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. ^^^

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. :)

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.

Of course THAT doesn't fit the Dumbocrat agenda.

So...

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

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

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. :)

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

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

:eyeroll:

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. ;)

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.

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.

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%. :)

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. :)

[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.

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. :)

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

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

Blaming the US for the Coronavirus..

Wish I could say I was surprised...

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..

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

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..

And life goes on...

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

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....

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

lol

LL&P

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..

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

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

Funny how that is, eh.. :D

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

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...

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

"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.

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.

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..

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??

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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?

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..

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.

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

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.

How much time ya got?? :D

Then set me straight about Joe, EM.

"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

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..

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???

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..

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..

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

:D

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....

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

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....

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

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??

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..

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

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.

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..

Of COURSE it's not his fault..

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

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.

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

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.

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.