ChrisWeigant.com

It's Time For Bernie To Drop Out

[ Posted Thursday, March 19th, 2020 – 16:26 UTC ]

It's time for Bernie to make an exit from the Democratic presidential nomination race. I don't say this lightly, as I'm actually a Bernie supporter myself. I voted for him this year and back in 2016 as well. I feel free to now say this because I never admit to my own preferences while I think the race is still up in the air -- my own way of attempting to limit my bias in my writing. But I do feel free to say it now, because the race is now essentially over.

Joe Biden is going to be the Democratic nominee this time around. At this point, barring any completely unexpected and drastic changes in circumstance, it is realistically impossible for Bernie Sanders to catch him in the delegate race. This was not true until the final weeks of the 2016 campaign, but it is true now. Which is why Bernie needs to concede this reality.

Tom Perez, the chair of the Democratic National Committee, should help facilitate this right now by offering Bernie and his supporters a large role in writing the party platform document this year. Not just a seat at the table, but almost half of all the seats at that table is what Perez should offer. Bernie's earned that much. This will assure him that he will have a huge impact on the Democratic agenda, which is really all he has left to hope for.

Bernie could stay in the race until the end, but what would he hope to achieve by doing so? In normal times, he would achieve a prominent but secondary role in writing the platform document. He'd have a strong showing of delegates to prove to the party that he deserved this role. But that's the best he could hope for. So why put the party and the country through two or three more months of primary campaigning to secure this goal if the party chair will offer it to him now? If Perez offers Bernie all that he can now hope to achieve anyway, then it would remove any remaining justification for Bernie to continue campaigning. Bernie has already won more delegates than anyone other than Biden, so racking up a few hundred more of them won't change his standing at all, really.

I've said it before and I'll continue to say it: over the past five years, Bernie Sanders has done more to change the direction of the Democratic Party than anyone in my entire lifetime. I can think of no other one individual who has had such an outsized influence over the party's direction in the last half-century, personally. Bernie has forcibly wrestled the Overton Window into a whole new progressive direction for the party. He hasn't done this singlehandedly, of course, but he has been the unquestioned leader of these efforts -- and he has already achieved an astonishing amount of success in doing so.

Think about what Bernie has changed for a moment. Bernie has redefined the entire concept of campaign fundraising. He proved -- twice -- that grassroots support is all an authentic grassroots candidate needs. By doing so, he has changed how the entire party (other than the fatcat donors, of course) now views fundraising. Bernie has pushed an agenda that used to be derided and is now largely accepted by most Democratic candidates. On raising the minimum wage, on taxing wealthy people, on healthcare being a human right, on battling climate change, on free college and student debt forgiveness, and on any number of other important issues, Bernie has been the one pushing everyone else's envelope. This has led to an absolute sea-change within the party.

It is a stunning and historic achievement -- one that will likely be felt for decades to come (one can hope so, at any rate). Up until Bernie first ran for president, the Clintonian direction of the party had been largely unchallenged for two decades. The entire party was sold on the idea that if they could only keep Wall Street happy, then they wouldn't have to worry about much else, because that would secure them enough in campaign contributions to win national races. Bernie blew up that model in spectacular fashion, to the point where few Democrats now even advocate the politics of "triangulation" that used to be so prevalent in the 1990s. This is precisely why Bernie has more than earned something just short of half the seats at the platform-writing table. The party can't just sit Bernie in a corner anymore and ignore him (and his millions of supporters).

If Tom Perez hasn't already offered this to Bernie, then he needs to pick up the phone and do so immediately. Offer Bernie all that he can now hope for at the convention, in an effort to show him that it would now be pointless for him to continue campaigning. With the coronavirus pandemic, Bernie can't even hold his signature huge rallies any more, so he doesn't even have that to look forward to. All he can hope to win now is influence over the platform, so why not just offer it to him anyway?

If such an offer is made in good faith, then Bernie needs to accept it. It's tough to end a campaign, and it's even tougher to admit that your revolution is not going to win you the race. It's really tough for Bernie, since this is the second time he will have fallen short, and also his last realistic chance at ever becoming president. But as hard as this is to realize, Bernie needs to do so. He fought the good fight and will continue to do so within the party ranks. He has nothing to be ashamed of at all, because he has been so instrumental in charting a much more progressive path for the Democratic Party as a whole.

But reality is what it is, and the hard cold reality now is that it's over. Once he has secured the promise of influencing the platform document, Bernie needs to gracefully end his campaign. As I said, it pains me to say it because I really wanted to see Bernie take on Donald Trump, but it is now time to admit that that is not going to happen, and to call on all Democrats to rally behind the party's presumptive nominee. Bernie Sanders now has to send that clear message to his supporters.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

112 Comments on “It's Time For Bernie To Drop Out”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Well, that is certainly a reality-based suggestion if your vote wasn't. :)

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Let me rephrase that … your suggestion for Bernie is certainly reality-based, if not your vote. Heh.

    I'd like to understand what it is all about with California political analysts and feeling the burn??

  3. [3] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    if the primary race really is over and biden is the nominee, my question is whether michale will honor the terms of our wager and cast his vote for biden in the general election. when it seemed highly unlikely that biden would be the nominee, he offered me the chance to chicken out in good faith without breaking my word, so it's only fair that i offer the same.

    and no comments from the peanut butter gallery. though we have some very strong differences of opinion i have always found michale an honorable and forthright individual.

    JL

  4. [4] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "If Perez offers Bernie all he can hope to achieve anyway, then it would remove any remaining justification for Bernie to continue campaigning."

    Interesting concept.

    While it would not be all I can hope to achieve, an article now about Nader putting pressure on Biden to run a small donor only campaign in the general election by running as a small donor only independent now would be all I can hope to achieve here.

    This campaign would be conditioned on whether Biden makes a small donor commiment or not.

    And if Perez were to set the precedent with Bernie then Biden could also apply your concept and commit to be a small donor only candidate to give Ralph all he could hope to achieve and then Ralph will drop out and work to help Biden beat Trump.

    Ralph has certainly done more than enough for our country (and been unfairly criticised by some Dems) to have earned this.

    Imagine how great it would be for Bernie, Ralph and Biden to share in the credit for moving the Democratic Party even farther forward in a positive direction in one election cycle than anything Bernie has accomplished no matter how impressive the accomplishment.

    Think of a coalition led by those three working together to beat Trump.

    You pointed out recently how much conventional political wisdom has changed in just the last few weeks/months. It has been years since you last commented on One Demand using conventional political wisdom of that time.

    I have pointed out how many things have changed in that regard (and so did you in this article).

    And now the nature of the campaign has changed. Many of the normal travel, rally , doorknocking, etc. expenses will not be applying in this election so a small donor campaign is uniquely even more possible at this very moment.

    You could apply the Perez Principle by writing the Nader article now and make the progress of the Democratic party in 2020 truly historic instead of the footnote it will be if Bernie's accomplishments are the pinnacle.

    And while you do not owe me (that was for you, Kick), I feel I have earned it with my persistence, dedication and consistency over the last 4 plus years.

    Getting Bernie supporters (that do not consdier themselves part of the Dems, Nader supporters and even some non-voters to rally behind the Dem nominee has a much better chance of beating Trump than just Democrats alone.

    Give us what we want and we will campaign and vote for you and not against you.

  5. [5] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Note to self - always use the preview button.

  6. [6] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    I will honor my "wager" if Biden makes the small donor only commitment by voting for him in November.

  7. [7] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz-
    Take another note to yourself. Use the buttons with the letters to engage in political discussions and not to avoid dsicussion. :D

  8. [8] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    I might even eat some pie.

  9. [9] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    CW-
    Also to maintain consistency on your attempt to limit bias in your writing by not giving a preference on candidates when the race isn't over you would have to give equal coverage to Biden and small donor only Biden as that race has not even started- yet. :D

  10. [10] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @don,
    since you made a wager with yourself, perhaps you'll also pay yourself what you owe yourself. the tricky thing about interacting with other people is that they generally won't do what you want them to just because you think they ought to, and will rarely change their mind on that point as a result of being insulted and/or cursed at. pie is definitely a good first step.
    JL

  11. [11] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "A little revolution every now and then is good thing, don't you think?"
    -Sean Connery
    The Hunt for Red October

  12. [12] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Don,

    I understand that the whole idea behind OD is that the only way big money will be stripped from the political process is through a grassroots movement that advocates voting only for candidates that make the pledge to limit their campaigns to accepting small donations only.

    You may be right about that being the only way to get big money out of the political process. I would be more convinced if more people in your country actually came out to vote.

    In any event, I think you must first start building support for that idea yourself with others who you can recruit on the ground in your district and build from there.

    That kind of effort is going to take a lot of hard work on your part and a lot of persistence in the field as opposed to posting on one blog. Update us, yes but, you will have to put in the blood, sweat and tears for the effort in your community first.

    I was involved in a grassroots effort to promote the recognition of Aboriginal and Treaty rights of First Nations, Metis and Inuit in Canada.

    I often felt as though we weren't making any progress at all back then but, over the course of years, we have come to the point in Canada where non-Aboriginal attitudes are beginning to see the light. And, yet, there is still so much work to be done, it'll probably never be done.

    Don't let that experience deter you, though. My point is that in order to achieve your OD goals, I think you have to take the bulk of your fight away from this blog in order to maximize progress.

    And, in the meantime, I hope you will put your faith in Senator Biden and push him to make progress from the legislative end of the problem.

  13. [13] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, Don ... talk to me about the Citizens United SCOTUS decision and how that complicates the effort to get big money interests out of the political process; what can be done about it; do you think OD is the best way around it etc. etc.

  14. [14] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Nypoet-
    Maybe you don't realize that comment is insulting.

    I am well aware that people often don't do what you want just because you think they ought to.

    I learned that long before I came here.

    That doesn't mean it will never change if you keep asking. But if you stop asking that does mean it will never change.

    Again with the more flies with honey nonsense?

    When reasonable attempts to get an answer were ignored and I was advised to take a different tactic by other commenters here I tried some vinegar after CW said it was okay for someone else to use vinegar on someone that had not responded to honey.

    The honey/vinegar analogy does not apply after honey has been ignored which resulted in the application of vinegar.

    And the precedent here at Weigantia is that the only two times that CW responded on One Demand followed vinegar comments.

    So when honey has never worked and vinegar has it really dispells the validity of the honey/vinegar analogy here.

    And what may seem to be vinegar to some may not be to others.

    For example, when I tell CW to Get Real many may see that as an insult.

    I see it as a challenge to CW to do better.

    Nypoet- Get Real.

  15. [15] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz-
    I'm really not in the mood for a discussion right now. :D

  16. [16] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz
    Seriously, though- thank you.

    While I appreciate what you say, I have done all those things and more over the years including joining/contacting organizations, going to see candidates, going door to door and submitting hundreds of articles to more hundreds of media outlets.

    And I did all that after raising four children as a single parent (with quite a bit of help from my mom).

    Now that my mother requires my help much of what you suggest is harder to be able to do.

    Why does everyone always point to the people that spend years fighting exercises in futility that finally pay off and say see that is how it is done?

    There is no question it is admirable, but is it desirable?

    Wouldn't it be better if people could just raise a valid issue and not have to bang their head against the wall for twenty years to be considered worthy of consideration much less action?

    It might even become a trend.

    I'm really getting tired of all the you only comment here mantra.

    Just because I don't toot my own horn doesn't mean I haven't paid my dues.

  17. [17] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Citizens United is a boogeyman/red herring.

    It may have made the problem worse, but it did not make the problem.

    So any amendments to overturn it will not be a solution to anything more than symptom of Citizens United and will not solve the problem.

    And any amendment or legislation will not get the big money out of politics because the big money legislators will not do it.

    So replacing the big money legislators with small donor only legislators is the only way to get any legislation passed to improve our political process whether it is for campaign financing, disclosure, voting machinery or voter suppression.

    I don't see any other way for that to happen other than One Demand, with the exception of Ralph Nader applying the principles of One Demand directly to Biden right now when the time is right which would be even better than One Demand alone because it would jump start it with a splash and get it off to a quick start that could accomplish in 2020 alone more than what One Demand alone could in four years.

    Imagine that. It would be like traveling back in time and changing the timeline to one where CW wrote about One Demand four years ago and it had become viable and effective by now.

    The only difference (which may have disappointed you) is that Bernie would probably be the nominee this election if that had happened.

  18. [18] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I hear ya, Don. And, I didn't know how much time you've put in on this valid issue.

    I certainly know where you're coming from with your mom and I wish you all the best for you and her, sincerely.

    I don't know what the answer is. Maybe the way to go is to adopt how we Canadians do political campaigns. You could do worse.

  19. [19] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Liz-I'm really not in the mood for a discussion right now. :D

    Ha!

  20. [20] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    And as for the Nader presidential run to put pressure on Biden, I have some successful experience playing this kind of hardball.

    Many but too many years ago a family member lost their liscence for drunk driving.

    Under NJ law the insurance company was allowed to charge anyone having someone on the suspended list for drunk driving living in their home as if that person had a drunk driving conviction because the law said a person living in your home had an implied consent to drive your car (not kidding!).

    So my insurance company that will remain unnamed but was not being a good neighbor raised my insurance from 600 a year to around 5000.

    I called the insurance agent and told them to tell the underwriters that I would challenge the constitutionality of the law.

    The insurance companies count on people contacting a lawyer and finding out it would cost thousands more to fight it than to pay it for a few years.

    I told the agent to tell the underwriters that I had successfully filed my own appeal in a child support case with the state supreme court that rejected 75% of appeals filed by lawyers so I would be filing my own lawsuit.

    I also pointed out that if I won they would not only lose my extra money, but a lot of extra money from all the other people they were doing this to. I did feel bad for the other people but I really needed to not have to file the challenge and was glad I didn't have to.

    Two weeks later I got a new bill and was back to paying 600 dollars a year.

    Note: the child support case was the COURT not ordering the proper amount. My ex-wife always paid what she was ordered and I don't want to be posting anything that might imply or anyone could interpret she did anything wrong regarding child support as this is a public forum.

    If this were not a public forum I would admit that I miss my ex-wife- but my aim is getting better! :D

  21. [21] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    A prominent part of the early Russian collusion delusion for Weigantians suffering from PTSD immediately following Hillary's defeat was the nonsensical claim that Sanders supporters, the most rabid of all the lefties, were so mad they either abstained from voting at all, or even crazier, had voted for Trump!!

    I'd think those who believed that then ought to be edging into catatonia tonight.

  22. [22] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    correction: If anyone cares it was the state appeals court, not the state supreme court.

  23. [23] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    17

    Imagine that. It would be like traveling back in time and changing the timeline to one where CW wrote about One Demand four years ago and it had become viable and effective by now.

    Imagine if CW had allowed you to write and post anything you wanted whatsoever on the comments board of his blog and advertise freely regarding One Demand (and its former name) and without abatement of any kind whatsoever... despite his claims of no advertising therein.

    You needn't imagine it at all because that's what has happened, and if One Demand hasn't become "viable and effective by now" -- by your own assessment -- then I cannot fathom why you would wax sentimentally about "what might have been... if only" when CW has allowed you to write about it yourself over the entire four-year period of which you magnify.

    Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Hint: I'm not wrong. :)

  24. [24] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    20

    I told the agent to tell the underwriters that I had successfully filed my own appeal in a child support case with the state supreme court that rejected 75% of appeals filed by lawyers so I would be filing my own lawsuit.

    If the agent on the phone didn't laugh his ass off the minute you claimed that you filed a common appeal of child support to the Supreme Court of New Jersey, I'm here to tell you that he most likely did when he hung up. :)

    I'll the state supreme court a case regarding a simple child support?

  25. [25] 
    Kick wrote:

    ^^^^ Goobed that up ^^^^

    EDIT [24]

    The state supreme court hearing a case regarding a simple child support. You're funny.

  26. [26] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    22

    correction: If anyone cares it was the state appeals court, not the state supreme court.

    Okay, then, but you still threatened to file what amounts to a class action case regarding "constitutionality" (your word) against an insurance company based on your filing of a common child support appeal. I would wager he still laughed his ass off. :)

  27. [27] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Don,

    Under NJ law the insurance company was allowed to charge anyone having someone on the suspended list for drunk driving living in their home as if that person had a drunk driving conviction because the law said a person living in your home had an implied consent to drive your car (not kidding!).

    Not sure what the specific NJ statute says on this, but most states require that you have given that person permission to drive your vehicle at some time in the past for implied consent to exist. I know that is the case if it is a roommate that you are not related to; family might be the exception.

  28. [28] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    FPC

    Don,

    So the witnesses that said the officer pulled Brown into the car and that Brown was not attacking are not to be considered?

    They are not considered because what they claim is physically impossible. How does someone sitting in a car force a 6’4 295# person to go head first into vehicle through the driver’s window? And even more importantly, WHY would anyone ever want to start a fight by pulling someone that big on top of them? Seriously, think about what they are suggesting: the officer started a fight with someone as big as Brown by trying to pull him in on top of the officer —going against all of the training officers are given on how to physically engage someone!??!

    The Grand Jury testimony will not contain anything from witnesses that did not testify or evidence not presented to the Grand Jury.

    As I pointed out when I explained why the prosecutor had allowed someone who could not have witnessed the incident testify that they had, the prosecutor allowed anyone claiming to have witnessed the shooting to offer their testimony to the grand jury so that Brown’s supporters could not claim that the prosecutor had kept people who knew the truth from testifying on Brown’s behalf.

    If they did not provide their testimony to the grand jury, then they are not witnesses in the eyes of the law. If their testimony could have brought the Brown family the justice they sought, then they are cowards

    You are basing your justification for the shooting on incomplete information by just relying on witnesses that say Brown attacked the officer in the car and disregarding other witnesses that may or may not have testified.

    Actually, I based my decision on the criteria the statutes say must be met in determining whether a shooting is justified as being done in self defense. I did consider all of the witnesses testimony — .both those that thought Brown was charging the officer and those that thought Brown was surrendering — but their testimony does not carry the most weight.

    It is the mind set of the shooter at the moment they fire their gun that determines if they are innocent or guilty. If it was reasonable for the officer to believe that their life or the life of another was in peril if they did not shoot when they did, then the law says that the shooting was justified. This is how the law works. Even if Brown had survived to tell us what his intentions were, it would NOT really matter as his intentions are not what the law says matter in deciding this case! It is the reasonableness of the shooter’s mindset that determines if the shooting is justified.

    Wilson said he believed Brown was moving to attack him again. Was it reasonable for him to think this? All of the witnesses - those who thought Brown was surrendering and those that thought he was moving to attack Wilson - agreed that Brown started moving toward Wilson when he was shot. This supports the reasonableness of Wilson’s testimony and of his actions.

  29. [29] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @don,

    get real is a slogan. fuck you is an insult.

    if donald trump made your small donor pledge, would you vote for him? or would this only apply to biden and sanders?

    get pie.
    JL

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    FPC,

    DH,

    It is an opinion, jusy like people might say OJ is a murderer.

    Actually, if the prosecutions case was accurate, it is impossible that OJ was the killer...

    It was not a statement of legal determination.

    An opinion based on facts I saw.

    No.. It's an opinion based on what the biased bigoted ALLEGED documentary chose to show you..

    Regardless, as long as you acknowledge it's your opinion not fact, we're good..

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    FPC,

    Russ,

    You don’t need to trust Michale’s ever-changing claims regarding his work history (it’s now “Public Safety” when I could have sworn it was in Law Enforcement this whole time)

    It's ALWAYS been Public Safety, dolt..

    It's just until Uber Moron (You) came around and ruined this place, there wasn't any need to make the distinction because everyone else here were all friends and understood...

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    -- my own way of attempting to limit my bias in my writing.

    Uh... er.... Oh shit, never mind...

    Joe Biden is going to be the Democratic nominee this time around. At this point, barring any completely unexpected and drastic changes in circumstance,

    A brain aneurysm... It could happen..

    If Perez offers Bernie all that he can now hope to achieve anyway, then it would remove any remaining justification for Bernie to continue campaigning.

    That's a pretty big 'IF', you have to admit, CW...

    The DNC and establishment Democrats HATE Bernie..

    I have no doubt their road is the JUST GO THE FRAK AWAY road...

    I've said it before and I'll continue to say it: over the past five years, Bernie Sanders has done more to change the direction of the Democratic Party than anyone in my entire lifetime.

    Factually accurate.. But not in a GOOD way.. At least, not in a good way for the country..

    Bernie has forcibly wrestled the Overton Window into a whole new progressive direction for the party.

    And yet, there are STILL Weigantians who deny that the Democrat Party has moved far Leftward...

    If Tom Perez hasn't already offered this to Bernie, then he needs to pick up the phone and do so immediately. Offer Bernie all that he can now hope for at the convention, in an effort to show him that it would now be pointless for him to continue campaigning.

    Yea, but Democrats never do the right thing...

    Perez ain't gonna give Bernie jack sheet..

    Why??

    Because, as you say, Bernie has been neutered.. With the pandemic, Bernie can't hold his minor-mega rallies...

    Bernie is no longer a threat to the DNC or establishment Dems..

    Perez is like Rahm Emmanuel..

    "Fuck the retards"
    -Rahm Emmanuel

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Well, that is certainly a reality-based suggestion if your vote wasn't. :)

    I hope you didn't hurt your wrist twisting the knife... :D heh

    Let me rephrase that … your suggestion for Bernie is certainly reality-based, if not your vote. Heh.

    Yes, the suggestion for Bernie is reality based..

    The suggestion for Perez and the DNC is la-la land..

    :D

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    if the primary race really is over and biden is the nominee, my question is whether michale will honor the terms of our wager and cast his vote for biden in the general election. when it seemed highly unlikely that biden would be the nominee, he offered me the chance to chicken out in good faith without breaking my word, so it's only fair that i offer the same.

    As you said, a bet's a bet..

    I will honor our bet..

    and no comments from the peanut butter gallery. though we have some very strong differences of opinion i have always found michale an honorable and forthright individual.

    "Brought a tear to me eye..."
    -Scotty, STAR TREK 7 Generations

    Thanx JL... :D

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    And, Don ... talk to me about the Citizens United SCOTUS decision and how that complicates the effort to get big money interests out of the political process;

    I would rather talk about how Democrats castigate and denigrate the CU decision...

    And then turn around and happily use it to their advantage...

    The purest form of hypocrisy...

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    CRS!!!

    Glad ta see ya... Thought ya had kicked the bucket....

    A prominent part of the early Russian collusion delusion for Weigantians suffering from PTSD immediately following Hillary's defeat was the nonsensical claim that Sanders supporters, the most rabid of all the lefties, were so mad they either abstained from voting at all, or even crazier, had voted for Trump!!

    I'd think those who believed that then ought to be edging into catatonia tonight.

    hehehehehehe... Now THAT's funny... :D

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:
    FPC

    Don,

    And, once again, Michale defines Weigantia... :D

    I love it!! :D

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    DiFi, Burr among senators who dumped millions in shares right before coronavirus mauled market

    Dianne Feinstein, 3 Senate colleagues sold off stocks before coronavirus crash: reports
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dianne-feinstein-3-senate-colleagues-sold-off-stocks-before-coronavirus-crash-reports

    Remind me again that Democrats are better than Republicans??

    I seem to have forgotten, what with all the FACTS to the contrary...

    Considering all the... er.. Data Points Of Similarity... :D.. it's safe to say that there really isn't ANY difference between Democrats and Republicans.. :D

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    The reason why Bernie lost... TWICE... is because he didn't want it bad enough..

    He should have hammered Hillary on her emails..

    He should have hammered Biden on Biden's Ukraine extortion...

    Bernie doesn't have the killer instinct to win...

    Trump would have utterly DESTROYED Bernie if they had matched up...

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    PSA ANNOUNCMENT

    FOR THE FIRST TIME IN HISTORY.....

    WE CAN SAVE THE HUMAN RACE BY STAYING AT HOME, LAYING IN FRONT OF THE TV AND DOING NOTHING..

    LET'S NOT SCREW THIS UP!!!

    :D

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Too bad the chosen one didn't act sooner. :(

    President Trump acted in a perfectly calm and rational manner befitting the seriousness of the issue at the time.

    THAT is what a good leader does...

    A good leader doesn't bow to the hysteria of the Media that is PROVEN to be 96% AGAINST him...

    You can bet that, if the media says to do something, the BEST course of action is to do the EXACT opposite of that something..

  42. [42] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick-
    Yes, that's right. They were laughing.

    I guess they appreciated the laugh so much they reduced my insurance bill by over 4000 dollars.

    Does that make me a professional comedian?

  43. [43] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Listen-
    A person in a car can easily grab a person outside the car by the shirt with his hands and pull on him.

    The people the documentary claims were not called to testify by the prosecution that knew the witnesses were available to testify are cowards be cause they didn't testify?

    Just because YOU say the prosecutor put everyone on the stand does not mean it is true. The documentary says the opposite.

    Can you show me the testimony of the people the documentary says did not testify testifying?

    Can you show where the forensic evidence the documentary says was not presented was presented?

    The FORENSIC EVIDENCE in the documentary that supported the testimony of witnesses that said Brown was NOT charging and that the documentary said was NOT presented to the grand jury makes the witnesses that said Brown was not charging more credible.

  44. [44] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    NY poet-
    No, I would not vote for Trump as a small donor only candidate.

    I think I might have said this before- the small donor pledge is the starting point. The candidate still has to be suitable on other issues.

  45. [45] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    NYpoet-
    Yes, the fuck you was an insult. And it was well deserved.

  46. [46] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale-
    Yes, Bernie has moved the Dems left.

    But since they were starting from the center-right where they had moved to over the last few decades the Dems are still not left, just closer to center in their center-rightness.

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yes, Bernie has moved the Dems left.

    YOU know that.. *I* know that..

    But there are those here in Weigantian who denied that..

    That was my point..

    But since they were starting from the center-right where they had moved to over the last few decades the Dems are still not left, just closer to center in their center-rightness.

    Whatever.. :D

  48. [48] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick(23)-
    Yes. CW lets me post my opinion here in the comments
    and I have said I appreciate that.

    So One Demand has not caught on with the few million(?) citizens that read CW's comments section out of over 300 million Americans?

    As more people are likely to read CW articles here or where cross posted then this comments section perhaps some of the majority of citizens that do not read this comments section might like One Demand if they were to read about it in an article.

    And then, just like CW writes articles about what other articles are written about, other people may then write about it and more people will hear about it.

    There are people where I also sometimes comment that have made favorable comments on One Demand.

    And that is just from someone(me) posting in the comments section.

    Many people just read the articles and not the comments. And many people consider things in articles more than from someone in a comments section.

    So that is why I ask CW to write about it. And I don't give up when I don't get an answer.

    Which is exactly what someone in my position is supposed to do and what CW lauds others for doing.

    Any other ridiculous nonsense you want to spew again as if you never said it before and had it debunked?

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    The people the documentary claims were not called to testify by the prosecution that knew the witnesses were available to testify are cowards be cause they didn't testify?

    Why don't you point a link to this "documentary" so Russ and I can judge for ourselves what it actually shows??

    :D

  50. [50] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    NY poet-
    "Get high eat pie" is also a slogan.

  51. [51] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Why don't you type Stranger Fruit into your search engine?

  52. [52] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Or try Netflicks or something like that.

  53. [53] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    It might even be playing now or be available on demand on any movie channels you might have. It has been on more than one movie channel.

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    I shouldn't have to, but OK..

    STRANGER FRUIT

    What really happened on August 9th, 2014 in Ferguson, Missouri? That afternoon, Officer Darren Wilson killed 18-year-old Michael Brown. 'Stranger Fruit' is the unraveling of what took place, told through the eyes of Mike Brown's family.

    OK, so the criminal's FAMILY is telling the story...

    And you find that credible???

    This isn't COR-AI, yunno...

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's not available thru torrents and I am sure not going to pay for criminal's family's propaganda...

    The fact that they are selling their story is a tip off it's bullshit..

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    AND JUST LIKE THAT...

    #NotMyPresident becomes #WheresMyPandemicCheck

    :^/

    Funny.. Odumbo never gave us a Pandemic Check..

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    And the FACTS come out..

    Odumbo V Trump
    http://sjfm.us/pics/OdumboVTrump.jpg

  58. [58] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale-
    More jumping to dubious conclusions.

    You look at a synopsis and determine the family is selling their story just because the person that wrote the synopsis said it was told through their eyes?

    It was not a good synopsis.

    A better synopsis would be: A look at the Michael Brown shooting.

    I do not blame you for not wanting it pay for it. I saw it on a movie channel I have.

    But then you have to accept that I saw it and not say I haven't provided the information.

    You don't have to accept what I say they said is true, but you do have to accept that it is what I saw.

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    Animals Roam Freely In Italian Cities With Humans In Lockdown
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidbressan/2020/03/20/animals-roam-freely-in-italian-cities-with-humans-in-lockdown/#10d2a4fb7956

    Good.. When society breaks down, we'll need a target rich environment for our food.... :D

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    But then you have to accept that I saw it and not say I haven't provided the information.

    I never claimed you are not providing information..

    I simply claimed that it is biased information and not factual..

    Your source being the criminal's family simply confirms my claim..

    You don't have to accept what I say they said is true, but you do have to accept that it is what I saw.

    If I gave that impression, you have my sincerest apologies...

    I have no doubt it is what you saw..

    I simply maintain that what the documentary showed you is not what occurred..

  61. [61] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Yes, the fuck you was an insult. And it was well deserved.

    i think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who agrees with that opinion. CW's post you were responding to that way wasn't even addressed to you.

    JL

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's official...

    It’s Official: Tom Brady Signs His Contract With Tampa Bay Buccaneers
    https://boston.cbslocal.com/2020/03/20/its-official-tom-brady-signs-his-contract-with-tampa-bay-buccaneers/

    It truly IS the End Of Days..

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    Wasn't there something in the bible about the seas boiling, the sky turning black as sack-cloth, the dead rising from the grave and Tom Brady leaving New England???

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    Wasn't there something in the bible about the seas boiling, the sky turning black as sack-cloth, the dead rising from the grave

    As you can see, I get all my bible info from GHOSTBUSTERS...

  65. [65] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    we apologise for the inconvenience
    ~God

  66. [66] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Perhaps one of reasons there aren't actually millions of people reading comment sections is because of the content of the comment sections.

    It seems many people (at least in this comment section) are more interested in conflict, propaganda, posturing and just outright lying than actually having discussions.

    Anyone here is capable of real discussion instead of BATTLE!

    Anyone could put in their opinion on CW and whether he should do what he says Perez should do which is relevant to the article with reasonable, rational arguments instead of nonsensical dodges because you may think it makes you look clever.

    It has the opposite effect.

    So far it has been mostly just the same old confirmation of commenters engaging in nonsense.

    "They were who we thought they were."
    -Dennis Green

    And they seem to love confirming it.

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ex-FEMA boss bolts from MSNBC interview: 'I don't have time to listen to bullshit, people'
    https://www.foxnews.com/media/ex-fema-boss-bolts-from-msnbc-interview-i-dont-have-time-to-listen-to-bull-people

    Funny.. :D

  68. [68] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    The dead are rising from the grave?

    HOORAY!!!!

    It's about time people woke up and exited the big money Dems! :D

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    IRONY DEFINED

    The people who claim we don't need that much ammo are buying 500 rolls of toilet paper...

    :eyeroll:

  70. [70] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Why is that ironic?

    Doesn't it make sense to be scared shitless when other people have ammo and you don't? :D

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    Touche' :D

    Yunno why there is such a big run on toilet paper..

    Because every time someone coughs, 100 people shit their pants... :D

  72. [72] 
    Mezzomamma wrote:

    Chris, I am not so certain that Sanders should be offered half the seats at platform-writing. I trust you aren't suggesting this as an inducement to cede the nomination and not cause difficulties, and I don't feel that he has in any sense earned it. A number proportionate to his share of primary votes, yes. Include people who speak for younger voters, yes. (And I really want to see younger people mentored and brought on at all levels.) But I don't think Sanders and his supporters should have places at the expense of people from marginalised groups and of women, so often doubly or trebly marginalised and shouted down.

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    so often doubly or trebly marginalised and shouted down.

    Oh, com'on!

    Those groups you mention are put on a throne!!! :^/

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    Seriously, Mamma..

    Tell me which groups are "doubly or trebly marginalized" by the Democrat Party...

    You can't, because non exists..

  75. [75] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Mezzomamma,

    You make a good point.

    I mean, the American people have spoken in large number in favour of moderation and practicality. Two words that have developed bad reps over the last many years, and for good reason, I admit. But, I think that is mostly because we haven't seen anybody really put moderation and practicality to good use lately. I'm hoping that will change in a way that makes progress not only possible but inevitable!

  76. [76] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Being an unabashed and unapologetic cockeyed-optimist, I was pleasantly surprised by something president Trump said today at the daily presser, perhaps providing more proof of the 'Bern' having wide-ranging impacts.

    Trump lambasted corporations for not using their tax breaks to build plants and otherwise improve the economy but rather for their selfish stock buybacks. He emphasized this point more than once!

  77. [77] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    CW-
    Another point to consider about you applying the Perez Principle by writing an article about Nader putting pressure on Biden to apply the Perez Principle by committing to a small donor only campaign is that Nader may only have to consider running the campaign if Biden does apply the Perez Principle.

    If you wrote the article and Ralph merely announced he was considering running and forming an exploratory committee, then Biden applying the Perez Principle would mean that Biden would give Nader what he wants then to prevent him from actually running.

    It is your principle, I just gave it a name.

    Also, wouldn't it be a shame to waste all that hard work done by Bernie by letting this opportunity to capitalize on where he has got us to and miss this golden opportunity to go further?

    In a way, your principle is similar to One Demand.

    You say the politicians should give people what they want to make people happy and gain their support and votes.

    I say the same thing but say that rather then wait for the politicians to offer it that citizens should demand it and enforce that demand with their votes to give the politicians the incentive to offer it.

  78. [78] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    You know who else has been writing and doing his radio hour on stock buybacks even when Obama was in office?

    Not Rush Limbaugh.

  79. [79] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    We have seen much moderation and practicality put to good use in recent years and recent years before the recent years.

    That is because a good use for moderation and practicality is to make sure that nothing will change in a way that costs the big money interests any money.

    The moderation is only an excuse to not help ordinary citizens and the practicality is not at all practical because it is just used as an excuse to maintain the status quo.

    It is an empty slogan. A politician offering it is telling you they will not do anything for you.

    It is not practical to support or vote for such a politician.

  80. [80] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Well, that isn't good use, is it Don … sigh.

  81. [81] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Think about it, CW. It starts with than article titled "Applying the Perez Principle to Ralph Nader and Joe Biden".

    This results in Nader forming an exploratory committee and Biden making the small donor only commitment forming a coalition of Biden, Bernie and Nader working together that encourages record voter turnout and sweeps the electoral college at historic levels while at the same time taking a HUUUUUGE step toward getting the big money out of our political process.

    And the person that originated the Perez Principle gets a great book deal on a book with the same title.

    Maybe even a guest spot on Ellen! (is that still on somewhere?)

  82. [82] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Can you show me the testimony of the people the documentary says did not testify testifying?

    Of course not. But tell me, what did they say in their testimony that differed from those that did testify and said they thought Brown was trying to surrender?

    Can you show where the forensic evidence the documentary says was not presented was presented?

    Seeing how I do not know what they are claiming, all I can do is point you to the grand jury report that listed all of the evidence the police collected during the investigation.

    The FORENSIC EVIDENCE in the documentary that supported the testimony of witnesses that said Brown was NOT charging and that the documentary said was NOT presented to the grand jury makes the witnesses that said Brown was not charging more credible.

    The witnesses’ credibility was not the issue. As I tried to point out in my previous post, the only question the jury was answering was whether it was reasonable for the officer to believe that his life was in peril the moment that he fired the shot that killed Michael Brown.

    You keep calling it “FORENSIC EVIDENCE”, but you do not seem to have any idea what that actually means! How did they come to possess it if it wasn’t found at the time of the shooting? When was it found, where was it found, and by who was it found?

    Furthermore, you simply ignore the fact that all of the witnesses described the same exact physical movements by Brown just prior to his being shot and killed. He stopped moving away from Wilson, turned around to face Wilson and started moving forward. It is what they believed they were witnessing — their perception of what was taking place— that differs, not the actual movements by Brown. Brown might have been lunging forward to take a knee or he could have been charging the officer — the two movements are the same. What differs was how they perceived the intent for those movements.

  83. [83] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    PS-
    If the book is too much for you I will ghost write it for you. Why the hell not? I already gave you the title.:D

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    cockeyed

    I gots to wonder at the etymology of that word.. :D

  85. [85] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Listen-
    The forensic evidence that the documentary claims was not presented was obtained by the documentary from official records.

    It shows that Brown was slowly staggering forward toward the officer after he turned around because he had been shot. The FATAL shot in the head was fired after he was down from being shot several times and was clearly no longer a threat.

    The documentary also had an audio tape that showed it was full two seconds between the shots that took bring Brown down and the fatal shot.

    This was not presented to the grand jury because it was not found until after the grand jury so the prosecutor could not have presented it.

    Unless the documentary did not verify this tape was authentic and just used it I would not claim to know.

    But it probably is authentic or Michale would have spent all the time since the movie came out posting it up here as this would be something Fox News would actually investigate and report on if the tape was a fake.

  86. [86] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz-
    Would you say a good use of practicality would be CW applying CW's Perez Principle to Nader, Biden and small donor only candidates?

    Is it practical to let this opportunity pass by?

    Is CW's Perez Principle of hoping the politicians will offer what we want more or less practical than the One Demand approach of citizens demanding what we want and enforcing that demand with our votes to give politicians the incentive to give us what we want?

  87. [87] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Doesn't Biden , Bernie and Nader working together have a better chance of beating Trump and is therefore more practical?

  88. [88] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    One Demand is only concerned with one thing — that the candidate campaign only accepts small donations under $200. You claim that we cannot trust anyone who accepts more than that to act in our best interests. But what makes you think a person who only accepts small donations can be trusted?

    So One Demand would back a Neo-Nazi running on a “kill all gays” and “bring back slavery” platform just as long as they agreed to your ONE DEMAND — that they run a “only small donations” campaign? It would seem like One Demand would have a hard time explaining how it wasn’t backing a candidate that meets your One Demand.

    Do you believe if Congress passed a law tomorrow capping campaign donations to just $200, then that would get Big Money out of our elections? That would fix everything?

  89. [89] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Listen-
    You are just as wrong as the many other times you and others have raised those questions.

    if you want to know why go back to the last time you spewed your bullshit that I answered it.

  90. [90] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    if you want to know why go back to the last time you spewed your bullshit that I answered it.

    I have...and you never did provide an actual answer to how you could justify not supporting any candidate that meets your criteria.

    No, you simply claimed to have answered it before. That’s the question every reporter would ask you about your idea. The answer has to be “yes, One Demand is not concerned with a candidates positions or political views as long as they are meeting our ONE DEMAND.” But let’s forget this one and focus on the main question that followed it.

    I do not recall ever asking you If campaign donations were capped a $200, would that solve our nation’s problem with Big Money in politics. That is what you are claiming with One Demand, is it not? So humor me and answer this question, please.

  91. [91] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Don,

    You are just as wrong as the many times you and others have raised those questions

    Listen to yourself. I can be a little slow on the uptake but, I get it now. And, fair warning, I understand I have no time for it, anymore.

  92. [92] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Don

    It's my understanding that there are already limits on how much money people or groups can contribute directly to political candidates/incumbents etc. so what is it you hope to restrict?

    Are you hoping to eliminate the Citizens United (PAC) type indirect money, or what? That simply ain't gonna happen

  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:

    As I said.. All this has been gamed out in EXECUTIVE ORDERS... Except there, it was IRAN who was the culprit, not China... :D

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    The latest on the Coronavirus response

    President Trump and the White House Coronavirus Task Force announced additional actions today as part of the ongoing, government-wide response to the global pandemic:

    ° To help American families and businesses, the Treasury Department announced that Tax Day will be moved from April 15 to July 15. No interest or penalties will be charged for filing during this extended window, but any American expecting refunds or credits may claim now to get their money sooner.

    ° To minimize impact on our nation’s students, the Department of Education is temporarily waiving all interest on federally held student loans. Secretary Betsy DeVos has also directed federal lenders to allow borrowers to suspend their student loan payments without penalty for at least the next 60 days.

    ° Early, decisive travel restrictions helped slow the spread of Coronavirus to our country. Today, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced that the United States and Mexico have agreed to restrict non-essential travel across their border.

    ° More help is on the way. The Trump Administration worked with Congress last week on a bipartisan deal to deliver economic relief and support for American families, which the President signed into law on Wednesday. More legislative action is expected in the coming days.

    Thank the gods we have President Trump and not President Hillary.. :D

    Hell, even Ilhan Omar is praising President Trump..

    There's another campaign ad for The Re-elect President Trump committee... :D

  95. [95] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz-
    Perhaps you will better understand that response if you see the response coming up for Listen that he requested for me to humor him (good choice of words).

  96. [96] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Listen-
    If you insist I will humor you and even cover all the questions again. And I did say you and others so if you didn't ask one of the questions that many have asked, two out three ain't bad.

    You say that I say politicians that take big money can't be trusted and ask how I know a small donor only can be trusted.

    I have repeatedly said there is no guarantee that a small donor only candidate can be trusted. I have said that a big money politician is guaranteed to represent the big money interests.

    That is not entirely correct. It is possible that a politician could take big money and not represent the big money interests at all in their one term of office (unless they switched to a small donor only candidate to finance their re-election because the big money interests would be pissed). A politician that normally represents the big money interests may on rare occasions for a short single moment on an issue actually try to do something instead of just posturing on a lost cause to score brownie points for rebelling on something that didn't matter.

    But that still leaves the other 98.9% of the time.

    The odds are better than 98.9% against that a small donor only politician would represent ordinary citizens.

    The Nazi small donor only candidate nonsense is a purposeful wrong statement about One Demand.

    I have repeatedly said that the small donor only commitment is a starting point and that the candidates would still have to meet the criteria on other issues important to the participants.

    So the answer doesn't have to be the one you provided to fit your argument.

    It is not a problem for One Demand to support a small donor only candidate that would be a Neo-Nazi or whatever because One Demand does not endorse or support the candidates.

    The participants send their contributions directly to the candidates and not through One Demand to give each participant control of who they support and I am confident the vast majority will not be the kind of people that would contribute to a Nazi.

    The 200 dollar law?

    Another stupid question that is not designed for discussion but probably because you think it is a gotcha question or just to be combative or annoying.

    I have repeatedly said that legislation cannot solve the problem because the big money legislators will not pass any legislation to get the big money out of politics. Decades of proof to back this up or the big money would be gone by now.

    Why would we need a law that could not be passed until we first replace the big money legislators with small donor legislators when we can just do it by not voting for big money candidates and participating in One Demand?

    The only way to pass the law to solve the problem is to first solve the problem the law is designed to solve.

    Did this not answer your "questions"?

    Of course you will not answer my questions.

    You even start with an easy one like comment 87.

  97. [97] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    No Don, after giving it my best shot, again, please understand that it's just all become so tiresome, you know.

  98. [98] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz-
    Not sure what that means.

    You made a comment about my comment to Listen about repeating nonsense saying you had no time for it.

    That was also unclear but I answered Listen's questions explaining the comment you commented on.

    What are you tired of? Me pointing out Listen is posting nonsense, Listen posting nonsense, One Demand, Listen not answering my questions?

    Am I in your opinion doing something wrong? Is anyone else doing something wrong?

  99. [99] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Yes.

  100. [100] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    New column up soon … hopefully and mercifully.

  101. [101] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Don Harris,

    Doesn't Biden , Bernie and Nader working together have a better chance of beating Trump and is therefore more practical?

    Yes, and hopefully Bernie and Nader will fully endorse Biden’s campaign. Your idea of Biden suddenly turning his campaign into a “small donation only” crusade would never happen, especially after this coronavirus outbreak ending large gatherings and putting a strain on most people’s pocketbooks.

    The 200 dollar law?

    Another stupid question that is not designed for discussion but probably because you think it is a gotcha question or just to be combative or annoying.

    I have repeatedly said that legislation cannot solve the problem because the big money legislators will not pass any legislation to get the big money out of politics. Decades of proof to back this up or the big money would be gone by now.

    For a question you refer to as stupid and suspect, you sure as fuk don’t seem to want to answer it directly! I find it odd that you seem to be the only person who determines what could work and what definitely won’t work.

    The question was not whether you believe Congress WOULD cap campaign donations at $200, it assumes that they not only would, but that they have passed it and if that would rid our elections of BIG Money’s corrupting influence?

    I am simply taking the premise of what you are trying to convince CW deserves being reported to the masses as our best way of getting rid of the corrupt influences in politics and asking you if you believe that your idea can fix the problem. It really should not be that hard of a question for you to answer...but you have a habit of avoiding discussing whether One Demand will do what you want us to believe it will do.

    You called Citizens United a “red herring”, but it is what allows unlimited amounts of money to be poured into our elections without us knowing where the money is coming from. Your idea takes $5200 of a $5400 reported corporate donation out of the campaign’s bank — leaving it with $200 — but does nothing about the $20 million the corporation pumps into a PAC named “The Institute for Helping People” that will work to get their politician elected.

    Face it, you do not want the $200 cap on political donations to become the law because that would mean that there is no longer a “movement”... you are not cool for making a stand that lets you look down on others who don’t follow your wisdom... it’s the law for everyone. If everyone has to do it, that robs you of the glory you think you are deserving of.

  102. [102] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Well said, Russ.

  103. [103] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    42

    Yes, that's right. They were laughing.

    It's a cute story, Don, but please realize that insurance agents get threatened with lawsuits by every Don, Dick, and Harry on the other end of the telephone line on a quite regular basis. They record those phone calls too and use them to train other agents regarding what they're going to hear all day and how not to laugh their asses off that everybody in America seems to think they would have made a good lawyer.

    I guess they appreciated the laugh so much they reduced my insurance bill by over 4000 dollars.

    If you say so. Sometimes if you get the "right agent/adjuster," they'll just file you under "crazy" and go ahead and recode your data.

    Does that make me a professional comedian?

    If you have to ask, then you know the answer.

  104. [104] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    48

    Yes. CW lets me post my opinion here in the comments
    and I have said I appreciate that.

    Yes, he quite obviously does, but you've got a funny way of showing your appreciation.

    Any other ridiculous nonsense you want to spew again as if you never said it before and had it debunked?

    You just agreed with me, and then you referred to my 100% factual post as "ridiculous nonsense" that you "debunked." How fucking ignorant is that?

  105. [105] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale [40] -

    Your PSA announcement was hilarious, I have to admit.

    Heh. heh heh.

    Couch potatoes unite!

    [63] -

    OK, that Bible quote was funny, too!

    My sincerest condolences on Brady infesting your state, and I do mean that deeply. At least now my New England friends won't be so insufferable...

    Heh.

    Don Harris [66] -

    Perhaps one of reasons there aren't actually millions of people reading comment sections is because of the content of the comment sections.

    [holds mirror up...]

    I've easily gotten twice the complaints about you in the comments section than I've ever gotten about Michale.

    And that's saying something.

    -CW

  106. [106] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Mezzomamma [72] -

    Your comment was worth a response apart from all the others, I thought.

    You'll notice I always (I think) said "almost half the seats at the table" not "half."

    Yes, Bernie's earned this. But you seem to want him to prove it, once again, by extending the primary season right through to the end, so Bernie can rack up as many delegates as possible rather than just gracefully making an exit now and avoiding the rest of the primary season. I disagree.

    Bernie has had an influence on the DNC already. He singlehandedly got the superdelegate rules changed, for the better (in my opinion at least).

    And please step back and think about it for a moment -- of what real importance is the platform document anyway, these days? It's nowhere near as big a deal as it used to be -- hardly anyone even bothers to read it, and it certainly doesn't determine elections in any way. So why not toss Bernie this bone and let him argue for all the changes he wants in it?

    With just short of half the delegates, he couldn't muscle through any changes that at least a few others agreed with. So what's the real harm? If he wins somewhat-less-than-half of the delegates, then why wouldn't he earn somewhat-less-than-half of the seats at the table? So why force him to prove this strength by prolonging the primaries rather than just offer it to him now on a plate?

    -CW

  107. [107] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    LizM [76] -

    Yep, once the Overton Window shifts, then everyone starts accepting the new direction of the conversation!

    Michale [84] -

    You're going to be disappointed. The OED says it possibly derives from the Irish or Gaelic caog "wink" or caogshnil "squint eye." First usage cited was from 1820s -- "an eye that must be cocked like a gun."

    So stifle the Beavis and Butthead snerking, because it has a totally different root.

    [heh heh... he said root... heh heh heh]
    [Couldnt' resist]

    [94]

    Thank the gods we have President Trump and not President Hillary..

    Yeah, because that would have meant all of this would have happened about a month earlier. How terrible!

    [rolls eyes...]

    LizM [97] -

    Amen.

    Don Harris [98] -

    [holds mirror up]

    -CW

  108. [108] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Liz [102]

    Thank you. I have come to realize that Don realizes his great idea is deeply flawed and won’t work. I think that is why he hasn’t done any work to make his website look more professional... he knows that Chris isn’t going to do an article on One Demand with their homepage being such a clusterduck, and Don is OK with that.

    As long as CW refuses to write anything about One Demand, Don can keep blaming him for One Demand never becoming the grassroots movement to end all movements. And it’s always nicer not having to admit failure and just blaming others instead!

  109. [109] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    108

    Nailed it!

    Again... :)

  110. [110] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Listen(108)-
    I do not know that CW is not writing about One Demand because of my website that actually contains more information than many websites for candidates that I have visited.

    It lays out a specific plan of action instead of just the empty rhetoric offered by many candidates without any specifics.

    Why do you keep using that as a fallback when it is not accurate?

    Yes, I only ask CW to write about One Deamnd because I need an excuse for it to not be successful.

    Is that all you got? Even more lame than the website excuse.

    If that were true then CW could easily expose it by writing an article and having One Demand fail.

    So please, CW, I need my excuse. Please continue to not write about One Demand. Please continue to not explain why you won't write about One Demand so Listen and others can claim to know why you don't.

    Please don't prove me wrong.

    I am much to frightened that it might fail to have you write about it.

    I wish I had the courage to really want to find out instead of just saying it's better to not know so it can be used as an excuse to not try it.

    You win, Listen. I just couldn't keep up the pretense any more.

  111. [111] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @cw,

    i posted with a link but it was swallowed up by the filters. no need to retrieve it from NNL unless you want to, but you might want to check the link location.

    JL

  112. [112] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    michale, this one's for you:

    RuPaul has yet to comment publicly on fans’ concerns that the drag star is fracking. RuPaul’s Drag Race is currently airing its 12th season. One of the guest judges on the show will be Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who coincidentally introduced a bill in the House that bans all fracking by 2025.

    got that? rupaul owns land in wyoming and leases it to oil companies for fracking. AOC is going on his show, which is essentially an endorsement of someone who does precisely what she's written bills to outlaw.

    JL

Leave a Reply

[If you have questions as to how to register or log in, to be able to post comments here, or if you'd like advanced commenting and formatting tips, please visit our "Commenting Tips" page, for further details.]

You must be logged in to post a comment.
If you are a new user, please register so you can post comments here.

[The first time you post a comment (after creating your user name and logging in), it will be held for approval. Please be patient (as it may take awhile). After your first comment has been approved, you will be able to post further comments instantly and automatically.]