ChrisWeigant.com

Summer Bugaboos: Moscow Mitch Versus The Squad Versus The Fed (Oh, My!)

[ Posted Wednesday, August 14th, 2019 – 17:29 UTC ]

August in the year which predates a major election is a time for both parties to field-test a few tactics and strategies for the upcoming campaign. This year, Democrats have served up "Moscow Mitch," while Republicans have been focusing their attention on "the Squad." Of course, these are secondary themes, as the main race will be Donald Trump versus the winner of the Democratic primaries, but that won't really get underway until after the primaries actually happen. In the meantime, Trump has been trying out some new snotty nicknames for some of the Democratic frontrunners, but he has also been ramping up his attacks on a rather bizarre political target: the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. Hey, they don't call it the silly season for nothing, right?

Of course, running against political bugaboos is a time-honored tradition. Whether it actually works or not is debatable, but it certainly gives some focus to the nebulous nature of the congressional races. For now, at any rate -- these themes tend to get refined over time, and we've still got over a year until the big election. Last time around, for instance, Republicans in Congress doubled (and then tripled) down on running against Nancy Pelosi. They were certain that the frightening prospect of Pelosi being in control of the House again would scare the bejeezus out of the electorate to such a degree that the GOP would coast to victory. That, of course, did not happen. What did happen was that Pelosi coasted to victory instead, and she now wields the speaker's gavel once again. For all the tens of millions of dollars spent demonizing Pelosi, Democrats picked up dozens and dozens of House seats. So bugaboos aren't guaranteed to work, not by a long shot.

Will the "Moscow Mitch" label have any effect? It's doubtful, but it certainly does seem to be getting under Mitch McConnell's skin in a big way, so at least it has the benefit of being highly entertaining for Democrats throughout the long summer doldrums. Nancy Pelosi herself is in the news for using "Moscow Mitch" in a speech this week, to a group of Illinois Democrats. She's trying to expand the label to shame McConnell for using his own self-chosen nickname: the "Grim Reaper" of Democratic House legislation. The Moscow Mitch label was created (by Joe Scarborough) because McConnell is still refusing to move on any election security bills, even if that means Russia gets an open shot at our next election. Pelosi, in her recent speech, is trying to expand on the term and shame McConnell for all the bills he's been blocking -- including a $15 minimum wage, an expansion of healthcare, ethics reform, and all the other good ideas Democrats have been enacting over in the House.

It remains to be seen whether this effort will have any effect or not, but the likely answer is "probably not." The problem with choosing a congressional leader as a target of ire is that most voters simply don't know who these congressional leaders are, and are therefore unfamiliar with even their names (much less what the nicknames mean). It could have a minimal effect on a few Senate races, but even that's doubtful. Of course, even the chance of having a minimal effect on a few Senate races makes it worth the Democrats' time and energy, because flipping control of the Senate may come down to only a handful of races. Forcing Mitch to give up control would be a big victory, which is why it's worthwhile to make the attempt. Plus, as already mentioned, it seems to be annoying him no end, so that's a worthy political achievement in and of itself.

Republicans are attempting an even more dubious strategy, as they've decided to target four freshman House members on the other side of the aisle. Nancy Pelosi is still a favorite target, of course, but the enthusiasm for demonizing her has waned ever since it backfired so spectacularly in the midterms. So they've moved on to "the Squad." The Squad, of course, have virtually no power in Congress other than their ability to shape a progressive narrative in the media. This bugs Republicans no end, and they've been viciously attacking Alexandria Ocasio Cortez from the moment she got elected. Donald Trump has been joining in these attacks, although his "send them back" idiocy kind of blew up in his own face a few weeks ago.

To the Republicans, the equation is an easy one. The Squad equals rabid socialists who hate America. The Democratic Party equals the Squad. Therefore, if you value the American way of life and all it stands for, everyone's got to fight hard against the imminent takeover of the entire government by these four freshmen women in the House. To call this ludicrous is an understatement, for very obvious reasons, but that hasn't stopped Fox News and the entire right wing media from having fainting spells whenever any Squad member appears on television.

This is like running a political campaign for governor by running your entire campaign demonizing a local county clerk -- a laughably unbalanced (and ineffective) smear campaign. The problem for Republicans is that beyond the loyal Fox News junkie, almost nobody's heard of The Squad at all. Even committed Democrats would probably have trouble naming all four of them (even most Democratic voters who follow politics closely would likely only be able to name two or three of them, at best). For the record, as well as A.O.C., the other three Squad members are: Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley, and Rashida Tlaib. While these names strike fear into all Fox News hosts on a regular basis, it's doubtful that any political campaign that sets out to equate these four women with the entire Democratic Party -- from presidential nominee on down -- is going to gain any sort of traction at all. But that's not going to stop them from trying, of course.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump is getting very worried that the economy he's been boasting about nonstop is about to suddenly become not so bragworthy. Virtually every economist around (not on the White House payroll, at least) pins the blame for the uncertainty we're currently experiencing on Trump's trade war against China (and against the rest of the planet, to a lesser degree). Businesses see no end in sight to the endless layering-on of tariffs by both countries, and this uncertainty is starting to show up in things like job openings posted. Worries that things are about to get worse mean businesses don't hire or expand as fast as they might in a more stable economic situation. Trump, of course, places zero blame for any of this on himself, because to Trump this would be unthinkable. Everything he does, according to him, is wonderful -- therefore there must be some other reason why things aren't going as peachy as he predicted. He has picked his target for all this blame, and it is one of the most obscure jobs in Washington: the chair of the Federal Reserve. Can you name him? Neither can I. But Trump can, because Trump is about to make him the primary whipping boy for any downturn in the economy that happens between now and the election.

The Fed chair is supposed to be a non-partisan -- or even apolitical -- position. The Fed is supposed to be the overseer of monetary policy and it is supposed to use the powers it has to smooth out any bumps in the economic road America may hit. It is decidedly not supposed to answer to the president, to Congress, or to any politician. That's the whole reason the Fed is so independent in the first place -- to avoid being used as a pawn in the larger political game.

Trump, of course, either doesn't understand this or does understand it but just doesn't care. He's looking for a scapegoat, and he's been badmouthing the Fed for months now, even though it just did what he's been asking and lowered interest rates for the first time since the end of the Great Recession. But to Trump's mind, the Fed doesn't just influence but actually controls the entire economy, therefore if anything goes wrong with it, it must be the Fed's fault.

If the economy does stumble badly -- if today's downturn over the inverted yield curve is indeed a harbinger for what's to come -- then look for Trump to ratchet up his already-frenzied attacks on the Fed chair. This may make him feel better, but it's doubtful it'll have any political impact at all with the voting public. The Fed chair is not going to be on anyone's ballot next November, to state the obvious.

If Trump does see a mild recession before the election, he may be toast. His approval ratings, as low as they are, have been propped up by the ongoing recovery from the Great Recession that began back in Barack Obama's first term in office. Things have generally been pretty good, with unemployment down and the markets up, so people are less likely to have any reason to blame Trump for bad economic times. But if those indicators reverse and things start to look gloomy again, Trump is going to pay a political price. Since his approval rating is already at dismal levels (in the low 40s, for the most part), any dip could kill his chances of re-election altogether.

When the economy is good, the public tends to give the sitting president some of the credit. But when the economy turns bad, much more of the blame is laid at the current president's door. Trump trying to fend off this blame by pointing to the Fed chair isn't likely to change the public's opinion much at all.

Trump's basic problem is that it is nigh on impossible for him to even attempt blaming Democrats for bad economic news. Obama's been out of office for two and a half years now, and the Pelosi-led House hasn't gotten any economic bills past Trump's desk. So there's simply nothing on the other side of the aisle for Trump to blame. But that's not going to stop Democrats, from the presidential candidates on down, from blaming Trump for any economic ills, of course.

For the time being, we're in the season of secondary bugaboos. Pelosi's Democrats are having a field day smacking Moscow Mitch around, Republicans are having conniption fits every time the Squad shows up on television, and Donald Trump is spending his summer vacation attacking the Fed chair that nobody's ever heard of. It's enough to make you break out into a chorus of: "Lions And Tigers And Bears, Oh My!"

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

51 Comments on “Summer Bugaboos: Moscow Mitch Versus The Squad Versus The Fed (Oh, My!)”

  1. [1] 
    nospam wrote:

    The 2s10s has inverted - the yield curve has been inverted for a while, and the 30 year is almost below the Fed Fund rate - the bond market isn't buying any of Trump's BS.

    I can't remember who said it, but somebody wanted to be re-incarnated as the bond market because it rules the World.

    What fun.

  2. [2] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale, this one is for you! Enjoy!

    After meeting for lunch yesterday, I was driving home with a friend of mine who does not follow politics at all, but knows that I enjoy it, when the radio news break mentioned Trump’s attacks on the Fed’s Chairman.

    My friend nudges me and says, “It’s obvious why Trump cannot stand the guy and is blaming him for everything!”

    “Because Trump needs a scapegoat for his own disastrous lack of planning his trade war with China?”

    “No.”

    “Because the Chairman is probably the last remaining appointment from the Obama administration to still have his job?

    “No, but your getting closer.”

    “I give up! Why is Trump going after him?”

    “HELLOOOO! It’s because Trump is a racist!”

    I almost drove off the road I was laughing so hard!

    The current Chairman is Jerome Powell, He is white.

    But in my friend’s defense, I cannot completely disregard his theory as I do not know if Trump has been made aware of Powell’s race.

  3. [3] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yer friend is wise.. :D

    Thanx for sharing..

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    because McConnell is still refusing to move on any election security bills, even if that means Russia gets an open shot at our next election.

    So, yer saying that the Russians DID interfere in the 2018 elections???

    And Democrats didn't care because they won the House??

    Is that the claim??

    although his "send them back" idiocy kind of blew up in his own face a few weeks ago.

    Actually, it worked perfectly with little to no blowback on President Trump..

    It forced Democrats to back the increasingly unpopular "squad"...

    It was a masterful stroke of genius...

    To the Republicans, the equation is an easy one. The Squad equals rabid socialists who hate America. The Democratic Party equals the Squad. Therefore, if you value the American way of life and all it stands for, everyone's got to fight hard against the imminent takeover of the entire government by these four freshmen women in the House. To call this ludicrous is an understatement, for very obvious reasons, but that hasn't stopped Fox News and the entire right wing media from having fainting spells whenever any Squad member appears on television.

    Except it's not ludicrous at all..

    You claim the "Squad" has no real power.. Yet they are pushing the entire Party very forcefully to the Left..

    You yourself commented that the Party has moved considerably to the Left.. That did not happen in a vacuum..

    "Power perceived is power achieved.."
    -Ernie Hudson, THE SUBSTITUTE

    And the "Squad" have achieved a mass amount of power...

    Meanwhile, Donald Trump is getting very worried that the economy he's been boasting about nonstop is about to suddenly become not so bragworthy.

    Facts to support that President Trump is getting very worried???

    Or do we just write that one off as wishful thinking? :D

    Trump's basic problem is that it is nigh on impossible for him to even attempt blaming Democrats for bad economic news. Obama's been out of office for two and a half years now,

    Which doesn't stop Democrats from giving Obama credit for the economy.. :D

    The long and short of it is President Trump is still on track to be re-elected..

    The ONLY logical and rational question is how big the landslide re-election is going to be..

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    Suspect in custody after 6 officers hurt in hours-long Philadelphia standoff

    All of the wounded officers had been released from hospitals. The violence began as police attempted to serve a narcotics warrant.

    Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney said the suspect has a criminal history and "was able to get these weapons, and a large magazine, a large amount of bullets." The mayor criticized federal and state governments for what he said was a lack of progress on gun control and an unwillingness to stand up to the National Rifle Association and others.
    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/police-fired-upon-philadelphia-they-respond-shooting-incident-n1042436

    Once again, an ignorant Democrat spouts off about a subject he, apparently, knows nothing about..

    It's already illegal for the scumbag shooter to possess the weapons he had..

    So how would MORE laws have prevented this??

    Answer.. It wouldn't.

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    Kamala Harris slammed for 'politicizing' Philadelphia standoff
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/kamala-harris-slammed-for-politicizing-active-police-standoff-in-philadelphia

    I have to come to Harris' defense here..

    Why slam or attack her for politicizing attacks and tragedies such as this??

    It's what Democrats do... Their own messiah gave the command...

    "We *MUST* politicize these tragedies"
    -Barack Hussein Obama

    .... and Harris simply goes forth and obeys..

    Slamming and attacking a Democrat for politicizing gun tragedies is like slamming and attacking a person for breathing...

    I'm just sayin'....

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hickenlooper will end 2020 presidential run Thursday, according to source
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2020-long-shot-hickenlooper-mulls-senate-bid-amid-mounting-national-pressure

    Who had Hickenlooper in the pool???

    :D

    I did not.. Looks like CW called that one.. :D

    That's why he's the Grand Poobah...

    " I know. I know. But it's his ship now, his command; he's in charge, he's the boss, the head man, the top dog, the big cheese, the head honcho, number one..."
    -Rex Kramer, AIRPLANE

    :D

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    Autopsy finds broken bones in Epstein's neck, deepening questions around his death
    https://www.lmtonline.com/news/article/Autopsy-finds-broken-bones-in-Epstein-s-neck-14305473.php

    It's becoming clear that Epstein was murdered..

    While it's true that the bones broken are consistent with hanging, it's also factually accurate that it happens MORE with strangulation by another party...

    Obviously, nothing is conclusive yet..

    But, the plot, as they say, thickens...

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    Crowd Taunts Philadelphia Police Officers, Laugh At Them In Midst Of Gunfire During Standoff In Nicetown-Tioga
    https://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2019/08/14/crowd-taunts-philadelphia-police-officers-laugh-at-them-in-midst-of-gunfire-during-standoff-in-nicetown-tioga/

    Sad to see... :(

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    Biden allies float scaling back events to limit gaffes
    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/457486-biden-allies-float-scaling-back-events-to-limit-gaffes

    Biden told reporters after the event that he botched a comment he had made many times, and that he meant to say “wealthy kids” instead of “white kids.”

    “On the spot, I explained it,” Biden said. “At the very second, I explained it. And so the fact of the matter is that I don’t think anybody thinks that I meant anything other than what I meant.”

    The problem is, as conventional campaign wisdom goes, if you're explaining, you're losing..

    That same day, Biden also erred during a speech at the Iowa State Fair: “We choose science over fiction. We choose truth over facts.”

    That's the one that really puts a nail in the coffin that is the Biden campaign..

    :^/

  11. [11] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: He has picked his target for all this blame, and it is one of the most obscure jobs in Washington: the chair of the Federal Reserve. Can you name him?

    Yes. Jerome Powell. He's Trump's very own pick so doesn't he have to be one of those "best people"?

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    Regardless of the fact that no one here wants to concede it...

    Homan shares new video on ICE facility attack: Result of 'hateful rhetoric' from AOC's 'Squad,' 2020 Dems
    https://www.foxnews.com/media/tom-homan-new-video-attack-tacoma-ice-facility

    The fact is, there is hateful rhetoric that promotes violence on BOTH sides of the political spectrum..

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    And if someone responds with "It's just a numbers issue" I'll be very disappointed.. ;D

    "Yer not training whales to retrieve torpedoes or some dipshit crap like that, are you?"
    "No Ma'am, no dipshit."
    "Good. If so I would be very disappointed"

    -STAR TREK IV: The Voyage Home

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    Stacey Abrams: The Grift That Keeps On Grifting
    https://www.redstate.com/joesquire/2019/08/15/stacey-abrams-grift-keeps-grifting/

    I saw that movie before.. Eddie Murphy THE DISTINGUISHED GENTLEMAN..

    Funny movie.. :D

    What's so funny about the Abrams debacle is that she is complaining about the State Sec doing something that DEMOCRATS forced him to do..

    Irony... :D

  15. [15] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "August in a year which predates a major election is a time for both parties to field-test a few tactics and strategies for the upcoming campaign."

    If only that were true.

    What you describe is nothing more than a "new and improved" label on the new packaging that contains the same product as the old packaging.

    You are right that it is a good time to field-test a few tactics and strategies for the upcoming election- but unless you are satisfied with the results of the same old products in new packages you will have to look beyond the CMPs. (I am still partial to "Biden's Buddies")

    And with the exception of one commenter, everyone here is not satisfied with the results of the same old products which is Trump being president.

    Either stop complaining aboot Trump or do something to change the dynamic that produced him instead of perpetuating the problem by analyzing the new packaging.

    "Ju know what I'm talking aboot."
    -Al Pacino
    Scarface (CAP version)

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    All of the Left wants to talk about President Trump's alleged violent rhetoric that results in violence..

    Why Isn’t AOC Taking Blame For Violent Attacks On ICE?

    If you didn’t know about Tuesday’s shooting at the Immigration and Customs Enforcement office in San Antonio, Texas, don’t feel bad. The story got almost no coverage. Even though it was the fourth attack on ICE offices in just the past four weeks, and these attacks are clearly politically motivated.

    The San Antonio shooter knew what he was doing. He targeted two floors that housed ICE administrative offices. Another shooting occurred at a separate facility that housed an ICE contractor.

    In other words, this was an attack specifically targeting ICE and those who work with ICE. The fact that the shooting took place at 3 a.m. is irrelevant, since there were people working in the offices at the time who were reportedly inches away from being hit.

    On its own, this incident is troubling. But it comes in the wake of an attack on another ICE office in Tacoma, Washington, where 69-year-old Willem Van Spronsen went armed with a rifle and threw Molotov cocktails, hoping to hit a propane tank.
    https://issuesinsights.com/2019/08/15/why-isnt-aoc-taking-blame-for-violent-attacks-on-ice/

    Funny how the Left totally ignores the attacks prompted by Democrat hateful rhetoric...

    #sad

  17. [17] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    It's enough to make me break into a chorus of " You're lyin' is tiring and unbearable. Oh my!"

  18. [18] 
    TheStig wrote:

    More of Trump's half baked economic chickens are coming home to roost. If experience is any guide, Trump's response will involve the release of more half baked chickens.

  19. [19] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Perhaps a chorus of "If I Only Had a Brain" would even be appropriate for those that buy into the show.

    And if you ever discover that you do have a brain that you have not been utilizing correctly then you will finally be ready to "Follow the Yellow Brick Road".

    You might even find the solution you were looking everywhere else for was right in your own backyard.

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    HERE IT IS: Complete List of Inconsistencies in Prison Policy Surrounding Jeffrey Epstein’s Death
    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/08/here-it-is-complete-list-of-inconsistencies-in-prison-policy-surrounding-jeffrey-epsteins-death/

    Hard to believe that some think it was an actual suicide...

  21. [21] 
    TheStig wrote:

    DH-

    "You might even find the solution you were looking everywhere else for was right in your own backyard"

    Speaking of back yards, are you ever going to weed yours? It's still 2016 at OneDemand website HQ. What is a potential supporter supposed to do? Follow The Yellow Broke Road?

    You should avoid references to the Wizard of Oz - where "The Wizard" is a flim flam man who has nothing tangible to offer. Too close to home.

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    You should avoid references to the Wizard of Oz - where "The Wizard" is a flim flam man who has nothing tangible to offer. Too close to home.

    I wouldn't say that..

    The wizard is like Obama was... Offering hope to millions who had none..

    Oh.. wait.. Yea, I guess yer right.. :D

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump Ties Trade Deal to China Action in Hong Kong, Suggests Meeting With Xi

    Beijing must respond ‘humanely’ to protests, U.S. president warns as public statements show a shift in tone
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/washington-offers-conflicting-messages-on-hong-kong-unrest-amid-u-s-china-trade-talks-11565802045

    Good on President Trump...

    Anyone willing to give him credit??

    "Anyone?? Anyone?? Buehler???"

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    “If America does not speak out for human rights in China because of commercial interests, we lose all moral authority to speak out elsewhere.”
    -Nancy Pelosi

    You mean, like Obama did with the Iran protesters???

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Latest: Israeli official: Tlaib, Omar barred from entry
    https://apnews.com/1816b7fe15c849628408b33031e7ee87

    Good call, Israel.. Why let these Jew/Israel haters get more bullshit and propaganda to spew around..

  26. [26] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Stig (20)-
    I usually weed indoors as I don't have enough to share with all the neighbors.

    Check your facts.

    Citizens can sign up for the 2020 election right now.

    However, if the standard is that a website containing something from 2016 (the information you are referring to is actually from 2015) should be ignored, then we should ignore this website that still has Obama Poll in a featured position.

    And besides that, the information you are referring to was written before Bernie or Trump declared in 2015, so an educated person would realize that this shows I was actually ahead of the curve on what was possible in the 2016 elections.

    But I guess it would be too much to expect that you might actually be capable of considering information and putting it in the proper context instead of just grasping at straws looking for excuses that you can cherry pick and twist and recycle to fit what you want believe.

  27. [27] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    And speaking of proper context, In a Wizard of Oz comparison I am the one that exposes the fraud.

    It was CW that initiated the Oz reference and is the one that needs the warning aboot using the reference as my response to his reference clearly shows he opens himself up for by doing so.

    It's time that all ideas from all sources are entered into the public discourse- Toto too!

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    POLL: ELIZABETH WARREN JUMPS OUT TO BIG LEAD IN THE IOWA CAUCUS
    https://iowastartingline.com/2019/08/15/poll-elizabeth-warren-jumps-out-to-big-lead-in-the-iowa-caucus/

    I know, I know.. It's WAY to early to start declaring winners based on polls this far out..

    But if... I say again.. *IF* Warren is the Dem nominee... President Trump is guaranteed re-election...

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2019/08/14/22/17289660-7353967-image-a-26_1565818437820.jpg

    OK, now THAT is just creepy...

    I guess it settles the question who had the most to gain from Epstein's death...

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ilhan Omar accuses Netanyahu of imposing ‘Muslim ban’ as Dems decry decision to block Israel visit
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ilhan-omar-accuses-netanyahu-muslim-ban-as-dems-decry

    Let the whining begin..

    What part of "YOU ARE NOT WANTED IN ISRAEL" do these America/Israel haters not understand???

  31. [31] 
    TheStig wrote:

    26 - "I am the one that exposes the fraud."

    What fraud? Who is being deceived? So long as the letter of the law is followed with respect to single donor caps and how the money is spent, accepting the legal big donor limit is no more or less deceptive than accepting $200 or less. You might argue the system is unfair or poorly enforced, but these are not the same things as deceptive and/or legally fraudulent.

    Who is going to enforce the "pledges" made to OneDemand? Voters have the legal right change their minds in the voting booth. Politicians are going to take that factor into account.

    Is your data base secure? Who is going to audit OneDemand, to insure that you are not some huckster phishing for names,telephone numbers and/or credit cards?

    If you can't sell an idea after repeated trying, you need to consider that your concept is fundamentally flawed, poorly explained, inadequately capitalized or just plain uninteresting or down right anathema to your target audience. Like Euro Disney was to the French.

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    So long as the letter of the law is followed with respect to single donor caps and how the money is spent, accepting the legal big donor limit is no more or less deceptive than accepting $200 or less. You might argue the system is unfair or poorly enforced, but these are not the same things as deceptive and/or legally fraudulent.

    CITIZENS UNITED...

    'nuff said...

  33. [33] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    So, if the guy who posts the gun massacre fantasy convinces law enforcement he was just kidding, or setting the stage for a horror novel, then you would be ok with him owning and/or carrying a gun??

    My being OK with them owning a gun isn’t the issue. If they are cleared by law enforcement and mental health professionals, then they can purchase a gun if they choose to.

    We're talking about FUTURE crimes...

    No, we are talking about PREVENTING future crimes.

    So, you feel that Beto O'Rourke should release his mental health records???

    Why? Unless he has done something recently that would indicate he poses a threat to himself or others or is having significant cognitive problems, why would it be appropriate to view his private medical records?

    Those are passages from Beto's online comments when he was part of a hacker group...

    1. When you want me to comment on what someone said, it would be helpful to post what it is you are seeking my opinion on.

    2. I am sick of people going to great lengths trying to find something that was said 10, 20, 30, or 50 years ago and treating it like the person just said those words today! We are expected to ignore everything that person has said and done since the statement was first uttered and judge them by today’s standards. I am not the same person today that I was 30 years ago. Life has a way of changing us, hopefully for the good, but not always.

    What's your opinion of Democrats who want to vote for Beto, what with these violent fantasies that Beto put online for posterity...

    If a voter chooses to vote for Beto solely because of those “violent fantasies”, then they are majorly F’d up! But I don’t know of anyone who would vote for a candidate based solely on a single statement they made 20 - 25 years ago.

    Again, I say we look at who the man is today — what his beliefs are and what does he stand for today — to judge his character!

    A car’s primary function is as a transportation device, not as a weapon.

    Primary function is irrelevant..

    Dead is dead, whether by gun or by car..

    Excluding suicides, 3 times as many people are killed by cars than by guns every year..

    Primary function is very relevant! Cars are used by millions of Americans every day without injury. They are not created focusing on their ability to kill others. Gun makers brag about how many rounds can be fired in a minute. Car makers never tout how many people can be run over by a car going from 0-60mph in under a minute.

    Cars deaths are almost always accidental. No one wishing to kill their spouse buys a new car with that in mind! No one buys a car for “protection”! Face it, guns have switches labeled “safety” on them for a reason.

    And if “dead is dead, whether by gun or by car”, then why would you exclude suicides? Dead is dead is what YOU said!

  34. [34] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    The above post is my reply from a couple of days ago. I never heard back from CW, so I just retyped it.

  35. [35] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Don Harris,

    It's time that all ideas from all sources are entered into the public discourse- Toto too!

    If CW did what you are requesting here, then what makes you think he’d get to you within the next 20 years? Your idea has been thoroughly addressed by multiple people on CW’s site — far more than it deserves!

  36. [36] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    DH,

    So is it 1Demand or One Demand or OneDemand?

    Personally, I like 1Demand as it’ll help get rid of all the “On Demand” responses when you google your group!

    Are you registered as a non-profit with the IRS, because you kinda make it sound like you are?

    How many 2020 candidates have signaled that they are going to only accept small donations? If they are seriously running, they’ve already made their fund raising plans. You played no part in their deciding to accept small donations only, so what are you offering them to get them on board with you?

    And is that really the best photo of you to make total strangers feel confident enough to give you their personal information? It might be a good photo if you signing up people for digidoo lessons or if you are running for the presidency of the Willie Nelson Fan Club, but that’s about it.

  37. [37] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    Another shooting occurred at a separate facility that housed an ICE contractor.

    In other words, this was an attack specifically targeting ICE and those who work with ICE.

    So it occurred at the ICE contractor’s office?

    No?

    It was just in the same office complex where they happened to have an office.

    At 3am, the only people there would have been the cleaning crew... who I doubt are their employees.

    What seems most likely is that a random act of violence occurred at this office complex, but because the shooter is Hispanic, it suddenly became about ICE!

  38. [38] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Stig-
    The deception/fraud is the candidates pretending that the small contributions they receive means they are running a small donor campaign.

    The deception/fraud is the media pretending that there is only a choice between big money candidates and do not inform citizens of other options when they are aware of other options and that anything other than a vote for one of those two is a wasted vote because this election is all that matters.

    To answer again your recycled questions (you seem to have a recurring pattern of not retaining information previouisly provided):

    The participants enforce the pledges with their votes. That is how voting is designed to work- you don't vote for and vote against candidates that do not do what you want them to do.

    Anyone that is concerned aboot credit card info and security at the One Demand website anymore than they are concerned aboot info provided to other websites doesn't have to contribute to One Demand.

    This will not be a problem because it is set up for the majority of money pledged and contributed by particpants to be contributed directly to the candidates and not through One Demand.

    Not very efficient if trying to scam money from participants.

    Nothing happens for the first time until it happens for the first time.

    And many things that have languished in obscurity for years have suddenly/finally caught on and succeeded.

    CW has changed his mind and corrected mistakes before and there is no reason that he can't change his mind aboot One Demand or just finally have the light bulb come on.

  39. [39] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @russ [35],

    that's really a good point! don should absolutely be seeking out current candidates and offering his organization's endorsement to the one who most embodies its principles. i don't have my own pie-nonprofit set up just yet, but when i do you can bet i'll give my full endorsement to the candidate that best supports pie. possibly don lemon, because lemon pie is outstanding!

    JL

  40. [40] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Listen-
    As for your recycled previously answered questions (the same retention problem?):

    yes.

    The candidates come after the citizens take action to demand the action. Again, that is how voting is designed to work.

    Security answered in the response to Stig.

    As for One Demand being addressed here (in the comments). If you consider the nonsense such as the comments in this thread by you and Stig discussion of One Demand then you have a valid point.

    I don't consider that nonsense discussion of One Demand because it is just grasping for straws looking for excuses that you can cherry pick and twist and recycle to fit what you want to believe. ( I put that in to help you with your retention problem as that comment was probably beyond your scope of memory)

    And that nonsense has been pretty the extent of any discussion here.

    But I would agree there has been too much of it form those too afraid to actually discuss what One Demand really is and can be.

  41. [41] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m,

    CITIZENS UNITED...

    'nuff said...

    not 'nuff for me. can you explain your own opinion on Citizens United? was the decision fair and/or just? even for folks like myself who clearly fall on one side of that line, it's not an issue that ought to be decided lightly.

    here's someone i disagree with, but it's important to read and understand that side of the argument too:

    https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/04/supreme-court-citizens-united-case-decision

  42. [42] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    32

    And if “dead is dead, whether by gun or by car”, then why would you exclude suicides? Dead is dead is what YOU said!

    That's exactly what I said, Russ. There are millions and millions of car users every day and -- what? -- around 90% of Americans who either own or travel via automobile on a daily basis. And what do you suppose the ownership and use of firearms is by comparison? Around one third of America who owns a gun; we have no way to know since we mandate registration of automobiles but not firearms. Nevertheless, with way smaller numbers of firearms being owned by way less Americans than firearms, the deaths by guns have surpassed those of automobiles. Very telling data, isn't it?

    https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2018/12/11/18135976/gun-deaths-us-2017-suicide

  43. [43] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ

    To clarify:

    Nevertheless, with way smaller numbers of firearms being owned by way less Americans than use/own automobiles, the deaths by guns have surpassed those of automobiles. Very telling data, isn't it?

    HOW MANY TRIPS WE TAKE EVERY DAY

    Americans take 1.1 billion trips a day — four for every person in the U.S

    U.S. daily travel averages 11 billion miles a day — almost 40 miles per person per day

    HOW MANY TRIPS WE TAKE IN A YEAR

    Americans take 411 billion daily trips a year or about 1,500 trips per person

    U.S. daily travel totals about 4 trillion miles — 14,500 miles per person

    WHY WE TRAVEL

    45 percent of daily trips are taken for shopping and errands

    27 percent of daily trips are social and recreational, such as visiting a friend

    15 percent of daily trips are taken for commuting

    https://www.bts.gov/statistical-products/surveys/national-household-travel-survey-daily-travel-quick-facts

    These data regarding usage of automobiles by Americans are huge: 1.1 billion trips daily. Yet look at the disparity of deaths from firearms by comparison.

  44. [44] 
    TheStig wrote:

    DH-37

    You never answer objections - you just change the subject and claim to have answered them.

    "The deception/fraud is the candidates pretending that the small contributions they receive means they are running a small donor campaign."

    Who exactly is doing that? Name some names linked to specific quotes.

    "The deception/fraud is the media pretending that there is only a choice between big money candidates and do not inform citizens of other options when they are aware of other options and that anything other than a vote for one of those two is a wasted vote because this election is all that matters."

    Again, who are these people in the media? Quotes.

    Just because something offends your sensibility, doesn't make it fraud. There is no legal definition of a small donor candidate, Fed law says there 2 classes of individual donations: those of $200 and up to the max of $2800. Small donor:large donor is a popular shorthand that has caught on. Defining a small donor Candidate as one who only accepts donations <= $200 is YOUR Personal Litmus Test. It has no basis in law. A small donor Candidate could just as well be defined as one who averages <=$200 per donation. Why did you go high as $200 per donantion. I would venture to say many working families cannot afford to be that generous. What about pegging donations lower for candidates running for office in areas where mass media is relatively cheap? Allow larger donations in more affluent parts of the country where running an effective campaign tends be more expensive.

    As for repeating myself, it is because you keep repeating the same tired patter. I think it is worth pointing that out every six months or so.

    If you don't like the crowd here, nobody is making you visit. Find a blog more to your liking.

    Just to reinforce LWYH. How many candidates have accepted your conditions? I'm thinking it's likely zero, and almost certainly very very few. Are you registered as a charity in N.J? Are you even accepting donations?

  45. [45] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    35

    And is that really the best photo of you to make total strangers feel confident enough to give you their personal information? It might be a good photo if you signing up people for digidoo lessons or if you are running for the presidency of the Willie Nelson Fan Club, but that’s about it.

    *laughs* His bio leaves a lot to be desired too. Read it and try to not laugh.

    Who would give their personal information to a guy who describes himself like that?

    Also, who in their right mind would advertise for a guy who describes himself that way... no matter how many times he trolled their website? There would be infinite legal issues involved in doing so, but who would expect a guy with a resume and picture like that to know what they are?

  46. [46] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    38

    that's really a good point! don should absolutely be seeking out current candidates and offering his organization's endorsement to the one who most embodies its principles.

    You mean it's not Willie?

    i don't have my own pie-nonprofit set up just yet, but when i do you can bet i'll give my full endorsement to the candidate that best supports pie. possibly don lemon, because lemon pie is outstanding!

    Why not Snoop Dog? He invented lemon pie:

    https://www.wikileaf.com/strain/lemon-pie/

    You thought I was kidding, didn't you? ;)

  47. [47] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Don Harris,

    My recycled previously asked questions are only being asked because your website still makes them relevant! Seriously, you still have the same run-on sentences, grammatical mistakes, and incoherent sentences for all the world to enjoy that I saw when I first visited your site over three years ago. Perhaps if you had done anything to make corrections that would address these questions, I wouldn’t have to ask them again.

  48. [48] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Kick [41, 42]

    I hate it when people try to use the number of deaths as if it is the only factor that must be addressed when looking at these statistics! Not only do cars vastly outnumber firearms in this country, their “purposes for being” are vastly different! Guns shoot things. No one uses their guns to hammer on a new roof, you can’t ride it to work, and while they could be used as marital aides for the most adventurous of us...it isn’t recommended and would likely void any warranty you might have. No, guns really have only one function...and they are incredibly good at carrying out that function!

    [44]. I ran a national non-profit for years and tried to offer Don some advice based on my years of experience regarding the numerous and blaring red flags that his site set off! I was given answers that did not answer the questions being asked, lame excuses that make little sense, and angry insults for not applauding his brilliant idea that will change everything we know about modern politics...just as soon as CW writes that article Don thinks he deserves!

    Bless his heart....

  49. [49] 
    TheStig wrote:

    DH-37

    About that lightbulb. I can guess where CW would like to shove it....but he is a very patient overlord.

  50. [50] 
    TheStig wrote:

    DH-37

    I think most people would agree that politicians are very opportunistic critters. Why aren't they banging on your door begging for your help? Alternatively, why aren't they leaving out the middle man (you) and simply stealing your idea?

    is your idea flawed? Is your marketing flawed? Is it both? Stop wallowing in failure at
    CW.com and address the reasons why your project is mired....even if you don't like those reasons. Bitching about why everbody else is stupid is wasting your time and is not going to advance your cause.

  51. [51] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    47

    Bless his heart.…

    That sounds nice, Russ... unless you're from the South like we are, of course. :)

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.]