ChrisWeigant.com

The Real Double-Negative: Trump's Non-Denial Denial

[ Posted Wednesday, July 18th, 2018 – 16:21 PDT ]

Does anyone truly believe President Donald Trump's explanation of how he says he misspoke during his press conference with Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin? Does anyone even believe that he knew what "double-negative" meant before his staff forced him to read his prepared statement? That second question is a stretch, but the first is just downright laughable. Trump might have convinced some Republican politicians desperate for a way to publicly give Trump the benefit of the doubt -- any doubt, at this point -- but that's for purely self-protective reasons. They can now say they believe Trump's walk-back, so they don't have to face angry pro-Trump voters this November. But anyone outside this tawdry equation of believing obvious lies for political reasons knows full well that Trump didn't mean what he said when explaining what he did and didn't mean. Perhaps that's a triple-negative? I leave it to the semanticians to decide.

Trump explained, reading from a statement it was painfully obvious he didn't personally write, that he meant to say "wouldn't" instead of "would," and that by doing so he meant to interject a double-negative into his outrageous statement that he didn't know why the Russians would attempt to hijack our elections. But his off-the-cuff ad libs during his carefully scripted walk-back completely undermined what he was attempting to claim. Twice. He proved beyond a shadow of a doubt what he really meant, and it was not what the scripted statement said at all. He singlehandedly turned the entire statement into a non-denial denial, which is its own kind of double-negative. And since he did so twice, we're now down the rabbit hole of a double-double-negative (a quadruple-negative?). Just another day at Trump's White House, folks.

The first time he completely undermined his own prepared statement was right after he tried to claim that he now believes his intelligence service that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election. This obviously chafed at Trump, since he's been saying exactly the opposite for over a year now. So he tossed in his own interpretation, deviating from the printed script: "I accept our intelligence community's conclusion that Russia's meddling in the 2016 election took place. Could be other people also. There's a lot of people out there."

Trump stood beside Vladimir Putin and said he trusted Putin's "strong denial" over the combined and unanimous findings of his own intelligence service. He said he had no idea why Russia would even want to attack our election. He then went on to repeat this exact statement twice, in post-summit interviews on Fox News. He flew back home on Air Force One, leaving plenty of time to correct any misstatements. But Trump didn't do so until he arrived back in America and heard the loud and bipartisan condemnation of his remarks. Then his staff forced him to do damage control. This damage control had two main objectives: an attempt to deny that Trump had openly insulted the entire U.S. intelligence community while standing next to one of our country's biggest foes; and to clearly state that Russia did indeed attack our electoral process in 2016. But Trump just couldn't help himself -- when it came time to unequivocally state that Russia had indeed attacked America's democratic system, Trump instead equivocated shamelessly. It "could be other people also," because "there's a lot of people out there." Maybe that same 400-pound guy that Trump initially wanted to pin the hacking on, perhaps? Who's to know?

Trump also completely undermined the other goal his walk-back was supposed to achieve. He was supposed to offer up some strong support for his own intelligence service after so rudely and blatantly stabbing them in the back while on foreign soil, but yet another ad lib completely destroyed his weak attempt at stating something he very obviously doesn't believe. Right in the middle of Trump's performance, the lights in the room went out. It later was reported that White House Chief of Staff John Kelly had mistakenly turned them off, but Trump's immediate reaction was telling: "Oops. They just turned off the lights. That must be the intelligence agencies." His supposedly-lighthearted attempt at humor showed what Trump truly believes -- the intelligence agencies are all part of the so-called "deep state" and are obviously out to get him in every imaginable way, even to the point of hacking into the White House's lighting in an attempt to embarrass him. Remember, if you will, this is during a statement where Trump was supposed to be strongly supporting his intelligence agencies. Trump is signaling quite openly that everyone should read his denial as a non-denial denial.

Donald Trump just can't help himself. He was supposed to offer up a flimsy excuse for throwing the intelligence service under the bus while standing next to Putin, but he (wink, wink) sowed doubt on his own prepared statement by interjecting: "Could be other people also. There's a lot of people out there." Could have been Russia, could have been just about anyone, right? Then when the lights literally went out, Trump tried to crack a joke that the intelligence agencies were still out to get him, which tossed a big bucket of cold water on his prepared statement about how much he trusts and supports the intelligence service.

Any sane individual knows that Trump was lying through his teeth when he read the words that others had written for him to say, in a desperate attempt to explain the unexplainable (and borderline-treasonous) statements he made while in Helsinki. The media are having lots of fun pointing out that Trump personally edited these remarks by writing in: "THERE WAS NO COLUSION (sic)" on the script. But it was his other two off-the-cuff comments that did the real damage to the goals the statement was supposed to achieve. Trump essentially said: "I believe the intelligence service, but then again they could have gotten it wrong and it could have been someone they haven't even looked at, who knows?" Then he insinuated that these intelligence agencies would stoop to anything in their ceaseless efforts to embarrass him -- even though Trump is quite capable of embarrassing himself with no one's help at all. As he just proved, once again. Perhaps this will kick off a spiral of non-denial denials where Trump (or his minions) try to explain: "What the president meant to say while explaining what he meant to say earlier was..." followed by: "What the president meant to say while explaining what he meant to say while explaining what he meant to say..." ad infinitum. Also ad absurdum. We're perilously close to octuple-negatives, in other words, as the non-denial denials spiral ever downward.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

42 Comments on “The Real Double-Negative: Trump's Non-Denial Denial”

  1. [1] 
    TheStig wrote:

    But wait, there's more.

    Trump walked-back his walk-back. Was this a rare triple negative? Or maybe a re-walk of his original statement?

    Not to worry, events moved on and Press Secretary
    Sarah Sanders boldly walked-back the walk-back of the original walk-back for an unprecedented quadruple negative! The degree of difficulty of that move is roughly the presser equivalent of a skater nailing a quad lutz. The audience was stunned, and even Sanders looked like she didn't quite believe she had pulled it off.

  2. [2] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    I believe Trump's explanation of how he says he misspoke just as much as I believe your explanation of "you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar" for why you won't address One Demand and the current opportunity to mobilize some of the 20-30% of citizens that vote in presidential elections but don't vote in off year elections to participate in One Demand in 2018 instead of not voting.

    It's not too late to do the right thing and address this reality.

    Otherwise articles like this are nothing more than the pot calling the kettle black.

  3. [3] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Comrade Trump is an inspiration to young liars in both the USA and the former USSR. His mastery of lying come from first class coaching (Roy Cohn) and constant practice....unlike so many up and coming liars who use fantasy enhancement drugs like alcohol, cocaine and LSD. Unlike Vlad, who falls off the "vodka truck" at State Dinners.

  4. [4] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Don,

    Maybe it would be more honest to call your group “Demand of One”! If you spent half of time you spend on here nagging CW actually working on creating a reputable non-profit, you might see bigger results!

  5. [5] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Don,

    Maybe it would be more honest to call your group “Demand of One”! If you spent half of time you spend on here nagging CW actually working on creating a reputable non-profit, you might see bigger results!

  6. [6] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Don,

    Maybe it would be more honest to call your group “Demand of One”! If you spent half of time you spend on here nagging CW actually working on creating a reputable non-profit, you might see bigger results!

  7. [7] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Don,

    Maybe it would be more honest to call your group “Demand of One”! If you spent half of time you spend on here nagging CW actually working on creating a reputable non-profit, you might see bigger results!

  8. [8] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Don,

    Maybe it would be more honest to call your group “Demand of One”! If you spent half of time you spend on here nagging CW actually working on creating a reputable non-profit, you might see bigger results!

  9. [9] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Wow, that wasn’t supposed to happen! Sorry CW!

  10. [10] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    TheStig,

    Sorry, but Comrade Trump has been a BIG fan of the Colombian Marching Powder for decades! Remember his sniffling debate performances? As the late Carrie Fisher noted when asked if Trump’s sniffles were the signs of a coke-head:

    I am an expert & ABSOLUTELY

  11. [11] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Listen-
    One way to build an organization is to contact journalists that can inform citizens about the idea behind that organization and enter the idea into the public discourse.

    Citizens can't decide if they like the idea and want to participate if they don't know the idea exists.

    Based on what CW has written and his claim to being a reality based blogger it is my opinion that CW should inform citizens aboot this idea and the reality of the 50% of eligible voters that do not vote in off year elections, whether he supports the idea or not.

    He often writes about things and people he does not support or agree with. At the very least he should provide a real explanation of why he won't address One Demand as the excuse he provided of "you catch more flies with honey instead of vinegar" is clearly not valid.

    And while you may not like my persistence in expressing my opinion here until CW addresses One Demand or provides an honest reason he won't address it, remaining persistent is also part of how an organization can get started.

  12. [12] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Citizens can't decide if they like the idea and want to participate if they don't know the idea exists.

    Don, no one is going to take you seriously until you take yourself seriously. How many months has it been since your name link broke? Click, enter data, click. That's it, but still too hard for you. Without knowing the suffix to your site you basically do not exist on the internet. This has turned into a truly twisted ego trip, hitchcockian in nature...

  13. [13] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    A while back, in a comment on this blog, I made up a random example of the analytic tool Josh Marshall terms "Trump's Razor" (the stupidest explanation is the one most likely to be true). My example was that Trump's Razor would imply that it -this- was basically about sanctions on Rosneft.

    The Russian spy's charging documents today jogged my memory of that. In them, there is the story that right after the election the spy passed up the intellegence that Romney was Trump's choice for Secretary. of State. Russian trolls and bots went to work, and as quick as you can say "sanction-blocked Exxon-Rosneft joint venture on half a trillion dollars worth of energy," Eagle Scout and recipient from Putin of the Russian Order of Friendship medal, Rex Tillerson, was sworn in instead.

    It was also noted that Christopher Steele spoke to the OSC shortly after the election wherein he related Moscow around-the-water-cooler talk in Lavrov's department that the Kremlin had successfully blocked Trump's choice of Mitt Romney.

    Hmm. Upon reflection, I see that wasn't really an example of Trump's Razor at all. Rather, it was Occam's Razor. Of course, in any case, that can't be an explanation any more. For some reason, the sanctions were not lifted, and, as described in the link below, on Feb 28th this year, XOM pulled out of the joint venture. On March 31st, Tillerson resigned his job at State. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/28/business/energy-environment/exxon-russia.html

    I'll have to try again to think of a real Trump's Razor explanation for why the President is acting like Putin's batboy. Maybe get it right this time. Have to hurry, though, because things are really starting to snowball. I'm not sure I got the timing of the end of Act II right, either. I'm not even sure any more that it's a three-act play.

  14. [14] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    4, 5, 6, 7, 8

    Very well said, sir. I loved every one of them! :)

  15. [15] 
    Kick wrote:

    LeaningBlue
    13

    For some reason, the sanctions were not lifted...

    Lifting the sanctions was always the quid pro quo. The IC had Trump nailed before he was sworn in. Rexxon was Putin's pick.

    Butina and her handler Torshin were all set to meet with Benedict Donald in early February before a prayer breakfast, which meeting was cancelled the night before for what should now be obvious reasons to anyone paying attention.

    I'll have to try again to think of a real Trump's Razor explanation for why the President is acting like Putin's batboy.

    Simple answer: Consciousness of guilt. He knows what he did, and he was well aware that Comey and a large chunk of the IC knew before he was sworn in and that Mueller has therefore always known.

    I'm not sure I got the timing of the end of Act II right, either. I'm not even sure any more that it's a three-act play.

    You're right about this, though. It isn't remotely a play in three Acts. It is more like a giant book... oh, let's say... The Holy Bible. There's multiple books and two giant sections. In the Old Testament, you will find names like Cohn, Rybolovlev, Deripaska, Sater, el alia, and in the New Testament, you will find names like Cohen, Flynn, Agalarov, Assange, Putin, et alia. Manafort and Stone are the glue that binds all the books.

    Sater and Flynn have beautiful singing voices. Stay tuned.

  16. [16] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Bashi-
    Of course, it's the link that is causing CW to not address One Demand!

    I suppose he knew that this would happen when the name was changed and that is why he didn't address it for two years while the link was working.

    Of course, if CW were to write an article and put http://www.onedemand.org in the article no one would be able to click on that and find One Demand. And that activity would not have any effect on whether people could find One Demand.

    The bottom line is all you have is feeble excuses to avoid discussing the issues.

    And so far, all that CW has offered is the feeble excuse of "you catch more flies with honey instead of vinegar" and two answers that were nothing but more of the same old excuses that misinterpret and misrepresent what One Demand is to fit the standard excuses that the Democrats use when confronted with anyone challenging their we are not as bad as the Republicans strategy.

    CW would have no problem finding the website even though he doesn't need to find the website to address my comments here.

    And the only reason that you and CW only respond with these feeble excuses is because if CW or anyone else here actually addressed the idea you would have to admit that One Demand could work and should be part of the public discourse.

    It's hard to take you and CW seriously when you have no reasons- only excuses.

  17. [17] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick-
    The bible is an great way to describe the Russian interference.

    It is, after all, a book filled with bullshit that people believe because they want to believe it's true even though there is no evidence to support it being true.

  18. [18] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Speaking of CW addressing comments- where are you CW?

    Do you read the comments when you don't answer them or do you only read the comments when you do answer them?

  19. [19] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @LB,

    my best 'trump's razor' explanation is that the last person donald talked to before the press conference told him something that sounded good, so he repeated it without considering whether or not it conflicted with his prepared remarks.

    @don,

    refusing to fix your link is not by itself a reason to ignore your comments, but it's symbolic of your overall pattern, which is to demand a conversation on your own terms, while refusing to even attempt to implement simple, helpful suggestions. that pattern makes people feel like you're arguing in bad faith, and stops them from wanting to try to participate in meaningful discussion with you. ultimately, that's what the "vinegar" comment was an analogy for.

    JL

  20. [20] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Nypoet-
    There is a difference between considering advice and following advice.

    And when I have followed advice and adapted One Demand taking some of that advice, for example, changing the name- it doesn't matter because that is never recognized- it is just followed by something else that "needs" to be done before I can "be taken seriously" or something that I haven't done (moving the goalposts).

    That makes me feel as though the people giving the advice are acting in bad faith and are not interested in discussion because they are only providing excuses to avoid discussion. That is not just symbolic of the overall pattern- it is the ENTIRE pattern of excuses.

    I think you are also misinterpreting the vinegar comment.

  21. [21] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    The question I have is will our country be introspective on the issue of election meddling? Will the press ask the CIA if they are still meddling in other countries elections? This is the game. If we are still wholeheartedly playing, we can't be surprised when other countries play as well. If we still want to play then maybe the NSA should spend less time harvesting everyone's data and more time hardening our essential systems.

    “I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on here!”

    -Capt. Louis Renault

  22. [22] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    BashiBazouk,

    I hope you're not playing the false equivalency game.

    Because what the Russians did in the 2016 election is qualitatively different from what is the normal course of business in the spy world.

    Let's have a security versus privacy discussion! If I thought that this was a place where that could happen in an intelligent and civil manner, I'd say yes but, it's not, so I'm not interested.

  23. [23] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Don, look in the mirror. Every accusation you have leveled you are equally guilty of. I once tried discussing the issue with you and my questions were summarily dismissed. You don't want discussion, you want validation. And that's just not how life works...

  24. [24] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Because what the Russians did in the 2016 election is qualitatively different from what is the normal course of business in the spy world.

    You're joking, right? Don't take my word for it, look in to the issue yourself. And not just currently, but go back to the end of the WWII all the way to now and in to the future. Stick to only media sources you trust. I think you will find that the Russians are amateurs in comparison. The false equivalency may be there but the reverse of what you think...

  25. [25] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Thursday already, and Trump is still trying to shake off the Helsinki summit. A quick look at the FN website this morning reveals the Trump agitprop network desperately trying to change the subject.

    Hey Liz, remember our brief exchange about Biden yesterday? Trump must have spotted it, and devoted a tweet to it this morning, taking the opportunity to trash-talk our favorite blue collar hero. That was diversionary tactic #1.

    In the meantime, Fox is trying (and not for the last time, 'natch) to suggest that criticism of Trump could hurt the chances of Red State Democrats in the midterms. I expect the headline CRITICISM OF TRUMP CREATES SPLIT IN DEMOCRATIC PARTY to be something of a masthead over there for the next few months, as Fox tries desperately to focus its voters away from dissent among Republicants over Trump's treasonous escapades, and toward the small handful of (possibly) vulnerable Democrats.

    Maybe they can get some Russian help with that.

  26. [26] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Bashi-
    "Right back at you."
    Jack O'Niell
    Stargate SG-1

    I seriously doubt, however, that your questions were summarily dismissed. I address the objections raised (even when they are just a repeat of what was previously addressed) and explain why I disagree.

    You avoid discussion because if you discussed it honestly you would have acknowledge that my points are valid.

    It's curious how I am supposed to follow the advice given to me, yet no one else has to follow or even discuss the advice I am offering on how to improve the Democratic Party and our political system.

  27. [27] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    BB [24]: It's easy to postulate a 'tit for tat' scenario for Russian interference in the US election. Putin has done just that, in fact, leaking to his own propaganda outlets that his actions were caused in part by Hillary's support for his opposition in 2014.

    But Hillary's tits and Putin's tats don't line up so well when you take into account that Russia has also gotten into interfering lately with elections in Germany, France, Poland, Ukraine, etc., and of course, Brexit, wherein the British have discovered an embarrassing amount of pro-Brexit support coming from Moscow rather than Wales.

    Draw all of the Cold-War US policy analogies you want, this is the new world order, wherein Russia is openly attempting to destabilize Western Democracies. Screw the lefty false equivalence, there is none in the modern world.

  28. [28] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    I seriously doubt, however, that your questions were summarily dismissed.

    "Bullshit questions" is the exact quote. They were not bullshit questions...

    You avoid discussion because if you discussed it honestly you would have acknowledge that my points are valid.

    Read what you wrote. You want validation and you don't want to have to come up with a convincing argument to get there. Again, that's not how life works.

    It's curious how I am supposed to follow the advice given to me, yet no one else has to follow or even discuss the advice I am offering on how to improve the Democratic Party and our political system.

    Many here have tried, but what we have responded with does not validate you so it is dismissed. Well, except for the operational stuff. In the time it took to write the above quoted sentence, you could have fixed your name link. In the time it took to write all you have written on this page you could have updated your site and started the return to a page rank that anyone interested could find your site. This is rudimentary web mastering and you are pathetically bad at it and not even trying to improve. Why should anyone take you seriously?

  29. [29] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Draw all of the Cold-War US policy analogies you want, this is the new world order, wherein Russia is openly attempting to destabilize Western Democracies. Screw the lefty false equivalence, there is none in the modern world.

    You really think this stopped at the end of the cold war? Interesting...

  30. [30] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    BB [29]: You really think this stopped at the end of the cold war? Interesting...

    No, I would not be that naive. Since the Cold War however, there has been serious rearrangement of the deck chairs in the international order. The Russian Republic claims to have put their old Soviet ways behind them, and joined the modern non-communist community of nations, and backed that up by signing multiple treaty obligations and trade agreements. This is why it was relatively easy for the west to impose sanctions on them following their illegal annexation of Crimea and further harassment of Ukraine.

    But if Russia truly wants to be a full member of this very prosperous club, it has to stop trying to undermine the other members, who don't take well to assaults on their sovereignty.

    If Putin wants to return to the Cold War paradigm, he'd have to do so with half or less of the economic power that the Soviets had, fewer allies, and far economically stronger opponents who have the ability to cripple his trailer-park economy overnight. He is resorting to espionage and subterfuge out of weakness, not strength.

    Otherwise, it is the consensus among the world's actual leaders (other than Trump, apparently) that Putin should be taught in no uncertain terms that membership in their economic club is a privilege, not a right, and he either gets the point, or finds his country sidelined. It's that simple.

  31. [31] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Bashi-
    I don't know what questions you are referring to, but if I wrote bullshit questions then they were probably bullshit questions.

    And I probably either explained why they were bullshit or had previously explained why they were bullshit so I didn't bother to repeat the explanation.

    Yes, we all want validation. But as far as coming up with a convincing argument, I have made my arguments and rather than address the points I make the responses I receive are only excuses to avoid addressing the points I make. That is not discussion it is avoiding discussion.

    For example, you say I don't make a convincing argument. Just because you say it doesn't make it true. You would actually have to address the points I make to back up your statement. Instead you use your statement as an excuse to avoid addressing my points.

    And the time you spend avoiding the points I make could easily be used to address the points I make.

    This is rudimentary discussion and you seem to be purposely bad it and not only have no intention of improving but seem to need it to rationalize validating your own perspective.

  32. [32] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Balthy [27}

    "The British have discovered an embarrassing amount of pro-brexit support comin from Moscow . . ."

    Are the British dumb enough to allow Moscovites (Russians) to vote in the Brexit election?? I doubt it! So you must be referring to subliminal social media messages.

    Dems/Libs are totally unrealistic about what it is that informs peoples voting patterns. The vast majority of voting EVERYWHERE, is motivated by either wallet or ideological considerations. Hillary did not lose because of Russian messages on peoples Facebook pages, and Brexit did not pass for the same reason.

    Most of you guys would profit by joining CW and me, and get the hell OFF Facebook! It makes you crazy.

  33. [33] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @don,

    that's the nature of all ambitious projects, you resolve one problem and find two more that need to be addressed. as far as "considering" advice goes, how much consideration is necessary to change one broken link in your profile? i did it in five minutes.

    JL

  34. [34] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Nypoet-
    Good for you. I don't know anything about fixing broken links or what link is broken.

    But one more time. It is not necessary to fix the broken link for CW or anyone here to address One Demand and the 20-30% of voters that vote in presidential elections but do not vote in off year elections.

    If as you say it only takes five minutes I am certain that if CW should decide to write about this opportunity that people that read the article will be able to click on http://www.onedemand.org and get to the website just as they can here in the comments and I could then easily contact the people that take care of my website to fix the link for other people that hear about it but don't see the article.

    How much consideration is necessary for the idea to be discussed instead of coming up with excuses to avoid addressing it?

    This has nothing to do with the nature of ambitious projects. If the link was fixed there would just be another excuse.

    When the link was working discussing One Demand was still being avoided because of other excuses.

    I guess that's the nature of avoiding discussion.

  35. [35] 
    TheStig wrote:

    I just ran into Rainbow Randy's very brilliant Gilbert and Sullivan parody "A Very Stable Genius"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-LTRwZb35A

    Very likely the best 3 minutes and 12 seconds you will spend today. :)

  36. [36] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Don,

    I think you should consider using 1Demand as your group’s name, not One Demand. The graphics looked much better on your website , and it will prevent people from thinking it is On Demand.

    Chris is being very nice by NOT agreeing to write an article on your dis-organization! That’s what he is trying to tell you with the, “you attract more flies with honey than with vinegar” comment. You want him to write an article that explains what you are offering, but you are not offering anything!

    Your website looks pretty at first glance, until you look how outdated it is. The link you offer for learning more about 1Demand still has the tab header “About Voucher Vendetta” and constantly refers to trying to influence the 2016 election!

    Your volunteer page tells people interested in volunteering to send an email to “volunteer@vouchervendetta.org”.

    You are asking for donations but aren’t accepting them.

    You still have information about your 2015 Billy Joel contest that you never held because you failed to clear it with the artist!

    The info page about you still says you are totally committed to Voucher Vendetta, which seems odd coming from the person asking people to donate their money and to support 1Demand!

    Don, this is a freaking nightmare! How can anyone take you seriously when you don’t care to even attempt to look like you are competent?

    You claim that people joining 1Demand and writing in their own names on the ballot will send a clear message that people want $100-or-less donation candidates, but you still cannot explain to anyone HOW that message is actually delivered. When we have pointed this out to you, you dismiss our comments as being from people who want to maintain the status quo in political donations. Our concerns are taken as proof that we want the Big Money system to continue and for your idea to fail!

    Don, if we wanted you to fail miserably, then we would complement you for a well-thought-out plan that no one could ever find fault with!

    CW would be negligent if he recommended anyone sign up or give to your group, as you are NOT a true non-profit! You have no strategy. You have no support.

    CW isn’t going to write an article trashing one man’s delusions because it serves no purpose! Yet, that is exactly what you keep demanding that he do!

  37. [37] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Sarah Sanders announced that Trump had invited Putin to the White House in the fall. At almost the exact same time of Sanders’ announcement, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats — a Trump appointee — said at the Aspen Security Forum that Russia is continuing to launch cyberattacks and propaganda warfare against the United States.

    When Coats was informed of the upcoming meeting live on stage, he looked shocked: "Say that again?" Then he burst into stunned laughter. "Okay... that's going to be special."

    Can you imagine having to put up with such an idiotic boss the way Coats has to? It must be a nightmare!

  38. [38] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Trump showed today just how much of a “stable genius” he really is:


    "Today, 23 companies and associations are pledging to expand apprenticeships," he said, and then he stopped himself.

    "That's an interesting word for me to be saying — 'The Apprentice,'" he continued. "I never actually put that together until just now. That was a good experience, I will tell you that."

    Perhaps he thought the title of the show referred to him, the show's host, rather than for the spot the contestants were competing for: his apprentice. But whatever the reason for his confusion, it seems Trump never made the connection between the title of his show and actual real-world apprenticeships.

    In case viewers think he was joking, the video shows a genuine look of surprise on his face as he has the realization. And he continued, with apparent sincerity: "Isn't that strange? Ivanka, I never associated... but here we are. Can't get away from that word. It's a great word."

    Then he continued with his prepared remarks.

  39. [39] 
    neilm wrote:

    Are the British dumb enough to allow Moscovites (Russians) to vote in the Brexit election?? I doubt it! So you must be referring to subliminal social media messages.

    This is a simple trick of sophistry - offer two alternatives as though that is the complete argument on either side.

    What people do to generate outsize influence, which you would know if you actually used social media instead of just being the expert with no experience, is that they generate "feel good" viral content that delivers a simple message in a compelling format and is shred by like minded people and spreads into a wider audience as though it were a grass roots meme.

    And it is very effective.

  40. [40] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Yeah, AND, proving my point, "it makes you crazy!"

  41. [41] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Listen-
    Yes, the website is not perfect and has some stuff on it that was written a while ago.

    Of course, when it new and when it was updated CW still didn't address the idea.

    It is interesting that you managed to scour the website for anything that wasn't perfect for you but managed to not see that the idea is explained and people can sign up to participate.

    People that can understand the idea can easily understand as explained on the website that the dates in the about section were written earlier and can transfer their understanding to our current time period. People that are not capable of doing that probably wouldn't be able to understand the idea anyway.

    There is no way that CW was referring to your nitpicking observations when he wrote "You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar." That old saying has nothing to do with that. It means be nice and not nasty.

    The website quality/imperfections or my personal quality/imperfections are not relevant to discussing the idea. The idea and informing citizens aboot it are what is important.

    No organization starts out perfect right at the beginning. It starts with a basic idea and as people learn about it and join it, it improves and adapts.

    The loyal Democrats here keep saying citizens should support the Democrats because they are not as bad the Republicans even though the Democrats are not perfect.

    Yet somehow One Demand is supposed to be perfect before the idea can even be discussed.

    While you obviously are only looking for faults so you can dismiss One Demand, I still believe that CW, should he ever actually address One Demand and the current opportunity to mobilize the 2018 non-voters, would look beyond the imperfections and also see the positives.

    Whether or not CW were to recommend people sign up in article is not important, he could just inform citizens about the opportunity and let citizens decide if they ware interested- as a responsible and reality based journalist would do. Whether or not he writes about it he should at least address the idea and explain why he won't inform citizens about this option.

    CW is not doing me any favors by not writing about One Demand or by not telling me why so if there is some valid reason that I could address that shortcoming or explain to CW the reason that I think it is not a shortcoming.

  42. [42] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Don,

    It is interesting that you managed to scour the website for anything that wasn't perfect for you but managed to not see that the idea is explained and people can sign up to participate.

    Actually, I was doing just the opposite: looking for things that I thought you had done well so I could make sure you didn’t think I was just out to discourage you. The problem is that you don’t care enough to do any actual work for me to complement. I did like the “1Demand” branding and believe that by using it and not referring to the organization as One Demand makes the name work!

    As for how people can participate, you have yet to explain anywhere HOW participating will send any message! How will anyone associate people writing in on a ballot specifically to your group?

    You just jump from people signing up and writing in their names on their ballots to candidates realizing that they missed out on hundreds of thousands of potential votes by accepting larger contributions without explaining HOW anyone will recognize the message those write-in ballots were trying to say!

    Do you plan on making the names of those who sign up public?

    How can anyone differentiate between write in votes that are 1Demand backers vs. voters that are actually attempting to write in the name of a candidate that they support?

    The very fact that most people here agree with the notion that we would love to see Big Money out of the campaign’s, yet no one is jumping on your band wagon should serve as an indication that your idea is not nearly as sound as you believe it is!

    If you don’t care enough about how 1Demand is viewed by the public, why would anyone think it is worth investing their time and energy in it?

Comments for this article are closed.