i agree with don on this one - it's not a lie, it's an opinion. it may be a delusional opinion, but it's not a lie.

We've discussed this and tossed it around repeatedly now where DH claims that journalists who enjoy freedom of speech under the Constitution have a "responsibility" to speak "aboot" ideas like "One Demand," and this asinine notion is as factually inaccurate today as it has been every other time DH has claimed it, and he knows this. DH's continued claim, "opinion"... whatever... that "CW as a journalist... has a responsibility to inform citizens" when that "opinion" is at odds with the Constitution of the United States of America qualifies as the continual repetition and spewing of inaccurate information or a lie... choose your semantics.

While we can certainly get into the arguing of semantics regarding "legal responsibility" or any other verbiage, the fact is that the First Amendment right to "freedom of speech" has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to include the right not to speak, the right not to salute the flag, etc. Claiming over and over that a journalist has a responsibility to inform the citizenry regarding his bullshit or anything else is "factually untrue," "inaccurate," take your semantical pick... because there is no journalist or teacher or politician or choose a profession and insert it here ---> ________ who has a "responsibility" to inform the citizenry "aboot" One Demand... and you know it, I know it, everyone reading this knows it, and even DH knows it.

False assertions that are nothing more than the continual repeating of rhetoric can rise to the level of lies. This particular incorrect BS repeated in Trumpian fashion by DH qualifies thusly... I believe they are referring to such rhetorical BS as a "Bottomless Pinocchio" these days. False claims that are repeated so many times that they are, in effect, campaigns of disinformation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/12/10/meet-bottomless-pinocchio-new-rating-false-claim-repeated-over-over-again/?utm_term=.377a0624ecfe

"well there it is, your sister used the "F" word.
~i think she said 'feck'
what's the difference?
~the letter U"
__almost famous

Heh!

~ love actually

No, DH, it meets the definition of posting a lie since CW has no obligation to shill for your failed bullshit or anyone else's, and I suspect you know that but continue to repeat the lie that he owes you something. CW owes you nothing.

i agree with don on this one - it's not a lie, it's an opinion. it may be a delusional opinion, but it's not a lie.

Oops... I said effing. Now I've gone and done it twice; I hate when that happens. ;)

"well there it is, your sister used the "F" word.
~i think she said 'feck'
what's the difference?
~the letter U"
__almost famous

Yes. It is my opinion that CW as a journalist that claims to present a reality based blog has responsibility to inform citizens aboot ideas.

This is not an issue that is subject to your interpretation or anyone else's, DH. It is a fact that there is no journalist on the planet who has a "responsibility" to inform citizens or anyone else about your "idea."

That it not at all a ridiculous nonsensical asinine notion.

Yes, it is most certainly asinine and nonsensical to keep claiming that a journalist has a responsibility to inform other people about your "idea" or anyone else's idea... unless it's pie, of course, because pie simply will not be ignored.

What is a ridiculous nonsensical asinine notion is that CW's current shilling for the Big Money Democrats is somehow presenting a reality based blog.

Since your first sentence made it abundantly clear that you have no idea what an opinion is, just letting you know that your sentence above actually fits the definition.

When I post my opinion that CW is not doing his job and meeting his claim of presenting a reality based blog it is not trolling- it is posting my opinion.

No, DH, it meets the definition of posting a lie since CW has no obligation to shill for your failed bullshit or anyone else's, and I suspect you know that but continue to repeat the lie that he owes you something. CW owes you nothing.

What you are doing is trolling because you are not posting an opinion related to the discussion- you are just recycling the same bullshit over and over, making stuff up and deflecting from the issue in discussion because you have no valid argument to refute my points.

Poor ignorant, DH, but when a bottom feeding troll keeps turning near every commentary into a discussion about his failed "idea" and whining incessantly and nonsensically that the author owes him a responsibility to discuss it, you and your trolling of the author with your needy bullshit thereby becomes part of the discussion... because you have once again made it a part of the discussion. It's not a complicated concept unless a person is an effing moron, which you have indubitably confessed to on your failed website. :)

Oops... I said effing. Now I've gone and done it twice; I hate when that happens. ;)

One Demand is aboot where the Overton Window is trending towards and where it will and/or can be.

One Demand is the ginormous failure with which you obsessively and incessantly troll the author and his readers.

So who are the slimy trolls?

People exactly like you who keep trolling and begging and actually believing the ridiculous nonsensical asinine notion that it is someone/anyone else's "responsibility" to shill for their failed bullshit. :)

JL

From here on out, I'm going to exclusively refer to you as DH. Your initials suit you because you're a DH.

The idea is designed to solve that problem.
How exactly does pointing out the problem the idea is designed to solve make the idea invalid?

Never said it was "invalid," you uneducated shill. I said it was one-issue voting that amounted to non voting because no one meets the ridiculous criteria as defined by you.

And again it is one issue that participants agree on as a starting point and then candidates that meet that basic requirement must meet the individual participant's requirements on other issues.

Nice that you've decided to admit it is one/single-issue voting as we've reiterated over and over and you insisted it isn't when it obviously is.

You are labeling it one-issue voting as an attempt to portray it as if the participants vote only on that one issue to the exclusion of all other issues.

Wrong. It's single-issue voting -- actually non-voting -- because that's what it is. Your dearth of critical thinking skills is on full display when you continually and incessantly keep claiming to know what people are thinking. Also:

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

Do you really think you are fooling anyone but yourself or those that agree that the emperor's new clothes are beautiful or do you just like pretending to be stupid?

Said the admitted uneducated guy who incessantly claims to know what other board commenters are thinking. Your obsession with fairy tales and trolling "with distortions and childish bullshit instead of having adult discussions on political issues" is again duly noted.

TS is absolutely correct about you, DH: You're a slimy bottom feeder.

You are not a garden variety internet troll. You are a comment section hagfish:

Hagfish are long and vermiform, and can exude copious quantities of a milky and fibrous slime or mucus from some 100 glands or invaginations running along their flanks. When captured and held, e.g., by the tail, they secrete the microfibrous slime, which expands into up to 20 litres (5¼ US gallons) of sticky, gelatinous material when combined with water. If they remain captured, they can tie themselves in an overhand knot, which works its way from the head to the tail of the animal, scraping off the slime as it goes and freeing them from their captor. This singular behavior may assist them in extricating themselves from the jaws of predatory fish or from the interior of their own "prey", and the "sliming" might act as a distraction to predators.

So, I take your reply to mean that your answers to my questions, in the order asked, are:

no,1 man band

no

no

no

no

no

and for the final essay question:

some some form of arm waving or maybe dancing around.

NO PIE FOR YOU! COME BACK IN ONE YEAR!

What website? You can't mean the stub you have now? You advertise a product that doesn't seem to exist, not even as a working prototype. Are you collaborating with any political activists or are you just a one man band? Have you any endorsements from political organizations or activists? Do have any training or experience in building and maintaining secure data bases? Do you have training or experience in marketing? In business or finance? Game Theory? Why should anybody invest time, money or credibility in you or your idea???

Sorry "Don," but you seem a case of "no hat and no cattle." I smell grift or delusion, I'm not sure which, but either way, NO SALE.

The commitment to vote only for small contribution candidates is just that- a commitment to vote only for small contribution candidates.

Yes. This is one-issue voting for candidates who only take contributions of $200 or less. There has never been a candidate for federal office that has met this qualification... not a single one.

The participants agree on this one issue.

Right... that's exactly why we keep referring to it as one-issue voting.

The candidates must meet this basic qualification.

Right... and there has never been a candidate that meets this one issue as defined on your website.

Each of the participants decide then decide for themselves if the candidates that meet the basic qualification have suitable positions on other issues that are important to them.

No, they don't then decide anything because no candidate at the federal level has ever met your one-issue qualification.

As JL perfectly described it: "that's single issue NON-voting."

That is why in your scenario I would choose a write in vote to register a vote against the unsuitable candidates in this election cycle to create and demonstrate demand for a candidate that only accepts small contributions and accepts climate change for the next election cycle.

You seem to forget something. Your vote is secret. At best, all the public sees is how many votes each candidate got. Unless your write-in candidate is publicly associated with no other issue than Small Money Contributions (a single issue candidate), your protest is just as ambiguous as A and B are.

Unless your single issue write-in candidate has a significant impact on the election, the vast majority of the public will never even know how many votes your non-decisive protest candidate received.

Unless you engage in mass marketing to promote a Small Money Single Issue candidate (which costs time effort and money) your strategy is a hollow threat.

If you want to protest campaign contribution limits in a more effective manner, start a petition, write a letter to the editor, stand on the street corner with a sign, post something on You Tube, or any other means that publicly gives an explicit message that your chosen candidate and his or her MANY FOLLOWERS don't like big money contributions. At that point you have essentially into entered the muddy river of mainstream USA politics.

Kick - as the familiar saying goes, "those who live in monkey houses should not throw feces aboot." Usually attributed to Thomas Crapper.

*laughs*

Ah, Thomas Crapper... now there was a guy who really knew his shit. While Crapper can't take credit for inventing the toilet -- the brainchild of "John," the godson of Queen Elizabeth I -- his contribution of the floating ballcock to the crapper was revolutionary indeed.

I'll catch hell for posting this. Insensitivity to Canadians, Scots, monkeys, plumbers and zoo keepers. : )

As well as insensitivity to feces; you mustn't forget feces. As we all strive to age gracefully, it does get more difficult to remember "shit" but ever so easier to take no "shit" from nobody.

Also, "screw" 'em if they can't take a joke! :)

I'll catch hell for posting this. Insensitivity to Canadians, Scots, monkeys, plumbers and zoo keepers. : )

Kick, Stig, Nypoet-
Great examples that prove my point.

I have repeatedly explained that it is NOT single issue voting. It is starting point just as not voting for someone that is a climate change denier, a MeeToo violator, a child molester or anything that someone finds makes the candidate unsuitable for office.

You might as well be repeatedly explaining how the sky is NOT blue and then list a bluebonnet, a bluebird, and a blueberry pie as examples of other NOT blue things. In fact, you can keep right on claiming that utter nonsensical bullshit until you are NOT blue in the face, and the only thing you're confirming is your abject ignorance.

* By registering as a participant in One Demand citizens will declare that in the 2016 elections they will only vote for candidates that finance their campaigns only with contributions from individuals in the aggregate amount of 200 dollars or less.

* The large contributors control our electoral process by creating the narrative that only candidates that take the large contributions can win an election. One Demand will change the narrative to one where a candidate can’t win an election if they do take the large contributions.

~ Don Harris, verbatim from the website of his failed attempt at political activism

Have you read your website, Don? If you have, do you need it explained to you that "only" means exclusively, solely, to the exclusion of everything else? Read it carefully, consult your dictionary. Take your time until you are able to fully comprehend the meaning of the quoted words. Do you still need clarification? Focus on your claim: One Demand will change the narrative to one where a candidate can’t win an election if they do take the large contributions.

Calling your political venture "One Demand" and explaining that your aim is to change the narrative to "my way or the highway" is the very definition of single-issue voting. No matter how many times you insist that it isn't.

As it is doubtful that any of you are really that stupid, the only logical conclusion is that you do it on purpose and with the full knowledge that you are full of shit.

There is no doubt whatsoever that you are really that stupid, but ignorance is bliss and doesn't know how stupid it really is. That's why it gleefully keeps spewing the same bullshit without the knowledge or ability to recognize how stupid it sounds. :)

So your organization is just a starting point - then maybe you should change its name (again) to ManyDemands....and argue endlessly about what those many demands should be.

But, you've supported MY point! Real world voters decide how to vote on the basis of a "market basket" of candidate positions and character traits, they aren't typically swayed by just one position in the basket.

Candidate A: Accepts legal contribution over $200 and Accepts Climate Change.

Candidate B: Only accepts contributions less than $200, Denies Climate Change.

There is no candidate C on the ballot.

Choice 1. don't vote.

Choice 2. write in a protest candidate with zero chance of winning.

Choice 3. vote for A.

Choice 4. vote for B.

I would opt for choice 3, I favor averting World Climate Catastrophe to deciding how much money is small, or just just punting the issues down the road. You might opt for choice 1,2 or 4. Choices 1 and 2 are basically equivalent to not choosing = let somebody else decide the issue.

no, that's single issue NON-voting.

single issue voting is to only choose candidates who favor pie. but to be fair, that's a very tasty issue. also, pie is by no means limited to just apple, so in aggregate i'm certain it would top fudge, or at least cookies.

JL

Not everyone looks at things to try and find (or make up) an excuse why it won't work so that they don't have to deal with actually thinking aboot it and to rationalize their own ideology.

You should divest yourself of the ridiculous nonsensical notion that commenters here are "making up excuses" as to why your failed attempt at political activism "won't work" and that it has anything whatsoever to do with the avoidance of "thinking" about your bullshit, particularly when your shit has been discussed by multiple commenters and the author on this board on multiple different occasions... ad nauseam.

Your continued fantastical belief that anyone here is afraid to think about your failed shit is arguably the most self-delusional tripe I have seen written on this board... bar nothing.

It would be nice if some of those people participated in the comments here.

You will have to be content with the fact that those people you believe are afraid of your repetitive shit exist solely and entirely in your own fantasy.

The bullshit is getting pretty old and extremely pitiful.

Yes, and you will find that the stench will linger unabated and follow you wherever you may roam... because it's all... your... bullshit. :)

It's easy to cut through all your arm waving.

You are trying to turn a significant percentage of voters into single issue voters.

"Take big money and lose our votes" = single issue voting.

All issue ranking data I've found indicate only a small percentage of voters, less than 5%, rate big money politics as their most pressing issue. Most voters think many other issues are a higher priority, and they vote strategically based upon a market basket of issues they deem the most important. You aren't attracting converts because most voters don't share your single priority enough to lose on small money AND all their higher ranked issues. They don't like the spoiler payoff matrix you set up.

Oh, look! It's the underpants gnomes profit plan wherein "Phase 2" is thusly defined as "pie."

I'm could go "all in" with that. ;)

You trot out that "80% of citizens that want the Big Money out of politics" statistic again, and I can find numerous polls that peg support at roughly that level.

However, remember to factor in the undeniable fact that Don's definition of "Big Money" is $201+, and his continued hijacking of that particular 80% statistic and continued insistence that it naturally equates to overwhelming agreement with his self-defined term of "Big Money" is ridiculous on its face.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwix46-ozq7fAhXL8YMKHYP0DzcQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=http%3A%2F%2Fsimpsons.wikia.com%2Fwiki%2FFile%3ASimple_Simpson_(Promo_Picture).jpg&psig=AOvVaw0Efmf9AD6RaGQsUrGhnPtU&ust=1545402258120059

https://recipes.howstuffworks.com/food-facts/5-most-popular-desserts-in-america1.htm

More voter ranked issue data can be found at:

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

There may be broad support for campaign finance reform, but it is not deep support.

"if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail" _ variously attributed

You trot out that "80% of citizens that want the Big Money out of politics" statistic again, and I can find numerous polls that peg support at roughly that level.

However, if you ask voters to rank the most important political issues, Big Money politics is barely a blip.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx

‘Very strong’ case Russians swung the 2016 election for Donald Trump: ‘Cyberwar’ author Kathleen Hall Jamieson in interview with Raw Story

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/12/strong-case-russians-swung-2016-election-donald-trump-cyberwar-author-kathleen-hall-jamieson/

Her first instinct 2 yrs ago was that the idea was nonsense. Not anymore.

I originally thought that the idea that the Russians could have used social media to create a substantial impact on the election was absurd. I started to change my mind when I saw the first release of Russian social media and troll campaign ads and messaging during the U.S. Senate hearings in October and November of last year. These ads were a coherent plan and understanding of the presidential election which was consistent with Donald Trump’s political needs.

If acted on systematically, these ads would have produced a communication effect that on the margins could have affected enough votes to change the outcome of the election in his favor. If the Russians didn’t have a coherent theory of what it took for Donald Trump to win — or what it would take to make it more likely that Hillary Clinton would lose — then all their machinations would not have mattered. But the Russians knew who to mobilize.

The Russians were trying to mobilize evangelicals and white conservative Catholics. The Russians also knew that they needed to mobilize veterans and military households. The Russians knew they had to demobilize Bernie Sanders supporters and liberals, especially young people. The Russians were also attempting to shift the voters they could not demobilize over to Jill Stein.

You add that together with demobilizing African-American voters with messaging that Hillary Clinton is bad for the black community, and then Clinton’s whole messaging strategy is at risk. If Hillary Clinton can’t mobilize the black vote at levels near Barack Obama’s, although not the same level, then she is in trouble.

I then started to examine where the Russians and their trolls spent their time and attention. They were spending more of it on trying to demobilize African-American voters by emphasizing things that group may not like about Hillary Clinton. When a person casts a vote they are not thinking about every detail or issue relative to a candidate. Voters make decisions based on what is most important in that moment of time, what is on the top of their mind.

So if you remind voters who are African-American that at the end of Bill Clinton’s presidency there was a very high level of increased incarceration of African-Americans on drug charges then an African-American voter may say, “Maybe I should think about Hillary Clinton differently.”

If you remember her “superpredator” comment and take it to be about black people in general and not about gangs specifically, then you as an African-American voter may be less likely to support her.

By featuring these types of messages, the Russians were increasing the likelihood that while you may not be likely to cast a vote for Donald Trump, you are more likely to stay home and not vote for Hillary Clinton.

I then started to wonder whether maybe there was enough troll activity that was addressed to the right constituencies to have impacted the margins of the vote. The question then becomes, did the Russians and their trolls target the right voters in the right places? We still don’t know that.

The social media platforms know the answer, but they have not released the information. The trolls alone could have swung the electorate. But in my judgment the WikiLeaks hacks against the DNC is a much stronger case. There we see a clear effect on the news media agenda. We know from decades of communication scholarship that if you change the media agenda you then change the criteria that people vote on. The shift in the media agenda from October forward was decisively against Hillary Clinton. And the questions in the presidential debates which were based on information stolen by WikiLeaks and the Russians disadvantaged Clinton and, looking at the polling data, predicted the vote.

It's a fairly long piece - worth reading.

yes, i'm fully aware of the various pie delivery systems. however, my point relates to the overton window as CW so eloquently explained. pie is already popular, and has been for quite some time, so why not just take the next step and make it policy?

JL

"how fast will the pendulum swing for pie?"

Pie doesn't swing on a pendulum. It rotates on a Lazy Susan instead. Unless of course you are engaging in pie throwing.