ChrisWeigant.com

Friday Talking Points -- "Civil" War

[ Posted Friday, October 12th, 2018 – 17:35 PDT ]

There's a debate going on right now among the chattering classes in Washington over whether Democrats should be "civil" or, alternatively, whether they should "kick" back at their opponents. No, really. The hilariousness of such a genteel debate seems to have escaped everyone engaging in it, apparently. Because it is pretty funny, when you consider the actual facts. Which show that Republicans completely abandoned civility altogether, right about the same time they started supporting Donald Trump -- and things have (if it's even possible) now gotten even worse in the midterm campaigns. So all they're really doing is attempting to hold Democrats to a standard they don't even pretend to hew to themselves anymore (after decades of being the moralizing, finger-wagging party, it bears mentioning).

The entire debate, if you can even call it that, began when Hillary Clinton showed more backbone than she ever did during her presidential campaign. In an interview with Christiane Amanpour, Clinton said:

You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about. That's why I believe, if we are fortunate enough to win back the House and or the Senate, that's when civility can start again. But until then, the only thing that the Republicans seem to recognize and respect is strength.

Which is pretty undeniable, on the face of it. Clinton went on to relate her own personal experience:

I remember what they did to me for 25 years -- the falsehoods, the lies, which unfortunately people believe because the Republicans have put a lot of time, money, and effort in promoting them. So when you're dealing with an ideological party that is driven by the lust for power, that is funded by corporate interests who want a government that does its bidding, it's -- you can be civil, but you can't overcome what they intend to do unless you win elections.

As we said, if she had sounded a little more like this (especially that bit about "funded by corporate interests") in 2016, we could all be in a very different place right now.

Conservatives erupted in a paroxysm of pearl-clutching. This reached epidemic proportions after Eric Holder weighed in with his own twist on the Michelle Obama line "When they go low, we go high":

No, no -- when they go low, we kick 'em. That’s what this new Democratic Party is about.

Of course, being a Democrat, Holder immediately clarified that he was speaking metaphorically:

When I say we, you know, "We kick 'em," I don't mean we do anything inappropriate. We don't do anything illegal. But we got to be tough, and we have to fight for the very things that [civil rights leaders] John Lewis, Martin Luther King, Whitney Young -- you know, all those folks gave to us.

Now, this feeds into the current fearmongering from Republicans, that Democrats are nothing short of an angry mob and will destroy civilization as we know it should they regain power in Washington. So it was big news on the right.

But the GOP dithering about civility is truly laughable, because they simply have no leg to stand on anymore in this regard. Consider the following stories from just last week alone, if you require proof.

Donald Trump refused to cancel a political rally while the third-worst hurricane in American history slammed the Florida coast. He's doing a number of other rallies this weekend, as well. So much for presidents "feeling your pain," eh?

Trump refuses to say anything negative about Saudi Arabia after his own intelligence service reported that Washington Post correspondent Jamal Khashoggi was not only murdered but actually dismembered inside the Saudi embassy in Turkey. Trump explained his lack of concern thusly: "It's in Turkey, and it's not a citizen, as I understand it. But a thing like that shouldn't happen." Got that? "It" is not a citizen. Khashoggi is actually a U.S. legal resident, which apparently doesn't carry any weight with Trump.

Trump wrote an opinion piece for USA Today this week that, by its proper name, is nothing short of propaganda. In it, Trump laughably accuses Democrats of wanting to do exactly what Republicans have been trying to do for years -- destroy Medicare. Joseph Goebbels would have been proud to read this article, since it was so chock-full of Big Lies.

Out on the campaign trail, Scott Wagner, the Republican running against Democratic incumbent Tom Wolf for governor of Pennsylvania, posted a video on Facebook with a warning: "Governor Wolf, let me tell you, between now and November 6, you better put a catcher's mask on your face because I'm going to stomp all over your face with golf spikes." How wonderfully civil of him!

Outreach to women voters (part 1): Senator Lindsey Graham said this week, of the Kavanaugh/Ford hearings: "I think the roles were reversed: the slut/whore/drunk was Kavanaugh."

Outreach to women voters (part 2): A Minnesota Republican state representative, in a debate with his Democratic opponent, snatched her microphone away, mansplained for a while, and then threw it back at her where it landed with a clunk.

Minority outreach (part 1): Trump's head of the E.P.A. has been busy on social media, "liking" a photo of Barack and Michelle Obama gazing at a banana and retweeting the conspiracy theorists behind "Pizzagate."

Minority outreach (part 2): Kansas Republican Michael Kalny was forced to resign as a precinct chairman this week, after he attacked Democratic House candidate Sharice Davids, who is both openly gay and a Native American, using terms that could hardly be called civil [Davids is running against incumbent Kevin Yoder]: "You and your comrades [sic] stealth attack on Yoder is going to blow up in your leftist face. The REAL REPUBLICANS will remember what the scum DEMONRATS tried to do to Kavanaugh in November. Your radical socialist kickboxing lesbian Indian will be sent backpacking to the reservation."

Minority outreach (part 3): The Trump administration is reportedly now trying to dream up new, ever-more-creative ways to separate families from their children at the U.S. border.

Outreach to women voters (part 3): Speaking of making lives uncomfortable for people trying to get in to America, newly-released emails show the disdain White House Chief of Staff John Kelly had for Senator Elizabeth Warren, back when Trump's initial "Muslim travel ban" took effect (in February of 2017). At the time, Warren called up Kelly to complain that what the administration was doing was illegal. Kelly later wrote an email to his senior advisor about the phone call:

Absolutely most insulting conversation I have ever had with anyone. What an impolite arrogant woman. She immediately began insulting our people accusing them of not following the court order, insulting and abusive behavior towards those covered by the pause, blah blah blah.

The aide wrote back: "Too bad Senate Majority Leader McConnell couldn't order her to be quiet again!" Again, how civil these Republicans are!

Warren already used the McConnell incident to create a campaign slogan, because "Nevertheless, she persisted!" is such a great rallying cry. Now she's got "impolite arrogant woman" to add to her campaign's arsenal. When the new emails were exposed, Warren tweeted out her reaction:

Was I tough on John Kelly in that phone call? You bet I was. Apparently he thought I was an "impolite arrogant woman." "Blah blah blah" -- that's all he had to say when he was called out for breaking the law and destroying lives.

Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump can't shut me up -- and neither can John Kelly. (He can't even get @RealDonaldTrump off Twitter, and as far as I can tell, that was his main job description when he took on the role of @Whitehouse Chief of Staff).

There are some men who can only hear "blah blah blah" whenever a woman's talking. But there's nothing impolite about people's right to speak out and hold their government accountable. And sometimes, people are right to be angry.

You got that right, Senator!

Please remember, all of these stories exemplifying the Republican Party's utter and complete lack of anything which might remotely be called "civility" happened in just one single week's time. This is merely par for the course for the GOP. And they are the ones telling Democrats how civil they should be behaving? That's why the very concept -- indeed even the very debate itself -- is so downright comical. It's like being lectured by Marie Antoinette on philanthropy. Or being lectured by Melania Trump on cyberbullying, for that matter.

All of this incivility (well, that and the hurricane) pushed several stories off the radar. The Dow Jones average tanked almost 1,400 points in two days, but it was barely even mentioned on the evening news. The head of the U.S. Census lied under oath to Congress about putting a question on citizenship on the 2020 Census form, something he previously stated did not come from the White House. Turns out there is a paper trail proving it came directly from Steve Bannon. Whoops!

And finally, Bob Mueller just secured the longest prison sentence to date in his Russia probe, which will send a California man to prison for six months. His name is added to the long and ever-growing list of people who have either pled guilty or been sentenced for their crimes. Trump can scream "witch hunt" all he likes, but Mueller hasn't lost a case yet in his whole probe. And there are several people cooperating with Mueller who have yet to be sentenced in court, so we've got that to look forward to in the coming months as well.

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

We have three Honorable Mention awards to hand out before we get to the big one. First, Elizabeth Warren deserves recognition for, once again, strongly fighting back against Republican misogyny. We fully expect "Impolite arrogant woman" to be seen on placards at Warren rallies, right next to the "Nevertheless, she persisted" ones, in the near future.

Down in Georgia, Stacy Abrams is fighting to become governor against what can only be called a rigged election. Her opponent currently holds the job of overseeing the state's elections, and has been disenfranchising as many black people as he possible can. Abrams has been fighting back hard, because the situation is so grossly unjust.

Moneyman Tom Steyer deserves recognition as well, for sinking an additional $4 million into efforts to turn out the youth vote next month. This is precisely where a bunch of money could be well spent, so it's worth recognizing.

Speaking of prodigious campaign funding, we have two Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week awards to hand out this week. The first goes to Beto O'Rourke, candidate for the Senate in Texas. O'Rourke is taking on Ted Cruz, and he has been raking in an absolute mountain of cash for his campaign. He just reported a record-breaking $38 million raised in a single quarter. That is more than many presidential campaigns rake in, and far more than any other Senate candidate in history. And you know what? He did it all without accepting any PAC money at all -- it's all small donations. He reported he raised an average of $47 from a whopping 802,000 people last quarter.

Now, to be clear, he still may lose his race -- Texas is a hard nut for Democrats to crack. Even having more money than Cruz won't guarantee his success by a long shot, so while the sheer amount is impressive, be careful drawing any conclusions for the ultimate outcome of the race. Still, O'Rourke has once again proven that small donors can fund campaigns just as successfully as fatcats and corporate money. For doing so in such spectacular fashion, O'Rourke deserves his MIDOTW award.

Our second Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week goes to the coalition between the Maine People's Alliance, Mainers for Accountable Leadership, and activist Ady Barkanis, who last won this award four weeks ago in FTP [500]. This coalition set up a page to fund the eventual Democratic nominee to run against Senator Susan Collins in Maine, in two years' time. The money was only going to be collected and used if Collins voted for Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation to the Supreme Court. Before she announced her vote, the fund had already hit $2 million.

Immediately after Collins announced she was voting yes, the site crashed because so many people were trying to donate at once. In the single week since then, the fund took in another $1.7 million -- in one short week, for an unnamed candidate two years from now. That is beyond extraordinary. Whoever actually wins the Democratic primary (Susan Rice is said to be exploring the possibility of a run) will start their general election campaign with a whole lot of money already in the bank. This is a new form of grassroots, small-donor political advocacy, and it has already been wildly successful. For pioneering the tactic, this coalition of Maine activists are well-deserving of their second Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award.

[Beto O'Rourke is a candidate, and we do not link to candidate websites as a rule. Also, we rarely endorse donation efforts, but if you'd like to contribute to the fund to defeat Susan Collins, please do so at the official Crowdpac donation page.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

While there was plenty of tragic news from Florida this week, there were also hints of political disaster from the Miami region for Donna Shalala. She is running for Congress in a district that voted for Hillary Clinton by almost 20 points, and she is well-known in the area. So she was supposed to be a shoo-in for the seat.

But the race is uncomfortably close, because Shalala is running against "a former Spanish-language television newswoman" who is very well-known to Spanish-speakers in the district. Shalala doesn't speak Spanish, and therefore can't do interviews in the language, as her opponent has been doing. This may be the biggest reason why the polling shows an incredibly tight race.

One Democratic insider criticized Shalala's campaign recently: "Donna's campaign changed in April. It went from active mode to sleep mode. And she hasn't woken up."

If Democrats want to take back the House, they really shouldn't be losing very winnable races (again: Clinton won this district by almost 20 points). This is no time to be coasting along hoping for victory, folks. So we sincerely hope that Shalala's campaign "wakes up" in time to do some good. But for the time being, she is our Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week.

[Donna Shalala is also a candidate for office, and we do not as a rule link to campaign websites, so you'll have to seek out her contact info yourself if you'd like to let her know what you think of her lackluster campaign.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 504 (10/12/18)

Another mixed bag of talking points this week, with the first three on Democrats and the last four on Trump's weekly idiocies. So let's just dive right in, shall we?

 

1
   Get used to it!

Screw civility -- we're way beyond such niceties.

"Republicans simply cannot be taken seriously over their complaints that Democrats are not being civil enough. The party of Donald Trump is lecturing Democrats on civility? Are you kidding me?!? This, from the party whose gubernatorial candidate in Pennsylvania just warned his Democratic opponent that he's going to, and I quote, stomp all over your face with golf spikes, unquote. Not exactly Miss Manners, is it? I mean, getting lectured by the party of guys like this on politeness is like getting lectured on table manners by Attila the Hun -- it's just ludicrous. You know what I have to say to Republicans? Democrats are angry, they're kicking back at being kicked, and they're not going to run their campaigns on a standard the GOP threw in the garbage can a few years ago. So Republicans should really just get used to it. And, please, spare me the lectures on civility, because you're just embarrassing yourselves."

 

2
   A coherent political strategy

We should note that it is helpful to view the first graph in this recent article, to see proof of exactly what we're talking about here.

"Washington talking heads and other assorted pundits are completely missing what is going on in all the midterm campaigns out there. They endlessly wonder whether Democrats should campaign on impeachment, or whether Democrats should announce that they're only going to target either minority voters or blue-collar Trump voters. Meanwhile, out on the real hustings, Democrats have an unbelievably unified message. Their campaign is focused intently on an enormous issue that the inside-the-Beltway crowd finds too boring to mention: healthcare. When you take a look at the ads both Democrats and Republicans are running, you can easily see that it is actually the Republicans who appear to have an incoherent strategy, not focusing on any one single issue at all. Democrats, on the other hand, are running over half their ads on protecting healthcare and people with pre-existing conditions. Republican candidates are actually having to now play defense on these issues, and it's not going well for them because of their long history of attacking Obamacare while never quite managing to come up with any viable idea for what should replace it. This focus by the Democrats is for a reason -- healthcare remains one of the top issues for the public. The voters care about healthcare, and Democrats are addressing their concerns. The Republicans are not, and they're all over the map. There is one party out there with a coherent message and a core issue in this campaign, even if the media hasn't figured it out yet."

 

3
   Small donations work

This is really a talking point for all the Democrats who still don't believe this is possible.

"Politicians can run successful campaigns when they only accept campaign donations from individual small donors rather than PAC money. Beto O'Rourke just raised the most money ever collected in a single quarter in any Senate race in American history, and he did it all from small donors -- over 800,000 of them, in fact. A fund to support the next Democratic opponent to Susan Collins just raised $1.7 million from small donors in a single week. Back in the 1990s, many Democrats sold their soul to big business and Wall Street to rake in campaign cash. But people like Bernie Sanders have proven that this isn't the only way to raise campaign money. When you have a platform that millions of people support, and when you fight hard for your ideals, people across American can and will donate small sums of money to your race. All Democrats should take an oath swearing off PAC money from now on, because when you don't have to tailor your policies to special interests and can propose bold new solutions, people respond by opening their wallets. Beto O'Rourke just proved that, once again, with hundreds of thousands of donations which averaged $47 each. Corporate Democrats, please take note."

 

4
   Trump rallies while Florida's panhandle is destroyed

This really should be a big scandal, but with Trump it barely moves the meter.

"President Donald Trump cannot be bothered to change his campaign rally schedule even when an enormous hurricane devastates the Florida panhandle. Just imagine for one tiny second what Republicans would have said if Barack Obama had done such a thing. Imagine how 'uncivil' the language they would have used would have been. And yet, Trump somehow gets a pass for ignoring a major disaster because he doesn't want to interrupt his fun. But maybe his shtick is getting a little old -- because even Fox News has apparently decided to no longer cover each and every Trump rally live. It seems that Trump's ratings are down, even on Fox. That's got to be worrying Trump, who absolutely worships television ratings. Maybe his ratings might improve if he showed a tiny shred of compassion for the millions of people who voted for him who were in the hurricane's path. Just a suggestion...."

 

5
   We've always been at war with Eastasia....

A textbook case, really.

"My dictionary defines 'propaganda' as: 'information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or a point of view.' That seems to be exactly what Donald Trump did this week, with his falsehood-filled USA Today article. It was so bad that USA Today was forced, a few days later, to publish a fact-check article to show how many gigantic lies were contained within Trump's piece. The Washington Post fact-checker said of it: 'almost every sentence contained a misleading statement or a falsehood.' Another article from the Post was more visceral: 'President Trump wrote a remarkable op-ed in USA Today on Wednesday, remarkable because one wouldn't think it possible to pack so much dishonesty into such a small space, nor would one think a newspaper would willingly publish such a steaming pile of lies.' Donald Trump actually believed he could convince Americans that Democrats want to destroy Medicare, even though the reality is that Democrats have been defending the program from Republican efforts to destroy it, pretty much from the day Medicare started back in the 1960s. This is nothing short of a textbook example of propaganda, although 'steaming pile of lies' certainly fits the bill as well."

 

6
   Irony impairment

This one has several layers of idiocy to unpack, so bear with us.

"Donald Trump tweeted out a conspiracy theory on top of his other conspiracy theory this week, leaving even his own supporters scratching their heads. Trump has become convinced that George Soros is somehow funding every Democratic protest there ever was, by paying people to protest. This is completely false, of course. It is not happening. But then Trump heard someone on Fox News state that she had heard from many people that they haven't been paid by Soros, so Trump tweeted out:"

The paid D.C. protesters are now ready to REALLY protest because they haven't gotten their checks -- in other words, they weren't paid! Screamers in Congress, and outside, were far too obvious -- less professional than anticipated by those paying (or not paying) the bills!

"Got that? The people Trump claims were paid weren't paid, so somehow that justifies his claim that they were. This bizarre tweet came about because Trump doesn't understand humor. When Trump claimed protesters were being paid, many of the protesters joked by tweeting things like: 'I haven't gotten any checks from George Soros' to make fun of Trump's idiotic conspiracy theory. Trump took them seriously, though, because he didn't understand he was actually the butt of the joke. You know what's even more hilarious? A newspaper article about people not being paid to attend a political rally titled: 'Even The Firm That Hired Actors To Cheer Trump's Campaign Launch Had To Wait To Be Paid.' Yep, once again, Trump is accusing others of doing what he's already been caught at."

 

7
   It's like looking in a mirror

We think we heard this particular joke on Jimmy Kimmel's late-night show last night, but we weren't really paying attention, so it could have been another late-night host who came up with it. Sorry for the vague citation.

"Donald Trump sat and listened to Kanye West go off on what can only be called an epic level of craziness for a good 10 minutes. Afterwards -- for the first time in living memory -- Trump appeared speechless. He simply didn't know what to say about what had just occurred in front of him. Well, Mister President, that's what life has been like for the rest of us since the first day you took office -- being rendered speechless at the craziness which comes from you. It's like Trump was looking into a mirror, really."

-- Chris Weigant

 

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

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground

 

128 Comments on “Friday Talking Points -- "Civil" War”

  1. [1] 
    Paula wrote:

    Republicans like to dish it out but they can't take it. Like all bullies, they like it when the people they're terrorizing can't hit back.

    Anecdotally I can tell you person after person has told me they are waaaay past the point of giving a damn about "civility". People's relationships have ended completely, or have been dramatically downgraded since 2016. And they will never be the same. I really don't think most repubs/rightwingers grasp that. I firmly believe that a lot of them have become such utter bastards, not only because they've been encouraged by their leaders, but because Dems around them were too nice, too understanding, too "tolerant" for too long. But for many, many Americans those days are gone. Rather than tolerating rightwingers we are withdrawing from them completely and/or kicking them out of our lives. In the early months after the election I observed many people go into mourning over relationships in the groups I joined. People agonized over friends, family, spouses, co-workers being Trumpers and feeling betrayed by them. That phase is over. Now there's mostly disgust and distance and no more guilt.

    And the loathing people express for Blotus and other Republicans is off the charts. EVERYONE I know loves it when they hear some Repub got chased out of a restaurant. Lots of discussion about pitchforks and tar and feathers and several people, unknown to each other, have separately talked to me about the fate of Mussolini and Ceausescu. And about "what will we do if Repubs start shooting?"

    Republicans always whine about civility when pushback to their abuses heats up. But Dems I know who have been attending marches and protests and calling Cong/Sen offices and all the rest literally feel that we in a cold civil war and, to some degree, are bracing for the temperature to go up. And that is, in part, because we have no intention of backing down.

    Civility? No appetite for it on our side. We aren't inclined to offer it and we don't buy it from the other side. We don't buy ANYTHING from the other side at this point - the Kavanaugh hearings put the final nail in that coffin.

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Paula,

    Your post above made me think of something a wise political analyst wrote today:

    "So in the end, progressive forces should prevail. If.

    If this Republic survives Trump, Trumpism, and the new hard right Supreme Court.

    If this civilization manages to fend off radical climate change and the increasingly savage forces of new world chaos. Those are some pretty big ifs."

    Indeed.

    Why is civility being equated with weakness? Civility is just a manner of discourse. WHAT is being said is what's important.

    So, if the Democrats engage in a race to the bottom with respect to civility, America loses.

    Democrats don't need to lose civility and who they are. They need a change in behavior and a strong message that appeals to most Americans and that is effectively communicated and fought for.

    In short, if Democrats choose to enter the race to the bottom rather than find a way that will actually beat Trump and Trumpism, then it may be too late to save your Republic.

    "So in the end, progressive forces should prevail.

    If.

    If this Republic survives Trump, Trumpism, and the new hard right Supreme Court.

    If this civilization manages to fend off radical climate change and the increasingly savage forces of new world chaos.

    Those are some pretty big ifs."

  3. [3] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Truth is, I think that this topic arises now because Progressives have stomached just about all that they can take of this Trumpian crowd.

    There's just no reserve of good will left. We've been systematically lied to, slandered, misled, dismissed and bullied, not to mention hacked, extorted and undermined. We've seen this country's reputation tarnished, our President laughed at, our institutions dismantled and our noble democracy reduced by a high rolling Pimp.

    Enough!

  4. [4] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    i don't think we're in disagreement here. what i believe liz is saying is that standing our ground on substance and maintaining our own standard of conduct do not have to be mutually exclusive.

  5. [5] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Indeed.

    I'm waiting for Democrats and progressives to consistently show some substance to counter Trump and trumpism instead of constantly complaining about the situation they find themselves wallowing in.

    Wouldn't that be refreshing?

  6. [6] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    How is Trump listening to Kayne West like Trump looking in a mirror?

    Vampires don't cast a reflection in a mirror.

  7. [7] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    If it is okay for Democrats to be angry and no longer be civil because Republicans have not been civil, is it okay for those of us that are angry at both the Democrats and Republicans to no longer have to be civil?

  8. [8] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Certainly hope the answer to comment 7 is yes.

    It's time for a new award: The Most Blatant Liar of the Week.

    Once again you repeat the lie that the anti-Collins fund is somehow pioneering a new political tactic.

    This is the SAME BASIC IDEA behind One Demand.

    The idea behind One Demand was conceived many years ago, long before the anti-Collins fund and even long before the fall of 2015 when I started commenting here.

    Yet despite all the evidence that now shows it can work (there is a plethora of evidence in this very article) you pretend it doesn't exist and continue with the Blatant Lie of Omission that you have engaged in for the last THREE YEARS!

    The most likely explanation for this is that you only support these kinds of efforts when you believe it will benefit Democrats.

    This would explain why you write aboot the anti-Collins Fund and ignore One Demand.

    This would explain why you write aboot Beto O'Rourke and not Kenneth Mejia the Green Party small contribution candidate that made the top two in California's 34th.

    This would explain why you complain aboot how the Republicans try to rig the system while ignoring how Democrats work both on their own and with Republicans to rig the system to protect the two party duopoly from any competition such as One Demand or Kenneth Mejia with your Blatant Lies of Omission.

    Perhaps you don't see it because you cast the same reflection in a mirror as Trump.

    But perhaps your reflection has not completely disappeared. Perhaps there is still time for you rejoin the human race and write columns that actually reflect reality instead of the reality you create in your mind to fit your ideology.

  9. [9] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    the answer to both 7 and 8 is, was, and hopefully will continue to be no. it's fine and admirable to be firm in one's convictions, but being uncivil is never acceptable from anyone, self included.

  10. [10] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    that's what's so amazing about dr. ford - she refused to let abuse stand unanswered, and responded firmly with dignity and poise.

  11. [11] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    nypoet-
    You explained why your answer to 7 is no, but not why the answer to 8 should be no when the evidence in this very article strongly suggests the answer should be and should have all along been yes.

    This does not reflect well on you.

  12. [12] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @don,

    i read the same talking point you did, and was fairly certain you'd wax apoplectic about it while still failing to understand the difference. my prediction has now been confirmed, and my interest in your opinion of how it reflects on me is not high. perhaps being polite got you nothing, but being rude got you ignored by our host and mocked by a majority of the rest, so perhaps it's time to find a third option.

    JL

  13. [13] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Indeed.

  14. [14] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Once again you have put Beto O'Rourke in the wrong award category.

    While it is good that many citizens have responded with small contributions, the claim that O'Rourke is a small contribution candidate is a lie.

    A quick perusal of information at opensecrets.org shows that 41% of contributions came from what THEY describe as small contributions (less than 200 dollars) while 58% came from large contributions.

    A quick perusal of the FEC site shows many contributions of 500 dollars or more.

    But these are just the one contribution. Looking at just one of those 500 dollar contributions showed a year to date total of contributions to be 1700 dollars. Hardly a small AGGREGATE contribution.

    So when you in your article claim it was 800,000 contributors, you are incorrect. It was 800,000 contributions and many of those contributions may have come from the same person.

    It could be anywhere from 100,000 to 400,000 actual contributors. Maybe someone has a computer program that could go through the individual contributions to find out how many actual contributors there are.

    Of course this would be just a rough estimate as many of the individual contributions of all amounts just say they come from ActBlue. How do we know whether or not those contributions came from some of the same people that have made multiple contributions in their name that may have even maxed out the allowable limit and are now contributing and exceeding the limit by having their additional contributions listed only as "Earmarked through this organization" (Act Blue)?

    The reality is that O'Rourke is NOT running a true small contribution campaign and your award helps to perpetuate the lie and leads to people with good intentions to contribute to a small contribution campaign being suckered into supporting this obvious charade.

    If you truly believe that small contribution campaigns are a good thing, then you should expose this lie and inform citizens aboot REAL small contribution efforts such as One Demand and Kenneth Mejia.

  15. [15] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Nypoet-
    I also fail to understand what you're talking aboot in comment 12. The difference between what?

    I asked you to explain what I didn't understand aboot why the answer to comment 8 should be no, perhaps you could also explain that when you explain comment 12.

    It's hard to understand you when you don't provide an explanation.

    Of course, it could just be that I do understand and just don't agree.

  16. [16] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    i'm not going to waste space explaining what i've already explained in prior columns, but i'm happy to explain the difference between a boot, a boat and a bout. one goes on water, one goes on your feet, and one on ESPN; none apply to CW's column.

    as a fellow new jersey-ite, you may already know that edison did not actually invent the light bulb, he just came up with the first version that was the right brightness and lasted long enough to be considered practical for regular use. perhaps there will soon be an "edison" of small donation campaigns, but unless you quit being so defensive, adjust your initial concept and put some serious work into your website, it's not going to be you.

  17. [17] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That is excellent advice - with applications for everyone!

  18. [18] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    thanks liz. y'know, 1% inspiration/99% perspiration was more than a pithy quote, it was how edison lived. if he had lived today, he'd probably be spending 22 hours a day perfecting his web page.

  19. [19] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    heh

  20. [20] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    There was advice?

    There was a feeble excuse and bullshit claims to avoid explanation because there is no valid explanation.

    But you were right aboot the "applications for everyone" part, as this is the SOP procedure for many here.

    Just to point out one obvious flaw, if Edison were alive today and spending 22 hours a day updating his website he would be spending all day doing nothing because there would be nothing for him to update as he would have no time to work on a light bulb or anything else.

    And trying to get a journalist to inform citizens aboot an idea IS part of the work of an organization or a person with an idea and/or trying to start an organization.

    The update the website is just as much a bullshit excuse as the "You catch more flies with honey" excuse.

    Nypoet admitted in comment 12 that it made no difference if I was nice or not.

    The more flies with honey bullshit is also exposed as a lie because CW did not respond when the site was new or when it was updated.

    It is amazing that repeating a supposed previous explanation is too much effort but repeating bullshit claims disguised as advice seems to be as easy as pie.

    If refuting bullshit is being defensive- then consider me guilty as charged.

    It's still better being defensive than avoiding defending indefensible positions with bullshit excuses.

  21. [21] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Oops. That should be the "update the website excuse" is also exposed as a lie because CW did not respond when the website was new or when it was updated."

  22. [22] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I have found that first impressions of a person do not always form the basis for an accurate judgement of character.

  23. [23] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    if Edison were alive today and spending 22 hours a day updating his website …

    It wasn't a matter of updating but rather perfecting. A difference with a distinction, as they say.

  24. [24] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Since the 'everyone sucks' contingent is out in force today, I thought I'd contribute a video from CNN's Chris Cuomo about 'The Race to the Bottom'. In it, he calls out Laura Ingraham's 'curled lip' and Tucker Carlson's 'angry puppy dog face'.

    https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/10/13/cuomo-closing-argument-race-to-the-bottom-cpt-vpx.cnn

  25. [25] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    2

    Why is civility being equated with weakness?

    I have a better question. Who decided civility is being equated with weakness? I don't think it is. This country was founded on some very uncivilized behavior and angry people alongside some very civilized ones with beautiful words set to paper. It takes all kinds.

    So, if the Democrats engage in a race to the bottom with respect to civility, America loses.

    Perhaps you're equating anger with incivility. Why must anger be equated with a "race to the bottom"? Anger is a powerful motivator. Our Declaration of Independence is largely an angry rant combined with a few inspirational words... sometimes progress takes both.

    Democrats don't need to lose civility and who they are.

    "Who they are" is a Party of people that are notorious for sitting out midterm elections. If it takes a little anger to motivate people to the polls... then so be it. Get mad and get moving. Civility to the point of inaction and apathy isn't working. Whatever it takes... within reason. Time to get mad, people. If our forefathers hadn't gotten mad, our country as we currently know it wouldn't exist.

    In short, if Democrats choose to enter the race to the bottom rather than find a way that will actually beat Trump and Trumpism, then it may be too late to save your Republic.

    Our Republic wasn't founded on civility, Elizabeth, and it likely won't be saved by it either. Until Democrats take back a branch or some part of government from the Trumplicans and Republicans who have acceded their authority to the Mad King currently occupying the White House, all bets are off. :)

  26. [26] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthasar
    3

    Truth is, I think that this topic arises now because Progressives have stomached just about all that they can take of this Trumpian crowd.

    Exactly right.

    There's just no reserve of good will left. We've been systematically lied to, slandered, misled, dismissed and bullied, not to mention hacked, extorted and undermined. We've seen this country's reputation tarnished, our President laughed at, our institutions dismantled and our noble democracy reduced by a high rolling Pimp.

    And Con Artist who sold out our country for money. Sad.

  27. [27] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Kick,

    I fear for your republic if many Americans understand what will save it in the same way that you do.

    I have long believed in the promise of America and in America's global leadership role. With the devastating impacts of climate change and growing world chaos and the ever present threat of nuclear weapons (not to mention Trump and Trumpism), the time has never been more right for both.

    Civility and the motivation that anger brings can work hand in hand to achieve that.

    Without civility, your republic cannot be saved. Which doesn't bode well for the rest of the planet.

  28. [28] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Perhaps you're equating anger with incivility.

    Not at all.

  29. [29] 
    Paula wrote:

    [3] Balthasar: YEP!

    [25] Kick: Yep to all!

    Republicans don't want "civility" they want "servility." When they stand up in public and tell obvious and provable lies they think it's "uncivil" to be labeled liars.

    Far from deserving "civility" Republicans are increasingly lucky not to be on the receiving end of savagery.

  30. [30] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris

    This would explain why you write aboot Beto O'Rourke and not Kenneth Mejia the Green Party small contribution candidate that made the top two in California's 34th.

    Sorry Don, but an easy 2-second search reveals that Kenneth Mejia is not a small contribution candidate. Oh sure, he comes closer than many, but he's still not one.

    https://www.opensecrets.org/races/candidates?cycle=2018&id=CA34&spec=N

  31. [31] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @kick,

    that's what CW meant when he wrote that no candidate could possibly live up to don's standard for purity. i'm sure the inventor of the arc lamp believed there would soon be one in every home, but a hundred years later they were still burning kerosene. campaign finance needs to find its carbon filament, and maybe don's the one to invent it - but only if he spends less time pestering CW and more time perfecting his idea.

    @paula,

    republicans are not a monolith. some believe in personal freedom even at the cost of their own physical safety. others believe they're being practical by following donald into the abyss. either way, they're just as human as the rest of us. i'm not cutting my wife's parents out of my life just because they believe deeply in a political philosophy that i think is horribly wrong. yes, they're republicans, but they're also people. it's perfectly possible to hate the action but still care about the person. if we lose sight of our mutual humanity, we're no better than judge kavanaugh.

    JL

  32. [32] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller
    27

    I fear for your republic if many Americans understand what will save it in the same way that you do.

    Yes, ma'am. You needn't explain to anyone who reads the comments section on a regular basis that you fear for our republic based on what Paula and I post; it's what you do here constantly and seemingly without end.

    I have long believed in the promise of America and in America's global leadership role. With the devastating impacts of climate change and growing world chaos and the ever present threat of nuclear weapons (not to mention Trump and Trumpism), the time has never been more right for both.

    Well, the Mad King in the White House disagrees at the present time so why don't our friends to the North get busy working on your Canadian government to fill the void we're all presently experiencing? I mean, we can either sit around waxing nostalgic about bygone eras or get mad and get moving. I'm going with mad and moving.

    Civility and the motivation that anger brings can work hand in hand to achieve that.

    Yes!

    Without civility, your republic cannot be saved. Which doesn't bode well for the rest of the planet.

    I would wager it's going to take civility and all kinds of other nouns to save it. It takes all kinds of motivators to call a diverse citizenry to action. I am sure some of us will be gracious while others not so much; indeed, it takes all kinds.

    Our Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, CIA, and FBI among many others are not trained to defend ourselves using tactics in civility. While I can assure you that I understand that the peaceful part is the most desirable, I can equally assure you that somebody is always fighting for our freedom in ways you'll never know and never see. So has it ever been since inception of this great nation and so shall it remain ever thus. :)

  33. [33] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick-
    Okay. You got me. You presented facts and instead of ignoring or avoiding them I acknowledge that Mejia is not a true small contribution candidate.

    See how easy that is? (A general question not specifically directed only at Kick)

    But you have acknowledged he is much closer than O'Rourke. Almost 80% is pretty close, though again that is contributions not aggregate contributions from contributors which could put the true small contributors to less than 80%.

    But it is possible that if there were a national organization with participants providing direct support to true small contribution candidates that candidates such as Mejia that are almost there would take the next step and move to a true small contribution campaign.

    Maybe even a candidate such as O'Rourke would also.

    Or it could inspire someone to run because they could now see it is possible to run a true small contribution campaign and have the support to pull it off and it didn't seem possible to run an honest campaign before so they did not run before.

  34. [34] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz-
    Why would a website or idea have to be perfected to be discussed or even supported?

    Many here seem to think that the Democrats should be supported even though they aren't perfect (a rather subjective term).

    Your difference with a distinction appears to more of a distinction that doesn't make a difference.

  35. [35] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    33

    But you have acknowledged he is much closer than O'Rourke.

    No, Don, I didn't say anything about Beto O'Rourke one way or another. I just said Mejia comes closer than many but still isn't one.

    But it is possible that if there were a national organization with participants providing direct support to true small contribution candidates that candidates such as Mejia that are almost there would take the next step and move to a true small contribution campaign.

    It's also possible I could win the lottery one day if someone could talk me into throwing away my money in exchange for nothing. I believe I'm winning by not playing. :)

  36. [36] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    When I was in the middle of a seemingly endless divorce, my recently departed step-mother gave me some advice. A year into the debacle, with the ex-wife going through lawyer after lawyer and throwing frivolous motions around like confetti...she said wisely, "don't ever get in the mud to wrestle with a pig"

    Decency and decorum are their own reward, and good manners cost nothing.

    I saw some Republican candidate in an ad saying he was going to stomp on his rival's head with cleated golf shoes! Anyone stupid enough to vote for an idiot like that deserves him to govern over them.

    LL&P

  37. [37] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'm going with mad and moving.

    Great! So long as you remain civil, Kick, especially when trying to persuade your fellow citizens.

    I can equally assure you that somebody is always fighting for our country …

    Indeed. The heroic defenders of your country and mine along with others are sacrificing mightily for our collective freedom.

    Our Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, CIA, and FBI among many others are not trained to defend ourselves using tactics in civility.

    Absolutely, positively, unequivocally. Of course, my references to the importance of civility apply to political leaders and citizenry, at large.

    As good as we are, Canada will never be the leader of the free world. But, you're right, we should be trying harder to begin to fill the vacuum.

    I would wager it's going to take civility and all kinds of other nouns to save it.

    Oh, it's going to take quite a lot more than civility in discourse to save your republic but, without the requisite civility, your country is destined to be hopelessly divided as world chaos grows exponentially in the absence of American leadership.

  38. [38] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Well said, James!

  39. [39] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    … well, except for that last bit. Heh.

  40. [40] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Kick,

    "United we stand, divided we fall" has whole new meaning now.

  41. [41] 
    Kick wrote:

    JTC
    36

    When I was in the middle of a seemingly endless divorce, my recently departed step-mother gave me some advice. A year into the debacle, with the ex-wife going through lawyer after lawyer and throwing frivolous motions around like confetti...she said wisely, "don't ever get in the mud to wrestle with a pig"

    And this begs the question: Was your step-mother referring to your ex-wife or the lawyer? ;) *kidding* Point being that pigs indeed exist and persist, and you have choices in how you're going to deal with them: (a) you handle them yourself and get a little mud on you in the process, (b) you hire your own lawyer/pig to take care of the mud for you, or (c) you remain civilized and allow their pig stench to overtake you and your entire way of life. In ways you may never know about, somebody somewhere is getting at least a little muddy. That's just how it is with mammals who root in soil. :)

    Decency and decorum are their own reward, and good manners cost nothing.

    If you hired a lawyer to deal with her and/or her lawyer, that was money well spent and thus allowed you to remain decent and civilized while your lawyer dealt with the inevitable mud. While I understand your sentiment completely, please keep in mind that there's always somebody who has to deal with the pigs of the world while the others clutch their pearls and whine incessantly about "civility."

    I saw some Republican candidate in an ad saying he was going to stomp on his rival's head with cleated golf shoes! Anyone stupid enough to vote for an idiot like that deserves him to govern over them.

    How is it any different than those who voted for the candidate who wished to lock up his opponent? Not by much. Unfortunately, there are enough stupid people in this country to vote for an idiot like this, and then we all have to suffer the "fools in cleats" until somebody steps up to stop them. You may or may not ever know the things that were done to stop these fools, but I can assure you that there's likely somebody somewhere who had to suffer the cleats so others wouldn't have to. :)

  42. [42] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    40

    "United we stand, divided we fall" has whole new meaning now.

    Yes! :)

  43. [43] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    You quoted Hillary Clinton re. civility in politics:

    "You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about. That's why I believe, if we are fortunate enough to win back the House and or the Senate, that's when civility can start again. But until then, the only thing that the Republicans seem to recognize and respect is strength."

    I can't say that I understand exactly what point she is trying to make but, it sounds an awful lot like the old 'I'm not going to do it until everyone else does it' strategy, not an unfamiliar sentiment advocated by some Weigantians.

    To be clear, I am directing the call for maintaining civility in the fight for what is right towards Democrats - politicians and voters - and, of course, commenters of all political stripes here at CW.com.

    Also, my definition of civility allows for - no, demands the use of muscular and cogent arguments in an effort to engage in the almost lost art of persuasion. As the granddaughter of Justice Ginsburg said she learned from her grandmother, arguments made loudly and without civility are not persuasive while people are more likely to listen to arguments made calmly and intelligently.

    In further quoting Clinton,

    "So when you're dealing with an ideological party that is driven by the lust for power, that is funded by corporate interests who want a government that does its bidding, it's -- you can be civil, but you can't overcome what they intend to do unless you win elections."

    I suppose if Hillary had understood that you win elections by making strong arguments in a civil manner in an honest effort to persuade voters of all political stripes that you have their best interests at heart, then she and we might be in a different political situation today.

  44. [44] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick-
    Apparently it is much harder to acknowledge a fact than I thought it was.

    You could have just acknowledged that Mejia was closer than O'Rourke to being a small contribution candidate, even if you didn't specifically say Mejia was closer than O'Rourke.

    But what fun would that be?

    Fortunately, voting is not a lottery. Instead of one jackpot winner in a lottery each individual vote accumulates with other similar votes.

    And 50% of eligible voters have decided that voting for a Big Money Democrat or Republican is throwing away their vote for nothing so they will not be playing by not voting in 2018.

    And since they will not be winning by not playing, I am offering those citizens the opportunity to create and demonstrate demand for small contribution candidates in 2020 by participating in One Demand in 2018 that could inspire more citizens to participate in 2020 and build enough support to make it possible for these citizens to vote for small contribution candidates that can win in 2020 and future elections.

    Basic democracy.

    The lottery still does provide better odds of winning than expecting a Big Money legislator to represent ordinary citizens over their Big Money contributors.

  45. [45] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    I suppose if Hillary had understood that you win elections by making strong arguments in a civil manner in an honest effort to persuade voters of all political stripes that you have their best interests at heart, then she and we might be in a different political situation today.

    I think that what she understands is that she did all of that and lost. Her opponent threw all of that out the window and won. We're not fighting by Marquess of Queensberry Rules anymore - Trump advisors like Bannon and Stephen Miller are channeling Machiavelli.

    And don't forget that she lost despite a five million vote edge. Convincing people to vote for her wasn't her problem - electoral math was. Hence:

    "...you can't overcome what they intend to do unless you win elections."

    That is, you've got to win the ground game, to think strategically, and be unafraid to call a Dunce a dunce.

  46. [46] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Balthasar,

    I wonder how the 2016 presidential election outcome might have changed if Hillary had said that she understands why Donald Trump's message was resonating with so many Americans (and then go on to explain why the Democratic option and solutions are better) instead of equating Trump supporters with a basket of deplorables.

    By the way, Hillary went with the 'run-out-the-clock strategy because she (and most of the country) was sure she was going to win.

    Her "ground game" left quite a lot to be desired.

    I'm hoping beyond hope that Democrats have learned lessons from that disappointing campaign.

  47. [47] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Balthasar,

    That is, you've got to win the ground game, to think strategically, and be unafraid to call a Dunce a dunce.

    I think you have two thirds of that right. But, that last bit may counteract and nullify the rest of it.

  48. [48] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    What was the turnout percentage of eligible voters who registered as Democrat in the 2016 presidential election?

  49. [49] 
    Paula wrote:

    [43] Kick: Yes to all, especially: You may or may not ever know the things that were done to stop these fools, but I can assure you that there's likely somebody somewhere who had to suffer the cleats so others wouldn't have to.

    Yep!

    [45] Balthasar: I think that what she understands is that she did all of that and lost. Her opponent threw all of that out the window and won. We're not fighting by Marquess of Queensberry Rules anymore - Trump advisors like Bannon and Stephen Miller are channeling Machiavelli.

    And don't forget that she lost despite a five million vote edge.

    Actually, channeling Goebbels, Hitler and the rest. But yes, when Liz opines about HRC and the 2016 campaign she always makes her pronouncements as though it was a normal campaign. It wasn't.

    Liz: your failure (or refusal) to process what actually went on in the 2016 election renders the opinions you offer on the topic useless.

  50. [50] 
    Paula wrote:

    [31] nypoet:

    i'm not cutting my wife's parents out of my life just because they believe deeply in a political philosophy that i think is horribly wrong. yes, they're republicans, but they're also people. it's perfectly possible to hate the action but still care about the person. if we lose sight of our mutual humanity, we're no better than judge kavanaugh.

    Rejecting a traitor and/or racist and/or selfish enabler of an abusive party isn't "losing sight of their humanity."

    However, pretending nothing has changed since Blotus; allowing Republicans to not face up to what they have helped happen isn't moral or pious or principled, it's just conflict-avoidance.

    If they aren't aware of a difference in feeling about them, from you, you are part of the problem. Although perhaps you HAVE confronted them and continue to do so. That would be good.

    Martin Luther King put it perfectly:
    I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice.

    I took that quote from this article, which adds:

    He said that a white moderate is someone "who constantly says: 'I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action'; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom." Such a person is, according to King, someone "who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a 'more convenient season.'"

    Ultimately, King wrote that "shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."

    https://www.bustle.com/p/this-martin-luther-king-jr-quote-on-white-moderates-is-seriously-striking-a-chord-7913411

  51. [51] 
    Paula wrote:

    Also worth musing on:

    Paradox of tolerance. The paradox of tolerance was described by Karl Popper in 1945. The paradox states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant will eventually be seized or destroyed by the intolerant.

    That's the road we've been on in this country and reversing course ain't gonna happen by people being polite to people who don't give a damn about civility or law or decency.

  52. [52] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Paula,

    I think what happened in 2016 - to put it in a nutshell - is that Hillary failed to inspire enough Democrats (in the right places) to get out and vote. It was kind of like lukewarm acceptance. And, yes, the whole campaign was as frustrating as it gets.

    Hopefully, a lack of inspiration won't be a problem for the Democrats again or there will be another term for you know who.

    Do you think that Trump is trying to will a left-wing mob into existence? It seems he'll have a lot of help. :(

  53. [53] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That's the road we've been on in this country and reversing course ain't gonna happen by people being polite to people who don't give a damn about civility or law or decency.

    Paula, do you think there are people here on this blog who don't give a damn about civility or law or decency?

    I think we deserve politeness and civility from our fellow Weigantians, don't you?

  54. [54] 
    Paula wrote:

    [52] Liz: You continue to repeat your tropes as though Robert Mueller's investigation doesn't exist, as though all the ways the GOP cheated didn't happen; as though the NYTimes with their endless repetition of Benghazi and Her Emails while suppressing the stories about Russian interference and Trumps ciminality, along with Mitch McConnell's threats about making that info public (and Obama and Biden's inability to deal with those threats, etc.

    I repeat, "your failure (or refusal) to process what actually went on in the 2016 election renders the opinions you offer on the topic useless."

    [53] Evidently you missed the point. "Civility" is what people who aren't hurting demand of people who are being hurt, so that that the people who aren't hurting can avoid the discomfort of confronting those who are doing the hurting to the hurt.

    Say that 10 times in a row real fast!

  55. [55] 
    Paula wrote:

    "as though all the ways the GOP cheated didn't happen; as though the NYTimes with their endless repetition of Benghazi and Her Emails while suppressing the stories about Russian interference and Trumps ciminality, along with Mitch McConnell's threats about making that info public (and Obama and Biden's inability to deal with those threats, etc. didn't happen.

    Bad run-on sentence.

  56. [56] 
    Paula wrote:

    Jeebus, and Trumps CRIMINALITY. I'm tired.

  57. [57] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    43

    I can't say that I understand exactly what point she is trying to make but, it sounds an awful lot like the old 'I'm not going to do it until everyone else does it' strategy, not an unfamiliar sentiment advocated by some Weigantians.

    It seems you really don't get it, EM. Metaphorically speaking, she's talking about Democrats sitting in the backseat of the vehicles while someone else drives the cars while ignoring the speed limit, the traffic signs, and all the other drivers on the road. Trumplicans/Republicans control the wheels to the Executive, Senate, House, and Judicial vehicles and will continue to do so until voters elect Democrats to take the wheel of one or more of them. When Democrats are behind the wheels of power, they can dictate the speed, follow the rules, and show respect for others on the road. Until then, they're passengers in someone else's vehicle.

    To be clear, I am directing the call for maintaining civility in the fight for what is right towards Democrats - politicians and voters - and, of course, commenters of all political stripes here at CW.com.

    To be clear -- metaphorically speaking -- you're trying to dictate the terms of all the vehicles versus driving your own car and allowing others to drive theirs.

    Also, my definition of civility allows for - no, demands the use of muscular and cogent arguments in an effort to engage in the almost lost art of persuasion.

    Good luck with your "demands," but I can assure you I won't be commenting to suit you or your "demands" and will forever remain the driving force behind my own comments.

    As the granddaughter of Justice Ginsburg said she learned from her grandmother, arguments made loudly and without civility are not persuasive while people are more likely to listen to arguments made calmly and intelligently.

    The way to win an argument is not to yell, because often that will turn people away more so than bringing them to your table. ~ Clara Spera

    Actually, I believe you misunderstood what Clara Spera meant by her statement. What she learned from RBG was that one needn't always have the loudest voice. Your arguments and "demands" on this board are generally exactly the opposite of this sentiment since you're generally seeking to control everyone's voice by being the loudest voice dictating the terms of the comments of everyone. Stop me if you've heard this, but you should allow yourself to stop doing that and "demanding" that.

    Justice Ginsburg is a quiet force, and according to her granddaughter, Clara Spera, it makes her a model for how to effectively deal with people.

    When you become a lawyer like Ms. Spera or become a Justice on the highest court in the land like RBG and deal with others who are quite literally sitting in judgment of you, your client by extension, and your comments, that is very good advice. As you're neither of those things and have no reason whatsoever to sit in judgment of anyone on this comments section in any way, shape, or fashion, you're merely repetitive and "demanding" for no particular reason. :)

  58. [58] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    If they aren't aware of a difference in feeling about them, from you, you are part of the problem.

    my parents-in-law are not nazis or racists. i love them like my own in spite of our political differences. yes, i share my opinion on donald and the shortsightedness of republicans who ignore his transgressions because he helps them achieve their policy agenda. but always respectfully and with affection.

    you quote dr. king but fundamentally misinterpret the tone of his message. yes, we actively resist injustice, but as dr. king did we also warmly encourage those who have not yet accepted a better path to recognize that they too would benefit from a more just society. we don't reject them as if they were one with the evil they tacitly support, we recognize the good in them and invite them to join us.

    JL

  59. [59] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    [46] (and then go on to explain why the Democratic option and solutions are better) instead of equating Trump supporters with a basket of deplorables.

    There's your problem Liz: Hillary never said that. She said that she knew that most of Trump's supporters were decent folk looking for a fair deal, but that some of his supporters could be assigned to that 'basket of deplorables'.

    And at the time, we all knew who she was talking about: the bigots, the white supremacists, the nationalists and other alt-righties who thought that they'd found a fellow traveler in Trump, one that would promote their own gutter politics.

    It was the right wing spin machine that conflated that statement into an indictment of everyone on the right.

    And here we are two years later, and the Republican establishment appears to be still coddling the deplorables who advocate that we lock up latina babies in cages after deliberately separating those children from their mothers. That's still going on.

    They abolish regulations that protect the environment, run up gargantuan deficits to pay off wealthy donors, crush unions, raid Hispanic neighborhoods in the middle of the night, loot and corrupt government agencies, and party with tyrants of every stripe while insulting and humiliating our allies and friends overseas.

    So she wasn't right? Don't Trump supporters have ANY responsibility for the daily outrages that have been delivered in their names? Their continued support for Trump's behavior is deplorable, that's for sure.

  60. [60] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    44

    Apparently it is much harder to acknowledge a fact than I thought it was.

    Apparently, if someone put words in my mouth and then claims I acknowledged something when I did no such thing, then they aren't thinking at all.

    You could have just acknowledged that Mejia was closer than O'Rourke to being a small contribution candidate, even if you didn't specifically say Mejia was closer than O'Rourke.

    Once again, Don, I didn't mention Beto O'Rourke in any way nor did I check his statistics to confirm whether or not Mejia was "closer than O'Rourke." I don't care who is closer. My point was that Mejia isn't one because there's no such thing as a "small contribution candidate" who meets your criteria... unless and until you provide a name that meets your criteria.

    Fortunately, voting is not a lottery. Instead of one jackpot winner in a lottery each individual vote accumulates with other similar votes.

    I believe you are under the mistaken impression that I was comparing the lottery to voting. *laughs* Wrong again, Don. I was comparing your "One Demand" to the lottery... throwing away my vote for nothing just like throwing away my money for nothing. I'm doing neither of those things because no one has... so far... convinced me why I should do either of them.

    JL is dead on accurate too that this is exactly what CW meant when he wrote that no candidate could possibly live up to your standard for purity... even the ones you keep claiming are doing it... not a single person you've ever named or claimed has met your criteria, and that's on you and not CW or anybody else. :)

  61. [61] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Balthasar,

    She said that she knew that most of Trump's supporters were decent folk looking for a fair deal, but that some of his supporters could be assigned to that 'basket of deplorables'.

    If you check the transcript of her speech, she clearly said that half of Trump's supporters could be put in the basket of deplorables.

    I think she would have won that election if she had just spoke about the other half and included references to them in all of her campaign events.

    But, I also think she really doesn't get what that other half is all about. Which is why she never had an effective counterpoint to Trump's message to these voters.

  62. [62] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula
    51

    Paradox of tolerance. The paradox of tolerance was described by Karl Popper in 1945. The paradox states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant will eventually be seized or destroyed by the intolerant.

    Hmmmmm… this Popper's "paradox of tolerance" sounds a lot like the "Popeye Paradox," and he far predates 1945. During each cartoon when the "sailor man" has finally reached the point where he's had quite enough of Blotus… I mean Brutus:

    *
    * That's all I can stands, I can't stands no more. ~ Popeye
    *

  63. [63] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    I also think she really doesn't get what that other half is all about.

    That's oversimplifying it. By that standard, ONLY Trump 'gets' Trump people, since no one else, including seventeen other Republican rivals came even close to inspiring the Trump-level adoration of the Alt-Right and Republican faithful that Trump himself has. It's so centered on him and him alone that it has a down-side: he has no coattails, and his 'magic' rubs off on no one. Isaac Asimov once called a singular cultural phenomenon such as he is a 'mule', since it cannot reproduce.

    Hillary was once the first lady of Arkansas, and had that job for several terms. She's probably come into contact with more 'Trump people' than Trump ever has. I'd lay you odds that she's 100% more likely to be able to tell you what a gallon of milk costs right now.

  64. [64] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @liz,

    i disagree with you about hillary. although her message may not have been exactly on point at all times, it wasn't for lack of a message that she failed to connect with voters. the emotional connection wasn't there because she isn't a very good natural salesperson. she's a brilliant mind, a great political operative, and based on her policy priorities i think her heart has always been in the right place. however, she doesn't have that smooth interpersonal connection that the most successful politicians tend to have. bill has it, barack has it, and donald... well, that's just about the only thing he has. hillary doesn't, and that isn't really her fault, just a shortcoming that prevented her from overcoming all the rightwing attacks and misinformation.

    JL

  65. [65] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @balthasar,

    i knew the mule as a character in the foundation series, but i didn't know asimov discussed the phenomenon outside of his works. any more to add?

    JL

  66. [66] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Joshua,

    I've seen Hillary in action and she can be quite impressive - whether it be sitting in front of a misguided congressional committee for 11 hours or on the campaign trail or doing an event at Brookings as Secretary of State. I always learned something from listening to her at these events.

    I think she was more than capable of overcoming any obstacle in her way but the critical mistakes she made during that unprecedented race for the White House prevented her from winning enough votes to be president.

  67. [67] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    By the way, Joshua, do you know off hand what percentage of registered Democrat voters turned out to vote in 2016?

  68. [68] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Or am I asking the right question? :)

  69. [69] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller
    61

    Speaking at the LGBT for Hillary Gala in New York City on Sept. 9, 2016, Hillary Clinton said exactly this:

    In too many places still, LGBT Americans are singled out for harassment and violence. You can get married on Saturday, post your pictures on Sunday and get fired on Monday. That's why we've got to continue the forward march of progress.

    And we cannot do it alone. I cannot do it alone. I'm not like Donald Trump, who says, "I alone can fix it." I've never quite figured out what it is he alone can fix. But that's not what you'll hear from me. I think we have to do this together. So, together we're gonna pass the Equality Act to guarantee full equality. We're going to put comprehensive quality affordable healthcare within reach for more people, including for mental health and addiction. We're going to take on youth homelessness, and as my wonderful, extraordinary, great daughter said, we are going to end the cruel and dangerous practice of conversion therapy. We're going to keep working toward an AIDS-free generation, a goal that I set as secretary of state, and with your help we're going to pass comprehensive gun laws. …

    I know there are only 60 days left to make our case -- and don't get complacent, don't see the latest outrageous, offensive, inappropriate comment and think, well, he's done this time. We are living in a volatile political environment. You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic -- you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people -- now 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks -- they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America.

    But the other basket -- and I know this because I see friends from all over America here -- I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas -- as well as, you know, New York and California -- but that other basket of people are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they're just desperate for change. It doesn't really even matter where it comes from. They don't buy everything he says, but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won't wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they're in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.

    And what I hope is that in addition to your extraordinary generosity, you will go to our website, Hillary Clinton dot com, or text to join at 47246 to see how else you can get involved.

    She then introduced Barbra Streisand.

    The next day, after facing criticism from the Trump campaign and others, Clinton issued this statement:

    Last night I was "grossly generalistic," and that's never a good idea. I regret saying "half" -- that was wrong. But let's be clear, what's really "deplorable" is that Donald Trump hired a major advocate for the so-called "alt-right" movement to run his campaign and that David Duke and other white supremacists see him as a champion of their values. It's deplorable that Trump has built his campaign largely on prejudice and paranoia and given a national platform to hateful views and voices, including by retweeting fringe bigots with a few dozen followers and spreading their message to 11 million people. It's deplorable that he's attacked a federal judge for his "Mexican heritage," bullied a Gold Star family because of their Muslim faith, and promoted the lie that our first black president is not a true American. So I won't stop calling out bigotry and racist rhetoric in this campaign. I also meant what I said last night about empathy, and the very real challenges we face as a country where so many people have been left out and left behind. As I said, many of Trump's supporters are hard-working Americans who just don’t feel like the economy or our political system are working for them. I'm determined to bring our country together and make our economy work for everyone, not just those at the top. Because we really are "stronger together."

    I think she would have won that election if she had just spoke about the other half and included references to them in all of her campaign events.

    She did... even in the very same speech people can't seem to keep mischaracterizing and whining about as if it was yesterday and we're all still living in 2016. I don't know about "all" of her campaign events, but she frequently spoke about "the other half" while reporters rushed to cover the Trump scandal of the day and felt compelled to spend equal amounts of time whining about "her emails" in an exercise we refer to as "false equivalency" reporting.

    But, I also think she really doesn't get what that other half is all about. Which is why she never had an effective counterpoint to Trump's message to these voters.

    Says the Canadian who seemingly believes she knows better regarding "what that other half is all about" better than the person who was First Lady of the State of Arkansas for over a decade, First Lady of the United States of America for 8 years, Senator of the State of New York for 8 years who only left that role to serve as Secretary of State of the United States for 4 years under Barack Obama. Hillary gets it, and Paula does too when she says "your failure (or refusal) to process what actually went on in the 2016 election renders the opinions you offer on the topic useless."

    Do you think you could find it in yourself to move past the 2016 election now, EM, or are you going to keep reliving it over and over like our mentally challenged BLOTUS?

    You win some... you lose some, and regardless of which side you find yourself on, you either move forward or stay mired in the past and... to borrow your words... "wallow in it." If Hillary can find it in herself to move on, surely you can as well. There are a lot more shoes to drop, and she knows things you don't know and never will know and has managed to remain civil until she's had all she can stand and can't stand no more. :)

  70. [70] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    The hardest part of having people you love that are Trump supporters is that you cannot just think of them the same way as you do the “deplorables” without feeling horrible for doing so!

    It wasn’t easy for me to view Hillary Clinton positively at first during the 2016 election. I preferred Bernie, but she was the candidate that won the primary. I remember going to her campaign website and just reading everything they had to offer, but reading it through glasses left over from my 25 years as a card-carrying Republican.

    Sometimes I have to remind myself that my opinion on many political topics was heavily influenced by people who lied to me every opportunity they got. Propaganda is far more effective than I would have ever thought possible. Most of us don’t want to admit that we can fall prey to such mental manipulation — believing instead that we are too sharp to fall victim of such trickery — but I realized that I thought Hillary was crooked even though I could not name a single law that she’d been found to have broken. Could 35 years of hearing that she was crooked have influenced my opinion of her???
    Definitely!

    I am someone who now fully supports the Democratic Party, and these things tainted my opinion of her. How the hell is my father who still fully trusts the GOP and watches FoxNews 24/7 supposed to change his opinion of Hillary or the Democrats?

  71. [71] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Russ,

    Thanks for posting that very personal story. I would really like to delve into the important issues you raise and, hopefully, Chris will write about the gut-wrenching political issues that are being dealt with at the personal and family level.

    As an outsider looking in, it is hard to watch what is happening in your country because it's impacts are felt the world over.

    That's a lot of stuff to cover ...

  72. [72] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    oops … its impacts … it's 3am, for God's sake. Heh.

  73. [73] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Russ,

    I think Hillary was wrong about the half and half part. The percentage of "deplorables" is probably quite a lot less than half.

  74. [74] 
    John M wrote:

    From what I have been reading, voter turnout particularly Democratic voter turnout, in and of itself, wasn't the key factor for Clinton's loss to Trump. It was due to 3 main other factors:

    1) The electoral college is skewed to give white, rural voters in small states an outsize influence over minority, urban voters concentrated in large states.

    2) About 1 in 4 of Obama's white working class voters in 2012 either switched and voted for Trump or a third party in 2016.

    3) Trump, in places like white, rural southern Pennsylvania, was able to motivate people to come out and vote for him who had never voted at all before. For every one voter who switched from Obama to Trump in such a crucial area, at least 5 more people who had never voted before came out to vote for Trump.

    Overall on a national level, this had no impact as far as national vote totals went. But in key states, like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Ohio (along with perhaps North Carolina and Florida) it was the whole ballgame. Clinton, for example, did better than Obama's margin in a state like Texas, but in terms of the electoral college, it meant nothing.

    Even still, it was CLOSE. Trump won Pennsylvania by only 0.7 of a percentage point.

  75. [75] 
    John M wrote:

    Also, thank you for everyone's concern during hurricane Michael. We got power and cable back here Saturday afternoon, after having been without since Wednesday. No damage to our house, though a tree did damage our neighbor's home, and roads were also blocked for a couple of days due to down power lines and trees.

    It was much, much worse just west of here. About 50 to 100 miles west of Tallahassee, in places like Marianna, Panama City, and Mexico Beach, Florida, power is not expected to be restored for 3 weeks or more. The devastation was so severe. People are missing and needing food. Only now are workers even able to get into those areas. (And we're not even an island like Puerto Rico.) One has to wonder how those areas, which were heavily Trump supporters before the storm, are going to react.

  76. [76] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz- (67,68)-
    No, 67 is the wrong question.
    Yes, 68 is the right question.

    The main reason Trump won in 2016 because he was able to deceive enough people into believing he was the anti-establishment candidate in an anti-establishment election and Clinton had to be what she is- an establishment candidate.

    She was Popeyed.

    The right question to ask going forward is what will it take for the Democrats (or anyone else) to motivate the 50% of eligible voters that do not vote in off year elections and the 40% that don't vote at all.

    As John M pointed out (assuming he is not making it up) Trump was able to mobilize some of those that never voted before to vote and it may have made a difference.

    It's a shame that so many people are so disgusted with both Current Major Parties that they choose to not vote and are so desperate for something different that some can be fooled by such an obvious scam artist.

    And it's a shame that the media fails to recognize the reasons people don't vote and offer them alternatives instead of perpetuating the con that both of the Big Money Current Major Parties work on together to subvert democracy.

    No matter what issues the Democrats campaign on, these citizens will not believe the Democrats are sincere because the Democrats (as well as the Republicans) are controlled by the Big Money interests.

    It's not that the Democrats, Republicans and the media don't understand this, it's that it is by design. If you can't fool them into voting for you then you do everything you can to discourage them from voting against you and from voting at all (you being the Big Money two party system.)

  77. [77] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    nypoet [65]: i knew the mule as a character in the foundation series, but i didn't know asimov discussed the phenomenon outside of his works. any more to add?

    No, I was only referring to the character in the Foundation books, but don't read too much into that, since I'm fairly sure a direct comparison wouldn't stand up to close scrutiny. I was only trying to use it as a metaphor for 'political singularity'.

  78. [78] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @liz,

    nate cohn at the times says the difference wasn't attributable to weak dem turnout.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/28/upshot/a-2016-review-turnout-wasnt-the-driver-of-clintons-defeat.html

  79. [79] 
    neilm wrote:

    Politics has always been dirty, and it isn't going to get any cleaner for a while - the depth of the mud is usually proportional to the depth of divide in the country, and at the moment in the U.S. we are naval gazing and finding enemies next door.

    In one way this is a good thing - what drives us together is an outside attack, and that usually isn't good for somebody in the U.S.

    I think that inequality is stoking the flames, and the corporate takeover of politics that Eisenhower warned us of is another factor.

    We need to spend money on our people (healthcare, especially mental healthcare - looking after the people who can't advocate for themselves instead of dumping them on the streets) with taxes imposed on the people who are getting the most out of the U.S. would start to turn the tide.

    But who ever won an election on a "Raise Taxes" platform.

  80. [80] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Neil,

    I think Democrats have to find a new way to talk about taxes and inequality that tends to unite rather than divide.

    The Democratic platform should be easily recited by any engaged voter.

    Chris should hold a contest after the midterms to see what Weigantians think a winning Democratic message for 2020 looks like ...

  81. [81] 
    neilm wrote:

    Chris should hold a contest after the midterms to see what Weigantians think a winning Democratic message for 2020 looks like

    Good idea - we could have the top three issues that Democrats should run on and a pithy elevator pitch that anybody can recite.

  82. [82] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    … and relate to.

    Sounds very good to me!

  83. [83] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    I used to take high school kids to Mexico Beach for Spring Break years ago. Panama City was a party town, but Mexico Beach was a quiet little town that had like one fast food place and a grocery store that closed at 6 pm. We’d rent a house and spend the week enjoying the gorgeous beaches...some of my best memories of working with high school kids occurred there. It was the best kept secret in Florida. Breaks my heart to think of that little gem being destroyed!

  84. [84] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Liz

    I think Hillary was wrong about the half and half part. The percentage of "deplorables" is probably quite a lot less than half.

    What amazed me was/is the number of Trump supporters who like to refer to themselves as that when debating someone who supports the Democrats. I have stopped people and asked them if they truly support white nationalism, homophobia, and bigotry, and they actually seem shocked to learn that was how “deplorables” was defined by Hillary!

    They weren’t “deplorable” simply for supporting Trump (that is debatable for some, I realize), it was supporting the hatred that some of his followers support that made a person “deplorable”. Holding them to the definition Hillary set for the word has been one way to force some of my family members to recognize how important it is to have accurate information to base your opinions on.

  85. [85] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Russ,

    Maybe Mexico Beach will rise again with fewer homes and more of a beach park.

    Because, the storms will be coming more often and stronger - even if political leaders get serious about mitigating climate change.

    In fact, anyone living in coastal areas should probably think about moving.

    I'm hoping Michale doesn't live in the path of Michael ...

  86. [86] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Holding them to the definition Hillary set for the word has been one way to force some of my family members to recognize how important it is to have accurate information to base your opinions on.

    Now, THAT is what I call a good start!

  87. [87] 
    Mezzomamma wrote:

    So does naval gazing involve even deeper mud than navel gazing, Neilm? [wink]

    There's a new grandchild on the way, and the company my daughter works for has replaced its health plan with a less good one, leaving daughter and husband with bigger co-pays. And what about my young adult nephew, still recovering from a catastrophic illness a few years ago? Health care is an issue that touches nearly everyone, directly or indirectly, and is a, maybe the, GOP weak point.

    A lot of issues are going to be more local or need a local take, and Democrats need to make up ground on the notion that they 'only' represent the seaboards and big cities. (Although as we know, the places with the most people are actually numerically under-represented.)

    Wages, from the minimum wage and up, should be an issue most places, although the framing probably needs to be local. It can be instructive to compare the income of a specific politician who voted/spoke against raising the minimum wage with the income of someone doing a useful job at the minimum wage and with people like paramedics. What does Congressman Bloggs get in hourly terms, including campaign contributions? And how does that compare to the local average, or to a teacher, or to a senior nurse, or another 'good' local job? You could find national averages, but I'm inclined to think local would be more effective. And local and state-wide offices matter, too.

  88. [88] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Mezzomamma,

    A lot of issues are going to be more local or need a local take, and Democrats need to make up ground on the notion that they 'only' represent the seaboards and big cities.

    An excellent point - and one that Democrats must consider when doing their, ah, rallies.

  89. [89] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    So does naval gazing involve even deeper mud than navel gazing

    Depends on the consistency of the ocean floor and the capabilities of the vessels. Not to mention just whose navel it's being compared with

  90. [90] 
    TheStig wrote:

    CW-

    "He did it all without accepting any PAC money at all -- it's all small donations. He reported he raised an average of $47 from a whopping 802,000 people last quarter."

    According to opensecrets.org, O'Rourke received, in the first 3 quarters of accounting,roughly 40% of his donations from small donors giving <$200, 60% in amounts of $200 or more. Fourth quarter reports are supposed to be up today - but not of as Monday 9:00 am. Do you know if O'Rourke set a <$200 personal donation limit in the last quarter? What was the final average donation of the small donors, compared to the average donation of the big donors?

    A distribution curve of donations would answer the question (and more), but Opensecrets doesn't provide this level of detail (for all I know candidates may not be legally required to provide this information). Also how much of Beto money came from instate sources, and how much was out of state? Out of state money kind of subverts the notion of local representation. Yet another bug in our Rube Goldberg political system.

  91. [91] 
    Paula wrote:

    I sometimes wonder what OTHER blogs/sites etc. folks who comment here go to - because it often seems to me that conversations commence about stuff long since covered elsewhere.

    I really suggest folks here make a point of visiting DailyKos every day. You can also check out VOX.com and fivethirtyeight.com and I can recommend others. There's been lots of reporting about how Dems are running races with a local focus all around the country. That Dems are mostly NOT running against Blotus in that they don't need to be explicit because everything boils down to being against Blotus and against what Repubs have been enabling.

    There's been a pretty good understanding by most Dems that the tenor of campaign rhetoric is going to vary depending on the "redness" of the area - witness Doug Jones an Alabama. On the ground most Dems are rock-bottom-pragmatic - we want to beat Repubs and we aren't focusing on "purity" tests or all-or-nothing requirements. There is also a very clear understanding by Dem candidates that healthcare is the BIG issue - Repubs are entirely on the defensive on healthcare and that crosses all boundaries.

    What the Resistance understands is that nothing means anything unless we get control again. What we've grasped is that Repubs are abusers who will continue to abuse until forced to stop - iow removed from power. They won't relinquish power voluntarily and will cheat as long as they can get away with it. (To me, running for Gov while holding power over the machinery of elections as the Repub candidate in Georgia is doing is cheating. He's purging black voters from the rolls who would likely vote against him. Etc.)

    20/20 isn't on the radar for most of us because too much is at stake NOW. And the contenders for 20/20 are going to become clear in the next year and it ain't going to be about "messaging" -- it's going to be about tactics.

    Liz Warren took a DNA test to prove her claims of Native American Ancestry in response to Blotus' saying he'd give $1million to charity. She proved it and now he's claiming he never made that offer. She's gone on the offensive, in other words. That's what I'm looking for. Not saying I'm settled on her - it's too early. But I'll be looking for fighters not appeasers and not for people who think we can go back to anything.

  92. [92] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Paula-

    I hadn't heard about the DNA test....Sweet!!!!

  93. [93] 
    Paula wrote:

    [70] Listen: Great comment.

    How the hell is my father who still fully trusts the GOP and watches FoxNews 24/7 supposed to change his opinion of Hillary or the Democrats?

    I have described the GOP as akin to batterers - abusers. And batterers batter as long as they can get away with it - abusers abuse until forced to stop. In abuse situations the victims always need to part from the abusers. Sometimes they can simply separate; sometimes the woman/kids have to go into hiding, get restraining orders, etc. Abusers will sometimes stalk the victim and kill them, kids and pets. Point is, abusers don't stop on their own.

    We can't "leave" the Repubs but we MUST remove them from power and no one should count, in any way, on Repubs cooperating. They don't/they won't. They have to be overpowered.

    But with respect to the rank-and-file Repubs who sit in their houses watching FOX and believing lies they are fed: they are more akin to addicts than abusers. (Russ' father.) And this is where my belief springs from that treating them as if things are normal, that they just have a "difference of opinion", is enabling in the same way people enable addicts. We enable because it's easier for US. Because we don't like conflict, because we want to protect the addict from consequences, because we have a history with them, etc. And depending on how genuinely damaging their behaviors are, we may enable for a lifetime or the day may come when we stop because some limit of tolerance has been reached.

    Meanwhile, the addict continues their addiction unless/until they "hit bottom" - they lose jobs, lose homes, lose family, lose all - whatever it is that gets to them. I have a friend who's son and his wife got addicted to opioids. The daughter overdosed and died. At that point my friend stepped in and got custody of her granddaughter - that combination of events - death of wife and loss of child is what got her son to finally seek treatment.

    In the case of America's FOX News/Rightwing Media addicts, the addiction doesn't seem all that harmful because people around the addicts don't do anything drastic in response. And the addicts are by and large protected people who's addiction empowers the deplorables, but who themselves don't actively partake in nazi rallies and all the rest. The FOX addicts supply the money & votes; the deplorables supply the muscle.

    Sometimes people who love addicts stage interventions. Sometimes the interventions succeed. Sometimes having friends/families reject them speeds their descent. I think a combination is what will impact Rightwing hate-addicts. They need to feel people withdrawing from them while a few offer interventionist behaviors.

    FWIW, I've seen articles about people weaning parents/grandparents off FOX News and seeing wonderful results. Usually they have to trick the addicts - secretly adjusting their cable settings or ending their cable access. It doesn't take long for the addicts to begin relaxing and letting go of their anger and hostilities. That's where it starts.

  94. [94] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Stig (90)-
    See comment 14 and the FEC site which provides SOME more information.

  95. [95] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Paula-
    While I'm not sure if you meant other commenters than me, one place I also visit is Counterpunch.

    There was an interesting article today titled "Sarah Chayes Calls on West Virginians to write in No More Manchins".

    It contained a link to an interview by Russell Mokhiber and in part two she talks aboot what we need to do to fight corruption of our political system that in this Halloween season sounds EERILY similar to what One Demand is.

  96. [96] 
    Paula wrote:

    [95] Don: Anyone who does a write-in vote in this election can rot in hell as far as I'm concerned.

    I am furious with Joe Manchin for his Kavanaugh vote. He is someone who needs to be replaced, but not by a rabid Republican like his opponent. West Virginians need to hold their noses and vote for Manchin NOW, and then get to work on replacing him. And they can work on strategies to force his compliance in the meantime, but they will get ZERO cooperation from his opponent. They don't need to vote FOR Manchin, but they need to vote AGAINST Mitch McConnell.

    Write-in votes are stupid stupid gestures made by idiots who will not suffer from the results the way others will.

  97. [97] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Paula-
    It's okay, I didn't expect you to react any other way.
    There are plenty of people that agree with your position that people should hold their nose and vote for Democrats, Allan Nairn was just making the same argument on the Ralph Nader Radio Hour (without the rot in hell part).

    I was just using your comment to point out an expert that has studied corruption around the world that seems to agree with me.

  98. [98] 
    Paula wrote:

    [97] Don: she may have valid points about corruption (little of which was covered in the linked piece) but she does NOT have a valid point about doing a "write-in" for Manchin.

    Elections are about votes cast and counted resulting in one person winning office over others. Period. If you want to change conditions in West Virginia such that you get a better Dem than Manchin next time around, you work on conditions. You work on party-building and persuasion and finding/supporting better candidates. I spent years being furious a blue dogs but most of them are now gone. And there's a lot of hunger on the ground for genuinely "representative" representatives. Write-in votes are empty and lazy gestures and the kind of people who espouse them are people who care about abstractions more than results.

    She says: “By standing there as a D, Manchin is preventing West Virginians from coming together to re-imagine what a populist party that really cares for the people ought to look like. He’s doing a greater favor to the Republicans by preventing the development of a real people oriented party.”

    Well we can "imagine" all day long - but after the imagining comes the implementation. She (or the article) offers nothing about that. Manchin isn't "preventing the development of a real people-oriented party." We've seen multiple examples on both sides of the aisle of political work/activism within the parties succeeding in replacing incumbents as well as internal party leaders.

  99. [99] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Paula [93]

    Incredibly well said and SPOT ON!

    But with respect to the rank-and-file Repubs who sit in their houses watching FOX and believing lies they are fed: they are more akin to addicts than abusers. (Russ' father.)

    A great way of viewing this problem! I would guess that most Republican voters fall into the category of being “problem drinkers” or “functioning addicts” in that they do not agree with everything their party does (take their displeasure with families being broken up at the border as an example). This is a much tougher group to convince that their relationship with the GOP is more damaging to their overall life than the alternative.

    And FoxNews is definitely consumed in ways that would lead to an addiction by their core audience. The average age of a FoxNews viewer is 71. Not only do most of their viewers say that FoxNews is their only source of televised news, for a large percentage of their viewers it is the only channel that they watch!

    Unless you ween a person off of their drug of choice, it is tough to get them to quit unless something major occurs to rock their world. This is the one thing that I pray the Mueller investigation might be able to accomplish. There is little doubt in my mind, just knowing what is public knowledge concerning the details of Trump’s past, that Mueller’s investigation is going to result in serious money laundering charges and possible charges of treason against many of his family and administration — charges FoxNews won’t be able to ignore or dismiss as “no big deal”. If there is evidence that Trump knowingly worked with Russia in order to secure votes, that will shock the majority of GOP supporters into opening their eyes to what they have been missing, I believe.

    The other thing that we must do as a nation is to find a way to combat the propaganda machines that try to use our First Amendment as a cover! While I have a ton of respect for Shep Smith and his commitment to the truth in journalism, it’s the programs that follow him that pervert the truth by hosts pretending to be journalists.

    Programs shown on a “news channel” should have to alert viewers if they contain content that is knowingly false. It’s your first amendment right to lie to someone, but the people have an expectation of the truth being reported from their news sources that should not be overlooked.

    Just like hearing the same lie told enough times can alter a person’s opinion on what is true, warning someone that what they are being told is not necessarily based in fact enough times will effect their opinion as well.

  100. [100] 
    Paula wrote:

    [99] Listen:
    Unless you ween a person off of their drug of choice, it is tough to get them to quit unless something major occurs to rock their world.

    Exactly!

    This is the one thing that I pray the Mueller investigation might be able to accomplish

    So do I!

    The initial theme I was commenting on was "civility" and the absolute lack of interest in it felt by millions of Americans who are fed up with the abusive right. I think the civility ship has sailed and, for better or worse, change is coming. We don't know who will "win" in the short term or long term. But a lot of us feel there's no choice but to fight in every way we can because our opponents WILL NOT STOP escalating their abuses. It is our view that more and worse violence hasn't happened yet BECAUSE of resistance coupled with the remnants of our legal system, like in NY where Proud Boy's are being prosecuted for attacking protesters over the weekend. That was bad, but counter-protesters have pretty much killed several white supremacist rallies simply by showing up.

    Disruptive protests, like those rocking the Capital during the Kavanaugh Cover-up were valuable because they forced the narrative out of the comfortable "Repubs will nominate a scumbag and Dems will do nothing and media will pretend Repubs got a big win" ditch. Repubs "won" but the victory was as pyrrhic as was possible under the circumstances.

    I believe more Americans need to start having some very uncomfortable conversations with Republicans around them. Wherever possible. You can't do it with everyone and no one needs to be a martyr. But pretending all is well when it isn't serves the bad guys in power more than anyone else.

  101. [101] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Paula-
    You say elections are only aboot votes cast resulting in one person winning over another person. Period.

    You seem to be implying that citizens casting a write in vote should not do so because they are not voting for a candidate that can win.

    If so, does this mean that citizens that live in a district (or state for Senate races) gerrymandered for Republicans should not vote for a Democrat because the Democrat can't win?

    Isn't part of party building voting for a candidate of that party to show support in an election they can't win to try and build on that support for the next election cycle to reach a point where that party's candidate can win?

    While writing in without a purpose may not be building anything, One Demand provides a purpose- to build support for small contribution candidates in future elections. Just like voting for a Democrat that can't win in a district or state gerrymandered for Republicans.

    People participating in One Demand will be working to change the conditions that left us with choices that we find to be lacking and lazily working toward the kind of abstract small contribution candidates that we would prefer to have as a viable choice.

  102. [102] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Paula,

    I think that Mueller’s findings could have the same effect as when the German citizens were forced to view the concentration camps for the first time...the blinders that they had chosen to wear for so long came crashing off and the reality of what they had been a part of was overwhelming.

    I hope that Democrats, as Americans, will resist the temptation of rubbing their noses in it and instead recognize that these are generally good folks that were tricked by people they believed they could trust.

    I remember my dad making a comment back in 2012 about how Obama had not done very much for the country, and I asked him if he was aware that the Republicans had decided to vote against any piece of legislation that Obama supported, regardless of the consequences that doing so could have on the nation and their constituents. I asked him to think about the fact that not only was the GOP’s decision on how they would vote not based on any facts, not based on any philosophy or political ideology, but that it was decided without the possibility of those things having any impact on their decision. Obama being for it meant they voted against it! They even admitted that the better a piece of legislation would be viewed by the American people, the harder they had to fight to oppose it (can you say, “ObamaCare?).

    And as solid of a response that I feel that was to his comment, I immediately realized just how outrageous it sounded for me to claim that every member of one political party would dare to go to such extremes! Even now it sounds crazy to say that, but it doesn’t change the fact that it happened!

    This has been one of the GOP’s smartest moves — they have done things so outrageous and unreasonable because they know that most people won’t fully buy into such allegations against individuals that are generally considered to be “reasonable”! Trump never allows for the press to focus on any one of his screw ups or lies long enough for people to put much thought into it, and when the press moves on to his next big lie, it says to his supporters that the story was obviously all hype because nothing was done about it.

    It is frustrating as hell because I can understand why a Trump supporter might believe his con game given what they are constantly told!

  103. [103] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Don,

    While writing in without a purpose may not be building anything, One Demand provides a purpose- to build support for small contribution candidates in future elections.

    Nope! Writing a name in on a ballot has only ONE actual purpose: casting a vote for the person named on the ballot! That is all! In 2010, Lisa Murkowski lost the Republican Primary, but retained her Senate seat thanks to a successful write-in campaign. Those write-in votes made her the first write-in candidate to win a Senate race in over 50 years.

    You can attach any other “purpose” you want, but that “purpose” does not override its actual purpose. Nor will your added “purpose” be known to anyone other than the person who assigns it there! Even if you plan on publishing the names of all of your supporters to cross check against the voting results — which you would need to do to offer any evidence of your group’s influence — you don’t get to change what that ballot is meant to accomplish.

    You think OneDemand can take an action that already has a specific purpose and hi-jack it to deliver the message you want to assign to it...and it won’t work!

  104. [104] 
    Paula wrote:

    [101] Don:

    Isn't part of party building voting for a candidate of that party to show support in an election they can't win to try and build on that support for the next election cycle to reach a point where that party's candidate can win?

    Party building happens before and after elections. When you go to cast votes your are making your selection from the candidates that are on the ballots - with extremely rare exceptions like Lisa Murkowski's successful write-in-vote election. At that point the only thing that is going to happen - barring cheating -- is votes will be totalled and winners and losers announced. People writing-in silly names or messages or not-selecting ANY candidate in a slot do not achieve anything except, on occasion, being spoilers.

    The person who DIDN'T vote for a particular candidate doesn't convince the candidate of anything - candidates already know some people won't vote for them and they generally have enough to deal with without doing squat about fools after the fact coz they're either taking office or they're not. If they are, the message/blank vote failed. If they aren't, nothing matters coz they're out of office.

    And in this current environment, any vote that directly or accidentally helps the GOP is the height of irresponsibility and no thinking person should vote for anyone other than for Democrats.

  105. [105] 
    Paula wrote:

    [103} Listen: I was writing while you were - I think you explained it better!

  106. [106] 
    Paula wrote:

    [102] Listen:

    I think that Mueller’s findings could have the same effect as when the German citizens were forced to view the concentration camps for the first time...the blinders that they had chosen to wear for so long came crashing off and the reality of what they had been a part of was overwhelming.

    I pray you are right, and that the blinders come off before the concentration camps start happening! (Beyond those holding asylum seekers on the border right now which are bad enough!)

    As for forgiveness - like any situation in which someone has done harm - it's relatively easy to forgive people who are genuinely contrite and who try to make amends (i.e. atone). Some kind of truth and reconciliation effort could really help. But GOP leadership needs to be banished from power and shunned. The fooled are easier to forgive than the cynical operators who did the fooling.

  107. [107] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Paula

    As for forgiveness - like any situation in which someone has done harm - it's relatively easy to forgive people who are genuinely contrite and who try to make amends (i.e. atone).

    I should have been more clear on this: I don’t blame those who don’t really follow politics closely and support Trump. I am not so forgiving of those that actively participated in the GOP’s dishonest power grab over the last few decades. Those people must be held fully accountable for their actions!

  108. [108] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Listen (103)-
    A write in vote can have more than one purpose because as you said anyone can assign any purpose they want to their vote.

    One more time for those that are learning impaired:
    Signing up on the website before the election will be how people that participate let it be known their purpose for casting the write in vote. If the numbers of write in votes are close to the number signed up it will provide evidence. It is not necessary to itemize each participant.

    I and anyone else can cast a vote for whatever purpose we want and to accomplish anything we want. You don't get to define other people's choices to fit your desires.

  109. [109] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Paula (104,105)-
    If Listen said it better and Listen obviously failed as shown in comment 108, then your comment is also not valid.

    Again you repeat the "only the candidate that wins is what matters claim" but don't address why anyone would vote for a Democrat that can't win.

    As voting for Big Money Democrats is what got us where we are today (President Trump) then anyone that votes for Big Money Democrats is indirectly helping Republicans which by your own definition is the height of irresponsibility.

    No thinking person should vote for any Big Money candidate.

  110. [110] 
    Paula wrote:

    [107] Listen: got it! and Right!

  111. [111] 
    Paula wrote:

    [108] Don:
    A write in vote can have more than one purpose because as you said anyone can assign any purpose they want to their vote.

    They sure can! Instead of thinking "oh, this write-in vote is a persuasive warning about the perils of being a big money candidate and now I will change what I do!"

    the candidate can think: "Some idiots wrote names and messages on their ballots instead of picking a candidate. Morons!"

    Or any number of other things.

    I reiterate: anyone who does a write-in vote in this election is irresponsible - at best. Vichy traitors at worst.

  112. [112] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    108

    Something to keep in mind when you're trolling CW yet again and insisting he has a "responsibility" to write about your failed attempt at political activism:

    You don't get to define other people's choices to fit your desires. ~ Don Harris

  113. [113] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula, Russ

    Great posts. :)

  114. [114] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Paula-
    Yes, a candidate can think whatever they want aboot people casting a write in vote to create demonstrate demand for small contribution candidates.

    So can citizens. And citizens can also think what they want aboot the candidate, the position the candidates take on Big Money and vote accordingly.

    If a Big Money candidate does not change and meet the demand of the citizens then another candidate could meet the demand running as a small contribution candidate and gain the support of those citizens.

    Basic democracy.

    You can reiterate all you want. But you cannot validate your position, which is what counts.

  115. [115] 
    Paula wrote:

    [114] Don: You can reiterate all you want. But you cannot validate your position, which is what counts.

    Says the man who cannot validate his position.

  116. [116] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick-
    I am not trolling or defining CW's choices, I am giving my opinion of his choices in the hope he will make better choices going forward.

  117. [117] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    troll
    3 [INTRANSITIVE/TRANSITIVE] COMPUTING SHOWING DISAPPROVAL to write negative and hostile comments on a website in order to provoke people

    https://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/troll_2

  118. [118] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Paula-
    Yes I did validate my position in comment 114.

    Simply stating that I didn't doesn't make it so. You would have to refute my argument in comment 114 to validate your statement.

    You still haven't validated why if voting is only aboot winning why anyone should vote for a Democrat that can't win.

    A person might begin to suspect that you were not commenting seriously, but were just writing negative and hostile comments on a website on order to provoke me.

  119. [119] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    One more time for those that are learning impaired:
    Signing up on the website before the election will be how people that participate let it be known their purpose for casting the write in vote. If the numbers of write in votes are close to the number signed up it will provide evidence. It is not necessary to itemize each participant.

    It IS necessary to itemize each participant if you want to show that you actually accomplished something! Are YOU going to be following the voting districts for every person who signs up with OneDemand?

    I and anyone else can cast a vote for whatever purpose we want and to accomplish anything we want. You don't get to define other people's choices to fit your desires.

    So this is truly all in your head is what you are saying! You can cast your write in vote for the purpose of making you King of the World if you want, but that doesn’t change the reality of what your ballot’s true purpose accomplishes!

    Wait....Never mind! I don’t know why I keep asking you these questions as if YOU are actually doing ANYTHING to make it a reality. Your idea won’t work and the proof of that is that you haven’t gotten anyone on board despite crowing about it constantly!

    Please prove me wrong! I would be THRILLED to have to eat crow because One Demand took off and had an impact in any election... but that’s up to you to do! Best wishes to ya, Don, but I finally see that these conversations are not based on reality, but are based on what you dream it could be like.

  120. [120] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    116

    I am not trolling or defining CW's choices, I am giving my opinion of his choices in the hope he will make better choices going forward.

    Russ is exactly right about you and your rhetoric versus reality. So I repeat: You're trolling CW regularly and insisting he has a responsibility to inform citizens about your fantasy; the very least you could do is own it and take your own advice:

    You don't get to define other people's choices to fit your desires. ~ Don Harris

  121. [121] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Listen-
    While I may need to itemize each individual participant to convince you, That is only you. There are plenty of people that will not set such an impossible and unnecessary standard.

    So I can cast a vote for any purpose I want, but it's all in my head? It is actually your interpretation of what my vote's purpose is that is all in your head and anyone else's head and how they interpret it.

    I suspect the reason you keep coming up with bullshit excuses is because you are just looking for anything to make it possible it dismiss One Demand because it threatens your view of how things are and/or is covered by nypoet's comment 117.

    The only way that it can be proved one way or the other is if we try it. And citizens can't decide ifr they want to try it if citizens are not informed aboot One Demand.

    And commenting here to try to get CW to meet his responsibility as a journalist with information to provide this information is part, but not all, of how I am working on One Demand.

    So, CW, will you honor Listen's request for proof?

  122. [122] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick-
    You can repeat all you want- but it doesn't matter if all you do is repeat a statement that you do not back up with anything except the statement.

    The reality is that it is not my comments it is your comments that fit the definition provided by nypoet in comment 117.

  123. [123] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    americans like pie, and it's time our politicians start acting like it. over 80% of likely voters are in favor of pie. I think we can improve our pie to citizen ratio by only voting for candidates that commit to baking pie, and by writing in 'pie' if no pie-friendly candidate is on the ballot. nobody has ever tried pie as a political strategy before, so we won't know if it works until everyone knows about it and can decide for themselves. some people may say that pie doesn't work, but they don't have any evidence to prove it, so they're just making excuses not to try pie. please take note that carl sagan and gloria steinem agree with me:

    If you wish to make a universe from scratch, you must first invent the apple pie.
    ~carl sagan
    Feminism has never been about getting a job for one woman. It's about making life more fair for women everywhere. It's not about a piece of the existing pie; there are too many of us for that. It's about baking a new pie.
    ~gloria steinem

    starting tomorrow, i'm going to write about pie on every entry, until CW meets his journalistic obligation to write about pie.

  124. [124] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    121

    I suspect the reason you keep coming up with bullshit excuses is because you are just looking for anything to make it possible it dismiss One Demand because it threatens your view of how things are and/or is covered by nypoet's comment 117.

    No one here is threatened by you and your failed attempt at political activism in the least, Don; you're simply proving Russ's point that you live in your own special fantasyland if you believe that ridiculous notion.

    The only way that it can be proved one way or the other is if we try it.

    I think it would be more interesting if we all shoved our heads up our backsides to see if we could still breathe; it's the only way that it can be proved one way or the other. You go first.

    And commenting here to try to get CW to meet his responsibility as a journalist with information to provide this information is part, but not all, of how I am working on One Demand.

    CW doesn't have a responsibility as a journalist to provide your information to anyone because:

    You don't get to define other people's choices to fit your desires. ~ Don Harris

    So, CW, will you honor Listen's request for proof?

    Russ didn't ask for proof; you simply defined his word choice to fit your desires; you don't get to do that for Russ or CW or anybody... according to yourself. :)

  125. [125] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    122

    You can repeat all you want- but it doesn't matter if all you do is repeat a statement that you do not back up with anything except the statement.

    It's your statement, Don; why don't you back it up by not trolling CW repeatedly insisting that he has a responsibility to shill for you since "you don't get to define other people's choices to fit your desires."

    The reality is that it is not my comments it is your comments that fit the definition provided by nypoet in comment 117.

    The reality is:

    You don't get to define other people's choices to fit your desires. ~ Don Harris

  126. [126] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    123

    americans like pie, and it's time our politicians start acting like it.

    I am an American, and I do like pie.

    over 80% of likely voters are in favor of pie.

    I am a voter in favor of pie, and I like this pie idea of yours except I have a lemonade stand that runs in very much the same manner except you write in Don Lemon's name instead of "pie."

    starting tomorrow, i'm going to write about pie on every entry, until CW meets his journalistic obligation to write about pie.

    Me too... except lemonade and Don Lemon. :)

  127. [127] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick-
    "You go first."
    Sorry, your comments and those of others here prove all of you have already gone first.

  128. [128] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    127

    Sorry, your comments and those of others here prove all of you have already gone first.

    Thank you for playing, Don, but you're 100% completely and totally wrong yet again. Your website is the beacon that proves to the entire world that you got us all beat by decades.

    I have none of the credentials normally listed in a bio. No degrees, no years of running a successful business and no experience in political campaigns or activism. I am simply an average person that has been working and living at survival mode. But I have the only credentials that I believe really matters. I am a citizen and I have an idea that may improve our political system. ~ Don Harris

    You could shorten that whole thing up and say: "I have no education, no experience, no success, and absolutely no idea what I'm talking about." :)

Leave a Reply

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

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

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