.

    In short, Democrats need to understand the big picture of Trump and his administration and develop a loud and winning message. All of which was missing from the last presidential election on the Democratic side.

    Yep... Democrats have come to the conclusion that they need to act exactly like the think Trump is acting to fight him..

    That includes attacking his supporters as much as they do the President..

    That's just crazy.. Those supporters are THE VERY PEOPLE that the Democrats are going to need to vote Dem in November..

    Democrats appear to have hit on the VERY worst way to attract more voters..

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    The words I would use to convey my thoughts at your choice to diss Maxine Waters would send Elizabeth into a fainting fit that would last the rest of the weekend.

    Nice civility.. :^/

    Watered down: your white-man-blue-state-high-horse-perch is a very nice cushy place from which to deliver judgement on a black woman who lives under death threats and who had the nerve to speak real truth to real power at a point in time when the POTUS directs his armed and vicious thugs to hurt people who oppose him.

    "Amazing. Everything you said just now was wrong."
    -Luke Skywalker, THE LAST JEDI

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Collapse of the Never-Trump Conservatives

    They’ll always have Twitter and MSNBC.
    With the installation of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, and a yet-to-be-named reliable replacement for the unreliable Anthony Kennedy, Donald Trump will have confirmed himself as the most consequential conservative president of the modern era (or a close second to Reagan if you’re nostalgic). This will be complete vindication for Trump supporters, which means it’s really the end for the so-called Never Trump conservatives. Of course, there have been so many humiliating defeats for that crowd that we are spoiled for choice. What was your favorite blunder, or blown prediction, which marked their ignominious end?

    https://spectator.org/the-collapse-of-the-never-trump-conservatives/

    Yer on yer own, Democrats.. :D

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    While the speed with which the party coalesced around total obstruction is heartening, the rhetoric is a huge mistake and a lost opportunity. As always, the Democrats are pursuing a logic of reaction, seeking to apply this new "McConnell rule" to a situation produced by Republican procedural escalation. It's transparently disingenuous and procedurally absurd. There is a federal election in this country every other year, and closing them down to SCOTUS picks is not a workable norm in the long run.
    http://theweek.com/articles/782002/democrats-are-acting-like-bunch-cowering-dandies-need-grow-spine-throw-some-punches

    The Biden Rule only makes sense in a PRESIDENTIAL election year, because it's the President that picks the nominee...

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump’s on a hot streak: Court rulings, vacancy, summit plan
    https://apnews.com/b5d909fc9e8642709d95a31a83c00b5c

    Reality test...

    Who here can concede the facts and who here will dispute reality based on political bigotry??

    I am guessing 3 to the former and all the rest to the latter...
    -Michale

    Liberals had a very bad week at the Supreme Court last week. There's no denying it.

    That's 1... :D

    There's 2 more.. :D

  17. [17] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    10

    Given Nancy Pelosi's tone deaf response to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's huge victory in New York, I think is time for her to go.

    For this plus other reasons I will refrain from enumerating, I am beginning to agree with you.

    Perhaps it's getting time for Ms. Pelosi to pass the torch before she burns the House down with it. :)

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK, credit where credit is due..

    Perhaps it's getting time for Ms. Pelosi to pass the torch before she burns the House down with it. :)

    THAT was a good one... :D

  19. [19] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    donald will nominate his sister, right before he shoots maxine waters in the middle of fifth avenue.

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    donald will nominate his sister, right before he shoots maxine waters in the middle of fifth avenue.

    "Don't tease me.."
    -Slider, TOP GUN

    :D

  21. [21] 
    Kick wrote:

    To put it simply, when you and the man who leads you continually wallow in the mudslinging with joy and abandon, then this absolutely precludes you from any attempt at taking a moral high road. ~ Chris Weigant

    I know, right!? I simply could not have put that better myself. Very nicely done, sir. May I quote you on that? Oh, looky there... already did! ;)

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    To put it simply, when you and the man who leads you continually wallow in the mudslinging with joy and abandon, then this absolutely precludes you from any attempt at taking a moral high road. ~ Chris Weigant

    Exactly..

    So, basically CW is saying "When they go low, we go just as low, if not lower"

    And that's fine.. That great.. Peachy keen wonderful as my lovely wife would say..

    BUT...

    But then Democrats have to quit putting on airs that they have ANY moral superiority over President Trump and his supporters..

    Democrats are as bad as they accuse President Trump and his supporters of being..

    Own it..

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    Steyer: Maybe We Can Have a ‘Nuclear War’ to Provide a ‘Real Course Correction’ to Trump
    http://freebeacon.com/politics/steyer-maybe-can-nuclear-war-provide-real-course-correction-trump/

    "Let's start a nuclear war to get rid of President Trump!!!"
    -Democrat Party

    :^/

    Hyper Hysterical President Trump Derangement Syndrome established beyond ANY doubt...

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    On the Republican side are two women who support Roe v. Wade as settled law: Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.

    Sorry, CW...

    "I do not apply ideological litmus tests to nominees, but I want to see integrity, intellect, a respect for precedent and adherence to the rule of law."
    -Senator Collins

    You just lost Collins..

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrat Bill Nelson, asked by reporters if a nominee’s views on Roe v. Wade will be important to him, said, "very."

    And my Senator, the Senator I have voted for for as long as I have been a Weigantian, just confirmed the wisdom of me voting GOP this election...

  26. [26] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: We have no idea what Maxine Waters initially meant by her comment, as we do not possess the ability to read minds. But this is not a time for ambiguity.

    Pardon me, sir; indulge me, please, while I "push back" on that notion. The righties are going positively bat shirt crazy because Maxine Waters said "push back," which is a term that means to counter a narrative. Of course, Trump and Hannity and their ilk wasted no time whatsoever in capitalizing on this and overblowing the use of this term as somehow a call to violence when the term is used daily on nationwide media outlets.

    Meanwhile, the Democratic Party has called for more accountability from Congresswoman Waters in the last week than the GOP has demanded from Trump for all the many years of bigotry, bullying, and multiple calls for actual violence since he "snerked" down the elevator at Trump Tower and spit out his initial hate speech. Just saying.

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    Meanwhile, the Democratic Party has called for more accountability from Congresswoman Waters in the last week than the GOP has demanded from Trump for all the many years of bigotry, bullying, and multiple calls for actual violence since he "snerked" down the elevator at Trump Tower and spit out his initial hate speech. Just saying.

    Waaaa Waaaaa Waaaaaa

    Face the facts. You lost the spin war..

    Take it like a man..

  28. [28] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    12

    That includes attacking his supporters as much as they do the President..

    I don't remember the previous POTUS carrying on like a whiny little witch when he was being attacked on a daily basis by the righties. Why does BLOTUS and his ilk seem to whine incessantly like weenies and snowflakes about being under attack? The GOP has become the party of perpetual aggrievement... always whining about how they are the victims, with Fox News and their ilk spewing and spoon feeding that rhetoric to their viewers 24/7/365.

    BLOTUS has taken to telling his crowds now that they are better than everybody else with better apartments and better boats, etc. Does he think he can win over "the other side" by constantly hurling insults in their general direction?

    That's just crazy.. Those supporters are THE VERY PEOPLE that the Democrats are going to need to vote Dem in November..

    I disagree. Democrats don't need to win over a single Trump supporter in order to win in November... just sign up new voters and get their regular voters to the polls to vote. It's not all too complicated. Whoever can get out the vote and/or do a good enough job of suppressing the other voters will win, and remember that most all politics is local, especially in the midterms.

  29. [29] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    27

    Waaaa Waaaaa Waaaaaa

    You upset, bro?

    Face the facts. You lost the spin war..

    Perhaps you have simply confused me with Maxine Waters. I didn't lose a thing.

    Take it like a man..

    I'm not really into all that Trumpian white male grievance and whining that men like you display on an all-to-regular basis. I'll pass on the weenie and snowflake whine and cheese fest, but thanks for asking. :)

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    I don't remember the previous POTUS carrying on like a whiny little witch when he was being attacked on a daily basis by the righties.

    Of course you don't..

    I disagree. Democrats don't need to win over a single Trump supporter in order to win in November..

    Yea, that's what ya thought in November 2016..

    By all means.. Continue to believe that.. Please... :D

    It will make my gloating on 7 November 2018 so much more enjoyable.. :D

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    Perhaps you have simply confused me with Maxine Waters. I didn't lose a thing.

    Whatever you have to tell yourself to make it thru your day.. :D

    But, thank you for the concession that Mad Maxine did, indeed, lose.. :D

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    By the time President Trump begins his second term, we're likely to be looking at a 6-3 GOP SCOTUS...

    Now THAT is something to look forward to.. :D

  33. [33] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    19

    donald will nominate his sister, right before he shoots maxine waters in the middle of fifth avenue.

    I would not put it past him, and then all the righties would whine that she simply got in the way of the bullet and resume whining about abortion being the death of a human. Sad.

  34. [34] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    30

    Of course you don't..

    Because Obama didn't constantly whine like Trump does. Trump is a giant snowflake who constantly whines like a victim.

    Yea, that's what ya thought in November 2016..

    Senator Roy Moore.

    By all means.. Continue to believe that.. Please... :D

    Senator Roy Moore.

    It will make my gloating on 7 November 2018 so much more enjoyable.. :D

    Senator Roy Moore.

  35. [35] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    31

    Whatever you have to tell yourself to make it thru your day.. :D

    Womp womp. Kind of old and used up already. Troll harder and at least try to come up with some new material.

    But, thank you for the concession that Mad Maxine did, indeed, lose.. :D

    Your level of intellect is showing if you believe that me saying I'm not Maxine
    Waters means anything more than I'm not Maxine Waters. I can only conclude that you enjoy sounding uneducated and juvenile. :D

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    Because Obama didn't constantly whine like Trump does. Trump is a giant snowflake who constantly whines like a victim.

    I am sure it's your truth...

    But, as usual, it's far from the facts..

    Keep betting on there being another Roy Moore out there. :D It will make my gloating on 7 Nov 2018 all the more enjoyable.. :D

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    Anyone who says that Democrats don't need Trump voters to get elected is displaying the EPITOME of ignorance..

    It is my fervent hope that such a blatant and unequivocal display of ignorance will continue.. :D

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    I really have to ask..

    Who else besides Kick believes that Democrats can get elected SOLELY on the basis of Democrat Party votes without ANY votes from Trump supporters??

    Anyone??

    "Anyone?? Anyone?? Buehler??"

  39. [39] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz-
    Just sent CW a guest author submission "A Golden Opportunity at the Midnight Hour- An open letter to Ralph Nader" that was recently submitted to smerconish.com .

    If you want to see a sample of my writing as you said, then consider encouraging CW to publish this article when he is off on Thursday.

    In fact, anyone here that is tired of me reminding CW that he has not adequately addressed One Demand should consider also encouraging CW to publish this article on Thursday.

    It is possible that this would lead to other people writing about One Demand, Ralph and/or others having me on their radio/TV/podcast program or publishing articles that I write.

    This would leave me with much less time to comment here. A win-win.

  40. [40] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @don,

    why don't you just publish it right here in the comments section? as i recall, there's no word limit.

    JL

  41. [41] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    As I said to Liz, It is not anything that I haven't already written here at one time or another.

    But publishing it in the comments doesn't count anywhere outside the comments section here.

    If it is published as a guest column, then I will be able to tell other places I submit articles to and people like Ralph and others that I have been published somewhere, which many places have as a requirement to even consider an article for publication or even for journalists to consider an idea.

    Since having CW publish it as a guest column is my goal and I would appreciate some support on achieving that goal it doen't make sense to publish it in the comments because then Liz would have less incentive to encourage CW to publish it as a guest column.

  42. [42] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    And people reading what someone writes seem to be more open to the credibility of an author of a published article than a commenter.

    Pretty sure I could find a few comments in the archives to back up that statement, but I am hoping you will agree so that I don't have to tell you that I'm not going to. :D

  43. [43] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Kock [29]

    ". . an all-'TO'-regular basis." ??? Literate folks would write'TOO'! You must be even dumber than that guy who, you pointed out, once mis-spelled 'wont' as "want", huh??

  44. [44] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    CRS-
    Sometimes people concentrate on a minor typo or other irrelevant mistake as an excuse to avoid talking aboot the issue at hand.

  45. [45] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    note: aboot is not a typo. I am practicing speaking Canadian in case Trump sees one of my Trumpface videos and I have to go on the run like Stuttering John. :D

  46. [46] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Don H [44]

    You mean like when Kock pointed out the "want" typo???

    But that's not half as dumb as Kock, Paula, neilm and co. nitpicking my off-the-hand statistic quote that Californians are the No.1 oil burners (TX is), rather than addressing my point, that it is not the pumping of oil, but rather the burning thereof, that outs CO2 in the air!!!

  47. [47] 
    neilm wrote:

    The snowflakes on the fight are going to interpret any words like "harass" or "push back" as equivalent to "machine guns at dawn" - it is pathetic.

    I grew up in a political environment where the right tried to cast the left as bleeding hearts who couldn't stand up to the rigors of the real world, and everybody needed to toughen up.

    Margaret Thatcher would kick Trump in the proverbials; shout at the pathetic rump of the Republican Party until they got in line; and remind them that they are the party of high moral standards that made America, in Reagan's words, a "Shining City on a Hill".

  48. [48] 
    neilm wrote:

    Kock, Paula, neilm and co. nitpicking my off-the-hand statistic quote that Californians are the No.1 oil burners

    Cry me a river snowflake.

  49. [49] 
    neilm wrote:

    Who else besides Kick believes that Democrats can get elected SOLELY on the basis of Democrat Party votes without ANY votes from Trump supporters??

    Trump lost the election by 3 million votes and only won the Presidency due to the strange way we select Presidents, so frankly, with a few thousand votes from the stay-at-home crowd, plus a few thousand more Republican voters who are disgusted at a man who lies constantly and locks up toddlers without their families, and it is all over bar the gloating.

  50. [50] 
    neilm wrote:

    Who else besides Kick believes that Democrats can get elected SOLELY on the basis of Democrat Party votes without ANY votes from Trump supporters??

    Trump lost the election by 3 million votes and only won the Presidency due to the strange way we select Presidents, so frankly, with a few thousand votes from the stay-at-home crowd, plus a few thousand more Republican voters who are disgusted at a man who lies constantly and locks up toddlers without their families who stay at home instead, and it is all over bar the gloating.

  51. [51] 
    neilm wrote:

    Damn - pressed the "Submit" instead of the "Preview" button the first time. Ignore [49].

  52. [52] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    CRS-
    I would rather not get into specifics between you and Kick, I share of enough moments with Kick on our own exchanges. :D

    But I was wondering if you had noticed that One Demand does not rely on legislation to accomplish it's goal. It is citizens taking action to solve the problem themselves, something that I would think would appeal to a Libertarian or someone with some libertarian viewpoints.

    While it might not appeal to you personally, do you think that some Libertarians that want the Big Money out of politics (there must be some) would be interested in learning aboot One Demand?

    If so, maybe you could encourage CW to publish the guest column I submitted. Not that two many Libertarians probably read CW's column, but it could get it started and maybe would reach those libertarians eventually.

  53. [53] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    In fact, all of you here could show a little appreciation of my persistence in the face of overwhelming odds to try to achieve something that people said could not be done and encourage CW to publish the guest article for that reason alone.

    Come on, everybody-

    RUDY, RUDY, RUDY.....

  54. [54] 
    neilm wrote:

    Good talking point from Lee Papa:

    Trump is currently under investigation and we should await the Robert Mueller's report on whether or not Trump or people around him committed crimes before we allow him to select somebody who could be his own judge.

    We don't get to pick our own judges when we have to defend ourselves in court, why should Trump?

    This won't change the outcome, but will delegitimize any ruling that involves Trump's latest immigrant-bashing woman-hating extremist, and we should call on him or her recuse them self. Gorsuch should be called on to recuse himself as well. There is little chance these people will have the decency to recuse themselves (there is no decency remaining in the Trump-supporting right, obviously), but naming and shaming will make meals out a lot less pleasant for them at least.

  55. [55] 
    neilm wrote:

    Not that two many Libertarians probably read CW's column

    Cute Don.

  56. [56] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz-
    ***SPECIAL OFFER ONLY FOR YOU****
    If you encourage CW to publish the guest article I promise to stop using aboot.

    After all, using aboot is just

    RUDE,RUDE,RUDE.....

    How aboot it?

  57. [57] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    neilm-
    thank you. It's nice to be appreciated.

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump lost the election by 3 million votes and only won the Presidency due to the strange way we select Presidents, so frankly, with a few thousand votes from the stay-at-home crowd, plus a few thousand more Republican voters who are disgusted at a man who lies constantly and locks up toddlers without their families, and it is all over bar the gloating.

    So you agree with Kick that Democrats can win with ONLY Democrat votes.. :D

    Keep believing that.. PLease.. :D

  59. [59] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Don H

    Re me or other Libertarians pitching in for your cause -
    I've always assumed that Harris is a 'keyboard name' (updated version of "penname"), and that your real surname was 'Quixote'.

    Probably ain't gonna happen.

  60. [60] 
    neilm wrote:

    So you agree with Kick that Democrats can win with ONLY Democrat votes.. :D

    Nope, that isn't what I said.

    Here are the buckets of voters that can demolish Trump in 2020:

    1. There are plenty of right leaning independents who previously voted for Trump but who are not Trump supporters - they just disliked Hillary or thought Trump would become "Presidential". They can either stay at home, and lower Trump's vote count, or switch to the Democrats in disgust at Trump.

    2. There are also plenty of non-Trump supporting Republicans who regret voting for Trump and won't vote for him again, lowering his vote count, or maybe even voting against him.

    3. There are also plenty of Democratic voters who, for whatever reason, didn't vote for Hillary, but also may regret the outcome, and/or be happier with the Democrat running against Trump in 2020.

    In fact, if Trump only manages to get his ardent supporters to vote for him again in 2020 he will lose the election.

  61. [61] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    neilm

    Re "Trump lost by 3 million votes and only won the presidency due to the strange way we elect presidents."

    No, he lost by 3 million votes only because of the strange way we grant voting rights.

  62. [62] 
    neilm wrote:

    Don:

    I find the likelihood that Libertarians will jump on board One Demand to be fairly slim.

    Here is a "Libertarian primer" from the Cato Institute that summarizes their position:

    https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/campaign-finance-reform-libertarian-primer

  63. [63] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    CRS-
    Thanks for answering.

    But the Quixote reference was just

    RUDE, RUDE, RUDE.....

    You are right about Harris just being a screen name, though. In fact, the picture at http://www.onedemand.org was lifted off a Willie Nelson album. :D

  64. [64] 
    neilm wrote:

    No, he lost by 3 million votes only because of the strange way we grant voting rights.

    So, who do you want to ban from voting? Or are you rehashing the "3 million illegal votes" canard that even Trump's most fervent fanatics gave up trying to find (because they don't exist).

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    Nope, that isn't what I said.

    So, why can't you just answer a simple questions with a YES or NO??

    blaaa blaaa blaaa blaaaa

    So, you DO think that Democrats will need Trump voters to win elections...

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here are the buckets of voters that can demolish Trump in 2020:

    HELLO!!!!! McFLY!!!!!

    We're talking about the upcoming mid-terms!!!

    Jeezus, you people must be EXHAUSTED moving all those goal posts all the time!!

  67. [67] 
    neilm wrote:

    2018 or 2020 - there are too few Trump supporters to win in purple states.

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    2018 or 2020 - there are too few Trump supporters to win in purple states.

    Let's compare notes on 7 Nov 18, K?? :D

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    2018 or 2020 - there are too few Trump supporters to win in purple states.

    I do believe that's EXACTLY what the Democrats said in 2016..

    AT least ya'all are consistent.. :D

  70. [70] 
    neilm wrote:

    Let's compare notes on 7 Nov 18, K?? :D

    So long as you don't run away crying ;)

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    So long as you don't run away crying ;)

    I don't think that's going to be an issue..

    But ya'all might get upset again with all my gloating. :D

  72. [72] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    neilm [64]

    Re "Who(m) do you want to ban from voting?"

    Everybody who thinks the terms 'inflation' and 'rising prices' are synonymous, along with everybody who equates 'qualitative easing' with 'increase in the money supply', plus all other simpletons.

  73. [73] 
    neilm wrote:

    Everybody who thinks the terms 'inflation' and 'rising prices' are synonymous, along with everybody who equates 'qualitative easing' with 'increase in the money supply', plus all other simpletons.

    Translation: CRS is smart and everybody else is stupid.

    How's the weather way up in your ivory tower?

  74. [74] 
    neilm wrote:

    "In economics, inflation is a sustained increase in price level of goods and services in an economy over a period of time."

    Sources:

    1. Wyplosz & Burda 1997 Macroeconomics: A European Text 6th Edition

    2. Blanchard, Olivier (2000). Macroeconomics (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice Hall. ISBN 0-13-013306-X.

    3. Barro, Robert J. (1997). Macroeconomics. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. p. 895. ISBN 0-262-02436-5.

    4. Abel & Bernanke 1995 Macroeconomics (9th Edition)

    Fish. Barrel. Bang!

  75. [75] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Cry me a small creek.

  76. [76] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    neilm-
    Thanks for the link.

    I didn't see anything there that would stop a Libertarian from participating in One Demand.

    That was also one person at the Cato institute view of the Libertarian position. And whether or not it matches the official view of the Libertarian position, that would be all it is.

    Not every Libertarian agrees on everything any more than every Democrat agrees on everything. I caught some of a libertarian presidential candidate debate in 2016 and even the three or four candidates disagreed vehemently on many issues.

    I thought I would give CRS the opportunity to acknowledge that the One Demand approach was at least in line with libertarian thinking in that it does not try to solve a problem through legislation and is people taking care of a problem themselves, but his response was certainly not a surprise or unique.

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats are vowing to fight hard against the next justice's confirmation,

    With what?? They took a rusty spoon to their cajones and lopped them off... :D

    but this is quite likely a fight they are going to lose.

    "Oh.. yea....."
    -Rocket, GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY

    Mitch McConnell's naked hypocrisy is on full display in the middle of this fight. McConnell once swore fealty to the notion that the voters should weigh in on such an important manner (when Obama was in the Oval Office), but now he's singing a different tune, swearing he will act so hastily that the voters will not be able to weigh in on the matter.

    Yer right.. It IS a completely different tune.

    Waiting won't alter President Trump's nominee...

    McConnell was right in saying that the next PRESIDENT should pick the nominee.. That is a completely different action than having a more juiced up GOP Senate advising and consenting..

    On the Democratic side are all the senators from states that Trump won who are up for re-election this year. Some of them voted for Neil Gorsuch's confirmation, meaning they might be persuaded to vote with Trump this time around as well. The fact that this vote will likely take place right before the election must weigh heavy on their minds, to put it mildly.

    Yep, I have been saying that all week.. President Trump's nominee is all but certain to have at least 4 Democrat YEAs..

    Ocasio-Cortez ran a flawless campaign, from her excellent introductory ad to her campaign posters and buttons to her tireless efforts to pound the pavement and turn out the voters. She was outspent by a factor of more than 10-to-1, and she still won with a comfortable margin.

    And, in doing so, took down the #4 Democrat.. :D Eric Cantor all over again.. :D

    By week's end, the story took an even uglier turn, as Waters was forced to cancel events due to plausible death threats being made against her.

    ALLEGED death threats against her.. She's the ONLY one who has made the claim..

    (while their own side is issuing death threats to Waters, mind you).

    ALLEGEDLY issuing death threates to Waters...

    But, damn good choice on the MDDOTW award.. :D

    Two years later, he's still railing against Hillary Clinton and calling for her to be locked up. Two years later, true believers still chant and cheer.

    How long where ya'all railing against President Bush??

    EIGHT YEARS...

    Com'on.. Let's be real... :D

    Great commentary, CW

  78. [78] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    37

    Anyone who says that Democrats don't need Trump voters to get elected is displaying the EPITOME of ignorance..

    Anyone with two brain cells to rub together and two eyes that can read the blog knows that we're talking about the midterms where politics is local, and I can assure you that there are huge swaths of America where Democrats don't need Trump voters to get elected.

    It is my fervent hope that such a blatant and unequivocal display of ignorance will continue.. :D

    You needn't worry about that as long as you continue to post rather than leaving the board on a regular basis whilst simultaneously whining like a little witch about the other posters. :D

  79. [79] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    38

    I really have to ask..

    Who else besides Kick believes that Democrats can get elected SOLELY on the basis of Democrat Party votes without ANY votes from Trump supporters??

    Oh, I see your problem. You are mischaracterizing what I said:

    I disagree. Democrats don't need to win over a single Trump supporter in order to win in November... just sign up new voters and get their regular voters to the polls to vote. It's not all too complicated. Whoever can get out the vote and/or do a good enough job of suppressing the other voters will win, and remember that most all politics is local, especially in the midterms.

    As usual, the disconnect is a result of your reading comprehension problem. Reading is fundamental, and it's never too late to learn how. :D

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    Anyone with two brain cells to rub together and two eyes that can read the blog knows that we're talking about the midterms where politics is local,

    Sorry, Neil.. I guess Kock is saying you don't have 2 brain cells to rub together, nor do you have 2 eyes.. :D

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sorry.. Typo... I guess KICK is saying you don't have 2 brain cells to rub together, nor do you have 2 eyes.. :D

  82. [82] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    There is no shortage of commenters here with two brain cells to rub together.

    Their left cheek and their right cheek. :D

  83. [83] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki
    43

    Kock [29]

    ". . an all-'TO'-regular basis." ??? Literate folks would write'TOO'! You must be even dumber than that guy who, you pointed out, once mis-spelled 'wont' as "want", huh??

    Congratulations, Stucki, with that nugget above, you have succeeded in accomplishing many things:

    (1) You sound like a hypocrite and a moron because you are whining about spelling in a post wherein the very first word of your comment is also a misspelling. Good call. :)

    (2) You sound like a hayseed and illiterate because you are whining about literacy in a post wherein your comment contains this ignorant nugget---> write'TOO' wherein you misuse punctuation and run words together multiple times and for some reason feel the need to use multiple question marks where only one is required in the very same comment wherein you're taking issue with "literate folks." Good call. :)

    (3) You are whining about your self-described "misspelling" of "want" in the phrase "wont to do" when it absolutely and obviously was not a misspelling but the improper usage of a word. Good call. :)

    (4) You are letting everyone on the entire board know that you've been stewing about being corrected for your incorrect usage of a word for a very, very long time now. Pretty stupid move on your part, actually. :D

  84. [84] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    44

    Sometimes people concentrate on a minor typo or other irrelevant mistake as an excuse to avoid talking aboot the issue at hand.

    I don't generally nitpick over typos, but I did correct the hayseed on his misuse of a phrase because... wait for it... he was whining about a typo of mine. :)

  85. [85] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    39

    Just sent CW a guest author submission "A Golden Opportunity at the Midnight Hour- An open letter to Ralph Nader" that was recently submitted to smerconish.com .

    Great idea, Don. There really is more than one type of honey. Props!

    In fact, anyone here that is tired of me reminding CW that he has not adequately addressed One Demand should consider also encouraging CW to publish this article on Thursday.

    I was just bragging about you and "honey," Don, and then you go and say this! :P *laughs*

  86. [86] 
    neilm wrote:

    who equates 'qualitative easing' with 'increase in the money supply'

    Who equates QE with increasing the money supply?

    The Bank of England:

    https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary-policy/quantitative-easing

  87. [87] 
    neilm wrote:
  88. [88] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Kock

    Re "The very first word . .is also a misspelling"

    Actually, that "very first word (an) was a direct quote from you, and it was NOT a mis-spelling, or if it was, you did it, right? How many ways are there to spell"an"???

    You sound like a pedantic nut-case, a turnipseed, and a moron.

  89. [89] 
    neilm wrote:
  90. [90] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki
    46

    You mean like when Kock pointed out the "want" typo???

    Poor old man has spent all this time stewing over that! It wasn't remotely a "typo," Stucki, it was a total misuse of a word in a phrase, and I only did it because you were whining for the 1000th time about typos. You have even been busted by Michale about this, and he usually only busts those he perceives to be Democrats due to his incessant and ever present blatant display of hypocrisy. :)

    But that's not half as dumb as Kock, Paula, neilm and co. nitpicking my off-the-hand statistic quote that Californians are the No.1 oil burners (TX is), rather than addressing my point, that it is not the pumping of oil, but rather the burning thereof, that outs CO2 in the air!!!

    What is this incessant need of yours to use multiple punctuation symbols? I guess at your advanced age your eyesight is so bad that all those just run together and look like one, right? :D

    Also, you might want to check your defective brain if you believe I whined about your BS oil statistic for two reasons:

    * I live in Texas.

    * I generally ignore your bullshit these days, but I thought I'd throw you some "bones" today... you seem lonely and trolling extra hard for a comment from me. :D

  91. [91] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    CRS,

    To whom are you directing comment [88]?

  92. [92] 
    Kick wrote:

    neilm
    47

    Margaret Thatcher would kick Trump in the proverbials; shout at the pathetic rump of the Republican Party until they got in line; and remind them that they are the party of high moral standards that made America, in Reagan's words, a "Shining City on a Hill".

    Neil is exactly right, of course. Margaret Hilda, Baroness Thatcher, LG would have torn Benedict Donald a new asshole... in spite of the fact that Trump is a giant one already. :)

  93. [93] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick-
    Thank you.

    As for the second part, it was similar to my giving CRS an opportunity to acknowledge that One Demand actually fits the Libertarian viewpoint on people solving their own problems without legislation.

    I was offering those that were tired of my comments on CW not adequately addressing One Demand an opportunity to fix the "problem". Unless you have a problem with me expressing my opinion that CW has not adequately addressed One Demand I don't see what the problem is. There is no vinegar there.

    But if you do have a problem with me expressing my opinion that CW has not adequately addressed One Demand I have offered a possible solution. :D

  94. [94] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Everyone,

    Can we dispense with the asinine comments, at long last? (of course, this is not directed at everyone)

    Do you care about this blog? (Also, not directed to everyone)

    This blog would like to attract a variety of new commenters. Unfortunately, a cursory look at any number of threads would quickly indicate that this blog is not for intelligent discourse but, rather is being used for childish banter which most long time users of this blog despise.

    Let's try better so that we may have the pleasure of welcoming new blood into the comments section - instead of scaring them away) and give CW.com new life.

  95. [95] 
    John M wrote:

    If the Supreme Court were to rule that the original Roe V Wade decision was a mistake, it is possible that a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President could get around that by passing national, Federal legislation declaring that abortion is legal throughout the United States. Any state laws or state constitutions declaring abortion to be illegal would in effect become null and void due to the supremacy of Federal legislation over any individual state legislation or constitutional provisions. I can think of at least two instances in recent history where the Federal government has forced the states to conform to its legislation; i.e. regarding the drinking age, and highway speed limits.

  96. [96] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz (91)-
    Maybe it's those brothers that give all the money to the Republicans.

  97. [97] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    ”You push back on them!”

    I’m sorry, but I have no problem with what she said. Trying to determine whether there was a hidden meaning to her words instead of just taking them at face value is a huge waste of time.

    But for those who want to claim she was calling for physical violence with this statement, you should realize that for that to be true means that she is calling for people to defend themselves. She wasn’t calling for people to “push”, but to “push back”! And you can’t “push back” unless you are being “pushed”.

    People are gonna hear what they want to hear. Sean Hannity blames Watters for the journalists being shot this week, but chose to Milo’s more direct call to violence! Conservative provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos on Thursday insisted that he "wasn't being serious" when he recently told two reporters that he “can’t wait for the vigilante squads to start gunning journalists.”

  98. [98] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    neilm

    I keep promising myself that it's futile to try and educate you on economics, but some guys never learn, I guess, so here I go again.

    QE is an ATTEMPT to increase the money supply, and it may, or it may not succeed. The mechanics amounts to cramming commercial banks with cash (in exchange for their bond holdings), in hopes that they will loan it to people who will invest in jobs-creating ventures. Problem is, it's only ever done when an economy is in recession, and the very definition of recession is that there is very low demand for loans, ergo, it most frequently does NOT work. As long as the money sits in the banks, it isn't even expanding the money supply, and there is no way for the banks to force people to borrow it.

    BTW, I'm fully aware that most contemporary economists have lost track of the true nature of 'inflation', just as have you. As I once told you, if you find a 60 yr old dictionary and look it up, you'll find a definition to the effect of "an undue expansion of the money supply", but the modern definition has devolved (out of ignorance), to "an increase in retail price levels".

    If you actually care about gaining an understanding of inflation, ditch those guys you referenced and go to Milton Friedman, or someby else from years ago.

  99. [99] 
    Kick wrote:

    neilm
    51

    Damn - pressed the "Submit" instead of the "Preview" button the first time. Ignore [49].

    ** CONFESSION **

    I read all neilm's comments... so I read it twice. *big grin*

  100. [100] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    John,

    That's interesting. But, would that federal legislation be constitutional, in the wake of the SC overturning Roe v Wade?

    What about a Democratic Congress and a Democratic president just nominating a couple of supremes without there being a 'vacancy' on the court. For instance, what if a future Democratic president decided that there are too few women on the court and went ahead and nominated two women to sit on a court of 11 justices?

    Of course, where would this sort of thing end ...

    Do you think there is a chance that Trump's second SC nomination will not have his or her nomination hearing until the new senate is seated?

  101. [101] 
    Kick wrote:

    neilm
    60

    Michale: So you agree with Kick that Democrats can win with ONLY Democrat votes.. :D

    neilm: Nope, that isn't what I said.

    I know, right!? That isn't what I said either. What we have learned over time is that the disconnect ALWAYS occurs because of Michale's ever present reading comprehension problem. :)

  102. [102] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Russs,

    I don't think Maxine Walters was advocating violence of any sort.

    But, she was inciting people to harass and swarm Trump administration cabinet members, wherever they may be. This is a silly tactic, in my view, and doesn't get Democrats anywhere near productive.

    There are better ways to push back on these people and on the president and today's marches are just one good example.

  103. [103] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz-
    You are just going to have to get used to the asinine comments. The cause can easily be explained (see comment 82).

    I don't know if the blog was different before I arrived, but if it changed, it changed before I got here.

    The best you can do is offer opportunities for discussion and enjoy when it actually happens. But offer the opportunities with the same expectations as my earlier post to CRS, so you are not too disappointed when it doesn't happen- which will probably be more often than it should be or than you would prefer.

  104. [104] 
    Kick wrote:

    neilm
    60

    I won't quote the whole post, but of course, Neil is exactly right!

    In fact, if Trump only manages to get his ardent supporters to vote for him again in 2020 he will lose the election.

    Simple laws of attrition too and FIFO... not being replaced with new "inventory." :)

  105. [105] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Sean Hannity blames Watters for the journalists being shot this week, but chose to [ignore] Milo’s more direct call to violence! Conservative provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos on Thursday insisted that he "wasn't being serious" when he recently told two reporters that he “can’t wait for the vigilante squads to start gunning journalists.”

    Russ, if Milo was implying that journalists will be gunned down by vigilante squads as a result of Maxine Watters' comments, then that is just crazy!

    Did Hannity and Milo ignore the president's favourite phrase calling journalists the 'enemy of the people', ad nauseam?

  106. [106] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'll never get used to asinine comments, Don.

    And, I'll never stop fighting for comments that are worthy of this excellent blog.

  107. [107] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    63

    You are right about Harris just being a screen name, though. In fact, the picture at http://www.onedemand.org was lifted off a Willie Nelson album. :D

    I've been wondering when you were going to cop to that Don. *grins*

    Nice try, "Willie." More you tube videos, please! :P

  108. [108] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    71

    But ya'all might get upset again with all my gloating. :D

    Doesn't bother me in the least. Gloat away. You do it all the time already... thus it's just more of the SSDD. :)

  109. [109] 
    John M wrote:

    [100] Elizabeth Miller

    "That's interesting. But, would that federal legislation be constitutional, in the wake of the SC overturning Roe v Wade?"

    I don't see why it would not be constitutional. The original decision found that there WAS a constitutional right to abortion. Overturning it would NOT be the same as declaring abortion itself to be unconstitutional. It would simply be returning to the declaration that the Constitution was NEUTRAL on the subject of abortion, allowing it up to the states and the Federal government to decide for themselves, as it existed before. To do otherwise would require passing a Right to Life amendment to the Constitution.

    "What about a Democratic Congress and a Democratic president just nominating a couple of supremes without there being a 'vacancy' on the court. For instance, what if a future Democratic president decided that there are too few women on the court and went ahead and nominated two women to sit on a court of 11 justices?"

    They could certainly do that. There's nothing in the Constitution preventing it. All that would be required would be for Congress to pass the required legislation and for the President to sign off on it. That's probably the major reason preventing McConnell from following Trump's advice and doing away with the only filibuster remaining, that on passing legislation. Once that were to happen, there would be no going back, and no way for Republicans to stop future Democrats in the Senate from passing ANYTHING with just 51 votes instead of needing 60 votes.

    "Of course, where would this sort of thing end ..."

    Any future Congress and President would be free to change it back.

    "Do you think there is a chance that Trump's second SC nomination will not have his or her nomination hearing until the new senate is seated?"

    No, I think a new Justice will be in place by October, unless there is enough of a HUGE protest movement involving large scale civil disobedience to make too many Senators think twice about moving too swiftly.

  110. [110] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki

    You sound like a pedantic nut-case, a turnipseed, and a moron.

    Nice bit of introspection there, old man Stucki. You can put down your mirror now and put on your glasses and thinking cap. :D

  111. [111] 
    Kick wrote:

    neilm
    86, 87, 89

    Nice links, but you're going to confuse old man Stucki with facts. :)

  112. [112] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Liz M [91]

    [88] was directed (as stated) to that juvenile ignoramus who likes to play gradeschool-level games with people's names, uno, "Kock".

  113. [113] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    93

    Thank you.

    I know what you were doing there, Don. I was just genuinely giving you props for your great idea. Seriously.

    But then I was just generally kidding around with you as I am wont to do. ;)

  114. [114] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    John M [95]

    Might be feasible, but I presume any law passed by Dem administrations/congresses could be cancelled by Rep administrations/congresses, right?

    How does that solve the problem?

  115. [115] 
    neilm wrote:

    Don:

    If you do manage to get more visibility for One Demand, you will need to improve your web site.

    Here is some constructive feedback on it:

    1. Your links to FB, twitter, etc. still reference Voucher Vendetta - people new to your site will not know about the change in name and get confused

    2. If you have no new "News" I'd lose the "News" section - the latest link is from 2015. Also, I suspect the Newsletter is probably defunct - if it is, lose the link.

    3. Stick with either OneDemand or 1Demand - mixing them is confusing.

    The site looks good on my phone as well as my laptop, so well done there.

  116. [116] 
    neilm wrote:

    CRS:

    Here is a discussion on the historical use and meaning of the word "inflation".

    For many years, the word inflation was
    not a statement about prices but a condition
    of paper money—a specific description
    of a monetary policy. Today,
    inflation is synonymous with a rise in
    prices, and its connection to money is
    often overlooked.

    https://www.clevelandfed.org/~/media/content/newsroom%20and%20events/publications/economic%20commentary/1997/ec%2019971015%20on%20the%20origin%20and%20evolution%20of%20the%20word%20inflation%20pdf.pdf?la=en

  117. [117] 
    John M wrote:

    [114] C. R. Stucki
    John M [95]

    "Might be feasible, but I presume any law passed by Dem administrations/congresses could be cancelled by Rep administrations/congresses, right?"

    Yes, that's correct. Just like how we currently keep going back and forth regarding providing U.S. government funding of organizations that even discuss or provide information regarding abortion services, with each change of Democratic and Republican administrations.

    "How does that solve the problem?"

    I never said it did. :-D I just said that it possibly gets around the obstacle of a Supreme Court decision overturning Roe V Wade for a pro-choice administration and Congress, and not that it solves the POLITICAL problem of abortion.

  118. [118] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki
    112

    Stucki, I have never referred to you as anything but:

    * C. R. Stucki
    * old man Stucki
    * or CRS

    but I do believe one time I said your initials suited you because you "Can't Remember Spit, but other than those above, I have no idea what you're talking about.

    Perhaps you have simply confused me with another poster like you did when you accused me at [46] above of commenting about your oil statistic... which NEVER happened, but thank you for proving my excellent and dead-on balls accurate point, old man Stucki, that you Can't Remember Spit! :)

  119. [119] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick-
    I was seriously thanking you.

    And also having a little fun while making a point (or at least trying to).

    We may not always agree, but we do seem to have reached a point of being able to have a little fun.

  120. [120] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris

    Just to clarify, my response after the first quote at [85] was genuine props, while my second response after the second quote was teasing you about "honey" as I am wont to do.

    I think it's a "honey" of an idea about you asking C.W. to let you use next Thursday as a guest writer. I would wager that if your submission sounds more like an article about politics and less like a solicitation that he would consider posting it for you. I would also guess that the use of current political events such as they are like the election of AOC in NYC sprinkled in there would go a long way to helping your cause.

    I cannot believe I am saying this, but if you allow CW to edit it to his satisfaction and according to the rules of his website, I hope he does run your guest column, but obviously it's totally his right of refusal. "Eyes" nothing but an itty bitty commenter here just like everybody else. :)

  121. [121] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    neilm [116]

    Omygawd, that "discussion" actually nails it (meaning describes the devolution of the understanding of inflation), except whoever wrote that should have gone on to the logical conclusion by pointing out that once we've lost the connection in our minds, we've lost the capacity to understand, analyze and solve the problem (assuming one considers it to be a problem, which it definitely is).

    Once the effect has been substituted for the cause, the cause automatically becomes lost, leaving us helpless to deal with it.

    If you want to understand true inflation, it would help to begin by concentrasting less on the current U.S. economy and look at a Zimbabwe or a Venezuela.

    When a country of that type runs out of tax revenue, and is unable to borrow, and then begins to finance governmental operations with newly-printed paper money, THAT'S, when you gain an understanding of the true meaning and nature of "inflation".

    With the U.S, and most 'civilized' places, there are many ramifications, which seriously muddy the waters for people trying to grasp the concept. That statement kinda epitomizes why Econ is so damn tough for most people - just way too many variables in a modern economy.

  122. [122] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    119

    I was seriously thanking you.

    I could tell. You will find that NOT very much gets past me, Don. I am tricky that way. ;)

    We may not always agree, but we do seem to have reached a point of being able to have a little fun.

    Seriously now, Don. I would wager that the majority of posters on the board including CW agrees with your general concept to the tune of about 90%. However, the disconnect begins when you put your self-invented labels on Democrats and toss them into the GOP "basket of deplorables" and also when we get to discussions regarding dollar amounts and then ultimately factor in the looming very much larger issue of Citizens United.

    I know you know what I mean. There's got to be a happy medium in there somewhere. The very origin of "politics" comes from the Greek "polis" and means concerned with the general issues affecting the whole community. It's meant to be compromise that everyone as a whole can live with and based on the Greek premise that participation of each and every citizen of the community is necessary. While there's simply no way in Hades that this will ever happen in America, there's certainly no fault in trying... and trying... and trying. :)

  123. [123] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    neilm-
    Thanks.

    Got to admit I'm not on facebook or twitter and just had those there put for whatever reason they are there.

    And many things will be improved when I do begin to get some exposure.

    From my perspective, I have done many things, made changes, etc. and none of it has made any difference.

    When I had no money I was told to get a website, even just an informational website and then my ideas would be worthy of consideration for some exposure.

    I did that and was then told by the same people that an informational website was not enough, that I had to be able to sign people up.

    Then when I got a little money I set up a website that could sign people up. Guess what. It wasn't enough. Now I had to have a lot of people signed up.

    Still haven't figured out how people could sign up if they didn't know about it.

    So until I get some exposure there isn't much point in working much on the website (though I will look into the VV thing and perhaps set up the news thing so I can post directly at some point. (It would be kind of like having my own blog- How come nobody here ever suggested that? :D)

    But right now is the Midnight Hour. Four months until the election and the opportunity to get off year non-voters to participate in One Demand is not going to be available again until 2022.

    That is the best opportunity to get One Demand started because these are voters that will be wasting their vote by not voting in 2018. So they have little to lose by participating in One Demand. The spoiler argument is not valid.

    This is why I have been putting the "full court press" on CW.

    I know you are offering genuine advice and I appreciate it, but experience has taught me that most of the time that the things people say I should do are just excuses to avoid addressing the basic idea and is proven out when I do what they say I should do or show that I have already done it and then they move the goalposts or provide some other excuse that doesn't hold up to scrutiny like you catch more flies with honey.

    I once wrote to a journalist (not CW, in case anyone thinks that is where I'm going) several times over the course of about 6-8 months each time he wrote an article that said things that if he really meant them would mean he supported the same basic idea of One Demand and not got no responses.

    He then wrote about a guy (and his issue) that sent him an email that viciously insulted him and a fw others that had been nasty.

    I wrote to him, mentioned the previous communications which were nice and said I would give being nice one more try because I didn't want to be nasty and call him a hack or something along those lines.

    I then got a reply. Of course it did not address the issue I wrote to him about.

    It did say that the way to get an answer was to be nice and not by calling him a hack.

    And followed that with "You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar."

    Didn't get another answer when I sent him an email simply asking him if that was true then why didn't he answer any of my previous emails, only the one he mistakenly took as an insult.

  124. [124] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    IMPORTANT PROGRAM NOTE:

    I have been getting feedback that the site may be having some problems. I am going to try to address these tonight, so just be warned everyone. If strange things are happening to you, send me an email and let me know. The site may be down for a short period late tonight or late tomorrow night.

    Thanks for everyone's patience...

    -CW

  125. [125] 
    neilm wrote:

    Don:

    If you get 100 followers I will build you a web site using Bootstrap 4 and host it for you for free.

    You will need to repoint the domain name to my ISP, and keep paying the domain name charges (probably about $12/year) but that will be your total cost.

    I run many web sites for non-profits for free and have an ISP account that handle large volumes of visits and data transfers.

  126. [126] 
    neilm wrote:

    CW [124] If strange things are happening to you, send me an email and let me know.

    You do remember that Michale posts regularly here - how are we going to notice if strange things are happening? Have you read his posts?

    ;)

  127. [127] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    neilm-
    Thanks again.

    But I do prefer to use the word participant rather than follower.

    Follower sounds too much like a cult- and we know how those turn out.

  128. [128] 
    neilm wrote:

    Don:

    Regarding traffic and visibility - this is the $750M question.

    Part 1 - Brand names

    $750M is the cost that my company estimates if we want to launch a new product with a non-descriptive name, just to get awareness of the brand.

    There are two types of product names my company uses (I'm going to use ABC Company as an example below):

    1. Descriptive name - e.g. ABC Fast Drying Towels

    The ABC is trademarked, so anything that comes after it is also easy to trademark. The name is descriptive, and so customers know they are buying Fast Drying Towels made by ABC.

    2. Non-Descriptive name - e.g. ABC Michaelangelo

    Again the ABC prefix makes it easy to trademark, but we estimate that it will cost $750M to connect "Michaelangelo" with "Fast Drying Towels".

    One-Demand is more of a non-descriptive name than a descriptive name. I think it is OK, but it isn't as simple as "Dollar Bill Bradley" (for those of you who remember him).

    I know you recently changed your name, but if you decide you need to relaunch, you might want to think about something like "NoPAC Politicians" or something like that.

  129. [129] 
    neilm wrote:

    Don:

    Part 2 - Generating Traffic

    Generating traffic is the most difficult part of this. My social marketing team (we are almost a 100,000 employee company spread across the World with a marketing budget measures in the billions) pay a lot to keep a constant stream of new content on our main social channel.

    New, interesting content is just the start, then comes building an audience. One reason it is very presumptuous to berate CW for not writing what you want him to is that what he has built here is a huge achievement and he has a valuable product. I wrote one published article, and sent another to CW that has the potential to be published if the subject matter is topical, and those articles took a lot of time and effort, and were still amateur in comparison to what CW publishes day-after-day. Asking him to publish an article is like asking somebody you know if you can borrow their Ferrari - it might seem like it is just sitting around in the garage, but the real concern is that something goes wrong.

    Anyway, if I were trying to achieve what you are aiming for I'd try to create 2-3 new short articles per week on your website (say 300-400 words) and then link to them using interesting hooks on CW.com and other political web sites, and hope that you can build your own following that light the "viral" wildfire.

    Getting noticed in the online world is difficult, oftentimes expensive, and a lot of hard work.

  130. [130] 
    neilm wrote:

    If you want to understand true inflation, it would help to begin by concentrasting less on the current U.S. economy and look at a Zimbabwe or a Venezuela.

    The history of Germany in the 1920s was taught in my high school, complete with pictures of people with wheelbarrows of money we were told was required to buy a loaf of bread.

  131. [131] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Liz [105]

    Milo’s comment wasn’t made in reference to anything Watters said, he was just telling two journalists how he wished them death! I am surprised that Michale hasn’t called him out for this, but I guess it only offends him if the threat is incredibly well veiled.

    And you are correct: Trump’s referring to the press as the “enemy of the people” sure makes his condolences to the family’s of those slain journalists seem a little insincere!

  132. [132] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    neilm [128]

    “NoPAC Politicians”

    THAT is good! I like that! Your mascot could be “NoPACMan”who is chased around the screen by corrupt corporate ghosts!

    Ms.NoPACMan? Heck, you could bring back the whole franchise!

  133. [133] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Listen-
    Actually, the goal is for them to be running from us.

  134. [134] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    neilm-
    Thank you for taking the time to provide the advice.

    But the guest article is just trying to take advantage of the opportunity of an opening for it on Thursday.

    I originally contacted CW for his opinion on One Demand and to try to get him to write about it. That is what I was advised to do by many people- contact journalists, politicians, activists, organizations, etc. for feedback and possibly some exposure and/or help.

    I thought by now I would have been able to get some feedback, but have been mostly ignored and only got the beginning of a conversation when I wasn't.

    It didn't matter if I was nice or not. Coal in your stocking whether you are naughty or nice is no way to inspire nice.

    But as I was also advised not to give up, I keep trying. When nice didn't work, I tried not so nice.

    When CW did respond with the same excuses that I had heard many times before, including here, and that I had already explained many times were not what One Demand is to many commenters that had made the same misinterpretations or misrepresentations, I did not point that out in my response, instead I explained each point again for CW.

    When he did not respond to continue the conversation because he had been busy with the year end awards I simply and nicely reminded him after the awards that I had responded and asked him to continue the conversation.

    So please stop with the me berating CW comments.

    While I have at times maybe been a bit annoying, I have also been annoyed.

    And saying things like if you call yourself a reality based blog then you should address this reality or explain why this is not a reality is what the tone of the majority of my comments have been.

    And when being nice and making reasonable statements as in the paragraph above get no response, then pushing harder is worth a try.

    And at least one of the two times that CW did respond actually followed one of those times I pushed harder. Yet, I still tried to work with mostly nice even though it was pushing harder that was successful, at least until being nice proved not to work again.

    Whether or not CW writes about it, it seems reasonable, at least to me, that after all this time he could have a real complete conversation with me on this, either here in the comments or with me personally through a few emails.

    It wouldn't be that hard or even that time consuming if he discussed what One Demand really is.

    Or he could at least give a real reason why he won't have a real discussion on One Demand instead of the "You catch more flies with honey" excuse that is clearly not valid and clearly not reality.

    That's not asking to drive the Ferrari- it's asking for a ride or some directions and getting splashed by the puddle as the Ferrari drives by.

  135. [135] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Re-63

    RH - Do you have Wllie Nelson's permission to use his image on your site? Last time I looked, violating Fed. Fair Use law can result in a $150K fine per image. What about your other stock photos on your website?

  136. [136] 
    Michale wrote:

    JM,

    If the Supreme Court were to rule that the original Roe V Wade decision was a mistake, it is possible that a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President could get around that by passing national, Federal legislation declaring that abortion is legal throughout the United States.

    If the SCOTUS rules that abortion is unconstitutional, Congress cannot create a law that says abortion is legal..

    It would be declared unconstitutional..

  137. [137] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yunno.. Something else just occurred to me as I was dragging my ass outta bed at 0145 in the morning..

    If President Trump continues his winning streak, Democrats are going to be so demoralized come November, no Dems will bother showing up.. :D

    A pleasant thought. :D

  138. [138] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Left needs to face reality: Trump is winning

    To understand the madness gripping American leftists, try to see the world through their eyes. Presto, you’re now part of the raging resistance.

    Like the Palestinians who mark Israel’s birth as their nakba, or tragedy, you regard Donald Trump’s 2016 victory as a catastrophe. It’s the last thing you think of most nights, and the first thing most mornings.

    You can’t shake it or escape it. Whatever you watch, listen to or read, there are reminders — Donald Trump really is president.

    You actually believe The New York Times is too nice to him, so you understand why a Manhattan woman urged a reporter there to stop covering Trump to protest his presidency.

    And where the hell is Robert Mueller? He was supposed to save us from this nightmare — that’s what Chuck Schumer banked on. Well?

    You spend your tax cut even as you rail against the man who made it happen. And you are pleased that cousin Jimmy finally got a job, though you repeat the daily devotional that Barack Obama deserves credit for the roaring economy.

    And now this — Justice Anthony Kennedy is retiring, and Trump gets another Supreme Court pick. The court might tilt right for the rest of your life. He’s winning.

    NOOOOOOOOO!!!

    In a nutshell, our visit to the tortured mind of a Trump hater explains everything from Saturday’s mass marches to why a Virginia restaurant owner declared No Soup for Sarah Huckabee Sanders.

    Their loathing for Trump is bone-deep and all consuming. This is war and they take no prisoners.

    For most marchers, border policies offer a chance to vent. They didn’t make a peep when Obama did the same thing.

    If children are their main concern, they could help the 23,000 New York City kids living in shelters. Or they could have attended the funeral of Lesandro Guzman-Feliz, the innocent Bronx teen hacked to death by a Dominican gang.

    Instead, they give in to Trump Derangement Syndrome, which causes them to immediately and absolutely adopt the opposite position of the president’s — facts and common sense be damned.

    Alas, they may look back on the last few months as the good old days. For Trump, despite his stumbles and the Mueller shadow, is finding a political sweet spot.

    He is reaching a high-water mark in his presidency, with his support growing and expanding. Events, including big Supreme Court rulings and Kennedy’s retirement, give him chances to pad his advantage.
    https://nypost.com/2018/06/30/the-left-needs-to-face-reality-trump-is-winning/

    The Left really needs to come to grips with reality..

    President Trump is well on his way to being a great leader, right up there with Ronald Reagan...

    Get on the Trump train or get left behind.. :D

  139. [139] 
    Michale wrote:

    Whether it’s because of Trump’s quick reversal and/or the left’s overreaction, polls are capturing the president’s rising fortunes. One survey showed most Americans were not nearly as sympathetic to the illegal border crossers as the media.

    “I think it’s terrible about the kids getting split up from their parents. But the parents shouldn’t have been here,” a Minnesota woman told the Times.

    Another poll shows Trump with 90 percent support among Republicans, matching the backing of President George W. Bush after 9/11.

    And his support is broadening. A Harvard CAPS/Harris poll showed his approval rating hitting 47 percent, a two-point gain in one month driven by a 10-point swing among Hispanic voters and a four-point gain among Democrats.

    Pollsters attributed the rise to the strong economy and that a whopping 75 percent approved of the president’s decision to meet with North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un.

    Finally, a Pew finding about Trump supporters upends stereotypes: Just 31 percent are white men without college degrees, while 66 percent are college graduates, women or nonwhites.

    And, since ya'all SWEAR by polls... :D

  140. [140] 
    Michale wrote:

    How a surprise deal to boost world oil supply could 'stir the pot' in the Middle East, and pressure Saudi's spare capacity

    The U.S. and Saudi Arabia struck a side deal to boost oil supply by 2 million barrels per day, according to President Donald Trump.

    Analysts say that deal could prove a challenge to Saudi's spare oil supply, and 'stir the pot' in the volatile Middle East.

    In particular, Iran and Venezuela are both reeling economically, with Tehran feeling the bite of new sanctions.
    https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/30/oil-deal-may-stir-the-pot-in-the-middle-east-and-test-saudi-capacity.html

    The Art Of The Deal

    Nope.. STILL not tired of winning.. :D

  141. [141] 
    Michale wrote:

    “How dare you take the babies from her mother’s arms,”
    -Mad Maxine Waters

    Yea?? How DARE you rip a baby from a mother's womb!!!

    Hypocrite...

  142. [142] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    What babies are being ripped from their mother’s wombs, and why the Hell are they being shoved back in there? If they are being ripped from women’s wombs, it is to save their lives as they will suffocate in there. Conservatives and their sick sexual fantasies.

    Abortion is a woman’s choice, so the procedure is done at the woman’s discretion. The government is ripping these children away from their parents against their wishes.

  143. [143] 
    Michale wrote:

    Abortion is a woman’s choice, so the procedure is done at the woman’s discretion. The government is ripping these children away from their parents against their wishes.

    Crossing the border is an illegal immigrant's choice..

    When a criminal is arrested or taken into custody, being kept with his/her children is NOT an option...

    The Left's "concern" for a criminal's children is borne of one thing and one thing only.. A Party agenda....

    That's it...

    How do we know this?? Because the Left has moved on to being hysterical about the SCOTUS and have forgotten last week's shiny, illegal immigrant's children..

  144. [144] 
    Michale wrote:

    The government is ripping these children away from their parents against their wishes.

    That's what happens when you break the law in this country.. If you do it accompanied by your children, your children will be taken away from you..

    Coming from an LEO background, I am surprised that this fact escapes you...

  145. [145] 
    Michale wrote:

    And you are correct: Trump’s referring to the press as the “enemy of the people” sure makes his condolences to the family’s of those slain journalists seem a little insincere!

    “We’re gonna punish our enemies, and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.”
    -Barack Obama

    Funny how ya'all didn't mind when Obama invoked the "enemy of the people" concept..

    In response to Hillary being asked which "enemy" is she most proud of, Hillary said this:

    “Well, in addition to the NRA, the health insurance companies, the drug companies, the Iranians? Probably the Republicans.”

    Funny how no one here had ANY problem with Hillary referring to Republicans as "enemy"...

    So, please.. Quit with the melodrama and histrionics and hypocrisy...

    Democrats have NO problem labeling their American political opponents as "enemies"..

    And ya'all had NO PROBLEM with it when they did..

  146. [146] 
    Michale wrote:

    Allow me to help ya'all out....

    So, please.. Quit with the melodrama and histrionics and hypocrisy...

    Democrats have NO problem labeling their American political opponents as "enemies"..

    And ya'all had NO PROBLEM with it when they did..

    Uh... {sputter}... well... er... Well, that's different...
    -Weigantians

    There ya'all go. Now yer covered...

  147. [147] 
    Michale wrote:

    “I think it’s terrible about the kids getting split up from their parents. But the parents shouldn’t have been here.”
    -Minnesota Woman

    According to polls, which I KNOW that ya'all love and adore....

    The majority of Americans blame the illegal immigrant parents, not the Trump administration, for illegal immigrants and their children being separated...

    It's really a no brainer...

    If you don't want to be separated from your children???

    "QUIT BREAKING THE LAW, ASSHOLE!!!"
    -Jim Carrey, LIAR LIAR

  148. [148] 
    Michale wrote:

    But.... Hay.. I'll make it easy on ya...

    Let's take a poll here and see who here believes that President Trump and Trump supporters are "An Enemy Of The People".. :D

  149. [149] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale

    "If the SCOTUS rules that abortion is unconstitutional, Congress cannot create a law that says abortion is legal..

    It would be declared unconstitutional.."

    Michale, once again, you MISSED the WHOLE point. SCOTUS, by overturning Roe V Wade, would NOT be declaring abortion unconstitutional. It would simply be returning things to the status before Roe V Wade, where it would be left up to the states and the Federal government to decide if abortion should be legal or not. It would be saying that instead of finding that there is a constitutional right to privacy to abortion, that the constitution is NEUTRAL on the subject. To declare abortion unconstitutional, it would have to make an ADDITIONAL ruling that the constitution actually IMPLIES a right to life, something that would affect the death penalty as well. That would require a Right to Life AMENDMENT.

    Congress CAN declare abortion LEGAL because the Supreme Court would NOT have declared abortion unconstitutional. It would have said ONLY that the constitution does GUARANTEE a right to an abortion, thus prohibiting the states making abortion illegal, like Roe V Wade does now.

    Declaring that the Constitution is NEUTRAL on the subject is NOT the SAME as declaring that it is in fact PROHIBITED. Got it?

  150. [150] 
    John M wrote:

    Sorry, that one line should have read "does NOT GUARANTEE a right to an abortion", thus prohibiting the states from making abortion illegal, like Roe V Wade does now. - for clarity's sake.

  151. [151] 
    John M wrote:

    So NO, a LAW passed by CONGRESS declaring abortion legal, could NOT be found to be unconstitutional. At least, NOT without further amending the CURRENT constitution with a specific amendment on the subject.

  152. [152] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick (122)-
    I'm glad you feel there is no fault in trying.

    And I am trying (and depending on who you ask, at times very trying).

  153. [153] 
    John M wrote:

    If Roe V Wade were overturned, we would go BACK the the patchwork quilt we had before, unless Congress itself acted. Where states like California and New York could keep abortion on demand LEGAL, according to their own state laws, and states like Missouri and South Dakota could say that abortion was ILLEGAL within their states.

    Understand NOW Michale?

  154. [154] 
    John M wrote:

    "If President Trump continues his winning streak, Democrats are going to be so demoralized come November, no Dems will bother showing up.. :D"

    DREAM on Michale. You are in for such a RUDE shock come November.

    "The Left really needs to come to grips with reality.."

    Says the man who has no grip on reality himself. Say it again with me Michale: Senator Doug Jones and Congressman Conor Lamb. :-D

    "Get on the Trump train or get left behind."

    I'll take getting left behind over going off a cliff any day! :-D

    "Let's take a poll here and see who here believes that President Trump and Trump supporters are "An Enemy Of The People""

    I believe that quite a lot of them, NOT ALL, but a lot, are enemies of DEMOCRACY.

    "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin

  155. [155] 
    John M wrote:

    OR, as Samuel Adams once said, “The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil constitution, are worth defending at all hazards: And it is our duty to defend them against ALL attacks.”

  156. [156] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale, once again, you MISSED the WHOLE point. SCOTUS, by overturning Roe V Wade, would NOT be declaring abortion unconstitutional.

    Unless it does..

  157. [157] 
    Michale wrote:

    DREAM on Michale. You are in for such a RUDE shock come November.

    That's nearly word for word what ya'all said in Sep of 2016...

    Why should I believe ya now?? :D

    Says the man who has no grip on reality himself. Say it again with me Michale: Senator Doug Jones and Congressman Conor Lamb. :-D

    Two outliers in response to the Democrats losing over 1000 political seats in the previous 8 years..

    Do you REALLY think those two outliers are going to all of the sudden, become the norm?? :D

    "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin

    And what "essential liberty" has the American people had to give up recently??

  158. [158] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Let's take a poll here and see who here believes that President Trump and Trump supporters are "An Enemy Of The People".. :D

    They ARE the people, aren't they?

    Besides, the fake news is the real enemy of the people, you know. The problem with that is that, according to Trump's indiscriminate public statements, the fake news includes all of the media. Except Fox News, of course.

    Based on your comments here, Michale, you seem to be taken in by Trump's con and relish in the divisions he sows. This is what I don't understand.

  159. [159] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale-
    Yes, President Trump is an enemy of the people. He was an enemy of the people before he entered politics and it has not changed.

    As for his supporters, some of them are enemies of the people (if they are doing what Trump did before he entered politics), but most are victims that have been conned (if they are the ordinary citizens that voted for him).

    I see Trump as a con man and a manipulator. I believe the people that claim he screwed them over while making sure that he made out well. He was successful at doing that. It was his business model so in that sense he was a successful businessman.

    This is not to say that he is the only one. That is the general business model in many instances and is unfortunately more the norm than an exception.

    And even though it is not part of your survey, the Big Money Democrat establishment and their supporters would generate the same answers from me.

    I do not buy the Big Money Democrats excuse that they have to take Big Money because the Republicans do. I have said that there is potential for small contributions to raise competitive amounts of money and there have even been examples that have shown that it is possible, even if those examples were not exactly what One Demand is.

    These examples have been a departure from the Big Money campaign model and a step in the right direction and provide evidence that it could work or at least deserves to be entered into the public discourse.

    I also agree with John M that Trump and his supporters that are enemies of the people are also enemies of democracy.

    And I agree with Sam Adams that we need to defend against ALL those that would attack it and con us.

    And this is not a false equivalency argument because I am not using the Big Money Democrats to justify supporting Big Money Republicans or the other way around.

    And it is not saying they are equivalent in all ways, it is just pointing out one similarity that in my opinion is a major problem with both parties.

    That is why I do not buy the false non-equivalency argument of the Big Money Democrats. Pointing out the differences on some other things between the parties does not, in my opinion, somehow mean that they are not the same when it comes to financing their parties and candidates with Big Money.

  160. [160] 
    Michale wrote:

    Besides, the fake news is the real enemy of the people, you know.

    Exactly...

    And if the media is pushing Fake News (PAUL MANAFORT PLEADS GUILTY TO 5 COUNTS OF MANSLAUGHTER!!!!) and if Fake News is an enemy of the people, then President Trump is correct.

    The media IS the enemy of the people..

    "Simply logic"
    -Admiral James T Kirk

  161. [161] 
    Michale wrote:

    Based on your comments here, Michale, you seem to be taken in by Trump's con and relish in the divisions he sows. This is what I don't understand.

    You should understand it..

    Because it was exactly how the majority of Weigantians were during the Obama years.. They relished in the divisions that Obama sowed with the Right Wingery...

    So, it's quite easy to understand.

  162. [162] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yes, President Trump is an enemy of the people. He was an enemy of the people before he entered politics and it has not changed.

    There ya go..

    Why is it OK for the Left to claim that their political opponents are "enemy of the people" but the Right can't do the same???

    Pure, blatant, unadulterated hypocrisy..

  163. [163] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale (162)-
    Please clarify if you were referring to me or not with the pure, blatant, unadulterated hypocrisy.

  164. [164] 
    Michale wrote:

    DH,

    Not per se... As far as I know, you haven't condemned President Trump for his "Media is the enemy of the people" factoid...

  165. [165] 
    neilm wrote:

    "Media is the enemy of the people" factoid...

    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/832708293516632065?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E832708293516632065

    Oops. Unless by "Factoid" you meant "simple truth it takes a few seconds to confirm".

  166. [166] 
    neilm wrote:

    Since it was a large part of my business role for over a decade, I follow the leading indicators for the economy fairly closely.

    We are starting into a downturn. Let's hope it is like 2011 or 2015 and we gain momentum again, but this should not be happening so soon after a huge fiscal stimulus like the recent Tax Reform bill.

  167. [167] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    I don't think having any president calling the media and enemy of the people is a good idea. There is no problem with a president criticizing the media with legitimate criticism for the purpose of improving the public discourse.

    I do not think that is what Trump was doing or was his intention for doing it. It was just Trump continuing with his con. It is not to say that there is not fake news, as there is always a little truth in every con. Usually just enough to make the con plausible for those that want to believe it.

    If I was asked if I thought the media and their followers are an enemy of the people it would be about the same answer as for Trump and his supporters and the Big Money Democrats and their supporters.

  168. [168] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oops. Unless by "Factoid" you meant "simple truth it takes a few seconds to confirm".

    "Truth"??

    Your "truth" is that Obama is the "Real President"...

    I deal in FACTS...

    And, the FACT is, if "fake news" is the enemy of the people, as Liz has said, then the media that pushes "fake news" is also the enemy of the people..

    "Simple logic"

    We are starting into a downturn.

    Of course, we are :^/

    heh

  169. [169] 
    Michale wrote:

    I don't think having any president calling the media and enemy of the people is a good idea.

    Yet, you think calling the president and his supporters "enemy of the people" IS a good idea??

  170. [170] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    I feel compelled to correct the perception of the record.

    President Trump's public statements about "fake news" demonstrate that he has the issue ass-backwards. But, he knows that the issue is a winning one for him. Because, everything is about him, naturally.

  171. [171] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    I was answering your survey question.

    Sometimes it takes a while, but patience is sometimes rewarded.

    I would appreciate if you would answer my "survey" questions that have pretty much only been answered with excuses to avoid answering the questions, if they have been "answered" at all.

    Wouldn't it be better if those citizens that vote in presidential elections but don't vote in off year elections participated in One Demand in 2018 rather than waste their vote by not voting?

    What harm would it cause if they did?

  172. [172] 
    Michale wrote:

    President Trump's public statements about "fake news" demonstrate that he has the issue ass-backwards.

    In what way???

    But, he knows that the issue is a winning one for him. Because, everything is about him, naturally.

    Narcissism in a US President!!?? Say it ain't so!!! :D

    But, once again, it begs the question..

    Why is a narcissistic POTUS a problem *NOW*, but it WASN'T a problem with the biggest narcissist President prior to Trump ever???

    Barack Obama...

    Personally, I think a POTUS that is sure of himself is a GOOD thing...

    But, apparently, that's just me.. :D

  173. [173] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    There is nothing wrong with a president that is sure of himself.

    But it is even more important that a president make sure that what he is sure aboot is accurate.

  174. [174] 
    Michale wrote:

    But it is even more important that a president make sure that what he is sure aboot is accurate.

    Considering the events of the past week or so...???

    Well, you can do the math.. :D

  175. [175] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale-
    As I forgot to reference it or you, you do realize that comment 171 was a reply to 169?

  176. [176] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    neilm-
    One more thought on the Ferrari/garage analogy.

    Asking CW to publish a guest article could also be described as you have a nice race track that you drive your Ferrari on. I built a nice car but don't have a racetrack and would like to find out how well my car works.

    As long as you are spending Thursday with your Ferrari in the garage would you mind if I took my car that I built out on your racetrack?

  177. [177] 
    Shevek57 wrote:

    From what I understand there is a TamperMonkey script available to hide/block commenters on WP. Does anyone know where I can find that script? Thanks!

  178. [178] 
    Michale wrote:

    From what I understand there is a TamperMonkey script available to hide/block commenters on WP. Does anyone know where I can find that script? Thanks!

    Gods know you wouldn't want to be exposed to diverse ideas or even {gasp} ideas ya don't agree with..

    "OH MY GOD, WHAT A FUCKING NIGHTMARE!!!!"
    -Maris Tomeii, MY COUSIN VINNY

    :D

  179. [179] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'de love to see the whiners collective heads explode if the Grand Poobah turned off scripts for Weigantia..

    It would be hilarious to see the whiners wallow around without their crutch.. :D

  180. [180] 
    Michale wrote:

    My evil twin hacked into my account and left the above two comments..

    My apologies to Weigantia on his behalf... :^/

  181. [181] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michael-
    There is someone here that would not want to be exposed to and engage in thoughtful discussion on diverse ideas or even ideas they don't agree with and either ignore an opportunity to discuss a different idea or provide an excuse not to address a different idea as actually having addressed it?

    "Shocking!"
    -Geraldo Rivera

  182. [182] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    correction 181-
    Michale's evil twin- unless he spells his name Michael. then no correction is needed.

  183. [183] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Shevek57,

    Why would you want to hide or block commenters?

    I mean, what are you here for?

    (Michale, let this commenter answer for itself.)

  184. [184] 
    Shevek57 wrote:

    Hi Elizabeth!

    This "itself" can be here for any damn reason "it" chooses. Thanks!

  185. [185] 
    Michale wrote:

    Another polite and civil Left Winger...

    {/sarcasm}

  186. [186] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz- (184)-
    see comment 103

  187. [187] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Interesting moment from Bill Maher.

    He said something along the lines of "Anyone that didn't vote for Hillary, well that isn't looking like it was a good thing to do right aboot now." and paused for the applause.

    There was only a very light smattering of applause, not the cheer he seemed to be expecting.

  188. [188] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Shevek57-
    There is a commenter of changing gender which explains the itself reference. I believe the itself reference was an attempt to not assume your gender and not meant as an insult if that's how you took it.

  189. [189] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    This "itself" can be here for any damn reason "it" chooses. Thanks!

    Naturally.

  190. [190] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Don [187]

    Maybe that was because he was in the middle of a thought, Don. The fact that Michael Moore didn't disagree with him ought to speak volumes more to you.

    Most of the Left understands the mistake that they made by failing to support the only real Trump-alternative in the race. Trump is all of the evidence that's needed to make that point. If it happens again, we'll get the same result.

  191. [191] 
    Michale wrote:

    There is a commenter of changing gender which explains the itself reference. I believe the itself reference was an attempt to not assume your gender and not meant as an insult if that's how you took it.

    It's interesting that Shevek chose to take it as an insult rather than the consideration it was most likely meant to be..

    Tolerant Left my arse!! :D

  192. [192] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Balthy-
    I was and still am more interested in the audience reaction than what Michael Moore has to say. Michael Moore has had a moment or two, but what he has to say generally doesn't appeal to me.

    On a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being the best, Michael is about a 3 and Ralph Nader is about an 8 on my scale.

    While the audience does not reflect what all of the left thinks, it seems to me that the audience understands and learned from the mistake that was made by nominating Hillary. Trump is just a small part of the evidence of the failure of that approach by the Democrats over the years.

    If it happens again, we'll get the same results.

  193. [193] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale (191)-
    Is that where you've been keeping it? :D

  194. [194] 
    Michale wrote:

    (Michale, let this commenter answer for itself.)

    Well, since the commenter's answer was rather snooty, allow me to indulge in some deductive reasoning..

    It appears that Shevek is looking for an echo chamber, where he/she/ze/ba/io/ar/qe/zb can ONLY be exposed to like minded ideas and doesn't have his/hers/zez/ios/ard/gee/zbz worldview contaminated by...yunno... reality..

    That's my guess anyways.. :D

  195. [195] 
    Michale wrote:

    Is that where you've been keeping it? :D

    My left arse cheek, to be exact.. :D

  196. [196] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Anonymous commenter don't have to be responsible for what they say. Consequently, their comments rarely add anything of substance to an intelligent discussion of the issues.

    Of course, that's not always the case but, in my limited experience, it often is the case. And, you can tell after the first few comments they make as they mistake this place for a chat room instead of the comments section of an excellent reality-based blog.

  197. [197] 
    Michale wrote:

    Idaho apartment stabbing suspect attacked child's birthday party seeking 'vengeance' after being asked to leave, cops say

    The suspect accused of stabbing nine people, including six children, at an Idaho apartment complex attacked a child's birthday party to "take vengeance" after he was asked to leave, police said Sunday.

    A visibly emotional Boise Police Chief William Bones described how first responders found the injured in the street and in hallways after the Saturday evening attack. He said the birthday girl, a three-year-old, was among the victims along with five other children between four and 12 years old.

    He said that some of the victims had suffered life-threatening injuries and added that "the level of some of the injuries will be life-altering in a very negative way."

    Timmy Earl Kinner, 30, of Los Angeles, was arrested and has been charged with nine counts of battery-aggravated assault and six counts of injury to a child. Bones said Kinner had a lengthy criminal record that included weapons charges and arrests for "violence against others" and had served prison time in Kentucky.
    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/07/01/idaho-apartment-stabbing-suspect-attacked-childs-birthday-party-seeking-vengeance-after-being-asked-to-leave-cops-say.html

    We simply MUST ban knives so these heinous acts can never happen!!!

    {/sarcasm}

    Or we can address the scumbags who commit these perverse and leave law abiding citizens alone..

  198. [198] 
    Michale wrote:

    Anonymous commenter don't have to be responsible for what they say. Consequently, their comments rarely add anything of substance to an intelligent discussion of the issues.

    Of course, that's not always the case but, in my limited experience, it often is the case. And, you can tell after the first few comments they make as they mistake this place for a chat room instead of the comments section of an excellent reality-based blog.

    I see your point... :D

  199. [199] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale-
    So you are willing to attack the knife industry but don't have the courage to take on the powerful kids birthday party industry?

    Make we need to arm clowns. Even if it's not a gun, they could at least fill the plastic flower with mace. :D

  200. [200] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Maybe we need to arm clowns.

  201. [201] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    We simply MUST ban knives so these heinous acts can never happen!!!{/sarcasm}

    Why don't you just wait for another mass shooting?

    I mean, seriously.

    As for guns, I've concluded that Americans are just going to have to live with a mass shooting every month or so and hope they don't have to deal with one up close and personal.

  202. [202] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale-
    So you are willing to attack the knife industry but don't have the courage to take on the powerful kids birthday party industry?

    Make we need to arm clowns. Even if it's not a gun, they could at least fill the plastic flower with mace. :D

    heh

  203. [203] 
    Michale wrote:

    As for guns, I've concluded that Americans are just going to have to live with a mass shooting every month or so and hope they don't have to deal with one up close and personal.

    Actually, we don't..

    But Democrats have to give up the SJW crap when it comes to personal privacy...

    Many mass attacks can be averted if Law Enforcement has access to mental health records..

    But Democrats stand in the way of that, no matter how many lives it costs...

  204. [204] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    What is SJW?

  205. [205] 
    Michale wrote:

    Social Justice Warrior....

  206. [206] 
    Shevek57 wrote:

    Don [188]-

    Thanks, Don

  207. [207] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    What's wrong with social justice, Michale?

  208. [208] 
    Shevek57 wrote:

    Elizabeth [189]

    Just FYI: I have commented here before (ca. June-July 2011) and have lurked on/off ever since.

    Thanks!

  209. [209] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Back in June/July 2011, you could find some good discussion.

    These days, personal attacks and insults and other juvenile behavior are the rule to prove the exception.

    Perhaps, you may help us get back to those days ...

  210. [210] 
    Michale wrote:

    What's wrong with social justice, Michale?

    Nothing... When in moderation..

    But when it causes school shootings and crowd-based mass shootings..

    I have an issue..

    Back in June/July 2011, you could find some good discussion.

    These days, personal attacks and insults and other juvenile behavior are the rule to prove the exception.

    Perhaps, you may help us get back to those days ...

    A-frakin'-men to THAT...

  211. [211] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    But, Michale, how in the heck does social justice cause school shootings?

  212. [212] 
    Michale wrote:

    But, Michale, how in the heck does social justice cause school shootings?

    It doesn't "cause" them per se... But social justice causes Democrats to ignore obvious signs in the name of social justice and viola'... Dozens dead in a school or mass shooting..

  213. [213] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Balthy-
    Have to admit you fooled me.

    Just saw the Bill Maher show again and even though Michael Moore was not on stage when Bill made the statement aboot not voting for Hillary you got me to comment as if he had been. At least that explains why I couldn't remember his reaction.

    Well done.

  214. [214] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    [212],

    ??

  215. [215] 
    Michale wrote:

    [212],

    ??

    Numerous school shootings and mass shootings, including the recent newspaper shooting, which doesn't really qualify, there was a plethora of facts and evidence that indicated a problem..

    If these facts and evidenced had been acted upon, the massacres would have never took place..

    But political correct social justice morons were content to ignore the facts and evidence because they were social justice warriors and wanted Democrats in power to look good..

    And the result?? Dead Americans..

  216. [216] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Call me obtuse but, I still don't get it. Mostly because it doesn't make any sense.

  217. [217] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Don 192, 213 Just saw the Bill Maher show again and even though Michael Moore was not on stage when Bill made the statement aboot not voting for Hillary you got me to comment as if he had been. At least that explains why I couldn't remember his reaction.

    While the audience does not reflect what all of the left thinks, it seems to me that the audience understands and learned from the mistake that was made by nominating Hillary. Trump is just a small part of the evidence of the failure of that approach by the Democrats over the years.

    It just doesn't matter Don, I agree with Maher.

    And what 'mistake' did the Democrats make by nominating Hillary? Holding primaries? Would you rather the party not listen to their own membership?

    This is one reason that I'm against open primaries. The purpose of a political party's primary is to choose a leader, not to find out who everyone else would rather see as their leader. The 'jungle primary' being an exception to that in my mind, because it passes two tests: fairness to all parties, and high confidence in results.

  218. [218] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Michale [215]: Fact-free but broadcast ready!

    kudos

  219. [219] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Balthy-
    It just doesn't matter because you have a different opinion than I do?

    You are entitled to your opinion and so am I. And so is Bill Maher and his audience. It seemed to me that the smattering of applause meant there were many in the audience that did not agree with Bill Maher.

    Those are the people that the Democrats need. I wonder what the result would be if they were told that they didn't matter. Oh yeah, 2016. And many other elections going back for quite a while.

    What mistake did the Democrats make by nominating Hillary, the only person that Trump could beat in the general election? The complete question answers itself.

    While I am for open primaries because I believe every citizens should be able to participate in the entire process, I also have no problem with a party wanting to have only their membership select the nominee if that is what the party wants to do.

    But if a party wants a closed primary they must pay for it themselves. If they participate in a publicly run primary then it must be open to all citizens.

    Top two is a scam that is not fair to all parties. There is no valid reason to only have the top two in the general election. High confidence in results? How does the top two primary ensure the validity of the vote?

    "Poor Mr. Preminger, he thinks he's the cat and your the mouse."
    Trumbo's wife to Trumbo
    -Trumbo

  220. [220] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Oops-
    You're the mouse.

  221. [221] 
    neilm wrote:

    Here is a link to Charlie Brown's Tapmermonkey script.

    http://chasbrown.com/cwWeedBlocker/CWTrollBlocker.user.js

    I think you need to install the Tampermonkey gadget on Chrome then run this.

    It works a charm.

    I used it for a while, but now I just scroll through any time I see more than two of Michale's comments together.

  222. [222] 
    neilm wrote:

    Let me ask the Trump supporters around here:

    How are we going to know when Trump has won his trade war?

    My criteria is that the U.S. loses 4 million jobs and Trump lies that he has won and his ignorant supporters believe him. (Note: multiple studies have shown that for every job saved in a trade war, many more are lost).

    Here is a good primer on tariffs from the Tax Foundation:

    https://taxfoundation.org/impact-trade-tariffs-united-states/

    Note: the right wing rag WSJ also predicts massive job losses from the trade war, and the automotive industry predicts increased costs of $5,800 per car due to Trump's stupidity and complete misunderstanding of macroeconomics.

  223. [223] 
    neilm wrote:

    If you don't have time to read the whole primer above, just read this passage from it:

    Suppose an American business loads $100 million worth of goods it produced onto a cargo ship. When the ship leaves the country, it is credited to the current account as an export of $100 million. Now suppose that the business sells the goods to France; after shipping and other costs, the business makes a 20 percent profit selling to French customers.

    The business now has $120 million it can use to make purchases in France. Suppose they decide to purchase wine, load it back on the now-empty cargo ship, and return to the United States; the value of the imported wine ($120 million) is debited from the current account. The business now sells the wine to its American customers, making another $10 million in profit. The business has made $20 million from the original sell of the goods in the cargo ship, and another $10 million from selling the imported wine, for a net profit of $30 million.

    According to the current accounts, America has exported $100 million to France and imported $120 million from France—resulting in a so-called trade deficit of $20 million. But, we can see that the American business is clearly better off by having made these exchanges, $30 million better off.

    This is why everybody should pay no attention to Trump's nonsense about trade balances.

  224. [224] 
    neilm wrote:

    And don't get me going on the iPhone - a product that has made Apple the most valuable company on the planet.

    China adds a few dollars to the total cost of the phone but since they are the last stop in the supply chain before America, the whole import cost is attributed to them. Even though the screens, the high value electronics, and most importantly the software and design comes from other countries, Trump thinks that China is ripping us off.

    Knuckle draggers everywhere deserve a massive apology from the White House.

  225. [225] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Knuckle draggers everywhere deserve a massive apology from the White House.

    Now, this is just the kind of thinking that will ensure Democrats lose.

    It's never a good bet to insult an entire group of voters.

    Whatever happened to the fine art of persuasion? It was lost with the ability to communicate.

  226. [226] 
    neilm wrote:

    Whatever happened to the fine art of persuasion? It was lost with the ability to communicate.

    You really think the "fine art of persuasion" is going to move the dial with the Trump supporters?

    The big takeaway from the last decade is that a motivated minority can out vote a lackadaisical majority.

    It is time to wake up the majority, and the more extreme and outrageous Trump's crazies get, the more the majority is disgusted and angry.

    Trying to make everybody calm about Trump is helping normalize him and his gang - agitating them so they show their true colors is essential.

    Look at Michale who went on a two week crusade trying to convince everybody that locking up toddlers is standard practice in America so we should be OK with it, and we are hypocrites for condemning Trump - all that did was anger everybody who decided that Trump and his enablers were lying again and that this was their mess and they weren't going to blame us for it.

    We had mass marches in the streets yesterday in anger - do you think these folks would be protesting if they thought that if they were just a bit kinder and more understanding of Trump he would like them and realize he needed to listen to their concerns?

  227. [227] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You really think the "fine art of persuasion" is going to move the dial with the Trump supporters?

    Not most of them, just enough of the Trump voters.

    Trying to make everybody calm about Trump is helping normalize him and his gang - agitating them so they show their true colors is essential.

    Of course, that's not what I'm proposing - oh, I think their true colours are shining through well enough. Besides, Democrats will lose if they try to play Trump's game.

    Look at Michale ...

    Michale is a bad example - he's not representative of the voters I'm talking about.

    We had mass marches in the streets yesterday in anger - do you think these folks would be protesting if they thought that if they were just a bit kinder and more understanding of Trump he would like them and realize he needed to listen to their concerns?

    Once again, Neil, that is not what I'm talking about. Was my comment clear as mud?

    It is time to wake up the majority, and the more extreme and outrageous Trump's crazies get, the more the majority is disgusted and angry.

    Indeed.

    But, the track record on that is not good. Be careful not to put all your eggs in this basket.

  228. [228] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    BTW, Neil, I'm in favour of angry protests, so long as they stay focused on the big picture.

    These protests can be a very good tool in waking up the majority.

  229. [229] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, one more thing ... if Democrats wish to win back the House and Senate and, in 2020, the WH, then they need to pay close attention to the successful primary campaign of one Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and understand why she won.

  230. [230] 
    Michale wrote:

    Balthy

    And what 'mistake' did the Democrats make by nominating Hillary? Holding primaries?

    Dood! You honestly call that a PRIMARY???

    It was a coronation, nothing more..

    Michale [215]: Fact-free but broadcast ready!

    Which facts do you dispute??

  231. [231] 
    Michale wrote:

    Look at Michale who went on a two week crusade trying to convince everybody that locking up toddlers is standard practice in America so we should be OK with it, and we are hypocrites for condemning Trump

    Factually not accurate...

    No one should be "OK" with something like that.. But it IS necessary..

    And the hypocrite part came in because your messiah Odumbo did the EXACT same thing and YOU SAID NOTHING...

    So, what is the ONLY logical conclusion??

    That you are a hypocrite, you don't really care about putting toddlers or your head is so far up Odumbo's ass it's impossible to tell where you end and he starts...

    Or any combination thereof..

  232. [232] 
    Michale wrote:

    You really think the "fine art of persuasion" is going to move the dial with the Trump supporters?

    But, according to Kock, you don't NEED to move the dial with Trump supporters??

    So, why even bother???

  233. [233] 
    Michale wrote:

    Call me obtuse but, I still don't get it. Mostly because it doesn't make any sense.

    I would never call you obtuse, but I think in this case you are intentionally missing the point..

    Let me give you an example..

    At the Parkland school, the Obama initiated a program to get felons who had served prison time back into the school system to get an education..

    The politics in the area of the school were very pro Obama and no one in authority was willing to taint Obama's Social Justice pet project..

    The Parkland shooter was part of that Social Justice program.. During the course of the program, the scumbag made MANY inferences to violence and school shootings etc etc.. Many kids had stated, in jest, that this scumbag was going to be the next school shooter..

    All of that was ignored and/or papered over so as not to taint Obama's Social Justice program..

    All of this is well-documented...

    This is but one example of the trend.. SJWs ignoring obvious and blatant warning signs because they don't want to be mean or they don't want to rock the boat...

    So, the logic is clear.. If warning signs are paid attention to and acted upon, we can stop school shootings and mass shootings..

    And we don't even have to trample on Americans' Constitutional rights...

    It's a win win..

    Except Democrats don't want a "win" like that because then they lose their SJW agenda..

  234. [234] 
    Michale wrote:

    Again I ask...

    If President Trump is so obviously god-awful, why are his poll numbers comparable to Odumbo's numbers at the same point in that administration??

    If President Trump is so god-awful why does the Left have to create Fake News and bullshit to attack him??

    The silence speaks volumes..

  235. [235] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    And, one more thing ... if Democrats wish to win back the House and Senate and, in 2020, the WH, then they need to pay close attention to the successful primary campaign of one Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and understand why she won.

    I honestly and truly, with all my heart, hope that Democrats follow your advice and emulate Cortez's ideology and campaign style..

    Especially her call to abolish ICE and make the borders open..

    ALL Demcorats should support those with every fiber of their being..

    I mean that sincerely... :D

  236. [236] 
    neilm wrote:

    So AMLO won in Mexico. The libertarian sites I follow have lit up in excited horror, which is often a good sign because they tend to get everything wrong, especially when they go all doom and gloom.

    This time we'll need to wait and see. There is a lot of Trump in AMLO, and if he acts the clown like our idiot does then Mexico could be in trouble. Also, if he goes all in Chavez, Mexico is going to struggle. However if he figures out how to break the corrupt link between the authorities and the drug cartels, stays away from clowning around like Trump, and leaves the economy alone, but implements some affordable assistance to the most needy, he could be just what Mexico need.

    A fine tightrope to walk, but at least let us wish him the best at the start of his term.

  237. [237] 
    Michale wrote:

    A Lesson for Democrats From a Republican Dethroned by the Tea Party
    I was on Eric Cantor’s staff when he lost in 2014. The parallels to Joe Crowley’s loss aren’t exact. But they are there.

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/a-lesson-for-democrats-from-a-republican-dethroned-by-the-tea-party?ref=wrap

    A cautionary tale for those who are giddy over the socialist's win over the #4 Democrat in Congress..

  238. [238] 
    Michale wrote:

    However if he figures out how to break the corrupt link between the authorities and the drug cartels,

    And stays alive doing it...

    Good luck...

  239. [239] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I honestly and truly, with all my heart, hope that Democrats follow your advice and emulate Cortez's ideology and campaign style..

    Be careful what you wish for, Michale. At ;east until you understand why she won. :)

  240. [240] 
    Michale wrote:

    Be careful what you wish for, Michale. At ;east until you understand why she won. :)

    She won for the exact same reason that Eric Cantor's primary opponent won..

    Ideological purity over political reality..

    Like I said.. I encourage all Democrats to follow Cortez.. :D

  241. [241] 
    Michale wrote:

    The libertarian sites I follow have lit up in excited horror, which is often a good sign because they tend to get everything wrong, especially when they go all doom and gloom.

    Boy that sure sounds familiar.. :D

  242. [242] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    "If he figures out how to break the corrupt link . . ."

    Or, alternativ4ely, 'If the sun begins to rise in the west.'

    We're talking about Mexico after all, are we not?

  243. [243] 
    Michale wrote:

    Or, alternativ4ely, 'If the sun begins to rise in the west.'

    We're talking about Mexico after all, are we not?

    Word....

  244. [244] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You don't know why she won, Michale.

    It's important to get out of our boxes from time to time and seek new reliable sources of information to challenge our predisposed understandings.

    Who knows ... you might actually change your opinion. And, wouldn't that be refreshing ...

  245. [245] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Do you know what Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's main message was?

  246. [246] 
    Michale wrote:

    You don't know why she won, Michale.

    She won because she spoke to the Far Left, which had an overwhelming majority in her district..

    Her ideas won't speak to the majority of the Democrat Party..

    If they would, then we would have President Bernie Sanders..

    Do you know what Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's main message was?

    Abolish ICE, Free College For All, etc etc etc...

  247. [247] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    While I think AOC put forward a great model for a Democratic campaign - even Don would agree, I believe - I would really like to see her visit FOX News as she makes her media stops.

    Mostly because I would really, really LOVE to see that interview.

    Did you hear what she said about Donald Trump?

  248. [248] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Left Is Slipping into Terminal Irrelevance

    Well, last week was quite a week. For one side, a week of winning. For the other, a week of wailing.

    It will be no secret to regular readers that I am in the former camp. I think it is a good thing that so-called “public-sector unions” can no longer force non-union workers to pay dues. Indeed, like Franklin Delano Roosevelt, I think public-sector unions are an abomination that have no place in a free republic. They all-but-guarantee systematic corruption.

    As Daniel DiSalvo notes in Government Unions and the Bankrupting of America, such unions “extract dues from their members and funnel them into politicians’ campaign war chests, then those same politicians agree to generous contracts for public workers—which in turn leads to more union dues, more campaign spending, and so on. It is a cycle that has dominated the politics of some of America’s states with dire consequences.” Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court took an important step in breaking that vicious cycle.

    First Amendment Wins
    Last week was also a win for religious liberty and free speech. Henceforth, religious pregnancy counseling operations will no longer be required to post advisories informing clients that an abortion is just a quick trip to the local abattoir, a.k.a. Planned Parenthood.

    Then there was the decision upholding President Trump’s moratorium on travel to the United States from certain countries known to be hotbeds of terrorism. I am wholeheartedly with the majority on that one, too, partly because I think our government has a duty to be circumspect about whom it allows into the country, and partly because I dislike grandstanding district court judges who presume to usurp the president’s legitimate constitutional powers by issuing injunctions on a “nationwide basis” against properly formed executive orders.

    All of these decisions are important and, in my view, beneficent. But they were overshadowed by Justice Anthony Kennedy’s announcement that he was retiring. Although Kennedy sided with the majority on these three decisions, historically he has been a wild card, siding with the Left on Roe v. Wade and many other cases involving “social issues.” His retirement, in the context of the president’s promise to “appoint justices who, like Justice Scalia, will protect our liberty with the highest regard for the Constitution” sent the Left into a histrionic orgy of vituperation, paranoia, and rage.
    https://amgreatness.com/2018/07/01/the-left-is-slipping-into-terminal-irrelevance/

    Once again.. The Left's Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Week...

    A couple more like that and Dems won't bother showing up at the polls.. :D

  249. [249] 
    Michale wrote:

    While I think AOC put forward a great model for a Democratic campaign..

    For the far Left/Progressive part, I agree..

    But far Left/Progressive candidates rarely effect any real change..

    Did you hear what she said about Donald Trump?

    Do tell.. :D

  250. [250] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's message is brilliant in its resonance and its simplicity:

    In a moral America and a modern and prosperous America no person should be too poor to live.

    Everything flows from that.

  251. [251] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Did you hear what she said about Donald Trump? Do tell.. :D

    Well, actually, she didn't really say anything about Donald Trump during the campaign.

    After her victory, she said, and I'm paraphrasing, Donald Trump is from Queens and I don't think he's ever run into a girl from the Bronx. :)

    You know what, Michale ... I think once you get to know AOC, you'd like her!

  252. [252] 
    Michale wrote:

    In a moral America and a modern and prosperous America no person should be too poor to live.

    The problem is, there are those who CHOOSE to be "too poor to live" by their actions or there inactions..

    Why should those who DO work and DO prosper have to fund those who refuse to work and refuse to prosper??

    You know what, Michale ... I think once you get to know AOC, you'd like her!

    As long as she is advocating abolishing ICE and open borders, I can't see how I COULD like her..

    Because both of those planks are immature, irresponsible and grossly unacceptable. Anyone who advocates such proves beyond any doubt that they are living in a fantasy world that has NO connection to reality..

  253. [253] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Her ideas won't speak to the majority of the Democrat Party..If they would, then we would have President Bernie Sanders..

    Well, I think that a Trump presidency, truncated or not, changes that calculus.

  254. [254] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, I think that a Trump presidency, truncated or not, changes that calculus.

    I would agree with that if the Trump presidency had been the blatant and obvious catastrophe ya'all predicted it would be..

    But considering how well he has done (based on poll numbers oft times better than Obama's) it's very likely that a far Left approach is the absolute WORST thing the opposition can do..

  255. [255] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    She doesn't believe in abolishing ICE without replacing it or reforming it. But, ICE isn't really the problem - it's the Trump immigration policies that ICE is implementing.

    And, there is no Democrat or Democrat-Socialist that I know of who advocates "open borders" or who is in favour of crime. Anyone who insists otherwise is wrong.

  256. [256] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Why should those who DO work and DO prosper have to fund those who refuse to work and refuse to prosper??

    First off, I think your premise is a gross overgeneralization.

    But, to answer your question, if those who do work and prosper wish to continue living in a modern, moral, compassionate and advancing country, then they should want everyone in the country to be able to live and be assisted in moving forward.

  257. [257] 
    Michale wrote:

    She doesn't believe in abolishing ICE without replacing it or reforming it.

    Factually not accurate.. Her thinking is, if we have open borders, we don't NEED ICE...

    And, there is no Democrat or Democrat-Socialist that I know of who advocates "open borders" or who is in favour of crime. Anyone who insists otherwise is wrong.

    Factually not accurate..

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/feb/16/democrats-immigration-policy-open-borders-dreamers

    But, to answer your question, if those who do work and prosper wish to continue living in a modern, moral, compassionate and advancing country, then they should want everyone in the country to be able to live and be assisted in moving forward.

    What you describe is called UTOPIA and it's a fantasy...

    Like many (if not all) of the Democrat Party platforms, it fails to take into account human nature..

    For the one person who would be willing to sacrifice their lifestyle to raise another's lifestyle there are 4 more who will gut the one like a fish to take what they have..

    That is the reality that Democrat Party theories ignore..

    If people want a better life, let them earn it.. Society doesn't give anyone a free ride.. At least not for long..

    It's really that simple..

  258. [258] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, there is no Democrat or Democrat-Socialist that I know of who advocates "open borders"

    Why Kirsten Gillibrand and other Democrats’ calls to abolish ICE are politically risky
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/06/29/why-kirsten-gillibrand-and-other-democrats-calls-to-abolish-ice-are-politically-risky/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.fe5ea4ed9c28

  259. [259] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    What you describe is called UTOPIA and it's a fantasy...

    No, it's called Canada, and it works pretty well for most. As I've said before, we have a very long way to go with respect to recognizing Aboriginal rights but, that's another comment thread, hopefully.

    If people want a better life, let them earn it.. Society doesn't give anyone a free ride.. At least not for long..

    I'm not talking about a "free ride" which is not what's happening, anyway.

    No one is asking anyone to sacrifice anything with respect to AOC's main message.

    You just need to find a little compassion for your fellow human being.

  260. [260] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    But, you're right ... greed has been the domain of the Republican party.

  261. [261] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale, why do you ALWAYS comment about half the truth?

    Gillibrand is not calling for the abolition of ICE, full stop. She is calling for replacement or reform, just like AOC.

    Half the truth is just a good as a lie.

  262. [262] 
    Michale wrote:

    But Democrats aren't helping make the distinction between outlandish political rhetoric and their actual positions when their left wing calls for abolishing the federal agency best known for deporting illegal immigrants. That's what new liberal darling Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez did in her remarkable upset of 10-term Rep. Joe Crowley (D-N.Y.) this week. A few days later, one of Democrats' most prominent and influential voices, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), joined in.

    You can deny it all you want, which indicates that you agree with me, that advocating the abolishment of ICE is a BAD move for Democrats..

    But it's undeniable that Democrats *ARE* advocating to abolish ICE...

  263. [263] 
    Michale wrote:

    But, you're right ... greed has been the domain of the Republican party.

    Yea, and Democrats aren't greedy at all?? :D

    Tell me another bedtime story.. :D

  264. [264] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    There are some very interesting points in that Guardian article but, nowhere in the piece did I read that any Democrat was in favour of "open boders".

    I think an interesting discussion to have (Hello, CW!) would be about what is meant by "open borders" and what an "open border" immigration and refugee policy would look like and whether it would tend toward eliminating illegal border crossings while maintaining effective border security.

    This is a complicated issue, Michale, and does not lend itself well to simplistic solutions that rely on only half truths.

    With respect to this issue, I might assume that you have an extremely narrow worldview while I have an extremely broad worldview. That will necessarily lead to a lot of disagreement on immigration and refugee policy but, it could also lead to an exchange of ideas that would enlighten both of us.

  265. [265] 
    Michale wrote:

    My view isn't narrow..

    A nation that doesn't control it's borders ceases to be a nation....

  266. [266] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    By my narrow/broad assumption, I meant that on a scale of one to ten, on the question of how we see ourselves in this world, with 1 being a citizen of the planet and 10 being a citizen of a nation, I would be a one and you would be a 10!

  267. [267] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale, do you think that secure borders and an open immigration and refugee policy are mutually exclusive?

  268. [268] 
    Michale wrote:
  269. [269] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Resolved: A nation that espouses an open immigration and refugee policy while responsibly maintaining secure borders is a nation that is prosperous and always marching forward, on the cutting edge, so to speak.

  270. [270] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale, do you think that secure borders and an open immigration and refugee policy are mutually exclusive?

    For a country such as the US, absolutely...

    By my narrow/broad assumption, I meant that on a scale of one to ten, on the question of how we see ourselves in this world, with 1 being a citizen of the planet and 10 being a citizen of a nation, I would be a one and you would be a 10!

    Yes, because the kind of world government you want is not the same as the kind of world government I want..

    I want a United Federation Of Planets world government..

    Left Wingers want a V IS FOR VENDETTA type world government...

  271. [271] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    My view isn't narrow..

    A nation that doesn't control it's borders ceases to be a nation....

    false. israel has been a nation a LOT longer than it's been a country. For almost two thousand years it had no land at all, much less controlled borders.

    JL

  272. [272] 
    Michale wrote:

    false. israel has been a nation a LOT longer than it's been a country. For almost two thousand years it had no land at all, much less controlled borders.

    Not a "nation" in the sense we mean today...

    Israel has only been a "nation" since 1947, I believe??

    And if you want to advocate an Israeli form of border security (walls and such) I whole heartedly agree.. :D

  273. [273] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    my point is that nationhood is determined by shared identity, not land or borders. your definition, as liz pointed out, is extremely narrow compared to hers.

  274. [274] 
    Michale wrote:

    my point is that nationhood is determined by shared identity,

    In the metaphysical sense, but not in the legal sense..

  275. [275] 
    Michale wrote:

    your definition, as liz pointed out, is extremely narrow compared to hers.

    Of course it is.. Because her definition is a utopian definition, not attached to reality..

  276. [276] 
    Michale wrote:

    WIGS OFF! Maxine Waters tears into Chuck Schumer: ‘Will do anything’ to protect power
    http://www.theamericanmirror.com/wigs-off-maxine-waters-tears-into-chuck-schumer-will-do-anything-to-protect-power/

    Ha!

    Blue on Blue!!! I love it!!! :D

  277. [277] 
    TheStig wrote:

    neilm - 128,129

    I think you offer DH some sound marketing advice and even some generous E-media support. Still, marketing is only part of a whole, working package.

    What is the product/service being marketed, and who are the intended clients? Is OD a matchmaker between low donation candidates and low donation voters? Or is OD a poison pill aimed at taking down politicians who accept more than $200 donations? That last point has a big influence on who the client base is likely to be.

    At what political levels will OD operate? National, State, County, Municipality? Does the limit change at lower levels?

    OD is supposed to register voters. How does it insure the voter data obtained is accurate and not padded with ghost voters? How does OD maintain data base security of personal info needed to keep the system honest? How does OD even know if its security is breached? Will OD sell data to defray costs?

    Who in the hell is "Ron Harris." I have no problems with nom de guerres on public blogs, if fact I think only fool goes for full public disclosure. However, when it comes to joining a political movement asking for money, I want to see the resumes of the movement leadership, I want to see the proposed leadership structure, and all the other things you would normally expect to see in a well crafted business plan.

    **********************************************

    RH, if you can't put on big boy pants, I can't support you. No amount of circular reasoning/screaming/badmouthing on your part is going to change my mind. Get real, or be gone....actually I expect neither of those to happen.

  278. [278] 
    Michale wrote:

    RH, if you can't put on big boy pants, I can't support you. No amount of circular reasoning/screaming/badmouthing on your part is going to change my mind. Get real, or be gone....actually I expect neither of those to happen.

    Who is RH, Stig???

  279. [279] 
    neilm wrote:

    An interesting analysis of the impact of Trump's virulent anti-immigrant ranting on the 2016 election.

    Net net, keep it up Trump, you are making the Democrats' job easier!

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/02/opinion/trump-immigration-nativism-voters.html

  280. [280] 
    neilm wrote:

    BTW, do our Trump loving Weigentians agree that immigrants are "animals" that are "infesting" our country like vermin?

    Trump, May 2018: "These aren't people. These are animals."

    Trump, June 2018: "They [Democrats] don’t care about crime and want illegal immigrants, no matter how bad they may be, to pour into and infest our Country"

  281. [281] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz

    Girl from the Bronx???

    Not exactly..

    Girl from the Bronx' Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who beat high-ranking Democrat Joe Crowley, faces questions over her 'working class' background after it's revealed she grew up in a wealthy suburb north of New York City

    Ocasio-Cortez, 28, won shock upset over 10-term Dem incumbent this month

    Primary win makes her a shoo-in for Congress in New York's liberal 14th District

    Avowed socialist describes her 'working class' upbringing in campaign bio

    Claims she made a 40-minute commute from the Bronx for better school as kid

    But her architect father bought house in wealthy Westchester County in 1991

    Ocasio-Cortez went on to attend Boston University and interned for Ted Kennedy
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5905247/Girl-Bronx-Alexandria-Ocasio-Cortez-actually-grew-wealthy-Westchester-County.html

    She is as phony as a 3 dollar bill...

  282. [282] 
    Michale wrote:

    BTW, do our Trump loving Weigentians agree that immigrants are "animals" that are "infesting" our country like vermin?

    Of course not.. And Trump didn't even say that..

    This is exactly why it's impossible to take you people seriously..

    You NEVER have any facts...

    Trump, May 2018: "These aren't people. These are animals."

    Trump, June 2018: "They [Democrats] don’t care about crime and want illegal immigrants, no matter how bad they may be, to pour into and infest our Country"

    Both time, President Trump was referring to MS-13..

    If Trump... excuse me.. PRESIDENT Trump is so bad, why do you have to make shit up???

  283. [283] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/02/opinion/trump-immigration-nativism-voters.html

    NY Grime??

    BBBWWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  284. [284] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/newpix/2018/07/01/03/4DCCFF7800000578-5905247-image-m-11_1530411486378.jpg

    Typical Progressive phony...

    Lived in the lap of luxury while claiming hard fought scramble for life...

  285. [285] 
    Michale wrote:
  286. [286] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    neilm [222] [223]

    There ARE no "winners" of trade wars, only losers. Trades only take place when both parties benefit.

    Trump is too dumb to understand that.

  287. [287] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump is too dumb to understand that.

    "Yea!?? Well.... Double dumb ass on you!!!"
    -Admiral James T Kirk

    :D heh

  288. [288] 
    Michale wrote:

    CRS,

    No offense.. Just seemed apropos :D

  289. [289] 
    Michale wrote:

    Man allegedly threatens to chop up Rand Paul and his family with an ax
    https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/2018/07/02/man-threatens-kill-sen-rand-paul-ax/751211002/

    Peaceful, tolerant Democrats... :^/

  290. [290] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Michale

    Ya don't gotta worry about offending me. I'm damn near impossible to offend at the blog level.

  291. [291] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale

    Ya don't gotta worry about offending me. I'm damn near impossible to offend at the blog level.

    I'll keep that in mind.. :D

  292. [292] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Yes, because the kind of world government you want is not the same as the kind of world government I want..

    World government?? Who said anything about that?

    I'm in the internationalist camp and support cooperative engagement but, I'm not looking for a "world government"!

  293. [293] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Micahel-
    "I'll keep that in mind" ?

    Don't you usually take that kind of statement as a challenge? Or is that only when it comes from the left? :D

  294. [294] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Heh.

  295. [295] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump just keeps on confounding his hapless detractors

    The left, much of the media and countless other opponents of President Trump have led a relentless, vicious, multi-pronged and often dishonest assault on him and his agenda since he first emerged as a presidential candidate in 2015. This assault, ramped up significantly during his presidency, has taken many forms: an apparently endless special counsel investigation, constant protests, bureaucratic stonewalling, “Deep State” leaking, continuous lawsuits, manufactured crises and outrage, daily media pounding and often false reporting, smears, personal attacks and abusive, even violent acts targeting his staff and supporters — all designed to cripple his ability to govern effectively.

    While Trump’s adversaries have been busy trying to execute their rolling putsch, however, the American people have been busy doing something else: supporting him and his policies. Instead of denting Trump, the perpetual outrage machine is creating the exact opposite dynamic.

    The proof is in a stunning new Harvard CAPS/Harris poll just released and conducted after the family-separation issue exploded along the U.S.-Mexico border. Trump now enjoys 47 percent job approval, up 2 points from May. This is remarkable given the constant drumbeat of negative coverage, and it demonstrates yet again his uncanny ability to defy the laws of political gravity. When President Reagan and his policies remained popular in the face of never-ending criticism, he became known as the “Teflon president.” Trump is Teflon on steroids.
    http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/394934-trump-just-keeps-on-confounding-his-hapless-detractors

    Face reality, people... President Trump is winning and winning and winning and winning...

    And the Left is just sittin' there with their wee-wees in their hand going, "W... T... F...????"

    :D

  296. [296] 
    Michale wrote:

    Don't you usually take that kind of statement as a challenge? Or is that only when it comes from the left? :D

    Not from someone like CRS... :D

    He and I are like Neil and I used to be before Neil drunk the koolaid...

  297. [297] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm in the internationalist camp and support cooperative engagement but, I'm not looking for a "world government"!

    yet, your scale is based on a citizen of a nation vs a citizen of the world...

    That usually bespeaks to a world government..

  298. [298] 
    Michale wrote:

    American man converted to Islam and radicalized planning a 4th of July bombing in Cleveland.

    "An undercover FBI employee met with Pitts and began recording their conversations, in which he fantasized about beheading President Donald Trump, attacking U.S. soldiers, and sowing terror in Cleveland on Independence Day."
    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/demetrius-pitts-charged-cleveland-bomb-plot-after-fbi-sting-n888336

    Democrats :^/

  299. [299] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    yet, your scale is based on a citizen of a nation vs a citizen of the world...,/I.

    Oh, well, that scale was just to show where we both were coming from in terms of what immigration and refugee policy we support. Good God, I wasn't taking about world government!

  300. [300] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    yet, your scale is based on a citizen of a nation vs a citizen of the world...

    Oh, well, that scale was just to show where we both were coming from in terms of what immigration and refugee policy we support. Good God, I wasn't taking about world government!

  301. [301] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    In other words, Michale, my general view and starting point on any issue is that we are all in this together.

    And, by 'we' I mean ALL of us, regardless of our home country or where on the planet we reside.

  302. [302] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh, well, that scale was just to show where we both were coming from in terms of what immigration and refugee policy we support. Good God, I wasn't taking about world government!

    I stand corrected...

    And, by 'we' I mean ALL of us, regardless of our home country or where on the planet we reside.

    But what may be good for your country won't work in ours..

    That's the reality that many people on your side of the aisle don't understand...

  303. [303] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    TS-
    OD is both a matchmaker between small contribution candidates and citizens that want them and a way to take down candidates that do not limit their contributions to small contributions. They are not mutually exclusive.

    It is not in any way a poison pill.

    OD will start on the national level. It will expand to whatever level the participants decide to take it to.

    The contribution limits will be set by the participants and even the 200 dollar limit now is just a starting point, the participants will be able to raise or lower the limit if they choose to in the future. It is designed to be controlled by the participants- not the leader(s).

    There will have to be some auditing to determine the validity of the people registered. When the votes are cast the if the results closely match the registered OD numbers, that will provide some verification.

    Did you investigate all your security questions before signing up here? Did anyone else?

    The bio is available.

    Fortunately for me, most people are not concerned with all the things you want before they explore an idea. And fortunately, I don't need your support to comment here, to discuss this idea with other people that may be interested in learning aboot it or for it to succeed.

    It seems to me that the only reason you are trying so hard to demean and/or discredit OD and/or me is that you fear if there are other choices available that the Democrats strategy of you have no other choice would no longer be effective.

    Now that I have answered your questions again (all this has been covered in the comments many times despite you pretending that this is something new you came up with that has never been answered), do you have the courage to discuss the idea or will you prove me right by ignoring my questions or answering with more excuses to not discuss it?

    Would it be better if citizens that vote in presidential elections but don't vote in off year elections participated in One Demand rather than not vote in 2018? If not, why not?

    What harm would it cause if these citizens participated in One Demand instead of not voting?

  304. [304] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    But what may be good for your country won't work in ours..

    Precisely.

  305. [305] 
    neilm wrote:

    [Michael Cohen] speaking to George Stephanopoulos in the ABC interview, conducted on Saturday at a hotel in New York City, he said: “My wife, my daughter and my son have my first loyalty and always will. I put family and country first.”

    In answer to the question of whether he expected Trump to turn on him, Cohen said: “I will not be a punching bag as part of anyone’s defense strategy. I am not a villain of this story, and I will not allow others to try to depict me that way.”

    More and more interesting - I'm not sure I'd be happy to see this if I were in the White House.

  306. [306] 
    Michale wrote:

    [Michael Cohen] speaking to George Stephanopoulos in the ABC interview, conducted on Saturday at a hotel in New York City, he said: “My wife, my daughter and my son have my first loyalty and always will. I put family and country first.”

    In answer to the question of whether he expected Trump to turn on him, Cohen said: “I will not be a punching bag as part of anyone’s defense strategy. I am not a villain of this story, and I will not allow others to try to depict me that way.”

    More and more interesting - I'm not sure I'd be happy to see this if I were in the White House.

    YYYYAAAAWWWWWWNNNNNN

    More "Oh now XXX is turning on Trump... *NOW* the shit is gonna hit the fan..."

    Dood, ya'all have played this record OVER and OVER and OVER again....

    But *NOW* it's gonna be different, right!!!???

    Wake me up when ya actually GOT something, eh?? :^/

  307. [307] 
    Michale wrote:

    Remember when some numbskull's testimony in Congress was going to be a "bombshell" and it fizzled like yesterday's quiche???

    That's what ya'all remind me of...

    All spark, no fire....

    It's pathetic how the Left hangs on every leak, only to be disappointed time and time again...

    #sad

  308. [308] 
    TheStig wrote:

    DH-303

    "The bio is available"

    Something other than the one on your site? Real name, date and place of birth, contact info, education, work history, publications, references, point of contact, the usual stuff that can be verfied by searching public records. The info you would be expected to put in a job application.....or a business plan.....which you haven't produced either.

    If you want to be treated as professional, act like one.

  309. [309] 
    TheStig wrote:

    neilm -305

    ".... Not sure I'd be happy to see this if I were in the White House."

    Probably no happier about it in Bedminster.

  310. [310] 
    neilm wrote:

    Remember when some numbskull's testimony in Congress was going to be a "bombshell" and it fizzled like yesterday's quiche???

    Yes - we had 19 separate Benghazi!!! investigations with nothing new because they were run by a bunch of bozos.

    Mueller is on his first time round and he is definitely not a bozo.

    Pass the popcorn. World Cup. Tour de France. Wimbledon. Trump investigation. July 2018 - what a month!

  311. [311] 
    John M wrote:

    [252] Michale

    "Why should those who DO work and DO prosper have to fund those who refuse to work and refuse to prosper??"

    I, the Lord, command you to do what is just and right. Protect the person who is being cheated from the one who is cheating him. Do not ill-treat or oppress foreigners, orphans, or widows; and do not kill innocent people in this holy place. (Jeremiah 22:3)

    Rich people who see a brother or sister in need, yet close their hearts against them, cannot claim that they love God. (1 John 3:17)

    Suppose there are brothers or sisters who need clothes and don’t have enough to eat. What good is there in your saying to them, “God bless you! Keep warm and eat well!” – if you don’t give them the necessities of life? (James 2:15-16)

    Share your belongings with your needy fellow Christians, and open your homes to strangers. (Romans 12:13)

    OR, if you PREFER:

    SPOCK, Star Trek, TOS, quoting from the Sermon On The Mount, in the EPISODE The Trouble With Tribbles "They remind me of the lilies of the field. They toil not, neither do they spin. But they seem to eat a great deal. I see no practical use for them." However "Its trilling seems to have a tranquilizing effect on the Human nervous system. Fortunately, of course … I am immune … to its effect."

    The point being that "idleness" is NOT indicative of something's or someone's intrinsic worth or value.

    Are those reasons enough, or is more required?

  312. [312] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mueller is on his first time round and he is definitely not a bozo.

    Yea, right...

    Check out the Anthrax Investigation..

    Mueller's BOZO status is well established...

  313. [313] 
    John M wrote:

    [257] Michale .

    "Factually not accurate.. Her thinking is, if we have open borders, we don't NEED ICE..."

    Michale, do you EVER READ what YOU CITE?

    From YOUR article:

    "The concern that some citizens might lose jobs to immigrants is not supported by research. One study found migrant and native workers are employed in different sectors of the economy, another showed that migrants create 1.2 additional jobs beyond the job they do because they rent an apartment, buy a car, and frequent local businesses."

    "The claim that immigrants commit more crime is also false. One study found that 3% of migrants without a college degree are in jail, compared to 11% of the native population. The Cato Institute calculated that the odds of being killed in a terrorist attack carried out by an immigrant are extremely low, 1 in 723 million."

  314. [314] 
    Michale wrote:

    I, the Lord, command you to do what is just and right. Protect the person who is being cheated from the one who is cheating him. Do not ill-treat or oppress foreigners, orphans, or widows; and do not kill innocent people in this holy place. (Jeremiah 22:3)

    Rich people who see a brother or sister in need, yet close their hearts against them, cannot claim that they love God. (1 John 3:17)

    Suppose there are brothers or sisters who need clothes and don’t have enough to eat. What good is there in your saying to them, “God bless you! Keep warm and eat well!” – if you don’t give them the necessities of life? (James 2:15-16)

    yer quoting the BIBLE to me??

    hehehehehehehehehehe Funny... I always knew you had a great sense of humor.. :D

    The point being that "idleness" is NOT indicative of something's or someone's intrinsic worth or value.

    More often than not, it IS indicative of someone's worth or value..

    Would you keep a deadbeat hobo in your house and support him for years and years??

    That's what yer advocating for Americans...

  315. [315] 
    John M wrote:

    [268] Michale

    "Yea.. There is no movement to Abolish ICE.. :D"

    As Elizabeth stated, you are cherry picking and going with only HALF a truth about what was actually said. Abolishing ICE goes hand in hand with REPLACING it with ANOTHER REFORMED organization.

  316. [316] 
    John M wrote:

    [314] Michale

    "yer quoting the BIBLE to me??

    hehehehehehehehehehe Funny... I always knew you had a great sense of humor.. :D"

    I am quoting what virtually all CONSERVATIVES claim is SUPPOSED to be BEDROCK WESTERN PHILOSOPHY.

    "Would you keep a deadbeat hobo in your house and support him for years and years??"

    YES

    He's called my BROTHER-IN-LAW. Now that's HUMOR! :-D

  317. [317] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am quoting what virtually all CONSERVATIVES claim is SUPPOSED to be BEDROCK WESTERN PHILOSOPHY.

    I know.. It's HILARIOUS that you think I listen to the bible.. :D

    Have you MET me?? :D

    YES

    He's called my BROTHER-IN-LAW. Now that's HUMOR! :-D

    Touche'... :D

    Now THAT was funny :D

  318. [318] 
    Michale wrote:

    As Elizabeth stated, you are cherry picking and going with only HALF a truth about what was actually said. Abolishing ICE goes hand in hand with REPLACING it with ANOTHER REFORMED organization.

    I am only going by what the Left Wingers are saying..

    ABOLISH ICE...

    I understand that's unpalatable for ya'all.. I agree it's moronic and stoopid..

    But THAT is what they are advocating...

    But, at least we can agree that ABOLISHING ICE is a NONE STARTER for the American people and will cause Democrats to lose in November BIG TIME...

  319. [319] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Hey, Michale!

    What do you think of this Democratic slogan:

    REPEAL AND REPLACE ICE!

  320. [320] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale [231]

    And the hypocrite part came in because your messiah Odumbo did the EXACT same thing and YOU SAID NOTHING...

    So, what is the ONLY logical conclusion??

    That you are just as dishonest as the Orange Man-baby that you worship. I responded to this argument last week in full detail and you simply ignored the facts presented to you. Obama did not have the DOJ and ICE treat the civil misdemeanor charge of crossing the border without proper documentation as a criminal offense. Obama did not rip children away from those seeking asylum the way Trump has. Obama did not tell parents seeking asylum that the only way to get their children back was to return to their country of origin the way that Trump has.

    So, NO, Obama did not do the same exact thing that Trump is doing.

  321. [321] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    TS-
    As I said before, fortunately I don't need to impress you, meet your conditions or have your support and the bio only matters to you. Of course, it really doesn't matter to you- for you it just an excuse to prove that you are indeed not a man but a mouse that does not have the courage to address my questions.

    Thank you for proving my point. Again.

    I don't need a business plan because One Demand is not a business. There is a plan for the organization that has been clearly spelled out on the website and here in the comments.

    If you want to be taken seriously then you should address the issues that I raise as I have addressed the issues you raised.

    Funny how someone posting under a screen name criticizes someone for not providing real information that is posting under their real name.

  322. [322] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    That you are just as dishonest as the Orange Man-baby that you worship. I responded to this argument last week in full detail and you simply ignored the facts presented to you.

    You had no facts..

    All you had was some mewling about how Obama really didn't do it..

    But it has already been established AND conceded by Weigantians that, YES.. Obama did separate children from their families.. THIS IS FACT..

    And YES... Obama DID put children in cages.. THIS IS FACT...

    Get over it, Russ. You lost..

  323. [323] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale[322],

    More half-truths (closer to quarter-truths) from you.

    Actually, your problem here, on any number of issues, is that you often provide only a scintilla of truth in your arguments and they way you use these "facts" turns them into outright lies.

    I'm sick of it and I'm done with you unless you cease and desist from this horrible practice.

  324. [324] 
    TheStig wrote:

    DH-321

    Fine, replace business plan with operational plan.

    No you don't have to impress me. Unless you want my endorsement, my electronic signature, or a donation. Then... you do. I make those rules, you don't have any say on my policy. You can excommunicate from OneDemand if you like.

    There is nothing funny, ironical, or unfair about me remaining anonymous on the web while asking you to identify yourself. I'm not asking you for any money, I'm not asking you to take a pledge or become part of a movement. I'm not demanding you publish my viewpoints on your website...which is a "funny" thing you demand from CW on almost a daily basis.

    I'm not forcing you do anything, but I will not endorse you until I'm convinced you are not a delusional crank, a bizarre prankster or a con artist.

    About that man/mouse remark. I've been addressing your comments pretty much from the first day you start spamming at CW.com. I'm much more selective in responding to you than I used to be, because I don't like repeating myself.

  325. [325] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    TS-
    Thank you for conceding the operational plan. I do have a basic plan, but since it is designed to be controlled by the participants there are parts that will be decided when there are participants.

    I do not excommunicate anyone. I offer an option that people can join if they choose.

    There is nothing wrong with pointing out that there is something I would like CW to address either by writing about it, commenting on it or contacting me directly.

    You have been commenting on my comments, but always seem to avoid answering my questions asking you to back up your comments. You also tend to repeat the same excuses for not answering. There is nothing wrong with me pointing that out either.

    You seem to be upset about the man/mouse remark but have no problem making derogatory or demeaning remarks aboot me.

    Someone recently said:
    "You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar." :D

  326. [326] 
    TheStig wrote:

    DH-325

    Well, I think been pretty specific about what bothers me about various aspects of OneDemand, but let summarize my unease about your underlying big idea.

    As others have probably noted, your theory is very similar to the Underpants Gnome Theory:

    1)Collect underpants...

    2)????????

    3)Profit!

    How does 3 follow from 1 with no 2?

    One Demand Theory:

    1) Take big money, lose our votes

    2) ??????????

    3) Big money politics is defeated!

    Why does end result 3 follow from action 1? ...with no 2. You set up a game theory, but you don't examine what the best strategies are for the key players: big money donors, politicians, voters:small money donors. This is in fact a complicated problem, part "Prisoners Dilemma" and part "rock, scissors paper". Psychology plus Maths. You assume the small money voters win and the big money politicians lose. You don't even consider the possibility that big money wins the game, because no viable small money candidates run, and voters who "take the pledge" simply stay home.

    If you are going to test your new, but unproven "political wonder weapon," do out in the sticks, not in populated areas where failure could maim millions of people. If works on a small scale, you will find plenty of converts to take your idea and literally run with it in 2020.

  327. [327] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    TS-
    Is that all you can do, make unsubstantiated statements to avoid addressing the issue?

    Step 1. Citizens sign up to participate.
    Step 2. Citizens vote.
    Step 3. Candidates respond to those votes.

    Your statement that I do not consider what happens if no small contribution candidates is 100% untrue.

    That is in fact exactly what the questions that you keep not answering is aboot.

    Your suggestion to try it out in unpopulated areas makes no sense. There have been plenty of indicators of parts of One Demand being successful and/or making progress in the right direction including but not limited to the Tea Party and now Our Revolution and BNC taking on establishment candidates in the primaries and Bernie and other candidates putting a greater emphasis on small contributions.

    This is also covered in the questions you have avoided answering- what harm would be caused by citizens casting a write in vote in 2018 instead of not voting.

    How exactly could this maim millions of people?

    Your statement about what happens if people sign up and then stay home is also ridiculous. Of course, then it wouldn't work.

    The same way that the Democratic Party strategy didn't work when citizens stayed home in 2016.

    But citizens not participating and staying home instead of voting does not address what would happen if citizens did participate. Just the same as if citizens decided to vote for Democrats instead of staying home.

  328. [328] 
    TheStig wrote:

    DH - Enough! JUST FUCKING DO IT AND PROVE YOUR POINT.

  329. [329] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    TS-
    I am doing it. Trying to get CW and others to address my idea is part of doing it.

    But you are proving my point that you cannot answer my questions that are directly related to the false claims you made about One Demand by not answering them.

    Just do it and prove your point.

    Or continue to prove my point that you cannot prove your point by not answering my questions.

Comments for this article are closed.