ChrisWeigant.com

Grin And Bear It?

[ Posted Wednesday, March 11th, 2020 – 17:09 UTC ]

The stock market is now officially in bear market territory. Thus endeth the longest bull market in history, which lasted for the 11 years from just after the Great Recession's end until now. For those unfamiliar with the terms, the "bear market" designation is defined as: "losing 20 percent from the market's peak." Less than a month ago, the Dow Jones Industrial Average topped 29,500. Today it closed right around 23,500 -- a loss of roughly 6,000 points. And we may not have hit bottom, although with the current volatility it's tough to tell.

There is no word as of yet on how Donald Trump is taking this news. But it wouldn't surprise me to hear he's throwing an epic tantrum right about now. Trump has always been rather obsessed with the stock market, and he has claimed all the credit for its rise under his presidency. Now that the market is tanking, it seriously undermines his entire campaign theme, which is that the American economy "has never been better," and that the only way to continue such good times is for the voters to re-elect him. That's a tough argument to make when the market goes through 1,000-point drops multiple times in a single week, obviously.

Trump has already started flailing around in an effort to shift all the blame to someone else -- anyone else, really. This was always to be expected from Trump, of course. Nothing that goes wrong is ever his fault, according to him, so why should a bear market be any different? But the American public doesn't really see things this way, because they've always given credit (even when unearned) to presidents for good economic times and they've always assigned blame (even when unearned) to presidents for bad economic times. It's just a fact of political life, really, no matter how unfair it may be -- in either direction.

I'd be willing to bet that the market hitting bear territory isn't going to be the worst market news possible for Trump, though. Because there's another milestone which may be looming which will be even worse for his political chances -- and his political legacy in general. That point would be the Dow falling below 20,000 points. It would only take another week or two of further collapse for this to happen, if the past two weeks have been any indication of future performance (as the stock analysts like to say). I draw the line at 20,000 for a reason, and the reason is that this is roughly the point where the stock market was when Trump was sworn in on January 20, 2017. The official close of that day was just over 19,800, but it took less than a week for it to climb above 20,000, so that's close enough.

If the market does fall below this level, it will have lost roughly a third of its value. This is on track with past bear markets, historically. But more important politically will be the argument: "the market has now given up all its gains under Donald Trump's presidency, leaving it right back where it began before he took office." That's a pretty potent milestone, you've got to admit.

Of course, the market could recover somewhat. Even if it does drop below 20,000, it'll probably have climbed back above this point by November, when the election is held. Stock indexes are fickle things, and (as we've just seen) are capable of wild swings in either direction. So what may be more important politically for Trump is what the unemployment rate does in the next two months or so. Now, the unemployment rate is a lot less volatile than the stock market, even in the midst of a crisis. So it's not going to experience the wild swings we're now seeing in the market. But it is the second most important number to keep track of, because it is the second economic indicator that Trump himself obsesses over.

The unemployment rate will be affected by several things at once -- the stock market's decline, the now-prevalent opinion that a recession is either right around the corner or already here, and the effects of the coronavirus and the economic fallout from any preventative measures taken for it. That last one may prove to be the biggest one, because if sporting events like professional basketball and baseball games start being played to empty arenas and ballparks, that means a whole bunch of people are going to get laid off. Likewise, the airline and cruise industries are already hurting badly and will likely continue to experience customer collapse for some time to come. These are just a few examples of many, though, because if people start studiously avoiding crowds, that means: less shopping, less meals eaten out, less use of public transit, less travel in general, and all sorts of other ripple effects. And when the customers disappear, so do the jobs. Furthermore, there is little anyone can do to counter this effect, at least until after the coronavirus emergency passes. Congress can pass emergency paid sick leave, but that's not going to help anyone who gets laid off, because without a job there is no sick leave available.

As mentioned, though, unemployment numbers usually don't swing all that wildly, so this will be a somewhat-delayed and gradual change, most likely. Nobody is predicting an unemployment spike like we saw in the Great Recession, at least so far. But it may not be the absolute value of the actual unemployment rate so much as which way the trend is heading. If the numbers get worse every month for multiple months, that's going to directly affect how average people see the economy as a whole.

Take away the booming stock market and the record unemployment rate lows, and Trump is robbed of his favorite two things to boast about while campaigning. If more Americans feel like "things are getting worse" rather than "things are getting better" then it's going to be a lot easier for Democrats to defeat Trump, obviously.

None of this is guaranteed, however. The bear market could stabilize at a new low and start creeping back upward once again. Congress could pass some emergency stimulus bill that Wall Street approves of, and it could turn things around to some degree or another. The coronavirus emergency could be short-lived and pass within the next two months, which would put a whole lot of people back to work again. But no matter if the best-case scenario does happen, Trump's braggadocio about what an economic genius he is will take a major hit. If Trump continues to tell everyone that things are just fine and everything's rosy when people can plainly see that that's not the case, he's going to look wildly out of touch.

So far, Trump's reactions have been doing nothing more than making things worse. He still has yet to acknowledge the depths of the emergency we're all faced with. He routinely contradicts his own medical professionals. He hasn't really addressed the bear market yet, but he'll doubtlessly come up with some sort of spin about how none of it is in any way his fault.

This is not the sort of leadership Americans want to see during an emergency. Happy talk is going to appear more and more unmoored from reality. Grinning and bearing it isn't going to cut it, especially not if that big bad bear keeps right on rampaging on Wall Street.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

117 Comments on “Grin And Bear It?”

  1. [1] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    the bear would be doing a lot more grinning if he would eat some bleeping pie!

  2. [2] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    When it comes to the stock market I will only grin when we bury it.

    Let's kill it off while it is vulnerable.

    Then we can rebuild it properly.

    No more preferential treatment for buying and selling stocks when it comes to taxes.

    If we are going to reward investing reward investing, not speculating on stock prices going up or down.

    If you buy stock in a company that makes a profit and pays a dividend you get a lower tax rate as an investor on the dividends.

    If you buy stock and sell it at a profit in less than one year you pay 90% tax on the profit.

    Between 1 year and two years, 80% tax on the profit. This continues until eventually reaching a minimum- the rate of tax on dividends.

    It could be more than a coincidence that the stock market has reached such high levels over the last few decades at the very same time that the availability of jobs that pay enough to live on have been disappearing.

    I wonder if a small donor only candidate would be more likely to end the wall street scam than a candidate that depends on big money to run their campaign?

    It could be really entertaining to watch all those wall street workers find out what it is like to work at McDonalds or Walmart and survive on that money.

  3. [3] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    The stock market is ALWAYS a bull market- BULLSHIT.

    It is a parasite. A disease.

    It needs to die.

    It kills too many people every year to justify keeping it alive.

    The people that depend on it are much less of the population than the people hurt by it (even if they are not killed) and all those people can easily be taken care of as we transition away from the vampire economy once wall street is dead because government will no longer be working for and directing government resources to benefit wall street.

  4. [4] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "Free falling, I'm a free falling..."
    Tom Petty

  5. [5] 
    MyVoice wrote:

    DH,

    Is it possible that either Bernie and/or Biden as the nominee making the small donor only commitment for the general election could get 3-5% of presidential election cycle voters to contribute an average of 100 dollars in contributions of no more than 200 dollars from any one donor?
    If not, why not?

    This question lacks foundation. On average, what percentage of election cycle voters make contributions of any amount to presidential candidates? What sort of increase would this be over the current state?
    To give it some perspective, I looked at the most recent figures based on FEC filings I could find. ProPublica's Election Databot> has figures though January 31. Bernie Sanders has raised more than any other candidate who is not self-financed and has received the largest percentage of his total in small donations.
    Sanders reported having raised $134M, with 61% (~$81.8M) in donations under $200. To quote ProPublica: <i.These figures are only from each candidate's official campaign; they do not include party committee or joint fundraising committee totals.
    If we take these numbers at face value as individual donations and do not worry about small contribution donors, this represents about 16.4% of what small donor Sanders would need to take in to reach the lower rung (half a billion dollars) of your possibility estimates, if he would declare himself a small donor candidate. As another point of reference, by January 31, the top 4 candidates in terms of receipts (Sanders, Warren, Buttigieg, and Biden, in that order) reported a total of $380M in donations.
    I rate it as inconceivable that Sanders could, over the course of a full campaign, raise 6X more money by declaring as a small donor candidate. I still have no idea what percentage of voters this current total represents and no foundation on which to gauge what I think a reasonable rate of increased donors might be, if I bought into your assumption that declaring as a small donor would attract more donors.

    Could this get one in non-voters to vote in the general election for the Dem nominee that would stay home without the commitment adding 6% of the total vote to what the Dem nominee would already get?
    If not, why not?

    As I pointed out in an earlier answer, we have no idea how many eligible non-voters don’t vote just because there are no small donor candidates or, of that population, how many are democrats. Nor do we know how many people would go register if they heard there was a small donor candidate. Based on no information, I find I’m unable to gauge how likely your scenario is, especially since you left out a key word in your ratio. That said, I consider a 6% change in vote totals to be improbably high.

    Would anyone that would vote for the Dem nominee without the commitment not vote for the Dem if they made the commitment?
    If not, why not?

    I can’t think why it would change much, unless there’s some consensus that it was a poor decision. I go with it won’t change support perceptibly.

  6. [6] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    Grin and bear it is good advice and what I'll be doing for the foreseeable future.

    However, bearing what has become of the comments sections at your excellent blog - despite the obvious bright spots - is on its way to becoming quite impossible.

    Indeed, the situation may require some serious intervention.

  7. [7] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: That last one may prove to be the biggest one, because if sporting events like professional basketball and baseball games start being played to empty arenas and ballparks, that means a whole bunch of people are going to get laid off.

    So it'd be a shame if they cancelled sporting events like professional basketball indefinitely, wouldn't you say? They wouldn't do that, would they?

    https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/11/us/nba-season-suspended-spt-trnd/index.html

  8. [8] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: He hasn't really addressed the bear market yet, but he'll doubtlessly come up with some sort of spin about how none of it is in any way his fault.

    Give Trump a little credit, CW; he's more likely to come up with some sort of fabricated bullshit about how it's all the fault of the Obama-Biden administration, naturally.

  9. [9] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Andrew Yang's proposal for basic individual income is looking pretty good right now. In fact, this may be the ideal time to begin its delivery.

  10. [10] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Aside from Yang's proposal, what we are seeing now in the global response to this novel coronavirus is how indispensable US global leadership is and how damaging - to the US and rest of the world - president Trump's 'America First' worldview can be.

  11. [11] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, on the bright side ahem, there is some hope out there for a market recovery in the last month of 2020!!

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    He hasn't really addressed the bear market yet, but he'll doubtlessly come up with some sort of spin about how none of it is in any way his fault.

    Of COURSE it's not his fault..

    Ya'all have made that ABUNDANTLY clear....

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    FPC,

    That was the first mention of my being an FSO that I can find. I am sure a more diligent search will turn up earlier referrals..

    I stand corrected... that was before my time..

    Yes it was.. So why not shut the fuck up when you don't know what you are talking about.. Eh??

    but it is odd that you didn’t bring these job positions up until you were busted lying about denying that you had claimed that you had been in law enforcement for almost 25 years.

    Except I was never busted for lying because I never lied about it...

    So, except for those facts, you are STILL full of shit.. :D

    You denied saying you had been in law enforcement for almost 25 years a few months back, but back in 2007 you were claiming almost 30 years in the field! You just cannot keep up with your own lies, can you???

    Son, when you get to be my age, 5 years doesn't amount to a whole lotta hill of beans..

    Of course, if a person is ALWAYS wrong and ALWAYS PROVEN to be full of shit, as you are, I can imagine you would want to grasp at ANY semblance of a factual story..

    Even if it's STILL a bullshit one..

    Also....Notice in your post that you claim the only law enforcement experience you had was during your time in the military!

    That's because in the context of the discussion in 2007, we were only talking about the military.. My civilian LEO days would not have been relevant...

    DUH....

    But when all is said and done, you have ONCE AGAIN, conceded you were full of shit when you claimed I "just added" FSO to my public safety resume..

    You LIED, Russ... And I, ONCE AGAIN, caught you in your lie..

    Now shut the fuck up before you embarrass yourself further..

  14. [14] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [5]

    Don Harris, this person summarizes the possible flaws/unreasonable assumptions about how small doner would scare up a significant number of new contributors and voters.

    I believe Bernie's policies more closely match our country than does Joe's. But Dems obsession with "electability" has the party rushing to Biden. It isn't, er, fair. But that's the way it is.

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    FPC

    Victoria,

    Not to defend Don Harris and his regular BS in any way

    Except that's exactly what you are doing...

    but you lecturing him considering some of the comments you've posted just reeks with the stench of entitlement.

    Are you saying I think I am ENTITLED here??

    OF COURSE I AM!!!! DUH....

    "Arrogant!!?? Of course I'm arrogant!! I've EARNED it!!"
    -Q, STAR TREK

    I have known CW ten times longer than you have, dearest one.. Ten times longer than ANYONE else here save JL and Liz...

    So yea.. I *AM* entitled to defend him..

    I have EARNED that right... Come talk to me, honey, when you have as much time in Weigantian as I do... :D

    As always, my best to you and yours.. :D

  16. [16] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    I say, tax investment and passive income at the same rates as earned income. Why should the same folks who gave us the Great Recession get to pay less?
    Next, if we lift the cap on Social Security (above ~$110K there's not 7.65% or 15.3% SSA tax.) This would ensure the programs solvency for the rest of the 21st century.

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    I believe Bernie's policies more closely match our country than does Joe's.

    We must be living on parallel dimensions..

    You must be living in the dimension where the USSR did not disband and won the cold war..

    THAT would be the dimension where Bernie's policies more closely match the US's policies..

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    Give Trump a little credit, CW; he's more likely to come up with some sort of fabricated bullshit about how it's all the fault of the Obama-Biden administration, naturally.

    Why not??

    Ya'all said that the great economy was because of the Odumbo-Biden administration.

    So, it naturally follows that, if that economy is no longer great, then logically, it's the FAULT of the Odumbo-Biden Administration..

    You see how that works, honey-bunch??

  19. [19] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Toss in a $15/hour minimum wage, Medicare for all who want it, free pre-K and child care services and free public college education and we'll have a real chance of catching up to Scandinavia.

    Why shouldn't we Americans be as happy as Scandinavia?

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    I knew this would happen..

    After spending the last 3+ years making the hysterical and bullshit claim that it was OBAMA who was responsible for the awesome economy.... Now that circumstances beyond *ANYONE*'s control has forced a downturn, NOW....

    ALL OF THE SUDDEN....

    President Trump is responsible for the Stock Market..

    After **YEARS** of saying ODUMBO was responsible... now all the sudden, it's President Trump who is responsible..

    So, basically, ya'all want to give President Trump all the blame when things are bad and NONE of the credit when things are good..

    Could ya'all be ANY MORE BLATANTLY and PATHETICALLY partisan and hypocritical???

    I doubt it.. But I am sure ya'all will surprise me between now and 4 Nov....

  21. [21] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    MtnCaddy,

    I'm sorry to say that what you don't know about Joe Biden is a lot.

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why shouldn't we Americans be as happy as Scandinavia?

    Because we can't be.. Scandinavia is not the only remaining Superpower..

    Do you HONESTLY believe that Scandinavia shares even a FRACTION of the world responsibilities that the US has???

    I mean, com'on MC.. Don't be so naive...

    Basically, what you are asking is "Why shouldn't a CEO of a major corporation be as happy as a 2 year old child??"

    Because the CEO has thousands of responsibilities every minute and the 2 yr old's biggest responsibility is to make sure it doesn't poop itself..

    Do you see the utter ridiculousness of what you are saying???

    You really need to come back to reality.. If only for your OWN happiness....

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm sorry to say that what you don't know about Joe Biden is a lot.

    "Give it to him good, Carrie!! Give it to him good!!"
    -Crowd, CAROUSEL

    :D

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why shouldn't we Americans be as happy as Scandinavia?

    One of the Left Wingers BIGGEST problem (they have so many) is that they think that comparing to other countries is the sure-fire logical argument..

    America is unique throughout the world..

    What works in Liechtenstein with it's population of 38,000 won't work in the US with it's 327 million population..

    Gun Control, healthcare, etc etc.. Just because it works one way in lesser countries doesn't mean it's going to work the same way in THIS country..

    America is unique.. With it's SOLE Superpower status, it has a unique set of issues and a unique set of problems..

    Democrats really need to come to grips with this fact if they ever hope to govern again..

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    New York Times' Mara Gay mocked for attacking 'racist Twitter mob' following MSNBC math fiasco
    https://www.foxnews.com/media/new-york-times-mara-gay-msnbc-math-fiasco

    Ya gotta give Democrats credit where credit is due.

    They *EXCEL* at playing the victim..

    "Oooo oooo pity me.. I a black person whose ancestors hundreds of years ago were slaves.. Ooooo pity me.. It's not my fault I am ignorant and don't have more than two brain cells to rub together.. Oooo oooooo Pity me.. I am a victim! ooooooo oooooooo"

    EPIC :eyeroll:

    Typical Democrat..

    Every thing good is because of them and everything bad is someone else's fault..

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    TRUMP TRAVEL BAN!!!!!

    Trump restricts travel from Europe to fight spread of coronavirus
    https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/487154-trump-announces-executive-actions-to-curb-coronavirus-outbreak-in-oval

    Has the peanut gallery fallen asleep on the job???

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump: the First Black President

    I never thought, in all my years of serving the most underserved black people on the planet, that I would be called an “Uncle Tom.”

    However, that is exactly what happened to me and other community leaders and patriots last week after we attended a Black History Month event hosted by President Trump at the White House.

    We were gathered to celebrate the historic achievements that President Trump has secured for black Americans. From resurrecting American inner cities with Opportunity Zones to record-low unemployment, rising wages, criminal justice reform, record-high funding for HBCUs, and fighting for school choice, President Trump has accomplished what Democrat politicians have long promised — and failed — to deliver.

    That is why I proudly called President Trump the first Black President — not because of the color of his skin, but because of the content of his administration’s victories. He is the first president to have a real agenda for Black America.
    https://townhall.com/columnists/jackbrewer/2020/03/09/trump-the-first-black-president-n2564154

    It's amazing how racist and full of hate the Democrat Party is..

    Well, not so amazing when you consider that the Democrat Party gave us the KKK and racism in America...

    So I guess it makes sense..

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    That last one may prove to be the biggest one, because if sporting events like professional basketball and baseball games start being played to empty arenas and ballparks, that means a whole bunch of people are going to get laid off.

    "Would ya miss it? Huh?? Would ya??"
    -President, AUSTN POWERS: The Spy Who Shagged Me

    :D

    I mean, let's face it..

    WHO watches basketball and baseball anymore??? :D

  29. [29] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [21]

    Then set me straight about Joe, EM.

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    Then set me straight about Joe, EM.

    How much time ya got?? :D

  31. [31] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    ... as I see Joe, he's
    undeniably one of the good guys. He occupies the "moderate lane" along with Kamala, Cory, Amy, Beto et al.

    Since Reagan in 1981 our 2 parties have concentrated America's wealth into the hands of the top 10% and especially the top 1%. Simply put only the bold Progressive policies of Bernie or Elizabeth will give us a chance to return to the halcyon days of the the 50s and 60s. You know, when the top tax rate was 91% and most of our country prospered.

    For the record I was deeply disappointed with Obama. After the nightmare of "W" this country was SO ready for some "Hope & Change" action, don't you remember? Obama had both houses of Congress in 2009-2010 he could've been as transformative as effing FDR, for Christ's sake. But nooo. He effing wussed out.

  32. [32] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller I sussed you as a Biden supporter early on. That's why you're the perfect Gal to womansplain Joe to me. I'm being sincere, oh my fellow Weigantian.

    Signed-
    A Bernie Bro (but I'm getting better)

  33. [33] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    As Elizabeth didn't endorse Bernie when she folded up her campaign, I believe the odds are better than 50-50 she gets the nod to be Joe's VP.

  34. [34] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [2]

    Don Harris wrote,

    If you buy stock and sell it at a profit in less than one year you pay 90% tax on the profit.

    Between 1 year and two years, 80% tax on the profit. This continues until eventually reaching a minimum- the rate of tax on dividends.

    The trouble with this, recalls former Accounting major (me,) is that these punative tax rates mean that the number of these quick "get in and get out at a profit" opportunities will decline, possibly discouraging the flow of capital to businesses that employ people to do things.

    Just making them pay the same rate on capital gains as on earned income will get the lion's share of the job done, Amigo.

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    MC,

    For the record I was deeply disappointed with Obama.

    Did you articulate that disappointment at the time??

    Or did you fall into line like a good Democrat??

    That's the problem with practically everyone else here..

    They are Democrats first and foremost..

    And Americans a far FAR distant second..

  36. [36] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    I articulated my bitter disappointment in Obama to any and all who would listen. At the time. I only stumbled across CW a couple years ago, and perhaps a year ago I discovered CW's small, deeply disturbed following in this here comments section. Yeah, Obama cleaned up after W and didn't invade Iran, but he was such a p*ssy.

  37. [37] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Cain't give Obama much more than a C-

  38. [38] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Dude, I voted for John Anderson and Ross "I'm all Ears" Perot, so it ain't quite a Democratic Jones I got going on

  39. [39] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Furthermore, Ralph Nader was right: both Dems and Repugs serve the rich (no shit, Don Harris) and let us fight over social issues.

  40. [40] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    IMO Eisenhower was the last good Repug President, and I would vote for any Repug like Ike.

  41. [41] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Mtn Caddy (39)-
    You just answered your own question on what Biden is all about.

  42. [42] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Truth be told, as unsuitable as Trump appeared in 2016, in a way I'm glad that he beat Hillary "MtnCaddy had to hold his nose to vote for her" Clinton. That's because the day after Trump's inauguration a million gals marched against him. Trump's unexpected victory awakened us Progressives in a way that 4-8 years of moderate Hillaryism would never have. So there's that.

  43. [43] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Thanks, Don. You're a smart guy and I like it when credible people agree with me - woot!

    Okay, Michale. You clearly love Trump. But aside from that do you agree with my [39] above? You're a smart guy too, so how do you see it, Dawg?

  44. [44] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Mtn Caddy (34)-
    So you are saying my plan would work?

    The purpose is to stop the quick get in and get out profit making opportunities. This will free up that capital wasted on quick get in and out profit making opportunities on businesses that don't do things for the businesses that do things.

    It will result in more capital for businesses that do things.

  45. [45] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [28]

    Michale, lotsa people all over the planet watch both baseball and basketball. Demographically, our youth is way more into hoops than baseball.

  46. [46] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Then set me straight about Joe, EM.

    How much time ya got?? :D

    Well... it's 0456 and you and I and Don are all up and awake, bapping away. So I'd say that time isn't a material factor. Michale please answer my question to you in [43] J wanna know how you see it. If you happen to agree with me, don't worry: I won't tell the others who would otherwise take advantage of your weakness haha

  47. [47] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    My voice-
    Basically what you are saying is that because you choose to ignore or just not believe anything that indicates it could work because it doesn't definitively prove that it will work that this somehow shows it won't work?

    Again you keep ignoring that trends and the Knight Report show it is possible. You are just choosing not to admit it. And the only way to find out about the things we don't know for sure is to try it.

    You also keep ignoring that the alternative that you want to stick has over the last few decades been proven NOT TO WORK.

    How does it make sense to not try something that trends and information clearly show could work and stick with something that we KNOW doesn't work?

    You are Truman.

    You need to face reality, say "In case I don't see ya, good afternoon, good evening and good night" to the big money candidates and walk out the door into the real world.

    There may not be any more truth out there than in the fantasy world created for you, but at least it will be real.

  48. [48] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [44]

    Don, I gotta chew on your idea(s) some more. We, perhaps on an evening when I haven't drank half a bottle of Chivas and then couldn't fall asleep. I'm obviously not entirely comfortable with either this taxation scheme nor OneDemand. But it feels like there's something there in both and that makes them worthy of further consideration.

  49. [49] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    ChIvas for everyone!!!!!! :D

  50. [50] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Screw the free college- free Chivas!

  51. [51] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Don please refresh my memory re "trends and the Knight report." I think these issues are too important to "ignore" material information, amirite?

    I don't need a guarantee that something WILL work. That's not reasonable. And, what, 80% of us want BigMoney out of politics.

    So...
    (1) I want info and guidance from you, and,
    (2) I want info and guidance from Elizabeth Miller re a fresh look at Biden.

    Please.
    Do.
    Help.
    Y'all.

  52. [52] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    MntCaddy[33],

    Senator Warren still believes that the AIG situation in 2008/09 could have been better resolved by US bankruptcy laws. Which makes her unsuitable for the vice presidency.

    Her views on the Great Recession may even be enough to preclude her leadership of the CFPB - though, that may be the best place for her given her role in setting it up in the first place and her background in financial reforms.

    One thing you should know about Biden is that he will choose wisely when it comes to his running mate and broader cabinet.

    Choosing a running mate is a complicated one but the choice must be completely in line with Biden's governing philosophy and be so well-equipped as to take on any critical role Biden delegates.

    Picking a running mate is not a popularity contest. It is a very serious matter.

  53. [53] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Furthermore...

    I note that a 60% turnout for any election here in 'Murica is a good result. In my 61 years, split between Detroit and SoCal, I've met some of the 40% who don't vote. They don't vote because
    (1) They think it's rigged and it hardly matters who or what they vote for, and, (2) They, like ignorant peasants, and just don't give a fuck. I'm not convinced that a "small donor campaign" is gonna get these folk's sttent6, ya see?

  54. [54] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    See. That's how you are supposed to do things.

    Seize the opportunity.

    The Dems are desperate to beat Trump and citizens can use that desperation to demand that the Dem nominee and down ballot candidates run small donor only campaigns.

    The Dems need us more than we need them because we don't need them to work for the big money interests- we need them to work for us.

    And if we tell them they will not get our votes unless they run small donor only campaigns they will either stop taking big money or they will lose.

    Opportunity is knocking.

    Seize the opportunity.

  55. [55] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz-
    Choosing a running mate is important.

    Why has Biden chosen the big money interests as his financial running mate instead of ordinary citizens?

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    Glad to answer, MC.. First, let me clear up some misconceptions..

    Okay, Michale. You clearly love Trump.

    I don't "love" Trump.. I love his leadership where he does what is right, regardless of politics.. I love his kick ass style where he makes no bones and no apologies on what he is all about.. And I absolutely ADORE how he bitch slaps Democrats and Trump/America haters to hell and back.. :D

    But love Trump, the person?? Not even close..

    But aside from that do you agree with my [39] above? You're a smart guy too, so how do you see it, Dawg?

    Could you requote it?? My numbering system is, apparently, a little different from ya'all's...

    So, which quote are you referring to??

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    I articulated my bitter disappointment in Obama to any and all who would listen. At the time. I only stumbled across CW a couple years ago, and perhaps a year ago I discovered CW's small, deeply disturbed following in this here comments section. Yeah, Obama cleaned up after W and didn't invade Iran, but he was such a p*ssy.

    I accept your word.. You have earned that...

    But, by and large people around here LOVED Obama..

    Until Party slavery dictated that Obama was bad, not good..

    It's like everyone here was against impeachment.. Until Party slavery dictated that impeachment was IN.. THEN everyone (NEN) here loved the Democrats' faux impeachment coup..

  58. [58] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Michale, my question to you is would you agree that " Furthermore, Ralph Nader was right: both Dems and Repugs serve the rich (no shit, Don Harris) and let us fight over social issues."
    I'd like your take on this notion, please. BTW I don't care where you live but I'm curious as to what Time Zone you and Don and Elizabeth Miller live in.

  59. [59] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    I'm in the left-coast Pacific Time Zone.

  60. [60] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [54]

    Don wrote:

    The Dems are desperate to beat Trump and citizens can use that desperation to demand that the Dem nominee and down ballot candidates run small donor only campaigns.

    The Dems need us more than we need them because we don't need them to work for the big money interests- we need them to work for us

    I agree that this entirely possible and more likely than not absolutely essential to preserve our Republic.

    So how do we reach and motivate our fellow citizens to seize this opportunity? You bag on CW as though his is the only portal to reach them, and I don't know that CW has that kind of juice. That kind of audience.

  61. [61] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    FYI telling CW and I to "get real" is (1) not effective, and (2) is counterproductively annoying. Just sayin'

  62. [62] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Trends are that small donor participation has been increasing with each election cycle.

    Obama got more money from small donors in 2008 than any previous presidential candidate. Bernie did the same by getting even more in 2016.

    Many people responded in just a few days to the Collins Fund. This was a cheap knock off using the basic principles of One Demand for a different, specific purpose. CW even made it one of his year end award winners.

    The Knight Report said the main reason non-voters did not vote included 17% did not like the candidates, 12% said their vote doesn't matter and 8% thought the system is corrupt.

    Together that's 37% of non-voters. But that is just the main reason. Just because it is not the main reason does not mean that it could not also be the second or third or fourth reason and still be important enough to inspire a non-voter to vote.

    And the small donor commitment could get some non-voters to like a candidate, think their vote might matter and that the candidate is not part of the corrupt system which could inspire some to vote.

    The Knight Report also included information on why non-voters lacked confidence in our political system.
    The main reasons included:
    27% said system is rigged /corrupt
    20% said influence of big money
    7% said influence of special interests

    54% of non-voters.

    Some of these citizens may also find a small donor only candidate addresses those concerns.

    So it doesn't seem like an outrageous claim to say a small donor only candidate could get one in ten non-voters to vote.

    90% of non-voters could still not vote for all the reasons that the nay-say-ers worry about and it would still achieve the goal of one in ten.

    Non-voters have voted in the past when they saw an opportunity for change or even just to send a message. see Ross Perot, Jesse Ventura, Barack Obama and even Bernie and Trump.

    PS- I voted for John Anderson, also. To send a message.

  63. [63] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Michale, my question to you is, would you agree that,

    "Furthermore, Ralph Nader was right: both Dems and Repugs serve the rich (no shit, Don Harris) and let us fight over social issues."
    I'd like your take on this notion, please.

  64. [64] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    K, Don, thanks for putting that down for me. Lemme chew on this and get back to you.

  65. [65] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    In the Mark Felt movie he talks about how if you tap on a point in a building it can build up over time and take the whole building down.

    I am applying that principle to the wall the media has erected that protects the big money interests from having alternative ideas enter the public discourse.

    CW is one of the bricks in that wall that I am tapping on.

    That is how we reach people and get them involved. Not giving up.

    I do not see telling CW to get real as being any way inappropriate.

    He claims to present a reality-based blog.

    When he makes claims that are not real telling him to get real is not an insult.

    It is a challenge to do better.

    And when honey has been offered and rejected, vinegar may be the answer.

    And that is on the person that rejected the honey.

    It's not like I don't keep offering both.

    The responses to both tell the story.

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    MC,

    Furthermore, Ralph Nader was right: both Dems and Repugs serve the rich (no shit, Don Harris) and let us fight over social issues."

    I would agree with that...

    Which is why I love President Trump's actions as POTUS.. As ya'all have made perfectly clear, President Trump is despised by Righties as well as Lefties..

    I have always said that, if yer in a leadership position and yer pissing on BOTH sides, ya must be doing SOMETHING right.. :D

    I'd like your take on this notion, please. BTW I don't care where you live but I'm curious as to what Time Zone you and Don and Elizabeth Miller live in.

    Nation's Oldest City... St Augustine, FL :D

    If yer trying to ascertain my schedule, I usually start posting at 0400hrs and am on and off til around 1800.. Since I am on restricted duty, there is not much else for me to do.. :D

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    PS- I voted for John Anderson, also. To send a message.

    I love SEMINOLE WIND.. And STRAIGHT TEQUILA NIGHT.. MONEY IN THE BANK was a really good video..

    Didn't know Anderson ran for office thought...

  68. [68] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    Americans....You poor things. I did warn you that letting Trump control the purse strings of the nation was like leaving your baby with a family of Dingoes while you nip out for a package of sugar.

    lol

    True to form, Trump reacted to this pandemic like he handles all problems to which he has no answer; with a barrage of bullshit and lies.

    My mantra since 2016 has been a simple one: Do and think the opposite to what Trump says and does. Thus far I'm batting 1.000.

    Hang onto your pearls, it's going to be a bumpy ride.

    LL&P

  69. [69] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale-
    Not that John Anderson.

    I voted for the John Anderson from Yes. :D

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    Americans....You poor things. I did warn you that letting Trump control the purse strings of the nation was like leaving your baby with a family of Dingoes while you nip out for a package of sugar.

    And you have been ***WRONG*** at every turn..

    Funny how that is, eh.. :D

  71. [71] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    I see the DJI is performing its own version of Gotterdammerung, and Nero is still fiddling.

    Not to worry, I bought gold in February. Seemed like a good time to sit out. My $9167 is safe and sound. (my kids and I decided to invest 1k on my son's 10th birthday, he turned 13 a week ago)

    It's my opinion that the global economy will suffer at least a solid 6-8 months of slow-down if not complete stagnation due to China's roll in the global supply chain. China will need a few months to lick its wounds, and once again, they'll do it in their own time. So, I wouldn't panic so much that Trump is a fucking idiot, I just don't see how anything he does will make any difference.

    This is Trump's disaster to mitigate, it'll be amusing to watch him snatch defeat after defeat from the jaws of victory until he declares America unworthy of his grand design and blows back up his gaudy tower.

    LL&P

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is Trump's disaster to mitigate,

    Yea.. Trump created the coronavirus.. :eyeroll:

    Funny how you didn't say a word when over 200,000 thousand people died when Obama released the Swine Flu..

    You really are a bigoted moron, aren't you...

    it'll be amusing to watch him

    Yea.. It's always so much fun for you to watch people die, eh??

    PATHETIC moron..

  73. [73] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    oh Michale...Usually your remarks are enough to give an aspirin a headache, but today they make me smile.

    So what's next for you, Bud? After Trump is embarrassed in November do you take your shtick on the road?

    lol

    LL&P

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yunno.. For GOOD and NORMAL people, times of crisis brings them together..

    It's only haters, bigots and nazis who enjoy the strife and turmoil and WANT to see people die..

    You really are a scumbag, ain'tcha 'nuck....

  75. [75] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    haha.."200,000 thousand people died when Obama released the Swine Flu.."

    What was he, Obama Appleseed.

    I thought you and your ilk blamed Obama for Ebola because he black and conveniently on hand in the White House?

    or was that some other ilk?

    LL&P

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, coronavirus comes home.. several cases in my county...

    And life goes on...

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    haha.."200,000 thousand people died when Obama released the Swine Flu.."

    What was he, Obama Appleseed.

    And yet, YOU claim President Trump is responsibil for the coronavirus...

    I thought you and your ilk blamed Obama for Ebola because he black and conveniently on hand in the White House?

    Facts to support??

    None???

    You haven't changed.. Yer still a moron and a liar..

  78. [78] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    "Yunno.. For GOOD and NORMAL people, times of crisis brings them together.."

    You might want to tweet that sentiment towards your hero, he's still fully in on blaming everyone in sight instead of actually doing something positive.

    You're the one who champions the sociopath. Don't get so uppity when others appear as equally unconcerned. Trump has gone out of his way to ignore this health crisis to the point where you have no federally mandated contingencies. Stop wasting your time here with fake indignation, get onto your congressman and demand Trump's immediate removal.

    Let us know how you get along. Then maybe take a cruise.

    LL&P

  79. [79] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    One more thing to consider is that what we do in 2020 has an effect on what we will be able to do in 2022.

    Even if just one in twelve non-voters voted in 2020 for a small donor only presidential candidate it would still be around 4-5% additional voters in the Dems camp.

    And this could inspire many 2022 candidates to run small donor only campaigns for Congress and the Senate in an election cycle without a presidential election leaving more money available for the candidates running in 2022.

    And this could also inspire an additional one in ten or twelve non-voters that did not vote in 2020 to vote in 2022 as well as many of the presidential cycle only voters that with an exception for some in 2018 do not vote in off year election cycles.

    It takes time to change decades of going in the wrong direction. Just as the Dems could not completely take control in 2018, but made some gains in that election cycle.

    Yet many here seem to say we shouldn't start One Demand now because it can't be fully successful right now.

    So the only question for 2020 is not what the results of 2020 will be, but also what position our actions in 2020 will put us in for 2022.

    I would rather be in the position of higher voter turnout and having small donor candidates available and competitive in 2022 than be two years further going in the wrong direction.

    Think of where we might be now if we had started One Demand in 2016 or 2018.

    And if you support the big money Dems, you are going in the wrong direction.

    Because the big money Dems make promises that take one step in the right direction, but take big money and legislate taking two steps back.

    "Even if you are facing in the right direction when you are taking one step forward and two steps back you are going the wrong way."
    -Me (unless someone I never heard of said it first a long time ago)

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    You might want to tweet that sentiment towards your hero, he's still fully in on blaming everyone in sight instead of actually doing something positive.

    Actually, President Trump is the ONLY one who is doing something positive..

    You haters and bigots and racists and nazis are the ones who are fear-mongering and screaming hysterically, " DON'T BE CALM!!! DON'T BE CALM!!!"

    You haters are part of the problem, not part of the solution..

    Trump has gone out of his way to ignore this health crisis to the point where you have no federally mandated contingencies. Stop wasting your time here with fake indignation, get onto your congressman and demand Trump's immediate removal.

    Like I said.. Part of the problem..

  81. [81] 
    MyVoice wrote:

    [47] DH
    Excellent fact-based response. Glad we had this conversation. I better let you get back to selling your Kool-Aid™ now.

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    Inside China's high-stakes campaign to smear the United States over coronavirus
    https://www.foxnews.com/us/china-smear-united-states-coronavirus-wuhan

    Well, lookie here.. Ya'all are doing China's bidding...

    Blaming the US for the Coronavirus..

    Wish I could say I was surprised...

  83. [83] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    My voice-
    It had just about the same relevant facts as what I responded to.

    The foundation of the questions you ask are faulty.

    You are talking about how voters have responded to big money candidates and applying it to small donor only candidates.

    The whole point is that as described in 62 and 79 that non-voters and even some voters that are not Dem voters such as the around 7 million third party voters in 2016 might respond differently to a small donor only candidate.

    Just because you, CW or any one here interprets the same information differently than I do doesn't mean there are not people that might agree with my interpretation.

    Just because you don't think it is worth any risk doesn't mean that other people won't think it is less risky than the guarantee of failure of repeating the same mistake of voting for big money candidates that has been proven not to work.

    "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink if he is used to drinking the Koolaid."
    -Me

    The big money Dems are feeding you the Koolaid.

    It's time for a change of diet.

    Water you waiting for?

  84. [84] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    My voice-
    Another problem with your interpretation is you are also comparing a primary campaign to a general election campaign.

    It was reported several months ago that Sanders had reached 1 million individual donors to his primary campaign.

    The question is could the nominee in the general election that would not have to split the Dem donors with other Dems as in the primary get 3-5% of voters to contribute.

    It is likely that many of those 1 million Bernie contributors (maybe 1 million plus by now) would contribute to the nominee, though a bit less likely if the nominee is Biden.

    I am asking if the one in five to eight of the loyal Dems (around 25% of voters and likely not a large percentage of Bernie contributors) would respond to the nominee of the nominee made the commitment.

    So just the people from the Bernie million and the regular Dem contributors could easily reach over one million, maybe even close to two million donors.

    1.3 million is one per cent of the around 130 million presidential election voters.

    3-5% is not way out of reach.

    You are assuming that because 90% of non-voters will probably not respond in 2020 that 8-10% also won't respond differently than they have in the past when they are offered something different when in the past they have responded when offered something different. (Perot, Ventura, Obama, Bernie, Trump)

  85. [85] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    15

    Not to defend Don Harris and his regular BS in any way, but you lecturing him considering some of the comments you've posted just reeks with the stench of entitlement. ~ Kick

    Except that's exactly what you are doing...

    Oh, right... *laughs* What was I thinking when I expected the board poon to be able to connect some easy dots? <--- rhetorical question

    Since you so obviously missed my point, I most certainly was not defending Don Harris and his regular "rant of entitlement," I was pointing out that you lecturing him is the proverbial pot calling the kettle black.

    Are you saying I think I am ENTITLED here??

    You are demonstrably slow, but how is possible that I am saying you believe you are entitled when -- according to you -- "exactly" what I am doing is defending him? Pick a lane. Of course, that is exactly what I was saying and not remotely defending him and his regular whining spew of that which he obviously believes he is entitled.

    OF COURSE I AM!!!! DUH....

    No more than he is, and he isn't entitled.

    I have known CW ten times longer than you have, dearest one.. Ten times longer than ANYONE else here save JL and Liz...

    You are demonstrably bad at math.

    So yea.. I *AM* entitled to defend him..

    Of course, I expect nothing less than your regular exercise of redefining the discussion in order to fit your narrative and your regular moving of the goalpost, but me calling you out as an entitled hypocrite had nothing whatsoever to do with you defending the author and everything to do with your belief that you are entitled... just like he does.

    I have EARNED that right... Come talk to me, honey, when you have as much time in Weigantian as I do... :D

    So you're admittedly no different than he is... a board commenter who believes he is entitled to something because of his time spent here. Nice breakthrough for you... and it's "honey badger":

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4r7wHMg5Yjg

  86. [86] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    11

    And, on the bright side ahem, there is some hope out there for a market recovery in the last month of 2020!!

    There is definitely some hope out there, and record turnouts in the primaries is another bright side that portends another wave. :)

  87. [87] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    I am entitled to comment with my opinion.

    If people respond with bullshit or don't respond I am entitled to comment on that.

    Just like every other commenter.

    Someone here is beginning to sound a lot like a Republican complaining about entitlements. :D

  88. [88] 
    Kick wrote:

    Ya'all said that the great economy was because of the Odumbo-Biden administration.

    [43] Michale wrote:

    Dow sees one of its largest point gains on record after Trump's coronavirus proposals

    Dow adds 1,167 points as Trump talks economic initiatives

    Equity markets are bouncing back after their biggest drop since the 2008 financial crisis
    https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/us-markets-march-10-2020

    President Trump..

    TRUE LEADERSHIP....

    The campaign ads write themselves..

    [Tuesday, March 10th, 2020 at 13:39 UTC]

    What... no report on the stock market from Mike today? Maybe tomorrow... what goes way down must seemingly go back up... eventually, and then maybe Mike will be back to explain how his posts and "the campaign ads write themselves" when the market is up.

    So to recap: Trump opens his orange piehole in an effort to calm the markets, and out falls another record day because of his "true leadership."

    Any president taking credit for the markets will find that it cuts both ways... it always does. So Trump owns this market... all of it, and he most certainly owns America's failure to respond adequately to the COVID-19 outbreak.

  89. [89] 
    Kick wrote:

    MtnCaddy
    31

    For the record I was deeply disappointed with Obama. After the nightmare of "W" this country was SO ready for some "Hope & Change" action, don't you remember? Obama had both houses of Congress in 2009-2010 he could've been as transformative as effing FDR, for Christ's sake. But nooo. He effing wussed out.

    Let's once again address the belief that the Democrats controlled the House and Senate in 2009-2010. In actual fact, the Democrats controlled the House but not the Senate for the majority of 2009. Here's why:

    * On 01/20/2009 upon Obama's inauguration, Democrats held 57 Senate seats with 2 Independents -- Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman -- who caucused with Democrats. That is 1 shy of filibuster-proof "total control." Those 59 Senators in January 2009 included Ted Kennedy and Al Franken. Kennedy had a seizure during Obama's inaugural luncheon and was never able to return to vote in the Senate (brain tumor), and Al Franken was not officially seated until 07/07/2009 due to a contested recount demanded by his opponent Norm Coleman. So the actual Democratic Senate seat number in January 2009 was 55 Democrats plus 2 Independents equaling 57 Senate seats.

    Democrats managed to barely pass the stimulus bill around this time with ZERO support from Republicans in the House, and in the Senate three Republicans -- Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins and Arlen Specter -- voted to break a filibuster, thus guaranteeing it's passage.

    * In late April 2009, Republican Senator Arlen Specter became a Democrat -- I call him Defector Specter. Kennedy was still at home dying, and Al Franken was still not seated. So the number in late April 2009 was 58 votes.

    * In May 2009, Robert Byrd got sick and did not return to the Senate until late July 2009. Even though Al Franken was finally seated 07/07/2009 and Byrd returned on 07/21/2009, Democrats still only had 59 votes in the Senate because Kennedy never returned. The Democrats -- as Obama had promised Senator Ted Kennedy in order to secure his endorsement over that of his opponent in 2008 -- continued to focus on passage of the ACA. Senator Kennedy died on 08/25/2009. Kennedy's empty seat was then temporarily filled by Paul Kirk but not until 09/24/2009.

    * The swearing in of Paul Kirk in late September 2009 FINALLY gave Democrats 60 potential votes in the Senate. So "total control" of Congress by Democrats lasted all of 4 months from 09/24/2009 through 02/04/2010, when Scott Brown (R) was sworn in to replace Kennedy's Massachusetts Senate seat.

    So to recap: Democrats had "total control" of the House of Representatives from 2009-2011, 2 full years, and Democrats had "total control" of the Senate from 09/24/2009 through 02/04/2010... a grand total of 4 months, and they were busy working on passing the stimulus and the ACA with little help from Republicans who wanted nothing to do with health care whatsoever. It was during that very small 4-month window that the ACA/Obamacare was passed in the Senate with 60 all-Democratic votes.

    History: Knowing the nuance of it can make all the difference in the world. :)

  90. [90] 
    Kick wrote:

    MtnCaddy
    33

    As Elizabeth didn't endorse Bernie when she folded up her campaign, I believe the odds are better than 50-50 she gets the nod to be Joe's VP.

    In order to do even a scintilla of those things Bernie and you say you want, if Biden were to win the presidency, he would need at least 50 Senators seated in the 117th Congress in order to even begin to attempt any of it. Removing Elizabeth Warren from her Senate seat wouldn't accomplish that since the Governor of Massachusetts is currently a Republican. Not saying Biden wouldn't choose Warren, just saying I believe the odds are lower than 50%. :)

  91. [91] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    I'm the only one on this board qualified to be designated as a 'commontater'!!!

  92. [92] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    CRS-
    You may be the only commontater', but there is no shortage of commontater' tots. :D

  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:

    Don't sell yourself short Stuckey. You are a very uncommon tater.. :)

  94. [94] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Kick [89],

    Great post! I might have to copy this one to have for the next time someone claims Obama had two years to pass anything he wanted to, but he wasted it away and got nothing done.

    It’s also important to remember that Obama was still trying as hard as he could to work with the Republicans at this point, because he believed they were acting in good faith during their negotiations... and Obama truly wanted to be the “bipartisan President”. It was a nice dream; too bad the Republicans wanted nothing to do with it.

  95. [95] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    87

    I am entitled to comment with my opinion.

    Until you're not, you certainly are; however, my point remains and has always been that you are neither entitled to the answer for which you troll nor entitled to the author shilling for your so-called "issue" no matter how many times you insist that you are due to the fact you've been posting for a length of time that you've already claimed you believe you've earned. No one is entitled to a thing no matter how long they've trolled here and no matter how much they believe they are.

    While he doesn't owe me, I do think I've earned it by being persistent in seeking an answer from CW in the same ways he lauds others for being persistent when someone doesn't give them an answer that CW wants answered. ~ Don Harris

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2020/02/20/a-las-vegas-boxing-match-of-a-debate/#comment-154004

    You've "earned" and are entitled to the same thing as everyone else here for your time: Nothing.

    Allow yourself to let that sink in, please.

  96. [96] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki
    91

    I'm the only one on this board qualified to be designated as a 'commontater'!!!

    By virtue of you living in Podunk, you will absolutely get no argument from me there, spud. <--- Just to be clear here, that's "spud"... not to be confused with "scud" or anything else that rhymes with it. ;)

  97. [97] 
    Michale wrote:

    World Health Organization official: 80 percent of coronavirus cases will involve mild symptoms
    https://www.foxnews.com/media/world-health-organization-coronavirus-80-percent-of-cases-involve-mild-symptoms

    But let's all be hysterical and panic!!!

    "DON'T BE CALM!!! DON'T BE CALM!!! PANIC!!! PANIC!!!!"
    -Democrats

    :eyeroll:

  98. [98] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    94

    I might have to copy this one to have for the next time someone claims Obama had two years to pass anything he wanted to, but he wasted it away and got nothing done.

    Copy at will. It's all yours; you may even claim authorship.

    It’s also important to remember that Obama was still trying as hard as he could to work with the Republicans at this point, because he believed they were acting in good faith during their negotiations.

    Yes, sir... exactly right. Progressives -- moreso than centrists -- tend to forget that Obama campaigned as a Democrat who would reach across the aisle and work with Republicans... even had Republicans in his campaign ads, but Republicans never had any intentions of doing that from Day 1.

    Now tell me you are taking care of yourself at ground zero, please. :)

  99. [99] 
    Michale wrote:

    LYSOL recommends to use their product on the thing you touch the most..

    I have a feeling this is gonna burn.. :D

  100. [100] 
    Michale wrote:

    Coronavirus: 10 reasons you should not panic
    https://www.actionnewsjax.com/news/trending/coronavirus-10-reasons-you-should-not-panic/HNZAVLWFB5A2NKOGQN5O3K3R5E/

    Of course THAT doesn't fit the Dumbocrat agenda.

    So...

    "DON'T BE CALM!!! DON'T BE CALM!!! PANIC!!! PANIC!!!!"
    -Dumbocrat Party

  101. [101] 
    MyVoice wrote:

    [83] DH,

    I don't remember saying anything about risk, proof, whether others might agree with you, or what I want to happen or not happen. Evidently you believe you know me. You asked for answers, so I evaluated each proposition on the basis of relevant information I could quickly gather and gave you my evaluation. Just mine.

    You don't agree, so I am Truman. Quite the sales pitch. Now you add that using actual data available today on similar behaviors is not relevant, because ... trends and maybe and might.

    It’s definitely disappointing to learn that extrapolation from actual data is an inherently flawed method that lacks foundation. When dealing in the realm of ideas, could and might should carry much more weight. I am chastened.

  102. [102] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick-
    You are confusing me claiming I am entitled to an answer with my commenting on not getting an answer and with my opinion that CW has a responsibility as a journalist/pundit to inform citizens about ideas and/or provide an answer why he will not.

    You quote me saying I believe I have earned it doing what CW lauds other people for doing to people like CW that do not provide answers.

    Entitled implies that it is not earned.

    Trolling is not commenting with my/your opinion.

    One aspect of trolling is purposely mis-characterizing what someone else says or does.

    In that regard you have earned the title of troll.

    You certainly seem to feel entitled to be one. :D

  103. [103] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    99

    LYSOL recommends to use their product on the thing you touch the most..

    I have a feeling this is gonna burn.. :D

    If it starts foaming orange and he screams out in agony for the Secret Service to remove you, you'll have your answer. :)

  104. [104] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    My Voice-
    Once again you ignore that could and might are better than hasn't worked for decades and will never work.

    For some reason everyone that thinks supporting the Dems says people should go for the Dems because they are not as bad as Republicans, even though the Dems are not perfect.(whether you actually said it or not)

    Clearly could and might are not as bad as hasn't worked for decades and will never work.

    All you kept saying is we don't know. How is that not pointing out there is risk? Not knowing is kind of the definition of risk. The need to know is asking for proof even if you are not capable of knowing that is what you are doing.

    You extrapolated from data that is not relevant and keep ignoring data that is relevant.

    If you had a rational argument you wouldn't need to avoid relevant data and use data that is not relevant to reach dubious conclusions.

    Commontater tots. Sigh.

  105. [105] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    It's going to hard for me to use Lysol on the things I touch the most, which is the hearts of the commontater tots here. :D

  106. [106] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    And always use Lysol after being touchecd by an angel. you don;t know where they've been. :D

  107. [107] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    And you will need more than Lysol if you have been touched by a priest because you don't want to know where they've been. :D

  108. [108] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    You lied about working in law enforcement for almost two and a half decades... so it’s a bigger lie to claim you worked in the field for thirty! When you’ve lied as long as you’ve been doing, adding five more years to your resume is no big deal, right?

    And FSO...what exactly was your job title? It sounds like you are trying to claim that you worked as a Foreign Service Officer... which is a joke! I’m guessing you were at most a Facility Security Officer - or security guard in layman’s terms. And here’s the kicker — it’s fairly obvious that you only worked “law enforcement and in public safety” during your time in the military...and you were not in the service for that long!

    My not being around when you first lied to everyone about your work history does not prove I was lying...it just means I was unaware of the lies you told prior to my arrival. , You did me a favor by proving the point I was trying to make: that you lie about your work history in order to steal the honor of those that actually put in the time serving this country.

  109. [109] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    102

    You are confusing me claiming I am entitled to an answer with my commenting on not getting an answer and with my opinion that CW has a responsibility as a journalist/pundit to inform citizens about ideas and/or provide an answer why he will not.

    I don't get confused, and I also have an uncanny ability to retain the written word... years of training, just so you know.

    You quote me saying I believe I have earned it doing what CW lauds other people for doing to people like CW that do not provide answers.

    Yes, I do... and might I add you are mighty cantankerous in your rudimentary attempts at written communication.

    Entitled implies that it is not earned.

    Wrong. Entitled is the fact that you consistently change your disposition toward the author when you fail to receive that for which you admittedly and incessantly troll him because -- as you've made abundantly clear -- you believe you've earned something from him, which you've also conveniently admitted:

    And when the carrot doesn't work it's time to use the stick.

    CW put himself in the position to receive the comment and in my opinion without question deserves it. ~ Don Harris

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2020/03/10/predicting-mini-super-tuesday/#comment-155350

    So it appears that in your estimation, the man who has stated in no uncertain terms that "this blog's purpose is to present to the public one man's view of politics" is a man who "deserves" to be disparaged by you until he presents your view of politics. You're quite obviously confused.

    One aspect of trolling is purposely mis-characterizing what someone else says or does.

    You've already admitted to trolling him and have now stated he deserves "the stick." So how have you been mischaracterized?
    ................................. ^^^ rhetorical question

    CW owes you nothing, and he nevertheless allows you without abatement to solicit your "issue" in the comments section of his blog wherein his stated purpose is to present one man's view... and he's the man, not you.

  110. [110] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick -
    If you are not confused then you must be purposely getting it wrong. troll behavior.

    Just because I say I earned something does not mean I am saying CW owes me any more than saying he has a responsibility as a journalist/pundit does not mean he owes me. If you are not confused about getting that wrong also then it is more troll behavior on your part.

    Your quote interpretation and definition of entitled has nothing to do with reality. Jusy more trolling on your part.

    Commontater tots. sigh.

  111. [111] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Q. Does a troll shit in the woods?

    A. Of course. Where do you think Kick came from?
    (Trolls give birth to new trolls by shitting)

  112. [112] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Which is why trolls like to turn everything into shit.

  113. [113] 
    MyVoice wrote:

    DH,

    It fair boggles the mind how much you can read into what wasn't said. I'll allow, though, that it makes categorizing and dismissing others a lot easier and saves you from having to think and/or consider their opinions.

    Knowing that "we" all think the same may free you from asking others to respond to your questions, though. No point since you already know what "we" think.

    You pwn the day.

  114. [114] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    My Voice-
    It constantly amazes me that you say things and don't even know that is what you said.

    It constantly amazes me how you ignore what I say in response to your points and then claim I have not responded to your points when I have responded. Yet you do not respond to the points I make.

    Then you move on to something else like saying I must be reading your mind.

    No, I do not own the day.

    I am not attempting to own the day.

    I am attempting to have a political discussion. (see the exchanges in this thread with Mtn Caddy)

    You are the one turning it into a contest. And in this contest the exchange of ideas does not matter, just "winning".

    And that means thanks to you we both and we all lose.

    You must be so proud.

  115. [115] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    110

    If you are not confused then you must be purposely getting it wrong. troll behavior.

    I'm definitely not confused; you're just an uneducated poon... as you basically concede in your pathetic biography:

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

    As I have said before, you could definitely shorten that whole thing up and say: "I have no education, no experience, no success, and absolutely no idea what I'm talking about." Or maybe you should lengthen that bio and explain your origin story and what it's like to troll another man's blog with your incessant diarrhea of the mouth wherein you insist it's his responsibility to inform the public about the free flowing feces you constantly spew.

    I cannot help you if you cannot grasp the simple concept that your asinine and repetitive statement that it's CW's responsibility/obligation to inform others about your pathetic attempt at political activism is a claim that CW owes a duty to you and the public.

    Just because I say I earned something does not mean I am saying CW owes me any more than saying he has a responsibility as a journalist/pundit does not mean he owes me.

    It appears words have no meaning on the planet Dipshitia... where the inhabitants like Dipshit Don insist that they've "earned something" but it doesn't mean anyone owes something to them that they claim they "deserve" and someone's "responsibility as a journalist" doesn't mean an obligation or anything he owes other people.

    Your quote interpretation and definition of entitled has nothing to do with reality. Jusy more trolling on your part.

    Your ignorance is inherently deserving of the privilege of a dictionary; it is your responsibility and obligation to provide your stupidity that for which I believe you should, and fuck you and get real until you supply your incomprehension that which it so obviously is entitled.

    You actually could fix your stupid by getting an education -- or at least a dictionary -- Don, but there's generally no hope whatsoever for the willful ignorance of a flailing entitled brainless dipshit with a second-grade vocabulary.

  116. [116] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    111

    Q. Does a troll shit in the woods?

    You tell us, troll. I would wager your flailing verbal diarrhea likely follows your ignorant ass in the woods and wherever else you care to expose it.

    A. Of course.

    That lack of education you highlight in your bio and everywhere else you drag your ass is entitled to a dictionary; it is your responsibility, and you owe it to your admitted ignorance.

    Where do you think Kick came from?

    College... you fucking uneducated mooch.

    Why don't you run along now and troll and curse out the author until he publishes your bio:

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

    You could shorten that whole thing up and say: "I have no education, no experience, no success, and you should assume I will troll your blog with my verbal diarrhea until you publish my bio and make an ass out of you and me.

  117. [117] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    112

    Which is why trolls like to turn everything into shit.

    You don't see the irony in that, troll who turns near everything posted by the author into a commentary on his own personal shit?

    ^^^ Rhetorical question. ^^^

Comments for this article are closed.