ChrisWeigant.com

Time For Some Republican-Shaming

[ Posted Monday, April 6th, 2020 – 16:39 UTC ]

Suddenly, it's all out in the open. A fight which Republicans have been waging (and mostly winning) in the background for the past two or three decades is about to move to the center ring of American politics. Because of the stance Republicans have taken, they've now painted themselves into a corner -- and by doing so have given the Democrats an enormous political gift. It remains to be seen if the Democrats realize how politically potent an issue this could be, if properly handled. They could always blow the opportunity, of course. But if they start banging the drum now, they can either cause the Republicans to back down (out of shame) or pay a political price in November, up and down the ballot. Because the issue really is that potent. Here is the nutshell version: "Republicans don't want you to vote. Democrats want everyone to safely and securely have their vote counted."

Republicans, as mentioned, have been fighting this fight for a while now. They've added all sorts of hurdles to the process of voting, in a naked attempt to make it harder for certain types of voter to cast their ballot. And by "certain types of voter," I mean: "Democrats." This was all couched in the most sanctimonious language possible, as Republicans swore up and down that they were merely fighting voter fraud. Time after time, it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that voter fraud in American elections simply does not exist to any meaningful degree. Republicans dig and dig to find poster-boy cases, but they wind up prosecuting five or ten people out of tens of millions of votes cast. Each and every time, Republicans try to fearmonger the handful of cases (most of which were due to simple confusion about the rules) but their evidence never stacks up. To successfully throw an election, you'd have to have massive voter fraud on the order of tens of thousands of votes (at the very least), but in every case where voter fraud has been actually found, it boils down to one vote out of many millions cast. In other words, the problem simply does not exist.

But that hasn't stopped Republicans from making a whole lot of political hay over the issue. Because of this, they now find themselves in an awfully tight ideological spot. We are in the middle of an emergency unlike any seen in generations. Emergency measures are being taken in all walks of life to err on the side of safety, to prevent a pandemic from becoming any worse. And Republicans are fighting hard for "business as usual" when it comes to voting. They are currently spending millions of dollars fighting in court against any measure designed to alter the voting process to make it safer and more accessible to as many people as possible in the midst of a medical crisis. They are fighting hard against vote-by-mail, in particular.

This has all come to a head right now in Wisconsin. The Democratic governor is trying to halt the primary election scheduled for tomorrow. The Republican legislature is demanding that the state hold in-person voting, on schedule. There's a reason for this, and the reason is they think that lower turnout will give them an edge in a state supreme court seat on the ballot. In other words, they're fighting reasonable safety measures for purely political gain. And if this isn't an issue that is ripe for Democrats to exploit, I don't know what is. The lines have been drawn, and the Democrats are on the side of common sense, science, and a desire to keep everyone safe in a crisis. The Republicans are on the side of endangering lives for their political benefit, plain and simple. That's a pretty easy case to make. And Wisconsin isn't the only place Republicans are fighting hard against a commonsense solution to the problem -- it's happening in multiple states and in the U.S. Congress as well.

Off the top of my head, I came up with four ads that Democrats should be running right about now. This fight isn't over by a long shot, and right now the most important part of that fight is framing the issue with the voters. Democrats need to seize the opportunity to make the case that they are on the side of safety, while Republicans don't care how risky it is to force everyone to vote in person. Also, that Democrats are for a simple and commonsense solution to the problem, while Republicans are fighting it tooth and nail for purely political reasons. Luckily, these cases are almost pathetically easy to make, since they both happen to be true. But Republicans are never going to pay a political price for their stance unless the voters are informed about what is going on. So here are four quick ideas for ads to do so:

 

[Opens with stock footage of people in masks and people washing their hands. Moves to a pair of hands filling out a ballot, slipping it in an envelope and sticking it in a mailbox. When the "Why? I have no idea." line runs, show an elderly voter reacting with shock, and then sadly shaking their head in disbelief. End with the phone number and URL of the state's legislature.]

The experts tell us the best way to fight the coronavirus pandemic is through social distancing. That means having as little physical contact with other people, to keep everyone as safe as possible. Which is why Democrats want to hold our state's primary by offering mail-in ballots to every voter. Everyone can fill out their ballot at home and safely mail it in, so nobody will have to take any additional risks to themselves or to others. But the Republicans, for some reason, don't want to do this. Why? I have no idea. Maybe they just don't want you to stay safe, or maybe they just flat-out don't want you to vote. Maybe you should ask them -- call your state representative today and ask them if they support voting-by-mail for everyone, and if they don't, ask them why on Earth they'd oppose such a commonsense safety measure.

 

[Opens with older voters voting. Stock footage of polling places, showing older Americans standing in line to cast their ballots, going into voting booths, as well as the older citizens who are manning the polling places. Switch halfway to an older voter filling out a ballot at home, then mailing it in with a smile on their face. End with "IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE" in white letters on a black screen.]

Older citizens are the most at risk from the coronavirus. They're also more likely to vote than any other demographic group. But Republicans want to actually increase the risk for this vulnerable population by forcing them to stand in line with dozens of their neighbors, use voting booths that have been used by hundreds in the same day, and risk spreading the pandemic even further. But you know what? It doesn't have to be this way. There's a simply solution to this problem -- one that will keep every single voter as safe as possible. That would be voting by mail. Fill your ballot out, drop it in the mail, and you're done. You'll be safer, your grandparents will be safer -- because the risk of becoming infected through casting a vote will simply not be an issue. Why do Republicans want to put elderly voters at risk of an infectious disease that could kill them? It just doesn't make sense.

 

[Open with scenes of ambulances and emergency rooms. Show lots of stock footage of the coronavirus impact on hospitals, doctors and nurses in gowns and masks, and EMTs doing runs in ambulances. When the text mentions it, show a map with the five vote-by-mail states highlighted. Show stock footage from those states of how elections happen safely through the mail. End with a shot of the U.S. Capitol, overlaid with the words: "Do it now. Let EVERYONE vote by mail."]

In an emergency, emergency measures must be taken. We've all seen this in our daily lives, as everyone strives to keep as safe as possible. Nobody now knows whether the coronavirus will be an issue in November, because sometimes viral outbreaks return in the fall. So we could all be practicing social distancing on Election Day this year. Which is why Democrats are pushing right now to ensure that every single voter in the entire country has the ability to cast their ballot by mail. We want on-demand vote-by-mail ballots in every state for this year's election, because it is the safe and sane thing to do. We can have the argument later over whether this is a good idea for every election or not -- but right now is not a time to play politics. Right now is a time to maximize everyone's safety. For the 2020 election, every single voter who wants to should be able to easily cast a ballot by mail. Five states already run their entire elections through the mail, which shows that it can indeed be successful everywhere. If the citizens of these five states can safely and securely vote by mail then everyone should be able to. Call your congressman and the White House today and demand that at-will vote-by-mail be available in every single state in November. Because if we wait until right before the election to demand this commonsense emergency measure, it will be too late. This has to happen now, so the states have time to prepare.

 

[Throughout the entire ad, show packed polling places. Show enormous lines from past elections. Show crowds of people in the same room, voting together. Halfway through, shift to showing empty polling places and voting booths with nobody using them. Then show random shots of people walking mostly-empty streets wearing masks. End with a shot of a medical monitor beeping steadily, then flatlining when the final "simply not worthy" line is read.]

Republicans want to make it as hard and as dangerous for you to cast your ballot as they can. They want to force everyone to gather in large groups at the polling places and have lots of physical interactions with each other and with the people running the polling place. They want you to use a voting booth that hundreds of other people have been in on the same day. They don't care about the risk to you or the risk to your neighbors. Republicans just don't want you to safely vote, when it comes right down to it. They think that if fewer of you vote, they'll have a political edge. That really says something about how they view their party's chances, doesn't it? I don't know about you, but I want to have my vote counted and I want to be able to cast that vote as safely as possible. So why are Republicans fighting so hard against Democratic proposals to allow voting by mail for all? Why do Republicans want elderly voters to run the risk of dying just to cast their ballot? This is beyond unfair -- this is downright dangerous. Any Republican who doesn't support vote by mail should be sent a strong message from the voters, because anyone who is against keeping every voter safe is simply not worthy of being re-elected, period.

 

As you can see, you can make these ads gauzy and patriotic, or you can get as edgy as you want. It's incredibly easy to make the basic case that Republicans are putting everyone's safety at risk for crass political purposes, because that is exactly what is happening. Democrats are on the side of the angels here, while Republicans are fighting basic commonsense safety measures tooth and nail. It's pathetically easy to make this case, in fact.

As I said, Republicans are handing Democrats an enormous political gift by their intransigence. All Democrats have to do is open it up and utilize it. Hammer home the message that Republicans don't care if granny dies to cast her vote as hard and as often as you can. Don't be shy about doing so in the strongest possible terms, either. This is not a time for political nuance. This is a time to say Democrats want to keep everyone safe while still allowing them to vote, and Republicans want to risk everyone's health and well being.

One of two things will happen as a result. The first is that Republicans will actually be shamed into backing down, at least for the 2020 election. Their position is so indefensible that this could actually happen, if Democrats make a big enough stink about it. Don't pin it on Donald Trump alone, either, paint the entire Republican Party with this brush. Who knows? They might just come to their senses.

The other possible outcome is that the Republican Party is exposed as heartless and needlessly obstructive, at a time when people's lives are at stake. And that's a pretty bad position to be in, heading into an election cycle. If handled correctly (and if the Republicans refuse to back down), this could be a crucially important issue in the November election -- especially if the coronavirus does in fact return in the fall. But the only way it is going to be politically effective is if Democrats start beating this drum as loudly as possible right now.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

38 Comments on “Time For Some Republican-Shaming”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I hope you're letting the right, err, the appropriate people know about this opportunity and these ads.

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Maybe the old cast of 'Madmen' could even be involved. They're all Democrats, I hope.

  3. [3] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I just heard that Democrats are trying to shoehorn The Green New Deal into the Covid-19 relief bills.

    Please, say it ain't so!

  4. [4] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Why wait for November for the ads?

    Strike while the iron is hot.

    Why not a segment by John Oliver or maybe a South Park (do they still make South Parks?) with some cartoon kids singing the Grandma Got Corona Virus This Year dark song parody? (see FTP comments)

  5. [5] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    The key is for the Dems to handle it correctly.

    According to an article at Commondreams Biden is not handling it correctly.

    The article claims Biden said whether it should proceed is up to the people of Wisconsin.

    Bold leadership.

    Of course, you just look at it (in the article) from the perspective of how the Dems can benefit politically from this.

    It would have been nice to include something that still might be able to stop it, if it hasn't been taken up already- maybe the poll workers could just refuse to open the polls.

    After all, Biden said the people of Wisconsin should decide.

    Pretty sure the poll workers will be people from Wisconsin.

  6. [6] 
    John M from Ct. wrote:

    Good ideas, but if I may say so, I think your ads' voice-overs are too wordy. Make it shorter and simpler and easier to follow; try to personalize or dramatize the issue with characters or situations that explain themselves. I know that's hard with a relatively abstract issue like this, but your visuals per your descriptions show you've got the basic idea right.

    I only hope the Dems are even interested in making this an issue worth some televised ads.

  7. [7] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    In November the ads with a few alterations to include Biden will work well for Nader running against Trump and Biden. :D

  8. [8] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    I believe that these ads are a slam dunk obvious choice for Democrats. So why am I afraid that the Dems will ignore or under emphasize them?

    Could it be that the Dems are rightfully known as the "Mommy Party" and don't have an edgy bone in their collective body? Could it be because Don Harris is right, that both Parties are Big Money Parties who've decided to let us proles fight over social issues to give us the illusion that we actually have a choice? [Easy there, Big Don - while I and I think most Americans want Big Money out of politics, One Demand is only a portion of what has to happen to effect this worthy goal. And Don forget about Ralph Nader (a hero of mine) unless you want a repeat of 2000. Joe Biden was my last choice of the "for real" Dem Primary candidates as, among other things, Joe's too Corporatist for even a Nader threat to change his mind. And please stop equating Perez and Biden's inability to postpone State primaries as the equivalent of Trump costing American lives. Even if they had the power to do so (each State Party run their own Primaries, hello?) it would be political suicide for them to try. After the DNC rigged 2016 to shove Hillary down our collective throat they cannot even appear to be doing the same this year.]

  9. [9] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    And now I raise a subject that I cannot believe I'm the only American to have thought of:

    Polling of Repugs (and the actions/inactions of various Repug governors) show that Dems and Independents take coronavirus way more seriously. I wonder if the folks who've trusted Cheetogod on this matter will die in greater numbers than the rest of us. Could this turn out to be a political Natural Selection event that alters the electorate in a significant manner? I don't see how (absent the South and Plains states being considerably more ravaged than the bi-coastal blue states) we'll ever know for sure but I sure wonder about it.

    Am I evil?

  10. [10] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Any news of Michale?

  11. [11] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [6]

    John M from CT.

    I agree that the ads are to wordy. But in general I find CW to be a little on the wordy side. Mind you it doesn't take away from my enjoyment of nor my agreement with CW, and the fact that he is (hopefully) making a living doing this speaks volumes. Just a matter of personal taste I guess.

  12. [12] 
    Mezzomamma wrote:

    Shorter is generally punchier, of course, and a good, repeatable slogan helps. Confession: I recognise them better than I write them. Competition time? And can a link be sent to Perez and others on the national committee? (But perhaps CW already submits ideas.)

  13. [13] 
    Kick wrote:

    MtnCaddy
    8

    Easy there, Big Don - while I and I think most Americans want Big Money out of politics, One Demand is only a portion of what has to happen to effect this worthy goal.

    OMG. Can't we please collectively stop prattling on and on about this? Enough already.

  14. [14] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Mtn Caddy-
    Thanks for agreeing that the two party system is an illusion.

    I know that One Demand is only part of what needs to happen and that it will take time for it to be effective.

    It is the people here that seem to think it has to be proven to be 100% effective immediately before we can even think about discussing whether we should try it that need to understand that is how things get done.

    Funny how those people seem to think it is okay for the Dems to take decades to not get things done.

    A Nader campaign in 2020 would not be a repeat of 2000.

    The Nader campaign in 2000 did not have any effect on the outcome of the 2000 election.

    That was just rationalization by the Dems so they could scapegoat someone else for their mistakes.

    If you want to refer to a third party or independent candidate that effected any election you have to go back to 1992 when people were so fed up that nearly 20% of voters voted for Perot even though they knew he would not win.

    This Nader campaign would purposely be a spoiler campaign. And people today have thousands and by November possibly hundreds of thousands of reasons (the people that will not be voting ever again) to be fed up. And if Biden does not step up Nader will provide a vehicle for people to express their anger in November.

    Please stop NOT equating Perez and Biden's actions with Trump's actions. The only difference between the two is a difference of degree.

    It's the equivalent of saying the Republicans are more corrupted by big money than the Dems. Not a significant point of difference.

    If it is political suicide to even appear to be rigging the primaries then the move would have been to delay the primaries.

    If Perez and Biden had pushed to have the primaries delayed it would have happened or the story would be they tried but did not have the power to do it.

    But it is now they pushed to not delay the primaries which shows they ARE pulling the same crap that was done in 2016.

  15. [15] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "(But perhaps CW already submits ideas)"

    He does. When CW writes about an idea it is entered into the public discourse (if it is not alrerady there).

    CW-
    hint hint, wink wink, nod nod. :D

  16. [16] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "OMG can we please collectively stop prattling on about this?"

    Sure.

    Right after Biden and the Dems stop taking big money.

    Until then- Enough already of the Dems selling us out to the big money interests.

  17. [17] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    The objection to trying One Demand or standing up in any way to the big money interests here has always been that it could lead to a worst case scenario and it not worth the risk to abandon a tried and true method that avoids such a worst case scenario.

    Well that tried and true method that I said would lead us to a worst case scenario unprepared has now lead us to a worst case scenario unprepared.

    So it would seem the tried and true method is not as tried and true as was thought.

    And the risk of trying One Demand, the Nader idea and demanding Emergency Political Contribution Vouchers now has been eliminated.

    The only way to make things worse at this point is to NOT take these actions.

    Wake up. Wise up. Rise Up.
    Get Real.

    A short, punchy and repeatable slogan.

    Repeatable until we get results.

  18. [18] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Unless you like the current results and want them repeated in the future.

  19. [19] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    2020 - The Year of Nurses and Midwives

    And, today is World Health Day, wouldn't you know it.

    https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/07-04-2020-who-and-partners-call-for-urgent-investment-in-nurses

  20. [20] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [13]

    Kick wrote:

    "OMG. Can't we please collectively stop prattling on and on about this? Enough already."

    We could stop prattling on and on but we won't. I agree with Don Harris that getting Big Money out of politics is of paramount importance, and seeing Bernie Sander's small doner tsunami verifies the potential of One Demand as part of a possible solution, and that's worth further discourse.

    That said, I'm just as annoyed with "Get Real" and his pox on both houses assertions as anyone in the Weigant tribe. We all have had plenty of practice scrolling through the Michale deluge so feel free to scroll through my comments as you please.

  21. [21] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [14]

    Don Harris wrote:

    "A Nader campaign in 2020 would not be a repeat of 2000.

    The Nader campaign in 2000 did not have any effect on the outcome of the 2000 election. "

    Dude, Bush the Younger " won" Florida by 537 votes. Ralph Nader garnished over 97,000 votes in Florida. Unless you believe Nader took more votes from the Repugs than from the Dems then Nader cost Gore the election.

  22. [22] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    "[9] MtnCaddy wrote:
    And now I raise a subject that I cannot believe I'm the only American to have thought of:

    Polling of Repugs (and the actions/inactions of various Repug governors) show that Dems and Independents take coronavirus way more seriously. I wonder if the folks who've trusted Cheetogod on this matter will die in greater numbers than the rest of us. Could this turn out to be a political Natural Selection event that alters the electorate in a significant manner? I don't see how (absent the South and Plains states being considerably more ravaged than the bi-coastal blue states) we'll ever know for sure but I sure wonder about it.

    Am I evil?"

    C'mon, fellow Weigantians! Isn't anybody going to touch this?

  23. [23] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Mtn Caddy-
    There were many factors in 2000. I believe one was somewhere around 200,000 registered Dems in Florida that voted for Bush.

    But the fact that many still beliive that it was Nader's fault is what makes the threat of a spoiler campaign now more effective.

    I would have voted for Bill Bradley if he had been the nominee instead of Nader. That was the Dems first mistake in 2000 and was probably much more of a factor than Nader.

  24. [24] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    I like Get Real.

    It seems almost prophetic now that things have gotten real.

    But since you seem to be agreeing with me that One Demand could be part of the solution I will touch your toxic question.

    It is not evil to think it could happen as it is not something under your control.

    If someone wished for it to happen or even worse tried to make it happen for that purpose- that would be evil.

  25. [25] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    And if Bill Bradley had been elected president then there already would have been a basketball court at the White House when Obama got there. :D

  26. [26] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [23]

    Dude I'm 100% in agreement with this post.

  27. [27] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [24]

    I'm kinda outta practice (with my whole Devil worship diversion and all,) so how many "Hail Mary's" and "Our Father's" do I gotta say?

  28. [28] 
    Kick wrote:

    MtnCaddy
    20

    We could stop prattling on and on but we won't. I agree with Don Harris that getting Big Money out of politics is of paramount importance, and seeing Bernie Sander's small doner tsunami verifies the potential of One Demand as part of a possible solution, and that's worth further discourse.

    Repeated without further comment:

    [54] Chris Weigant wrote:

    Don Harris [49] -

    Yes. You are a troll. Deal with it.

    As for your language, you are pushing me very very close to banning the first person ever from my site. You have been warned, and this is your final warning.

    If ignoring you doesn't work, then banning you just might. Address the issues in the articles or the comments to those articles, and quit with your own monomania, because nobody's listening. Instead, you are just trolling.

    And we're ALL way beyond getting tired of it.

    Is that clear enough?

    -CW

    [Thursday, April 2nd, 2020 at 16:05 UTC]

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2020/04/01/april-is-the-cruelest-month/#comment-156925

  29. [29] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [28]

    OK, Kick

    Thanks for the reminder.
    Perhaps Don Harris and I can discuss this offsite. Don, do you have an OD website?

  30. [30] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Mtn Caddy-
    Sorry no interactive comments section at the website.

    But since CW said I could address comments here it is okay for us to discuss it here if you want to.

    But it appears that Kick is trying to imply that you are nobody because CW said nobody is listening. :D

  31. [31] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Come to think of it, even though no one here has liked the Nader idea many have at commondreams.

    And Liz liked the Emergency Political Contribution Vouchers and BMI. And John M also suggested the BMI.

    "I..... ain't got nobody
    nobody
    somebody becomes nobody if they agree with me
    Guess that's how it must be"
    -song parody

  32. [32] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    MtnCaddy,

    I agree with Don Harris that getting Big Money out of politics is of paramount importance, and seeing Bernie Sander's small doner tsunami verifies the potential of One Demand as part of a possible solution, and that's worth further discourse.

    Really?!? Have you actually gone to his website? The one thing that proves One Demand exists outside of Don’s head...and it is too kind to even call it a “dumpster fire”. The number of red flags that his site raises for any group calling itself a “non-profit” would keep most people from wanting to have anything to do with it — which might explain why only six people have signed on since 2015. There doesn’t seem to be a board of directors to oversee it, he does not list One Demands tax exempt ID number, and it hasn’t been updated since 2015.

    But Don thinks everyone balks at OneDemand for far less obvious reasons:

    The objection to trying One Demand or standing up in any way to the big money interests here has always been that it could lead to a worst case scenario and it not worth the risk to abandon a tried and true method that avoids such a worst case scenario.

    The objection to trying One Demand has nothing to do with an objection to standing up in any way to Big Money interests, because One Demand has nothing to do with standing up in any way to Big Money interests!

    Don made that clear when he said he did not want to see campaign donations capped at $200! No, what he wants is a political statement: the “every-citizen” coalition beating the Big Money guys at their own game to bring about “change”. Strangely, that “change” is NOT actually about getting the Big Money out of our elections; Don just wants a “purity test” he can claim shows everyone who can be trusted and who can’t.

    And what “worst case scenario” are you even babbling about? You love to claim to know why we oppose One Demand and say it is for reasons none of us have stated, yet you ignore the reasons that we do state:
    * It offers no practical incentive for voters or candidates to join you;

    * OD believes people writing in their names in place of voting for a candidate on their ballots will make a political statement that in 3 or 4 elections MIGHT get the attention of candidates and get them to consider running small donation only campaigns — which is ludicrous;

    * Don thinks the capped legal donations between $201 - $5400 are the problem, ignoring the unlimited money being funneled into PAC’s ...you know, the REAL Big Money;

    * even if Don’s concept for OD were sound (it isn’t!), his “organization” is anything but sound.

    Yes, Big Money is corrupting our elections, but Don isn’t as interested in actually making real change as much as he is wanting credit for starting a movement.

  33. [33] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    MtnCaddy,

    The above :
    And what “worst case scenario” are you even babbling about? You love to claim to know why we oppose One Demand and say it is for reasons none of us have stated, yet you ignore the reasons that we do state:

    should have said :
    And what “worst case scenario” is he even babbling about? He loves to claim to know why we oppose One Demand and say it is for reasons none of us have stated, yet he ignores the reasons that we do state:

    I had started directing the post to Don, but then realized it was better to direct my comments to you.

  34. [34] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    MtnCaddy,

    Looks like you posted this while I was typing out my above comments.

    Perhaps Don Harris and I can discuss this offsite. Don, do you have an OD website?

    Funny that Don didn’t share that OD does have a website — just not one with an interactive comment section. Could it be that anyone who was interested in learning more about OD quickly became uninterested in OD upon visiting the site?

  35. [35] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @mc,

    just click on don's name. then click on my name, and see which one you prefer.

    ;)
    JL

  36. [36] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    @NYP

    I much prefer yours...It takes me somewhere

    Clicking on DH name takes you no where but a dead link.

    Pretty much says it all about the effort the movements creator is putting into his own movement.

  37. [37] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Yes, clicking on a name is so much better than reading the comments to determine what a commenter is saying.

  38. [38] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    All you need to do to determine what Listen's comments are about is his question on what worst case scenario I am referring to.

    "Grandma got corona virus this year
    'cause money's more important than disease
    you may say that she just did her duty
    But as for me and grampa we just grieve."
    -Grandma got run over by a reindeer dark parody

    And the rest is just more word turds consisting of false statements and dubious assumptions about my motivation.

    Reset statement/questions that ignore the points I made.

    Worthy of language that I am not allowed to use.

Comments for this article are closed.