ChrisWeigant.com

Friday Talking Points -- Let's Replace Columbus Day With Leif Eriksson Day!

[ Posted Friday, August 16th, 2019 – 17:01 UTC ]

In 1867, right after the Civil War, President Andrew Johnson's State Department explored the possibility of buying Iceland and Greenland. This, of course, did not happen.

In the midst of the first World War, America was more successful at enticing Denmark to sell off some territory it didn't want. The deal was completed in January of 1917, after a few months of negotiations. The U.S. paid $25 million in gold (the equivalent of more than $575 million in today's dollars) and took possession of the Danish West Indies soon after. The islands were renamed the "Virgin Islands of the United States" and remain an American territory to this day.

After World War II, President Harry Truman offered another $100 million to Denmark in a second bid to buy Greenland. Denmark turned him down.

This week, the Wall Street Journal revealed that Donald Trump, for some strange reason, now wants to try to buy Greenland again. The Washington Post later followed up on the story:


The presidential request has bewildered aides, some of whom continue to believe it isn't serious, but Trump has mentioned it for weeks. The two people with knowledge of the presidential demand spoke on the condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to reveal such White House planning.

As with many of Trump's internal musings, aides are waiting for more direction before they decide how seriously they should look into it.

Because, you know, maybe he'll just forget about it. Or lose interest if he discovers that there aren't even any cute penguins there. The best response to date came from Representative Steve Cohen from Tennessee: "A Great place for his 'presidential' library."

Heh.

What obviously happened was that senior aides became so worried about Trump's idiotic proposal that they decided the only way to stop him from obsessing over it would be to leak it to the media and let them ridicule the idea. This used to be a common tactic in the early days of Trump's administration, but it hasn't been happening as often now that Trump has purged all he considers disloyal from his staff. But apparently buying Greenland was so nutso-crazy that someone decided to head it off by leaking it to the public.

No word yet on whether this is all a grand scheme by Trump to replace Columbus Day with the much more Aryan-sounding Leif Eriksson Day. But we certainly wouldn't put it past him, at this point.

Of course, we should all frown on spreading such blatant conspiracy theories, right? Well, not according to Trump, who also took the time this week to promote the insane conspiracy that Bill and Hillary Clinton personally snuck into a federal prison and killed Jeffrey Epstein. Or something. It's hard to tell. And it certainly isn't the first time Trump has promoted baseless and bizarre conspiracy theories. It likely won't be the last time he does so, either. So, with such presidential leadership as a model for our behavior, we have to say that many of the best people have been saying that Trump really wants to replace Columbus Day with Leif Eriksson Day -- and that he figures buying Greenland would be a dandy way to achieve this goal.

Is this any crazier than the multitude of craziness that spews unregulated from Trump's mouth on a daily basis? At a rally this week in Pennsylvania, Trump took credit for Shell opening a plastics plant which had actually been planned and started while Barack Obama was president, way back in 2012. During the same rally, Trump once again displayed his absolute ignorance about the way our electrical grid works, warning ominously about the dangers of generating electricity from wind power:

When the wind stops blowing, it doesn't make any difference does it? Unlike those big windmills that destroy everybody's property values, kill all the birds. One day the environmentalists are going to tell us what's going on with that. And then all of a sudden it stops. The wind and the televisions go off. And your wives and husbands say: "Darling, I want to watch Donald Trump on television tonight. But the wind stopped blowing and I can't watch. There's no electricity in the house, darling."

Maybe someone should explain to Trump that Eriksson's ship relied heavily on wind power to make it to the shores of North America? It's certainly worth a try.

The president also had a stark warning for the crowd: you better vote for Trump, even if you hate him. No, really. Trump is so worried about the possibility of a recession denying him re-election that he's now pre-emptively warning that any such downturn certainly won't be his fault, and that the only way to avoid it is to re-elect him:

The bottom line is, I know you like me, this is a love fest, but you have no choice but to vote for me because your 401(k)'s down the tubes. Everything is going to be down the tubes. So whether you love me or hate me, you've got to vote for me.

Um... no. No, we don't. Sorry.

Trump also tried out another conspiracy theory to explain (in advance) any possible recession: it's all the media's fault. From his tweet:

The Fake News Media is doing everything they can to crash the economy because they think that will be bad for me and my re-election. The problem they have is that the economy is way too strong and we will soon be winning big on Trade, and everyone knows that, including China!

It's gotten to the point where it is increasingly hard to even mock Trump, because the reality of what he does and says is so outlandish as to be more satiric than any attempts to satirize it. How do you mock such self-mockery? It's a conundrum, to be sure.

In other irony-is-dead news, Trump fat-shamed what he thought was a protester at a New Hampshire rally last night. The only problem was the guy was actually a Trump supporter who had gotten up to tear down a protester's sign. Anthony Scaramucci, who has become increasingly critical (and downright vicious) towards Trump, tweeted out what is actually a completely factual statement, in response to Trump's fat-shaming: "Said the fattest President since William Howard Taft." Twitter, quick to act, suspended The Mooch's account for violating their rules on abusive behavior. Donald Trump, of course, has never had this happen to him, despite regularly tweeting out much more abusive (and much less truthful) rants about all sorts of people.

But getting back to the economy, Trump is right to worry about the possibility that the longest expansion period in American history -- begun right after the Great Recession and continuing through the rest of Barack Obama's term -- may be finally drawing to a close. The "inverted yield curve" sparked this worry, which instantly gave rise to a new hashtag. An op-ed writer for the New York Times had perhaps the best setup for this new hashtag, tweeting:

Trump promised to eliminate the debt in four years; he increased it. He promised to win the easy trade war with China; he didn't. He promised Mexico would pay for the wall; it won't. His tax cuts were going to trickle down and spur the economy; it didn't. #TrumpRecession.

Of course, the White House has contingency plans just in case a recession does happen, right? Well, no. They don't. Trump did hastily cancel half of his threatened next round of tariffs against China when someone made him understand that this could impact Christmas shopping (because American consumers will pay the new "Trump tax," not China), but other than that there is absolutely zero planning for any cloudy days ahead, as the Washington Post reported:

Yet despite gyrations in the U.S. stock market and economic slowdowns in other countries, officials in the White House, at the Treasury Department and throughout the administration are planning no new steps to attempt to stave off a recession. Rather, Trump's economic advisers have been delivering the president upbeat assessments in which they argue that the domestic economy is stronger than many forecasters are making it out to be.

. . .

Administration officials are not actively planning for a recession because they do not believe one will occur, and they worry that making such plans would validate a negative narrative about the economy and precipitate a crash, according to people involved in internal discussions.

Former Treasury secretary Larry Summers was astonished at this news, and responded:

When the economy turns down, one of the important resources we have is policymakers' credibility. Ludicrous forecasts and economically illiterate statements have dissipated the credibility of the president's economic team. It's banana republic standard to deny the statistics, bash the central bank, try to push the currency down and lash out at foreign countries.

Of course, if a recession does come, Trump's economic team will be the best people to deal with it, right? Well, no. Catherine Rampell of the Washington Post explains:

Bond markets are flashing warning signs. Stock prices are whipsawing. Some troubling economic data are rolling in, both here and abroad. All this suggests that the risk of a U.S. recession is rising.

Trump seems to be worried about getting blamed for what is coming. For months, he has been setting up the Federal Reserve as a scapegoat -- including for market swings caused by his own foolish trade wars. When stocks go up, Trump claims full credit; when they go down, it's the Fed's fault. Personal responsibility and all that.

My view on what he (and the rest of us) should be fixed on is slightly different. If indeed we have a downturn, Trump might or might not be the cause; the exact triggers of recession are often hard to pinpoint. But you know what would unequivocally be his fault, rather than fickle fortune?

A badly mismanaged recession. Which seems inevitable if, indeed, recession strikes.

If things go south, this administration doesn't have a plan. It never had a plan. And it doesn't have competent personnel in place to come up with a plan.

Trump's economic brain trust consists of a guy who plays an economist on TV, a crank who has been disowned by the (real) economics profession and the producer of "The Lego Batman Movie."

For the record, that last paragraph refers to Larry Kudlow (former CNBC personality), Peter Navarro (who recently suggested the Wall Street Journal editorial page sounded communist), and Steve Mnuchin (described as "earning the coveted title of the greatest sycophant in Cabinet history").

So there's nothing to worry about. With this dream team in place, what could possibly go wrong?

Maybe Trump is playing multidimensional chess, though. Maybe buying Greenland will solve all our problems, somehow. Hey, it worked out great for Leif Eriksson, didn't it?

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

Moving along to a few other notable things that happened in politics this week, Benjamin Netanyahu knuckled under to Donald Trump's wishes by barring entry into Israel to two sitting members of Congress. Representatives Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar wanted to visit Palestine, but were denied after Trump pressured Bibi on the issue.

This provoked plenty of outrage from both the left and the right in this country, but the strongest response came from Senator Bernie Sanders. Sanders outlined his own views of the region respectfully, in a recent interview:

All that I am saying is that we need a Middle East policy which is even-handed, which protects the independence and the safety of Israel, but also shows respect to the Palestinian people, many of whom in Gaza and elsewhere are suffering incredibly. I think what the United States should be doing, especially with the enormous amounts of money we're spending there, is to demand that Israel and the Palestinian leadership sit down and start working out their differences and create peace in that troubled region.

But when it came to commenting on Trump and Netanyahu, Bernie had a much more scathing response:

We have a president who tragically is a racist, is a xenophobe and who is a religious bigot. But the idea that a member of the United States Congress cannot visit a nation which by the way we support to the tune of billions and billions of dollars, is clearly an outrage.

And if Israel doesn't want members of the United States Congress to visit their country, to get a first-hand look at what's going on, and I have been there many, many times, but if [Benjamin Netanyahu] doesn't want members to visit maybe he can respectfully decline the billions of dollars that we give to Israel.

Bernie has a unique perspective on this subject, because he is Jewish. It's hard to paint Bernie as somehow "anti-Semitic," because being Jewish insulates him from such knee-jerk attacks. So we've got to give him at least an Honorable Mention for his remarks.

But this week's Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week goes to Senator Elizabeth Warren, who rolled out yet another of her famous plans this week, on what the federal government should do to make life better for Native Americans.

This, obviously, is a touchy subject for Warren. But her plan is very impressive not just because she's tackling the issue head-on, but also for its breadth and depth. Her white paper on Native American issues runs over 9,000 words -- more than twice as long as any of her other plans. In it, she addresses all kinds of problems Native Americans face, from the legal restrictions imposed upon them to building up their infrastructure to improving their lives in multiple other ways. This has to be the most detailed proposal of any presidential candidate on the subject, back to perhaps Andrew Jackson.

Warren has been walking a tightrope on Native Americans for a while, now. She conclusively proved to a hostile newspaper in her hometown that she had never once used her claim of Native American ancestry to advance her career, but that somehow didn't matter to the rest of the media. She told her family story over and over again, in an effort to show that she was (1) definitely not trying to claim tribal membership, and (2) proud of her heritage nonetheless, but again this somehow got lost in the reporting. Then she took Trump's bait by taking a DNA test, which showed exactly what she had been claiming all along -- distant Indian ancestry, from six generations ago. This, somehow, was seen as a major mistake, and the punditary world -- incredibly -- pronounced her chances for winning the nomination were dead as a direct result. Trump, of course, has been mocking her with the name "Pocahontas" throughout it all. The fact that Trump can't even remember what country his own father was born in somehow didn't seem to matter.

Warren, to the astonishment of the pundits, has mostly weathered this storm. The whole thing just doesn't matter that much to the voters, which the media has finally begun to realize. If she was going to play it safe, she would never have developed a Native American plan to begin with, but she refused to take the safe route and instead issued an agenda that is sweeping in nature.

Because this news is so recent, the reaction from actual Native Americans has not yet been reported. But we'd be willing to bet it'll be supported by a majority of them, as it is so comprehensive and shows the depth of Warren's interest in helping the Native American community and in changing the ways the federal government impacts their lives for the worse.

For tackling this issue head-on, for the depth and breadth of her agenda, and for refusing to take the safe route throughout all of it, Elizabeth Warren is our clear choice for Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week.

[Congratulate Senator Elizabeth Warren on her Senate contact page, to let her know you appreciate her efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

As always, the word "disappointing" can be read two ways. It can mean someone did something that was obviously wrong and should be condemned, or it can mean someone who just disappointed a lot of people (either through action or inaction). This week, we're using the latter definition.

Beto O'Rourke is being begged by some in Texas to quit his bid for the presidency and instead come back home and run for Senate again. The Houston Chronicle wrote an editorial this week urging him to do just that, titled: "Beto, Come Home. Texas Needs You."

However, Beto is not interested. Now, perhaps he is just saying so because nobody's going to consider voting for someone who already has his eye on a different race -- Beto said previously that he wasn't going to run for president, before he launched his presidential campaign, for example. But he might be the Democrats' best chance of beating John Cornyn, especially after his record showing in the race with Ted Cruz.

The pressure got even greater when John Hickenlooper ended his own presidential bid this week, because everyone now expects him to announce that he will be running for a Senate seat in Colorado (a race that he will likely easily win). The goal of flipping the Senate just got a little closer for the Democrats, in other words, and Texas Democrats think Beto running in their state would also increase these chances.

But Beto isn't having any of it. Here's his response to the question, from an interview this week:

Let me make your show the place where I tell you and I tell the country I will not in any scenario run for the United States Senate. I'm running for president. I'm running for this country. I'm taking this fight directly to Donald Trump, and that is what I am exclusively focused on doing right now.

That "will not in any scenario" phrase is pretty strong language, you've got to admit.

Beto O'Rourke has never really lived up to the hype he generated when he first entered the presidential race. He is currently polling in sixth place, behind Pete Buttigieg. He will be included in the next two debates, but so far he has not had any breakout moment to speak of in the first two (as his poll numbers reflect).

O'Rourke will have until December to make up his mind, so maybe there still will be time for him to re-evaluate his prospects before then. But we have to say that his response to the Chronicle editorial disappointed a whole lot of Democrats, both in Texas and beyond. For which we're giving him this week's Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award.

[Beto O'Rourke is currently a private citizen, and it is our blanket policy not to link to campaign websites, so you'll have to dig up his contact information yourself if you'd like to let him know what you think of his actions.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 538 (8/16/19)

Some weeks, we pre-empt the discrete talking points to highlight a rant -- either from our own keyboard or from elsewhere. Sometimes we go with the standard talking points. This week, we're attempting to do both.

So we've got to warn everyone that our first talking point is a very long one. But it was so downright extraordinary that we couldn't manage to edit it down any further. At the same time, we didn't want it to be the whole of our talking point efforts this week, so we continue on afterwards with six other talking points for Democrats to use this week.

We apologize if this is information overload in any way, but we truly didn't know which way to go so we thought we'd try to have our cake and eat it too, as it were. After reading the first of these, you'll probably see why we chose this route this week.

 

1
   No lie, Joe

Former House member Joe Walsh is probably best remembered for falsely yelling out "You lie!" during one of President Barack Obama's State Of The Union speeches. He's also known for being a Tea Party crank -- one who spewed forth all sorts of conspiracy theories (he was a big proponent of the "Obama's a secret Muslim!" lie). In his time in office, he was nothing short of odious, in fact.

Which is why his "Come to Jesus" moment this week (it's hard to call it anything else, really) was so striking. Walsh penned an opinion piece for the New York Times where he not only abjectly apologizes for spreading his previous lies, but also rips into Donald Trump with a fervor that is rare indeed among conservatives, Republicans, and especially Tea Partiers. For this reason, we had to include a lengthy excerpt of his article, which really should be read in full to be believed. Walsh calls for someone -- anyone -- to launch a Republican primary bid against Donald Trump, for all his many sins. Being true to his Tea Party roots, he begins with the fiscal irresponsibility of Trump, but then moves on to a much wider indictment of his own party's sitting president. Any individual quote from this article would be a dandy talking point for Democrats to refer to, as you can plainly see.

Fiscal matters are only part of it. At the most basic level, Mr. Trump is unfit for office. His lies are so numerous -- from his absurd claim that tariffs are "paid for mostly by China, by the way, not by us," to his prevarication about his crowd sizes, he can't be trusted.

In Mr. Trump, I see the worst and ugliest iteration of views I expressed for the better part of a decade. To be sure, I've had my share of controversy. On more than one occasion, I questioned Mr. Obama's truthfulness about his religion. At times, I expressed hate for my political opponents. We now see where this can lead. There's no place in our politics for personal attacks like that, and I regret making them.

I didn't vote for Mr. Trump in 2016 because I liked him. I voted for him because he wasn't Hillary Clinton. Once he was elected, I gave him a fair hearing, and tried to give him the benefit of the doubt. But I soon realized that I couldn't support him because of the danger he poses to the country, especially the division he sows at every chance, culminating a few weeks ago in his ugly, racist attack on four minority congresswomen.

The fact is, Mr. Trump is a racial arsonist who encourages bigotry and xenophobia to rouse his base and advance his electoral prospects. In this, he inspires imitators.

Republicans should view Mr. Trump as the liability that he is: No matter his flag-hugging, or his military parades, he's no patriot. In front of the world, he sides with Vladimir Putin over our own intelligence community. That's dangerous. He encouraged Russian interference in the 2016 election, and he refuses to take foreign threats seriously as we enter the 2020 election. That's reckless. For three years, he has been at war with our federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies, as he embraces tyrants abroad and embarrasses our allies. That's un-American.

. . .

Mr. Trump has taken the legitimate differences that Americans have on policy and turned them into personal division. He's caused me to change my tone and to reflect upon where I went over the line and to focus on policy differences moving forward.

We now have a president who retweets conspiracy theories implicating his political opponents in Jeffrey Epstein's death. We now have a president who does his level best to avoid condemning white supremacy and white nationalism.

. . .

We need someone who could stand up, look the president in the eye and say: "Enough, sir. We've had enough of your indecency. We've had enough of your lies, your bullying, your cruelty, enough of your insults, your daily drama, your incitement, enough of the danger you place this country in every single day. We don't want any of this anymore, and the country certainly can't stand four more years of it."

 

2
   Steve King defends the indefensible, once again

Representative Steve King this week actually defended rape and incest. No, really -- we didn't make that up. In fact, he put forth the novel theory that human life would have been totally wiped out by now if rape and incest hadn't contributed to the propagation of the species. If this sounds jaw-dropping to you, then you may not be familiar with all the other odious things King has said over the years. In fact, the only good thing to be said about this one is: "at least it wasn't racist, like all the other comments he's been condemned for." But that's not saying much.

Here is King, attempting to defend the notion that all abortion should be banned with no exception for rape and incest. Turning his words into a Democratic talking point is pretty easy, obviously (and should include the line "speak for yourself, Steve").

What if we went back through all the family trees and just pulled out anyone who was a product of rape or incest? Would there be any population of the world left if we did that? Considering all the wars and all the rapes and pillages that happened throughout all these different nations, I know that I can't say that I was not a part of a product of that.

 

3
   Don't quit your day job... or, on second though, maybe you should

Then there was Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue, trying to crack wise.

"Trump's Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue was speaking to a group of farmers this week, and he ridiculed them for daring to question Our Dear Leader Trump's trade war with China. He thought he'd get a big laugh from the crowd by telling a joke: 'What do you call two farmers in a basement? A whine cellar!' but instead it went over like a lead balloon. Farmers have been hit hard by Trump's trade war and they're hurting bad. Net farm income has collapsed -- in 2013 it was over $120 billion but last year it was only $63 billion -- half what it was under Barack Obama. Farmers are filing record numbers of bankruptcies. The head of the National Farmers Union denounced Trump's trade strategy 'of constant escalation and antagonism,' and stated bleakly that farmers 'can't withstand this kind of pressure much longer.' The head of the American Farm Bureau Federation echoed these sentiments, calling the China trade war a 'body blow to thousands of farmers and ranchers who are already struggling to get by.' One North Dakota farmer was even more blunt: 'Trump is ruining our markets.' And yet the member of Trump's cabinet who is supposed to care about farmers thinks the whole thing is nothing more than a laughing matter. Well, we'll see how many of these farmers decide that they can't bring themselves to vote for Trump again next year -- the last laugh may wind up being on Trump."

 

4
   N.R.A. imploding

Finally, some good news!

"The National Rifle Association, for the first time in popular polling, is underwater. Fewer people support the N.R.A. than oppose it at this point, by a margin of 42 percent favorable to 47 percent unfavorable. Their lobbying efforts in Congress in response to the shootings in Gilroy, El Paso, and Dayton have been described as 'gobbledygook' -- by fellow opponents of gun control, no less. One Republican on Capitol Hill described the N.R.A.'s meltdown as: 'There's no coordinated effort... there is no plan.' Trump himself has been saying the N.R.A. is, quote, 'bankrupt,' unquote. Perhaps this N.R.A. chaos means that Congress will be able to pass some gun safety laws that have the overwhelming support of the American people -- as much as 90-plus percent in the polls. Perhaps the N.R.A. fighting against such overwhelmingly popular ideas has finally caused their own demise -- one can certainly hope so, that's for sure."

 

5
   Thank you, AIPAC

Pushback against Israel's move to ban two congresswomen came from a rather eye-opening source this week, since AIPAC is usually in close lockstep with Netanyahu, especially over the "boycott, divestment, sanctions" movement. But here's what AIPAC tweeted after the ban was announced, for which they should be praised:

We disagree with Reps. Omar and Tlaib's support for the anti-Israel and anti-peace BDS movement, along with Rep. Tlaib's calls for a one-state solution. We also believe every member of Congress should be able to visit and experience our democratic ally Israel firsthand.

 

6
   Just sit down with the millions, and solve it over tea

Trump outdid himself on the Hong Kong protests this week.

"Remember back when Barack Obama got a whole lot of grief for not somehow standing up strongly enough for the pro-democracy upsurge in Iran when he was president? Remember how all the conservatives laid all the blame for the Green Revolution's eventual failure at Obama's feet, saying if he had only given them some vocal support the whole thing would have worked? Well, now that there's an enormous pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong, where are those same voices berating Donald Trump for not doing the same thing? Trump's answer to the crisis was to suggest that President Xi of China 'meet directly and personally with the protesters' in order to have a 'happy and enlightened ending to the Hong Kong problem.' Seriously, that was his response. Trump predicted that the whole thing could be worked out 'in 15 minutes' if they'd just sit down and meet. So much for being a beacon of democracy shining its light on the world, eh? Does anyone in their right mind actually think that Xi and the protesters would have a 'happy and enlightened ending'?"

 

7
   Moscow Mitch!

We've been repeating this one for a while now, because it seems to be working so well.

"Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi ran down the list of bills the Democratic House has already passed this year in a speech this week -- universal background checks on gun purchases, raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour, election reform, expanding healthcare, and all the rest of it -- before ripping into the other chamber of Congress. She was right to do so, because the man who leads the Senate deserves as much shame as Democrats can heap on, not just for blocking all these very popular ideas, but also for refusing to protect our election system from Russian interference. Pelosi pointed this out in no uncertain terms: 'We sent our legislation to the Senate. Moscow Mitch says that he is the "Grim Reaper." Imagine describing yourself as the "Grim Reaper," that he's going to bury all this legislation.' Pelosi is right -- Moscow Mitch needs to go, if we ever want to see Congress get anything positive done!"

-- Chris Weigant

 

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

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground

 

53 Comments on “Friday Talking Points -- Let's Replace Columbus Day With Leif Eriksson Day!”

  1. [1] 
    Paula wrote:

    Great column today - with you on Most Impressives & Most Disappointing and Joe Walshe's "come to Jesus" is pretty amazing.

  2. [2] 
    TheStig wrote:

    CW-

    Is Walsh "having a come to Jesus Moment" or is offering himself up as a Messiah to primary Trump? Sacrificial lamb may be a better way to describe it.

    I second Paula - great column!

  3. [3] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Has Trump fallen for one of the earliest real estate scams I can think of? "Greenland" was coined by Norse realtors to lure settlers into a very marginal habitat. Is Donald thinking " green" as in pristine golf courses and a clubhouse? If there is a Valhalla, some bearded realtors are doing high fives, quaffing mead and laughing their asses off. "Still got it!"

  4. [4] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: It's gotten to the point where it is increasingly hard to even mock Trump, because the reality of what he does and says is so outlandish as to be more satiric than any attempts to satirize it. How do you mock such self-mockery?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98ADuDylCeU

    Well, you asked. :)

  5. [5] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: O'Rourke will have until December to make up his mind, so maybe there still will be time for him to re-evaluate his prospects before then. But we have to say that his response to the Chronicle editorial disappointed a whole lot of Democrats, both in Texas and beyond.

    Perhaps Beto O'Rourke should have been more precise in his response there. For reasons I won't bore you with, running against Ted Cruz in 2018 versus running against John Cornyn in 2020 are two whole different prospects. While I would wager some serious cash that O'Rourke will not attempt a run against Cornyn in 2020, on the other hand -- barring any unforeseen events -- I can certainly see him running in 2024 in a second attempt to unseat that other senator not named Cornyn.

  6. [6] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:
  7. [7] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Kick [5] -

    EXCELLENT point! I had wondered that myself. I mean, Cruz is the most hated member of the Senate (including BOTH sides of the aisle), so he'd obviously be a lot easier to beat.

    But then again, I wonder about Beto. He's got until (I think) 12/9 to make up his mind. If by Thanksgiving he's still in sixth place, he might reconsider. Even another failed Senate run would put his name in front of Texas voters once again, prepping him for a 2024 Cruz rematch, no?

    Heh.

    :-)

    -CW

  8. [8] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    All of the Democratic presidential candidates could take a lesson from Senator Warren on the issue of recognizing the treaty and aboriginal rights of Native Americans.

    Being a strong advocate for indigenous rights is the perfect antidote for any of Trump's nonsense.

  9. [9] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:
  10. [10] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Whoops! Should have read: "here ARE yesterdays..."

    Mea culpa.

    -CW

  11. [11] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I don't think either Harris or Booker is up for re-election in 2020. Just saying....

    And, I was just joking.

    To be perfectly honest, they should consider going back to the senate, you know, for all intents and purposes. Ahem.

  12. [12] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Should have read: "here ARE yesterdays..

    We knew that. :)

  13. [13] 
    italyrusty wrote:

    Why is the media obsessed with 'pinning down' a politician on whether s/he will run for *fill in the blank office*? It's seems an obligatory pantomime, where the person responding usually gives a non-answer and we ignore the response anyway. A smart interviewer would dedicate airtime (or column space) to a more substantive discussion.
    'On a presidential run

    "The answer is no. I have no plans on running in 2020," Biden says, but then adds: "What people want me to say is that under no circumstances will I run. That would be a foolish thing to say."'
    https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/11/15/564263766/biden-tells-npr-he-has-no-plans-to-run-in-2020

  14. [14] 
    TheStig wrote:

    RE-6

    As with most Trump Talk It's a mix of appalled and amused. You could say I am applused.

  15. [15] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW
    7

    But then again, I wonder about Beto. He's got until (I think) 12/9 to make up his mind. If by Thanksgiving he's still in sixth place, he might reconsider. Even another failed Senate run would put his name in front of Texas voters once again, prepping him for a 2024 Cruz rematch, no?

    Yes and no. Oh, it's more complicated than that with so many candidates already, and I honestly think Beto would be quite content helping the Democratic presidential nominee in whatever capacity he could be utilized... as long as it did not require a run for Senator in 2020.

    Depending on the nominee and their chosen running mate, Texas might seriously be in play, and if Texas doesn't flip in 2020, the Democrats should/could still cost the Republicans a whole lot of cash to defend her that should/could have been much better spent other places.

    When Texas flips, it's all over, and they know it. Yes, Texas is the key to the whole enchilada, and it's not a matter of if Texas flips but when she flips. :)

  16. [16] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    obviously, it's poor Kick herself that has "flipped".

    After pinning all her hopes for Trump's demise on the Mueller report, when it finally appeared after three interminable yrs and fizzled, she went catatonic and descended into a permanent state of PTSD "supershock", from which she is unlikely to ever recover.

  17. [17] 
    Speak2 wrote:

    Excellent article. One quibble.

    While Joe Walsh did make the news this week, he wasn't the rep you said "You lie." That was Joe Wilson, who I think still serves as a rep from SC.

  18. [18] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    CW-
    RE: your response in yesterday's comments

    I am sorry that you only seem to address my comments when I express frustration perhaps a little too strongly for your taste.

    Please see my response in yesterdays comments.

  19. [19] 
    TheStig wrote:

    CW- please see comment 35 to your Thursday post.

  20. [20] 
    TheStig wrote:

    DH-18

    Collin's has collected a war chest, nearly all of it from individuals giving <=$200. As near as I can determine, you have collected moonbeams. Head to head, who is weak?

    You are a sad crank. Repeating the same failure over and over is a good working definition of insanity and/or stupidity.

  21. [21] 
    TheStig wrote:

    FJORD TO TRUMP: DROP DEAD

    (New York Daily News)

    This headline should be awarded some kind of fabulous prize.

  22. [22] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Stig-
    Is that less than 200 total per individual or 200 per contribution?

    You are equating support for an idea with the content of an idea.

    People were able to decide whether or not to participate in the Collin's Fund because they were informed aboot the idea by CW and others.

    All the reasons he gave for informing citizens aboot the Collin's Fund also apply to One Demand.

    CW did not require the Collin's Fund to start their own blog.

    You are right that repeating the same failure over and over is a good working definition of insanity and/or stupidity.

    You repeating the same failure of changing the argument as in changing the argument from the content of the idea to the support for the idea is a good example.

    And repeating the same failure of voting for big money candidates when you want the big money out of politics is another good example.

    While you may not want the big money out of politics, many people do.

    Many of those people might find One Demand to be a good idea they would like to try.

    But until they have been informed aboot the idea, they can't make that decision so there is no validity in the claim that the idea is no good because people are not supporting something they don't know aboot.

    You must be insane or stupid to keep repeating the same dodge and think you are fooling anyone but yourself.

  23. [23] 
    Paula wrote:

    So the disgusting "proud boys" had a march in Oregon today which they'd been hyping for weeks. As seems - thank heaven - to be typical, anti-terrorists outnumbered the shitheads. Even cooler, the anti-idiots did a lot of fun stuff - dances, costumes etc. basically indicating they weren't going to cower before the nazis (who mostly covered their faces).

    Good for the good people of Portland and fu^k the "proud schmoes" and Blotus who praised them.

  24. [24] 
    TheStig wrote:

    DH-

    I guess CW thought the Collins fund had merit, and 1D doesn't. It's his blog, his call.
    If you don't like it, don't visit, don't support him at the next Kitten drive...which I doubt you ever have ever done in the past.

    Your logic is faulty. Endlessly repeating a failed action is insanity. Correctly diagnosing that this is pathological in each and every intance is simply being consistant. Your argument would embarrass most 4th graders. You really seem like of those rare indivduals who has no sense of shame. If you do have a sense of shame, how can you sleep in your car at night?

  25. [25] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Don Harris,
    From your website:
    One Demand can be effective in 2016 with about 20 % national participation.

    Is that 20% of people who contribute to political candidates’ campaigns, 20% of registered voters who intend to vote in the upcoming election, or 20% of the total population regardless of whether they plan on voting?

    Just curious as to the percentage of Americans that donate to political campaigns in this country?

    Your site notes that you have had a grand total of 4 people register with Voucher Vendetta, or 1Demand, or whatever you are calling this scam since you hatched it back in 2014. How many zeros after the decimal point do you think you need to figure out what percentage these four people make up of the total number of national participants needed to make a difference?

    This is about the same percentage of voters as the Tea Party, but I believe that the desire to vote for “Hundred Dollar” candidates is shared by a much larger percentage of voters than the Tea Party platform of smaller government.

    Still waiting for that list of OneDamnMan candidates who have signed up with you???Tea Party candidates proudly announced where they stood on multiple issues that were important to their supporters and allowed them to claim that they were “Tea Party Candidates”.

    In fact because One Demand is a conservative free-market based approach to campaign financing, even many Tea Party members will participate in One Demand because those Tea Party members dislike and distrust corporations as much as they distrust and dislike government.

    How many of the four you signed up were Tea Partiers? Also, how exactly is OneintheHand “a conservative free-market based approach” to campaign financing? You offer nothing to the public that deserves their support. You offer nothing to get candidates on board with you. Your idea that voters should only give to small donation campaigns doesn’t need your group to make it happen. You want people to give you their info, but for what purpose? You don’t list any candidates on your site.

    But at least you did offer this Trump-worthy babble...
    With 20% national participation there will be some states below and some states above the 20% national average. If a state like New Jersey where I live were above the national average at 25 or 30% there would be some of our 12 congressional districts below our state average and some districts above the state average at 30, 35 or even near 40% of voters in that district committed to voting for “Hundred Dollar” candidates.

    How high were you when you wrote this, or, even better....how high do I need to be to understand the point you thought you were making?

    I am guessing that CW chose to write about the Collin’s Chest folks because they were an idea that people had clearly chosen to get behind and support. In other words, they demonstrated that they were NOT an idea that no one wanted to be associated with!

    Oh, just a “head’s up!”, a nice lady from NJ’s Attorney General’s office might be contacting you regarding your website and your non-profit status claims.

  26. [26] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    CW,

    When I first saw the headline, I thought, “Why does CW want to change Columbus Day to a holiday honoring a 70’s teenage heartthrob whose stardom burned out before the 80’s even began?”

    While there are lots of fun things you could do to make Leif Garrett Day a special holiday (Sadly, feathering your bangs and getting your mullet permed while downing shots of rubbing alcohol are the only things that comes to mind right now), I see why Leif Ericsson makes more sense.

    I think Trump’s desire to purchase Greenland is proof that he knows that climate change is real! Greenland is gonna be a beautiful tropical island soon enough and Trump wants dibs on where he gets to put some gawdy Trump-brand beachfront condos.

  27. [27] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Speak2

    While Joe Walsh did make the news this week, he wasn't the rep you said "You lie." That was Joe Wilson, who I think still serves as a rep from SC.

    Great catch! I tip my cap to you!

  28. [28] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki
    16

    Old man right-wingnut board troll obsessed with the posters on this board, fixated, possessed, and claiming repeatedly to know what we're thinking.

    Now, I ask you: Who's flipped?

    The common denominator of the trolls on this board is their ignorance regarding Mueller's investigation and how Trump's associates are filling up jail cells all over the country. Obviously, Trump's time will come when he's no longer president, but that sure as hell hasn't nor could it ever stop all the other Trump Trash from being prosecuted and incarcerated.

    Meanwhile, I would wager the trolls must really be butt hurt because their heads are demonstrably jammed so high up their own asses that they're obviously missing the big picture. See Appendix D, Mueller Report, heavily redacted. *laughs*

    Coming soon to a cellblock in America: Roger Stone, Michael "Misha" Flynn, and Paulie Manafort back in court for more brought to you by the Supreme Court of the United States and the separate sovereigns doctrine and sung to the tune of "New York, New York"!

    Get your popcorn ready. :)

  29. [29] 
    Kick wrote:

    Speak2
    17

    That was Joe Wilson, who I think still serves as a rep from SC.

    Hey... Speak2 speaks true!

    Sneaker! <--- the highest honor I bestow. :)

  30. [30] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Kick,

    Coming soon to a cellblock in America: Roger Stone, Michael "Misha" Flynn, and Paulie Manafort back in court for more brought to you by the Supreme Court of the United States and the separate sovereigns doctrine and sung to the tune of "New York, New York"!

    I LOVE it! I’m guessing there’s gonna be major betting for how many days after Trump leaves office before the first warrant is served! Or maybe “days” is being too generous...maybe it should be “hours” instead? With NY, it’ll be seconds after he steps foot in the state that he’ll be served...that’s a no brainer.

    Flynn decision to stop helping the DOJ in prosecuting his old lobbying business partner seems like the dumbest thing he could have done. Especially after the judge in his trial all but told him that he needed to provide more help unless he wanted a long prison sentence be handed down. Maybe Flynn’s new attorney’s were shown the pardon just needing Trump to add the date to it, but as unreliable as Trump has been when it comes to keeping his word, I don’t know if that’d be enough for me to trust him given the risk!

  31. [31] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Stig-
    Once again you are right that pointing out that someone is repeating a failed action is just being consistent.

    When CW repeats the same crap aboot whatever I consistently point it out.

    This is what Ralph Nader, CW and many others say people should do when promoting an idea and/or politicians, media, activists are ignoring an issue.

    I have not failed.

    There two ways I can fail.

    One is giving up.

    The other is for One Demand to be tried and not work.

    If it hasn't been tried then it can't have failed.

    And if CW feels that One Demand does not have merit then he should explain why he feels that way.

    He should start by answering the question in yesterday's comments.

    Do you have the courage to honestly answer that question?

    My guess is that your only attempt at answering the question will be the same bullshit dodges and changing what One Demand is to fit your argument against it because you can't argue against what it actually is.

  32. [32] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Listen-
    see comment 22 and 31.

    Funny how you criticize CRS for "knowing what other posters" think and you seem to know what CW thinks.

    I would like to know what CW thinks aboot One Demand and I keep asking him because he has not provided a real answer the few times he responded with dodges and changing what One Demand is to fit his argument against it and he is the only one that can do anything other than guess what he thinks.

  33. [33] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Kick

    As long as you are trying to redefine your utter and catastrophic loss in attempting to bring down Trump as some sort of victory because you got three of his flunkies, don't forget those two dozen Russian hackers trembling in fear over being indicted by Mueller for revealing that Clinton stacked the Dem primary deck against Sanders.

    Admittedly, it ain't much solace when compared to the magnitude of your PTSD affliction, but hey, when your head is disappearing beneath the waves, a straw is better than nothin'.

    Kick

    While you're thinking up ways to redefin your disasterous

  34. [34] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Oops, sorry for the double up.

  35. [35] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Don Harris,

    Funny how you criticize CRS for "knowing what other posters" think and you seem to know what CW thinks.

    Let’s take a look at the replay....

    I am GUESSING that CW chose to write about the Collin’s Chest folks because they were an idea that people had clearly chosen to get behind and support.

    I am not sure how I could have stated any more clearly that I was guessing the reason why CW chose to write about them.

    You ignore everyone here who has tried to help you understand the obvious reasons why no one has written about your imaginary movement. There is absolutely NOTHING to write about! You don’t give a shit about actually putting in the work needed to start a movement as ambitious as you have claimed you believe it could become. Your website is proof of that!

    So let me ask you this...what do you think CW would be able to write about 1DamnMan? What ACTUALLY does the group do? You want people to register, but why should they? What good can come from giving you their personal information? The site is a joke minus the punchline... and no matter what anyone reports about the idea, no one who takes the time to visit your website is going to want to be involved.

    To be fair, CW could report that since you first introduced your website promoting your idea (circa 2014?) you have had a grand total of 4 people register (according to your site) their support. Four people....and the likelihood that one or more of the four is actually you is pretty great.

    You expect people to pledge to only vote for small donation candidates... yet your site does not list any. Zero! CW could try calling the campaign headquarters for every candidate in the country and he would not find a single person who is aware of 1D.

    You have argued that you think that 1D could motivate someone who hasn’t voted in years to get excited about voting again... but for who? There are no candidates that are signed up. So that excited person will be more disillusioned for your getting their hopes up! Your idea actually will lead to fewer people voting in elections...not more!

    You tell people that they should vote for themselves (write in) if there is no small donation candidate on the ballot to send a message supporting your idea...but that will mean writing in your own name for every position on the ballot! What message is being sent other than “I just wasted my vote”?

    I have asked you multiple times if you knew what percentage of registered voters donate to political campaigns, but you have never offered a direct response to this question. You think that if you could possibly get 20% of registered voters(???) to sign up, you would change how campaign finance works.

    So again, what is CW supposed to write about 1D? Your “organization” does nothing but attempt to get people’s personal info.

    You love to play the “could it possibly work” card, but the honest answer is actually, “No, this could never work!” You might have created the one thing that will be constant across every possible alternate reality... 1D is just a bad idea born from good intentions.

  36. [36] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Damn it...forgot to preview before submitting

  37. [37] 
    TheStig wrote:

    DH-

    I, and others have repeatedly failed to convince you that both your concept, and how you market your concept, are deeply flawed and doomed to failure. I always get the same nonsensical denials from you. So, I can predict the outcome of any discussion and further dialog with you would indeed be insane on my part. I will therefore skip reading your insane prattle... by manual or automated means, depending on the frequency and length of the prattle.

  38. [38] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Paula-23

    Dayton had a similar, but smaller (much smaller) incursion of White Nationalists (KKK) prior to the shooting. Dayton police confined them to a play pen and counter demonstrators probably outnumbered the KKK by at least 100 to 1. Cost to the taxpayers but high, but money well spent in my opinion. One of the armed counter marchers was the Dayton Shooter - who just seems to have enjoyed marching around with a firearm. The Dayton shooter was clearly mentally unfit to carry sharp objects, let alone a firearm. Lot's of warning, no red flag laws. There were an awful lot of red flags over a period of many years leading up to the carnage.

  39. [39] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @russ [35],

    is it actually a bad idea? if so, why? i've always thought the basic premise of keeping a database and grading candidates based on how egalitarian their campaign funding is was pretty good, and the main problems were planning, execution, and unwillingness to adapt.

    well, also just generally being mean to people who aren't interested (cw, for example). and consistently misspelling 'about' in a way that mocks Canadians... but that's more of a personnel problem.

    anyhow, let's say you're setting up an organization dedicated to pie-based voting. doesn't the pie promote itself?

    ;)
    JL

  40. [40] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Nypoet-

    Thank you.

    The commenters here seem to be willing to classify One Demand as a bad idea but can never explain why.

    They seem willing to "prattle on" aboot what One Demand isn't, claim I haven't addressed things that were addressed and even repeat the nonsense that has been addressed in the same comment thread.

    For example, Listen continuing to argue that since no one is supporting One Demand that is a valid reason for CW to not write aboot One Demand.

    Listen even makes my point when saying CW could call all the candidates and he would not find one person that is aware of One Demand.

    However, once CW called all the candidates they would be aware of One Demand.

    CW could also call every eligible voter and ask them if they've heard of One Demand and get pretty much the same result, but then they would be aware of One Demand.

    Of course, this would be a terribly inefficient way to make people aware of One Demand.

    A much more efficient way would be for CW to write aboot One Demand.

    And if CW feels One Demand is not worthy of writing aboot he should explain why.

    CW, Ralph Nader and many others are always saying people should not take no answer for an answer and should continue asking when they don't get an answer and should shame people, call them names, etc. when asking nice hasn't been working.

    Yet somehow when I do that to CW I am being mean.

    CW and Ralph may never live up to the standards they set for others or recognize that I am doing exactly what they say I should do, but I will keep doing it anyway because if I don't there is no chance they will ever have the light bulb come on.

    Scotty: You don't really expect to get an answer, do you?
    Spock: I expect nothing. It is simply logical to explore all alternatives.
    -Star Trek
    The Galileo Seven

  41. [41] 
    Paula wrote:

    [38] TS: Ick re: march in Dayton. But it's good these marches generally flop in that there's always more anti-marchers and bless those people for showing up!

  42. [42] 
    dsws wrote:

    I don't think our focus in space should be on sending people. Machines are a better option for everything except studying the effects of space travel on people, and that's only necessary because we keep sending people.

    But if we are going to put people on the moon, I would rather have us open it up to new firms instead of having the same old politically connected contractors do everything.

    So with those caveats, I am sort of in favor of what Gingrich is saying here: https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/19/newt-gingrich-michael-jackson-moon-1466853.

  43. [43] 
    TheStig wrote:

    NYpoet-39

    "i've always thought the basic premise of keeping a database and grading candidates based on how egalitarian their campaign funding is was pretty good."

    Opensecrets.org already does this very well. There are other internet organizations that do roughly the same thing. It costs money and takes serious information and web building skills to track our convoluted political fundraising machines. DH can't even build and update a decent meet & greet website after more than 6 years of trying. Not everybody can make it to the big leagues.

  44. [44] 
    TheStig wrote:

    DWS-42

    "But if we are going to put people on the moon, I would rather have us open it up to new firms instead of having the same old politically connected contractors do everything."

    NASA seems to agree with you. NASA is focusing on developing new cutting edge technologies and deep space exploration, but is not so interested in colonization.

  45. [45] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    nypoet22,

    is it actually a bad idea? if so, why? i've always thought the basic premise of keeping a database and grading candidates based on how egalitarian their campaign funding is was pretty good, and the main problems were planning, execution, and unwillingness to adapt.

    Keeping a database and grading candidates based on how egalitarian their campaign funding is a good idea...but what does that have to do with OneDemand?

    I’ve looked through the website and have found nothing of what you speak of being offered. This is why I have stated over and over again that OneDemand offers absolutely NOTHING for voters OR for candidates to make it worth even mentioning his site to anyone.

    If I have promised to only vote for small donation candidates and there are none running, I am instructed to write in my own name on the ballot instead of supporting a candidate that actually wants the job! I am assured that my writing in my own name will, “send a message that we want small donation candidates to get our votes,” but they never tell me exactly how my write in vote will convey that message! The site wants me to promise to only vote for small donation candidates while not finding me any to support! Why isn’t Don trying to find which candidates would qualify for his support instead of expecting them to seek him out!?!?

    JL, Don wants to start a movement, just as long as he doesn’t have to put too much time into it!

  46. [46] 
    TheStig wrote:

    LWYH -45

    And gets to run the show.

  47. [47] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki
    33
    wrote:
    Kick
    As long as you are trying to redefine your utter and catastrophic loss in attempting to bring down Trump as some sort of victory because you got three of his flunkies, don't forget those two dozen Russian hackers trembling in fear over being indicted by Mueller for revealing that Clinton stacked the Dem primary deck against Sanders.
    Admittedly, it ain't much solace when compared to the magnitude of your PTSD affliction, but hey, when your head is disappearing beneath the waves, a straw is better than nothin'.
    Kick
    While you're thinking up ways to redefin your disasterous

  48. [48] 
    Kick wrote:

    EDIT

    C. R. Stucki
    33

    Ignore that above. My computer is as nuts as Stucki!

    Stucki, Trump can't be indicted for any federal crimes until he leaves office. They're neither my rules or my definitions. I know you're trying desperately to keep up with the rest of us, old man, but the more you ramble on, the dumber you sound... just like the Idiot-in-Chief.

    Admittedly, it ain't much solace when compared to the magnitude of your PTSD affliction, but hey, when your head is disappearing beneath the waves, a straw is better than nothin'.

    I meet on a regular basis with soldiers who actually do have PTSD, and it's not a laughing matter when you consider what they've sacrificed for the rest of us. As for your admission about your straw and your head disappearing up your backside, there are diapers they make for geezers like you that can capture those waves, which might or might not help you: Depends. :)

  49. [49] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    30

    I know, right!?

    It's fixin'ta get interestin' again. ;)

  50. [50] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Kick [49]

    Yeah, but he CAN be impeached! What happened to Impeached?

    Face it, nut job, you were dead wrong for 3 yrs, and that's FAR WORSE (in your case, at least) than ANYTHING those soldiers had to face, which is why your PTSD is also far worse than theirs.

  51. [51] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    For example, Listen continuing to argue that since no one is supporting One Demand that is a valid reason for CW to not write aboot One Demand.

    There is nothing about One Demand for anyone to support...that why I keep asking you what it is that you believe CW could say about it! You want people to only vote for candidates that accept small donations or to waste their vote by writing in their own name if there are no candidates that meet your criteria running for election.

    You expect everyone who signs up to donate money to the campaigns of these small donor candidates. But as there are not any candidates that you have gotten on board with your idea, there is no one for people who sign up to donate to — which makes your over the top estimates of how much One Demand supporters could raise in the election cycle down right delusional!!!

    Listen even makes my point when saying CW could call all the candidates and he would not find one person that is aware of One Demand.

    However, once CW called all the candidates they would be aware of One Demand.

    Wow! Talk about telling on yourself! Don, if all CW has to do is call them to make them “aware” of One Demand, why haven’t you already done this?

    If someone calls the wrong number to your home looking for “Mary”, how much do you know about Mary after having been made “aware” of her???

  52. [52] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki
    50

    Yeah, but he CAN be impeached! What happened to Impeached?

    How many times do I have to reiterate that I don't believe Trump will be impeached? It's like your brain is gone, old man.

    Face it, nut job, you were dead wrong for 3 yrs, and that's FAR WORSE (in your case, at least) than ANYTHING those soldiers had to face, which is why your PTSD is also far worse than theirs.

    Face it, troll: Appendix D, and you wouldn't know where to find your ass but for the fact that it's that thing your head is wedged far up inside. :)

  53. [53] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    51

    Wow! Talk about telling on yourself! Don, if all CW has to do is call them to make them “aware” of One Demand, why haven’t you already done this?

    He explains clearly and in plain English in his bio on his website that he's an idiot. Perhaps it's just that simple. ;)

    If someone calls the wrong number to your home looking for “Mary”, how much do you know about Mary after having been made “aware” of her???

    Who is Mary Jane? ;)

Comments for this article are closed.