ChrisWeigant.com

Trump Sabotaging GOP Efforts To Boost Mail-In Voting

[ Posted Wednesday, July 8th, 2020 – 16:57 UTC ]

You can call it many things. Shooting one's self in the foot. Being hoist on your own petard. A European might call it an "own goal." But whatever metaphor you choose, it seems Donald Trump is actively sabotaging his own chances of re-election. Trump, in classic Trumpian style, has chosen to make a political statement about an issue that really has nothing to do with politics at all. And it's beginning to work among his most fervent followers. The only problem for Trump is that this means it is also working against his chances of re-election.

Even though both Donald Trump and Mike Pence have been casting their ballots by mail for the past few elections, Trump decided it would be a dandy idea to demonize voting by mail. But due to the overwhelming likelihood that this November's elections are going to be radically different in nature than previous elections due to the coronavirus pandemic, this means that the Republican Party is being hamstrung in its efforts to get its voters to safely vote by mail. Trump may not just be killing his own chances of being re-elected, but he may also bring a whole bunch of other Republicans down with him as well.

The Washington Post just did a fairly deep dive on this emerging phenomenon. Here's the crux of the matter:

In several primaries this spring, Democratic voters have embraced mail ballots in far larger numbers than Republicans during a campaign season defined by the coronavirus pandemic. And when they urge their supporters to vote by mail, GOP campaigns around the country are hearing from more and more Republican voters who say they do not trust absentee ballots, according to multiple strategists. In one particularly vivid example, a group of Michigan voters held a public burning of their absentee ballot applications last month.

The growing Republican antagonism toward voting by mail comes even as the Trump campaign is launching a major absentee-ballot program in every competitive state, according to multiple campaign advisers -- a delicate balancing act, considering what one strategist described as the president's "imprecision" on the subject.

"It's very concerning for Republicans," said a top party operative, who like several others interviewed spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid drawing Trump's ire. "I guarantee our Republican Senate candidates are having it drilled into them that they cannot accept this. They have to have sophisticated mail programs. If we don't adapt, we won't win."

You have to love that euphemistic "imprecision" remark -- in actual fact, Trump is very clear and precise on the subject. He thinks vote-by-mail is some grand scheme to steal the election away from him, and he's not terribly shy about spreading unfounded conspiracy theories about this nefarious plot. And, like all things Trump tweets, this is indeed already having an effect on his voting base, as Republican candidate after Republican candidate is now finding out.

Last month, Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) posted a simple message for her Facebook followers, exhorting them to vote in the next day's primary and offering a link with "information on how to return your absentee ballot," a process Iowa made easier to reduce the risks of coronavirus infection.

Not everyone welcomed the suggestion. "I will be voting, in person, for you," wrote one supporter. "Senator, I can't believe you'd support absentee ballots," wrote another. "We need in-person voting with ID or no voting at all."

Other Republicans officials are encountering similar pushback.

. . .

In perhaps the most dramatic sign of Republican skepticism about mail balloting, the campaign of one Republican senator seeking reelection this year recently sent a text urging roughly 100,000 to apply for absentee ballots -- and received hundreds of negative replies, according to a person familiar with the responses.

One text said: "No thank you. I'll vote in person." Another said: "Absentee ballot? Nah. I'll be there in person. No one should legitimize this mail in voting hogwash."

This scenario is being repeated across the country. Republican Party officials who have successfully used mail-in voting efforts to win in the past (including, ironically, in Florida -- where Trump now votes) are becoming horrified at what Trump's words have been doing to their efforts. Even Trump's own campaign has its own effort to get out the mail-in vote, which is also assumably being undermined by Trump tilting at the mail-in voting windmill. Heck, his own children have even recorded robocalls recently urging Republican voters to get their mail-in ballots filled out and mailed in.

Of course, all of this is tied to the disruption the coronavirus pandemic has caused. Which, incidentally, is another area where Trump has politicized what should have stayed apolitical: the wearing of face masks. To a Trump supporter, not wearing a mask is a powerful political statement of support for Donald Trump and anyone who wears a mask is obviously making a counterstatement against Trump. This is insane, but it is indeed happening out there in the hinterlands. The question of mail-in voting fits hand in glove with this rampant pandemic denialism, it bears pointing out.

But by making it a litmus test for his own supporters, Donald Trump is indeed sabotaging his own chances for victory. If fewer Republicans cast their ballots early by mail, then Trump will have to rely much more heavily on in-person turnout on Election Day. Doing so is almost certainly going to lose him some votes, because no matter how motivated a voter is to get to the polls, sometimes life intervenes to the extent of making that trip to the polls impossible (for any number of reasons). This is why political operatives call the process of getting people to vote early "banking votes" -- because no matter what happens to any individual voter on Election Day, those votes are already safely in the bank.

At this point, it must be tempting indeed for the Democratic Party to, as the saying goes, "throw your opponent an anvil when he's drowning." If Democrats start treating mail-in voting as a partisan statement, then it would only serve to increase the resistance of Trump's base to do so. But Democrats are likely not going to take this bait, because Trump seems to be drowning just fine on his own, even without an anvil. Even Trump's favorite pollster (Rasmussen) now has him down by double digits against Joe Biden.

Of course, there is also an ulterior motive built in to Trump's demonization of mail-in voting. The Post article closes with:

But even as the [Trump] campaign works to expand absentee balloting among its supporters, the president's rhetoric attacking the practice is unlikely to subside, a former senior administration official noted.

Trump regularly rants about voter fraud and mail ballots in the Oval Office, this official said -- and will continue to do so until Election Day because "one, he truly believes it, and two, it gives him an out if he loses."

Which could be Trump's real reason for making such a bugaboo out of mail-in voting. Because, as with anything Trump contemplates, it's always all about him.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

142 Comments on “Trump Sabotaging GOP Efforts To Boost Mail-In Voting”

  1. [1] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    My apologies to anyone who has already seen this excerpt from a comment I made on yesterday's column. I know there's already enough cut and paste repetition around here.

    I wonder which is worse for Nazi Drumpf and the Greedy Old Predators - their sinister decision to sacrifice old people (their base) to the Trump Virus or their sinister decision to bar geezers (their base) from voting by mail when they're afraid they'll die from the Trump Virus if they go outside. They must be very confident about their cheating.

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Yep, that was definitely worth repeating and, no apologies necessary! :)

  3. [3] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Biden really should publicly assure Vindman that he'll have a job offer on Day One just like he did with Fauci.

  4. [4] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Heh ...er, huh?

  5. [5] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    If you don't know who to vote for then you ain't the top Ukraine expert on the national security council.

  6. [6] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Can someone please explain to me, like I'm a six-year-old, how it is that only 79% of Democrats support Biden this close to the presidential election.

    Seems to me that this bodes rather well for Trump, no?

  7. [7] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    “If I’m elected, I’ll immediately reach out to Dr. Fauci and ask him to continue his incredible service to our country” Biden said

  8. [8] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That's great. I'm sure there will be something prominent for Vindman, too. You don't?

  9. [9] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I think Biden intends to reach out to Bill Gates as well, if he already hasn't.

  10. [10] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    [6] Some of them don't know who he is. Have you not seen the pandemic partying videos? America has stuff to do.

  11. [11] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That's not an excuse - they should be supporting the Democrat if he's mickey mouse ... for God's sake!

  12. [12] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    He needs to publicly troll the Dear Orange Leader. Get him to smear the war hero some more.

  13. [13] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Sounds like a plan ... until you recall how well that worked out the last time.

  14. [14] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    BTW define your term "support". I'm not a member of the Democratic Party, so I'm not a great example, but I sort of support him. I hope that he is the prez in January because there's realistically only one other option. I may or may not vote for him.

  15. [15] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I don't understand that.

    For the purposes of defining what I meant by support, I equate support with a vote.

    So, if only 79% support Biden but not all of them will actually vote for him, then we're all in deep shit.

  16. [16] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    The last time was Fauci and Fauci still has his job although The Donald continues to damage his own credibility by contradicting Tony. I applaud Joe for a successful troll.

  17. [17] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Well, I hope you vote for him, too.

  18. [18] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Of course, I was referring to last time there was a presidential election and John McCain was the war hero Trump loved to smear.

  19. [19] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    If every Democrat in Wyoming votes for Biden, the outcome will be the same as if they didn't vote at all.

  20. [20] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Naturally.

  21. [21] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That is why Democrats everywhere - and, you - need to vote for him and any other Dem who is running, up, down and sideways on the ticket.

    Is that understood!?

  22. [22] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Everything hinges on 03 November.

    Don't frak it up!

  23. [23] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    No. I don't think you do understand. The electoral college makes an enormous number of votes meaningless. More meaningless votes don't make Joe the prez. They can only add to the popular vote count. This applies to votes for president only. There's no electoral college for down ballot elections.

  24. [24] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    As the sun has long disappeared from view, it still feels like 38 degrees celsius.

    "Man, it's a hot one, like seven inches from the midday sun."

  25. [25] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Surprisingly, I understand all about the electoral college, meaningless votes and down ballot elections.

    I'm talking only about the meaningful votes, of course.

    I'm not at all bothered by the heat. :)

  26. [26] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Tell me something I don't already know, for a change.

  27. [27] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Is it time to elect the president by popular vote?

  28. [28] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Well, mine is very likely to be one of those meaningless votes, so . . .

  29. [29] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I've always liked your presidential election system, in some respects, better than how we elect prime ministers in Canada.

    We don't actually vote directly for the prime minister. We only vote for the member of national parliament in our respective ridings - 400 of them, give or take across the country. The leader of the party that gets the most of its members elected is the prime minister.

  30. [30] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Well, mine is very likely to be one of those meaningless votes, so . . .

    That's too bad ... but, you see my Canadian predicament, too. Far less choice, in other words.

  31. [31] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    You would seem a lot less likely to end up with a demented racist reality TV bankruptcy specialist.

  32. [32] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The really quirky thing about how we elect prime ministers is that the leader of the party that gets the most of its members elected may lose in his own riding (district) in which case the prime minister can't sit in parliament!

  33. [33] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You would seem a lot less likely to end up with a demented racist reality TV bankruptcy specialist.

    Perhaps. Though, these days, anything is possible.

  34. [34] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Plus, we have about six national parties represented in parliament, including the Green Party and the separatist Bloc Quebecois. Never a dull moment, as they say.

  35. [35] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Actually, they don't say that because it always is.

  36. [36] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I like the excitement of US politics!

  37. [37] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Especially of the foreign relations kind. Hence my, well, some would say obsession with Biden, chairman extraordinaire of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

  38. [38] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Since discouraging Republican voters from using vote-by-mail dispite any evidence against doing so, I suspect that Trump on some level is decidedly not optimistic about winning reelection. He is setting up excuses for losing in November.

    I think ultimately Trump is looking for some kind of deal where he surrenders the presidency (without trying to stoke a Civil War) in exchange for not having the face SDNY after he's out of office.

  39. [39] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I would go for that deal.

  40. [40] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The number of Americans who have died or gotten sick because of the actions of this president pale in comparison to anything that SDNY wishes to prosecute him for, after all.

  41. [41] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Let me rephrase [40]:

    Whatever the SDNY wishes to prosecute Trump for, it all pales in comparison to the number of Americans who have died or gotten sick because of the action and inaction of this president, after all.

    Chris, you can go ahead and delete [40], please and thank-you.

  42. [42] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Or, the number of Americans who have died or gotten sick because of the action and inaction of this president make anything that SDNY wishes to prosecute him for pale in comparison, after all.

  43. [43] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Which is what I meant to say, the first time. :)

  44. [44] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    CW-
    I was surprised you also didn't point out that the GOP position is also a massive form of projection given that trump,pence, and kayleigh are all known to have submitted fraudulent ballots and have participated in "ballot harvesting".

    In the case of trump he registered to vote in Florida using Mar-a-swampago which is classified as a business and violates not just florida law, which stipulates that you cannot register to vote from a business address, but also his deal with Palm Beach that in exchange for tax benifits he agrees not to live at Mar-a-swampago. He further commited the act of "ballot harvesting" by having a representative of the FL GOP committee deliver his ballot and return it directly to the Palm Beach county voting office.

    In the case of pence he registered to vote using the Indiana Governors Mansion as his address of residence, which given that he is no longer governor and it is occupied by the current governor is on it's face fraudulent. Did he not hold onto a residence for when he was voted out of the office (or left on his own)? In either case it is clear he does not reside at the governors mansion any longer thus making his registration fraudulent.

    In the case of Kayleigh she has not only voted by absentee 10 out of the last 11 times she has used her parents address in Tampa when in fact she was living in NJ according to drivers license and vehicle registration records. Interestingly NJ only grants DL's to residents. So again as in the case of trump and pence she submitted fraudulent voter registration information, again against FL law.

    Normally I would not give two shits about these discrepancies as I do not think that the intent is nefarious ( for the record I ordered a case of "shits to give" on last years prime day and I am still waiting, they are on back-order). However, if you are going to get on a fucking high horse about how the other side cheats via mail in voting, one should make sure that ones house is clean.

    I haven't even mentioned the others in the administration that have also voted via their LEGAL right to vote via absentee ballot. Some of which have been doing it out of convenience and others because they are "working".

    If it wasn't for the fact that the GOP is raising such a stink about mail in voting I probably would not comment...but... they are and I think that their trespasses in the absentee voting world should be pointed out in any discussion as it drive home the point that the GOP is the party of Gen ME, as in tis for me but not for thee.

  45. [45] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Kay lie McEnany ran away on Wedsnesday as a reporter asked her: If it is safe for kids to go to school, is it safe for Paul Manafort to go back to prison?

  46. [46] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Oh, we love to kid Ms Kay Lie. Ha!

  47. [47] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    goode trickle,

    well said and very much worth pointing out

    projection, projection, I won't be fooled by projection!

  48. [48] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Betsy DeVos says that risk is involved in everything we do from riding a rocket into space to infecting The Children with The Trump Virus in school. Won't anyone think about The Children?

  49. [49] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    here's an idea that might help turnout, and maybe also the whole electoral college issue:

    organize a vote-trading campaign between democrats in solid blue/red states and leftists/socialists in swing states. i'm just spitballing here, not sure quite how such a campaign would be organized, how participants would be vetted for sincerity, etc., but in states where the margin of victory is less than ten thousand votes it seems like the kind of thing that might make an impact.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vote_trading#United_States_presidential_elections

    and if those stubborn socialists won't trade their votes for someone else's votes, perhaps they'd accept pie. it had to come back to pie at some point, right?

    JL

  50. [50] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    hey russ,

    you have some experience at organizing projects on the national level, how would such an undertaking as a peer to peer vote-swapping service be set up?

  51. [51] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Vote trading was done during the Bush/Gore/Nader election.

  52. [52] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @jfc,

    obviously it wasn't done very well.

  53. [53] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    The internet was fairly new at the time.

  54. [54] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    well hopefully the overall impact would be to make people feel like their votes actually count and thereby increase turnout.

  55. [55] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    or maybe just increase pie.

  56. [56] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The best ideas come in the middle of the night. I think I'll cut me a slice.

  57. [57] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz (6)-
    When 80% of citizens want the big money out of politics, the question that should be asked is how/why 79% of Dems support big money Biden.

  58. [58] 
    John M wrote:

    [27] Michale wrote:

    "Do you think all the violence and cop killings and cop hate and destroying America culture and looting and burning is the best way that your Democrat/AntiFa/BlackLiesMatter Party can attract Americans and their votes??

    Serious question..."

    Serious answer: YES. Since polls show at least 60 percent of both Americans in general and self identified Independents as well, support both the Black Lives Matter Movement and disapprove of Trump's handling of race relations.

    Also: The way you framed your question was biased, inaccurate, wrong, and designed to be inflammatory. In reality, there has been very little violence in over 90 percent of the protests, which is rather remarkable.

    The real question that begs an answer is why are you insisting on casting a slur on your fellow Americans for the simple exercise of their constitutional rights simply because you disagree with them? Are you simply incapable of disagreeing with someone without demonizing them?

  59. [59] 
    John M wrote:

    [54] Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    "America began her slide on the day that they killed President Kennedy. From that moment until now, while progress has been made toward a better union, so much more progress is needed."

    Actually I think the real turning point was the day Robert Kennedy was killed. I think that's when America really stumbled and lost some hope for the future. Can you imagine where we would be now if Robert Kennedy had been president instead of Nixon, and the end of the Vietnam War, Watergate and the Iran hostage crisis had either never happened or not happened the way they did?

  60. [60] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    It seems that both Biden supporters and Trump supporters have a built in excuse of we only have two choices for why they would vote against what they want (as the majority are in the 80% that want the big money out of politics) and vote to validate a big money candidate.

    This of course guarantees that in the next and future elections they will have the same bullshit excuse.

    If we are going to do/attempt vote swapping how about trading votes for big money candidates for voters that participate in One Demand?

    Then in future elections we could not only take away the excuse for voters with no backbone to only have a choice between big money candidates we could take away the excuse for candidates that they have to take big money.

  61. [61] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    John M-
    "Are you simply incapable of disagreeing with someone without demonizing them?"

    That's a keeper for more than just Michale around here.

  62. [62] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    John,

    Can you imagine where we would be now if Robert Kennedy had been president instead of Nixon, and the end of the Vietnam War, Watergate and the Iran hostage crisis had either never happened or not happened the way they did?

    I most certainly can and, often have spent many a day wondering about just that.

    I was at the candlelight vigil and Mass for Courage and Reconciliation for Robert Kennedy at his gravesite on June 6, 1993, 25 years after his death. I'll never forget it or him.

  63. [63] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Don,

    I don't know why so many feel so free to belittle people they disagree with but, ignoring them and not responding in kind is the best practice.

  64. [64] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "Can you imagine where we would be now if Robert Kennedy had been president instead of Nixon..."

    Can you imagine where we would be now if we had started One Demand in 2015 and the 2016 and 2018 elections had set up a base demanding small donor only candidates for the 2020 elections?

    Do you want to repeat the same mistake in 2020 so the same question can be asked again in 2024?

  65. [65] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz-
    Not here. I tried that not responding in kind and it still continued.

    Then it still continued after I warned that I would respond in kind.

    When I did respond in kind I got the yellow card warning. (that's the yellow card warning- not the yellow card application)

    If that's the best practice, it's still not good enough because it will not be effective under the current practices/standards here.

  66. [66] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Well, I don't know what the answer is then. Except to say that we'll have a lot of fun Sunday evening and put the current practices/standards here in a box for a few hours.

  67. [67] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Don,

    We already have a troll with a martyr routine. It really isn't working for you. Hold those arms out wider.

  68. [68] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    The Orange Queen is already tweet-puking this morning. He's lost these tax disclosure cases at every level and is apparently expecting that leftist John Roberts to harass him again.

  69. [69] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: Of course, all of this is tied to the disruption the coronavirus pandemic has caused. Which, incidentally, is another area where Trump has politicized what should have stayed apolitical: the wearing of face masks.

    But, CW, Trump did just recently decide that he's now "all for masks" during an interview on Fox Business:

    I'm all for masks. I think masks are good....

    I mean, I'd have no problem. Actually, I had a mask on. I sort of liked the way I looked, okay? I thought it was okay. It was a dark black mask, and I thought it looked okay. It looked like the Lone Ranger, but, no, I have no problem with that, I think, and if people feel good about it, they should do it.

    ~ Donald Trump, July 1, 2020

    https://www.axios.com/trump-coronavirus-disappear-cac3b50f-14f5-435a-932b-32e61f448554.html

    *
    Well now, how about that visual? Donald Trump wearing his black mask over his eyes just like the Lone Ranger. Did no one think to cut some holes in the thing?

    I will say, though, it is quite the perfect metaphor for Trump and his administration's incompetence in their handling of the entire coronavirus issue where "at some point that's going to sort of just disappear."

  70. [70] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    JFC (67)-
    What does that have to do with my comment?

    Liz made a suggestion and I simply provided an example of how I had tried that already and the result it produced.

    Thank you for providing another example of attempting to demonize someone you disagree with.

    Because you can't dispute the facts provided in the example you instead try to discredit the facts by discrediting me with a troll martyr claim.

    It really isn't working for you.

  71. [71] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Don,

    Offering you advice on how to improve your exceedingly repetitive boring trolling is not demonizing you but, like I said, hold those arms out wider.

  72. [72] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Kick-69

    Trump as "The Lone Deranger"

    Horses name: Grifter (As in "Hi Ho Grifter!")

    Non-Caucasian sidekick: Herman Cain

    Standard ending:

    "Who was that morbidly obese masked man?"....

    "I don't know - but he left this piece of coal."

  73. [73] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    I feel for Grifter. I hope his back is strong.

  74. [74] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    JFC-
    Way to double down on a proven loser.

    No matter how many times you say it it doesn't make it true.

    If it walks like a duck.....

    And you are clearly ducking the issue with false troll claims.

    Perhaps you should take a quack at reality.

  75. [75] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Don,

    Chris Weigant is a Democrat. He is obviously supportive of them and writes talking points for them. He is not going to help you with your little dead-end, anti-Democrat vanity project. It’s OBNOXIOUS for you to continue to badger him about it on his private blog and the rest of us are bored through and through with your predictably repetitive spam. Your only accomplishment here is that you’ve exposed yourself as an obsessive-compulsive troll. Now, I was more than willing to leave all of that alone and scroll right past you until you decided to troll me personally by taking my comments and twisting them into something I had never said to suit your bizarre crusade. Too fucking bad if you don’t like my response to your trolling. Self-pity and whining only makes you more insufferable.

    Grow up. Wake up. Shut up.
    Get bent.

  76. [76] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    JFC-
    I did not troll your comment. I simply applied the same principle in your comment to One Demand.

    The reason you and others may be bothered by my repeatedly pointing out the flaws in the Dems and applying the principles CW and others use to One Demand is that you have no rational arguments against the points I make.

    This why you need to portray me and believe that I am trolling, fishing for pity or whining and keep telling me to shut up.

    You are the one that needs to grow up and wake up as it is your behavior that is childish.

  77. [77] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Yeah, but the best way to fuck with a toxic rich guy is to:

    (1) take away their money, and especially, (2) take away their freedom.

    Trump has been so toxic to America that, if he doesn't get what he truly deserves it will be an intolerable example of yet another time where you can literally kill thousands (see George W's invasion of Iraq because, "[After 9-11, we wanted to kick somebody's ass," ) and buy your way out of trouble.

  78. [78] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Don,

    you have no rational arguments against the points I make.

    Yeah, we do. You are not the answer to the problem.

    BTW - adding lies to your routine is really special.

  79. [79] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    6

    Can someone please explain to me, like I'm a six-year-old, how it is that only 79% of Democrats support Biden this close to the presidential election.

    Like you're six? Okay, but you asked for it.

    Seems to me that this bodes rather well for Trump, no?

    It's late, you're confused and upset and need a ride home, and the only two people available at the time are your nice Uncle Joe whom you're not overly fond of and your creepy Uncle Donald who molests you like you're an American flag and pats you on the ass like you're his grown daughter.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuZA6qiJVfU

    Who's going to drive you home? ;)

  80. [80] 
    Kick wrote:

    GT
    44

    Great post! Exactly this!

  81. [81] 
    Kick wrote:

    John From Censornati
    45

    Kay lie McEnany ran away on Wedsnesday as a reporter asked her: If it is safe for kids to go to school, is it safe for Paul Manafort to go back to prison?

    That goes equal for Mikey Cohen too!

    Lock him up... more. :)

  82. [82] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    They did just send Cohen back.

  83. [83] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Biden is stringing sentences together right now.

  84. [84] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    . . . with birds chirping in the background.

  85. [85] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:
  86. [86] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    JFC-
    If you have rational arguments against the points I make then why do you use dodges and false accusations instead of offering those arguments?

    What lies?

    You are the one making false accusations.

    But you are right that I am not the answer to the problem.

    You and others that act childish here are the cause of the problem here and the solution to the problem here. All you have to do is make rational arguments instead of bullshit dodges and false accusations.

    I am also not the solution to the problem of big money corrupting our political process. I do offer the solution which is One Demand.

  87. [87] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    What lies?

    Denying what you did.

    I do offer the solution which is One Demand.

    Objective reality says that is nothing more than your delusion. How many people have you recruited while you've beaten that dead horse for years?

  88. [88] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    MC,

    That sounds great. It would be enough to make me vote for him if I believed he'd really do those things.

    Has he unequivocally committed to making those changes Liz?

  89. [89] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    64

    Can you imagine where we would be now if we had started One Demand in 2015 and the 2016 and 2018 elections had set up a base demanding small donor only candidates for the 2020 elections?

    Can you imagine how utter nonsensical it is for you to continue prattling on and on about this when you were already asked repeatedly to stop trolling this forum with your personal advertisements?

    Do you want to repeat the same mistake in 2020 so the same question can be asked again in 2024?

    If you keep this up when you were already asked repeatedly to stop trolling this forum with it, I would wager you won't have to worry about repeating your "same mistake" for very much longer.

    Maybe if we all advertised our personal stuff in the comments section of CW's advertisement-free blog, it would soon be obvious how intolerable it would be.

  90. [90] 
    Kick wrote:

    John From Censornati
    67

    We already have a troll with a martyr routine. It really isn't working for you. Hold those arms out wider.

    This!

  91. [91] 
    Kick wrote:

    John From Censornati
    68

    The Orange Queen is already tweet-puking this morning. He's lost these tax disclosure cases at every level and is apparently expecting that leftist John Roberts to harass him again.

    No citizen, not even the President, is categorically above the common duty to produce evidence when called upon in a criminal proceeding.

    ~ Chief Justice John Roberts

    Poor Donald, both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh joined Roberts and the liberal justices in the 7-2 decision.

    Winning!

    Hey, John... I hear Donald wins a new mural today to celebrate. It's that "big, expensive, yellow Black Lives Matter sign" that Trump was so "excited" about.

    https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/09/us/trump-tower-black-lives-matter-mural-new-york-trnd/index.html

    Who's going to break the news to "The Donald" that paint isn't expensive!?

    Trump is now screwed, and he knows it.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Start spreading the news
    I'm leaving today
    I want to be a part of it
    New York, New York.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

  92. [92] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    JFC-
    "Denying what you did."

    What? when? where?

    Objective reality backs up One Demand. I have explained how Biden can raise about 1 billion dollars from small donors only that only requires three out of ten Dems to contribute in amounts less than 200 dollars per donor.

    That is real. Biden could do it. No one here has offered a rational argument why he can't or won't do it.

    All you offer is it hasn't been done before. That is not a rational argument as I have provided many examples of things happening that haven't happened before from electing a black president, nominating a woman to represent a major party as the presidential candidate and Bernie's ability to raise money in the 2016 election cycle that was unprecedented.

    How many people have been recruited is not the issue. How many people have been informed the opportunity is available?

    If citizens are not informed the opportunity is available they can't discuss the idea to decide if they want to participate.

  93. [93] 
    Kick wrote:

    TS
    72

    I like it. Heh.

    "Who was that morbidly obese masked man?"....

    According to the "Lone Ranger," it was "Diaper Don":

    https://twitter.com/armiehammer/status/1278479477270552577

    "I don't know - but he left this piece of coal."

    See there! ;)

  94. [94] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    What? when? where?

    Funny. A short while ago you denied and now you're going to ask for details. I won't be going any further down the rabbit trhole with you.

  95. [95] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick-
    We all do advertise our personal opinions in the comments section. That is the purpose of a comments section.

    If you can post your personal opinion that is not based on any reality that I am trolling or doing something inappropriate that no one else is doing then I can post my opinion that is backed up by reality that your opinion is not reality.

  96. [96] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    JFC-
    You make an accusation that I denied something but you can't produce it.

    You are in the rabbit hole all by yourself by your own doing.

    Way to wimp out and prove my point.

  97. [97] 
    Kick wrote:

    JFC
    75

    Don,

    Chris Weigant is a Democrat. He is obviously supportive of them and writes talking points for them. He is not going to help you with your little dead-end, anti-Democrat vanity project. It’s OBNOXIOUS for you to continue to badger him about it on his private blog and the rest of us are bored through and through with your predictably repetitive spam. Your only accomplishment here is that you’ve exposed yourself as an obsessive-compulsive troll. Now, I was more than willing to leave all of that alone and scroll right past you until you decided to troll me personally by taking my comments and twisting them into something I had never said to suit your bizarre crusade. Too fucking bad if you don’t like my response to your trolling. Self-pity and whining only makes you more insufferable.

    Grow up. Wake up. Shut up.
    Get bent.

    ~ John From Censornati


    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ THIS! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

  98. [98] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    76

    Don, FFS!

    You have been trolling this blog with this shit for years and promised to troll until you get an answer.

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2018/03/19/dare-trump-to-face-the-press/#comment-117762

    You've got your answer to stop doing it.

    Enough already!

  99. [99] 
    Kick wrote:

    John From Censornati
    82

    They did just send Cohen back.

    Wow, that was easy. Who's next?

    Roger Stone... pack your shit! ;)

  100. [100] 
    Kick wrote:

    MtnCaddy
    85


    ____________________00__________________
    ___________________0000_________________
    __________________000000________________
    _______00_________000000__________00____
    ________0000______000000______00000_____
    ________000000____0000000___0000000_____
    _________000000___0000000_0000000_______
    __________0000000_000000_0000000________
    ____________000000_00000_000000_________
    ____0000_____000000_000_0000__000000000_
    _____000000000__0000_0_000_000000000____
    ________000000000__0_0_0_000000000______
    ____________0000000000000000____________
    _________________000_0_0000_____________
    _______________00000_0__00000___________
    ______________00_____0______00__________
    ________________________________________

  101. [101] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    " "throw your opponent an anvil when he's drowning."

    Or offer him a glass of water.

    LL&P

  102. [102] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    95

    We all do advertise our personal opinions in the comments section. That is the purpose of a comments section.

    No one can help you if you don't know the difference between political discussion and political advertising.

    If you can post your personal opinion that is not based on any reality that I am trolling or doing something inappropriate that no one else is doing then I can post my opinion that is backed up by reality that your opinion is not reality.

    Throw up. Own up. Fed up.
    Shit heel.

  103. [103] 
    Kick wrote:

    JTC
    101

    Or offer him a glass of water.

    Heh.

  104. [104] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick-
    I do know the difference- you don't. Or at least pretend you don't just to stroke your own ego.

    "Throw up. Own up. Fed up.
    Shit heel."

    Now there is a rational mature argument.

    The kind that makes this place the place it is.

  105. [105] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The good news is that Biden means what he says. The bad news is that Biden says what he means.

    And, if he said he is going to do something then he will damn sure do it!

  106. [106] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Let me know when Biden says the war on the other drugs is not working and that this problem needs to be seen as a demand problem, not a supply problem.

    Maybe he'll surprise me on this ... stranger things have already happened.

  107. [107] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    nypoet22,

    Sorry, but while YoungLife in an international organization, it had been around for over 35 years when I first got involved. Starting something like you are suggesting is an undertaking outside of my pay level.

    But if I had to guess, I do not think your idea is completely outside the realm of possibility. Swing states are most east of the strongest secure blue states, so it would be easy for Democrats to tell whether 3rd Party supporters had cast their votes for Biden to know whether they lived up to their part of the deal.

    Now the real question would have to be are there enough 3rd party voters in swing states to even attempt this. I have not bothered to investigate this, so I dunno. I am guessing Reddit would be the best place to attempt starting this dialogue...because I do not know where else you might find 3rd Party folks except there.

  108. [108] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    104

    I do know the difference- you don't. Or at least pretend you don't just to stroke your own ego.

    So then. You seem quite content to prove that JFC pegged you exactly right in his assessment at [75].

    The poor trolls on this board; it just isn't fair how they're always the ones who are the victims of everyone else around here. I mean, it's just not fair when the people they troll and troll and troll and troll and spam and spam and spam and spam and troll and spam and troll with the same repetitive shit over and over and over... year in and year out... why can't everyone else just stop whining about it and leave the poor trolls alone?

    Now there is a rational mature argument.

    Oh, it's supremely not fair... we know. Where can a troll go these days to have a "rational mature argument" of trolling everyone with the same shit over and over year in and year out? Whatever is a troll to do?

    The kind that makes this place the place it is.

    It happens to all the trolls around here, you know. They're just too good for the rest of us. It's not fair at all. Makes you ponder life and whether to be, or not to be, that is the question... whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune or to take arms against a sea of troubles and by opposing end them. To die, to sleep, no more... and by a sleep to say we end the heartache and the thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to. 'Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished. To die, to sleep, to sleep, perchance to dream — aye, there's the rub. For in that sleep of death what dreams may come when we have shuffled off this mortal coil.

    I mean, it must be pure Hell for you poor trolls.

  109. [109] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick-
    JFC was completely wrong in his assessment as are you.

    Just because you or anyone labels me a troll does not mean it is true. The posts here prove otherwise.

    You are the only one making any claim about it not being fair or whining.

    I am just pointing out reality that shatters your fantasy view of this comments section and the world.

    And all you can do is repeat the same false bullshit that you use to rationalize not having a rational argument.

    What's the matter scarecrow, afraid of a little fire?

  110. [110] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Liz,

    You asked me on a previous post if I knew of any examples of white people dying in similar fashion to George Floyd’s death while in police custody and I have to say, “No, I do not.”

    That does not mean that they do not exist, but honestly the media doesn’t bother reporting when a white person dies from a medical emergency while in custody. They are quick to log their deaths under their “People the police murdered” files, but they don’t report those until the end of the year.

    As for Floyd’s death, after talking to a friend who is now a medical examiner in a small town in AL, I believe that Floyd’s screaming that he was not able to breathe was us witnessing him dying from the cardiopulmonary arrest (aka V-fib) as it occurred. As my friend pointed out, V-fib is something that you see in people who have had lots of medical problems over a long period of time that all lead up to it eventually killing the person. For healthy individuals, it is not something that is triggered by pinching the right nerve or even being place in a true chokehold; it is what occurs after the body has deteriorated to the point that multiple systems just start to fail. Because difficulty breathing does not cause, but is itself a symptom of being in V-fib, it is not likely that allowing Floyd to sit up would have helped him too much. It would have made the officer not look like such an uncaring, arrogant dick if they would have tried that, but it is unlikely Floyd was going to survive at that point.

  111. [111] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [92]

    If citizens are not informed the opportunity is available they can't discuss the idea to decide if they want to participate.

    I dare say, you've informed this comments section quite thoroughly by now.

    How about commenting about Chris's work product? Or joining in the various debates that occur here in Weigantia?

  112. [112] 
    Kick wrote:

    NEW GAME

    Spot the Troll

    The reality blog scenario game show where you are presented with a real discussion and asked to identify the person who disrupted the political dialogue occurring in the comments section -- a.k.a "the troll" -- from your choice of participants listed in bold... so spot the troll.

    Real Discussion: So a few posters on this forum were having a nice political discussion about where America went off the rails. Ms. Elizabeth stated she thought the slide began with the assassination of President Kennedy, whereupon Mr. John (no relation to President Kennedy) astutely opined that he believed the turning point was the day Robert Kennedy, John's brother -- not our Mr. John's brother but rather the brother of Mr. Kennedy -- Mr. Kennedy, that is Robert, of course, was killed. Mr. John asked with wonder where we would be if Mr. Kennedy -- Robert, of course -- had been elected president instead of that dick, Dick Nixon. Whereupon Mr. Blowhole quoted a piece of Mr. John's question to a completely different poster not named him and twisted his meaning and then a few posts later quoted Mr. John again about Mr. Kennedy -- Robert, not John -- and then wondered aloud where we would be now if we had started his personal political venture One Demand in 2015?

    Spot the troll, is it:

    (a) Ms. Elizabeth
    (b) Mr. John
    (c) Mr. Blowhole

  113. [113] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    109

    JFC was completely wrong in his assessment as are you.

    Oh, really?

    Just because you or anyone labels me a troll does not mean it is true.

    You are definitely a troll.

    The posts here prove otherwise.

    The posts here are several instances of you taking people's posts and interrupting their opinions in order to twist their words and turn them into a discussion about your personal bullshit.

    You are a troll, mister, and a blowhole.

    Now eff right off.

  114. [114] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    112-
    And the correct answer is the person posting comment 112.

  115. [115] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    113-
    Completely unsubstantiated claims.

  116. [116] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris

    Dude. You quoted John M's post about Robert Kennedy and tried to hijack the political conversation into a discussion about your personal crusade.

    Before that, you had quoted Elizabeth Miller's post at [6] about Joe Biden and tried to hijack that political question and turn it into a discussion about your personal crusade.

    Your shit has been discussed for -- what(?) -- five effing years now? Five years of your shit wherein you interrupt actual political discussion in order to hijack the conversation to make it about your own shit.

    No one is scared of your shit, Don.
    Sick of it? Yes!
    Scared of it? *laughs*

  117. [117] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    New column up! ... of sorts.

  118. [118] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick-
    I did not hijack anything.

    I posted my opinion.

    You only complain about me posting my opinion because you can't make a rational argument.

    Any time you or anyone wants to have a real discussion of One Demand or my comments referring to it I will engage in such a discussion. When all you do is post bullshit I will point it out if I want to.

    In the mean time I will continue to post my opinion and will persist until I get a real discussion from CW on this issue.

    CW is a public figure and there is nothing wrong with being persistent in getting a public figure to back up what they write/say or address an issue.

    You only got part of the scarecrow reference.

    You might have got it all if you only had.....

  119. [119] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [116]

    This may be a Comments section party foul but Kick said it so well that I'm reposting it in bold.

    Don Harris

    Dude. You quoted John M's post about Robert Kennedy and tried to hijack the political conversation into a discussion about your personal crusade.

    Before that, you had quoted Elizabeth Miller's post at [6] about Joe Biden and tried to hijack that political question and turn it into a discussion about your personal crusade.

    Your shit has been discussed for -- what(?) -- five effing years now? Five years of your shit wherein you interrupt actual political discussion in order to hijack the conversation to make it about your own shit.

    No one is scared of your shit, Don.
    Sick of it? Yes!
    Scared of it? *laughs*

  120. [120] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Mtn Caddy-
    Yep. Kick said it about as well as it could be said.

    Too bad that it is still pure bullshit.(see 118)

    We really don't need more than one scarecrow in such a tiny cornfield.

  121. [121] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @don,

    although it may well be the case for some politicians (hence the widespread belief in the need for campaign finance changes), biden has long demonstrated that he is neither defined nor controlled by the political donations he accepts. he is controlled by his own conscience, and he is defined by the cherry pie he shared with Carol Moseley Braun.

    (note to liz: you'll want to see this link)

    https://www.ebony.com/news/opinion/joe-biden-is-the-ally-champion-and-fighter-we-need-in-2020/

    but none of that has anything to do with whether or not robert kennedy would have defeated richard nixon and gone on to be a good president.

    and it certainly has nothing to do with your own demands. if your goal is to win support for your cause, i don't think calling people brainless and their disagreements with you bullshit is the way to go. however, if your goal is a 'red card' and permanent removal from this site, you seem to be on the right path.

    best of luck.

  122. [122] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    118

    I did not hijack anything.

    Not for want of trying multiple times.

    I posted my opinion.

    You posted your monomania unrelated to the posts you attempted to hijack for your own personal crusade.

    You only complain about me posting my opinion because you can't make a rational argument.

    My opinions about your trolling are both factual and quite rational.

    Any time you or anyone wants to have a real discussion of One Demand or my comments referring to it I will engage in such a discussion. When all you do is post bullshit I will point it out if I want to.

    Therein lies the problem. You endeavor to take the author's blog and his readers' commentary and attempt to hijack unrelated political discussion and morph it into a discussion about your monomaniac personal crusade that no one wants to discuss because after five years of this bullshit, we're done with it.

    Your attempted hijacking of a political discussion into your personal crusade keeps arising repeatedly for two reasons:

    * You won't stop trolling unrelated political discussion with the goal of hijacking it into your crusade.

    * I'm done just ignoring things and expecting them to just disappear on their own, something I learned recently from SARS-CoV-2 and its resultant COVID-19.

    In the mean time I will continue to post my opinion and will persist until I get a real discussion from CW on this issue.

    You will continue to troll the forum.

    CW is a public figure and there is nothing wrong with being persistent in getting a public figure to back up what they write/say or address an issue.

    By punishing him and his readers for years on end with your endless repetitive spew when you've been asked not to do it? No thanks.

    You only got part of the scarecrow reference.

    You have absolutely no idea what "I got." Me choosing not to ignore you and me addressing every single bullshit utterance that flies out of your repetitive blowhole are two entirely different things. :)

  123. [123] 
    Kick wrote:

    MC
    119

    What you said... that I said. :)

  124. [124] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    121

    Awesome endorsement. How did I miss seeing this? Well, no matter; thank you for posting it.

    EM: You will definitely want to read it.

    I need cherry pie now, and that's on you! ;)

  125. [125] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Nypoet-
    Biden is controlled by his conscience and not defined or controlled by the political contributions he accepts?

    On what planet? Certainly not this one.

    How does his conscience reconcile taking big money contributions when he doesn't have to?

    Biden is defined by his actions. He takes big money contributions and is defined by that. He is controlled by those contributions or the big money interests would not be making the contributions.

    John M proposed a what if and I proposed a different what if.

    When people attack me, make false statements and do everything except have a discussion on the ideas/points in my comments they are behaving in a brainless manner and spewing bullshit.

    There is nothing wrong with pointing it out when it happens.

    Please explain why that deserves a red card (or even a yellow card) and the bullshit dodges, false accusations and being called a blowhole, shit heel. etc. are okay.

    There are so many scarecrows here that there is barely any room left for the desired crop of real discussion.

  126. [126] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick-
    Once again for the learning impaired:

    Just because you say it doesn't make it true.

    Nothing in your posts about me is factual. It is only your opinion/spin and that opinion/spin is not backed up by anything factual.

    The posts here prove that.

  127. [127] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Don,

    You run the same shtick every time. You postulate your position as though it is accepted, but it's really not. Can you back up your argument even slightly? Can you point to actual legislation that Biden did or did not pass because of big money? How would Biden's legislative agenda be different if he had a low donation campaign? It's cute to toss around accusations but you have to back them up. You seem to think getting money out of politics is the singular and only path to a utopia of rainbows and unicorns but never describe what that utopia looks like.

  128. [128] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Bashi-
    Everyone here runs the same shtick every time.

    I respond the same way to the same bullshit.

    Yes, I have backed up what I say.

    And the commenters here pretend that it never happened.

    The big money interest would not make big money contributions if they did not get a return on their investment.

    Of course you set an impossible standard of specific legislation that Biden has passed or not passed because of big money. There is very little legislation, if any, that does not benefit the big money interests more than ordinary citizens.

    Can you produce any such legislation? Of course not.

    80% of citizens have seen enough evidence to conclude that big money in our political system is a real problem and want it out.

    You seem to be very much in the climate change denial category on that.

    I never said anything about rainbows and unicorns or utopia. I never said One Demand was perfect.

    That is just you desperately trying to discredit a logical approach because you have no rational argument against it.

    Voting for big money Dems and Republicans has not worked for decades. If it did money would be gone from our political process already instead of getting worse with each election, Trump would not be president and we wouldn't be in the situation we are now with the pandemic-just to cover the tip of the iceberg.

    The only logical approach is to abandon the approach that has not worked for decades and try different things until we find something that does work.

    I have provided plenty of information and trends that show One Demand could work.

    Certainly enough for it to be part of the public discourse and for rational people to discuss it without the bullshit offered by commenters here.

    If you make a rational argument you will get a rational response. If you continue to spew bullshit I will point it out.

  129. [129] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Well, I met a girl in West Hollywood
    I ain't naming names <----------it was Kick
    But she really worked me over good
    She was just like Jesse James
    She really worked me over good
    She was a credit to her gender
    She put me through some changes, Lord
    Sort of like a Waring blender
    Poor, poor pitiful me
    These young girls won't let me be
    Lord have mercy on me
    Woe is me

    Zevon again

  130. [130] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    125

    How does his conscience reconcile taking big money contributions when he doesn't have to?

    Maybe it's the same way your conscience reconciles your trolling of this forum when you don't have to.

    Biden is defined by his actions.

    So are you.

    He takes big money contributions and is defined by that.

    You troll the forum and are defined by that.

    Please explain why that deserves a red card (or even a yellow card) and the bullshit dodges, false accusations and being called a blowhole, shit heel. etc. are okay.

    Please pound sand. "Blowhole" and "shit heel" are okay for the same reason you believe it is okay for you to curse repeatedly at CW and troll everyone on the forum by twisting our comments to suit your agenda.

  131. [131] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    126

    Just because you say it doesn't make it true.

    Doesn't make it false either. It's my opinion, and I'm entitled to post it.

    Nothing in your posts about me is factual.

    So your name isn't Don Harris? That's in my post, dumb ass. See it up there?

    It is only your opinion/spin and that opinion/spin is not backed up by anything factual.

    Your projection is delicious and applies equally to your repetitive bullshit.

  132. [132] 
    Kick wrote:

    Bashi
    127

    I think it goes like this:

    "reality-based politics," not Utopia or some fantasyland where unicorns fart rainbows and the pixies frolic in the meadow.

    ~ CW

    Or something very close to that (just going by memory).

  133. [133] 
    Kick wrote:

    JFC
    129

    Heh. :)

  134. [134] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick-
    Just more of your delusional bullshit conclusions and accusations that have no basis in reality.

    Are you just spewing bullshit you know is not true because you think it is fun or do you really believe that nonsense?

    Not that it matters. Only those that choose not to see do not recognize that the Emperor is naked.

  135. [135] 
    Kick wrote:

    You sure do whine a lot, and put some clothes on!

    Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeesh

  136. [136] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    The big money interest would not make big money contributions if they did not get a return on their investment.

    Can you show a real world example of the return on investment?

    Can you produce any such legislation? Of course not.

    I'm sure I could and would if it was an issue I found valuable. All it requires is research.

    That is just you desperately trying to discredit a logical approach because you have no rational argument against it.

    One Demand is a half assed extremely illogical approach which I have criticized before only to get dismissive replies from you. Money flows to need like water to gravity, and voluntary measures with no verification just do not work.

    Voting for big money Dems and Republicans has not worked for decades.

    Really? In what way? There are certainly problems in the USA but it's still the most powerful economy, military and cultural powerhouse of the world. It's pretty obvious something is working. Can you articulate what is not?

    I have provided plenty of information and trends that show One Demand could work.

    Well, accept that voluntary measures with no verification just do not work...

    If you make a rational argument you will get a rational response. If you continue to spew bullshit I will point it out.

    I have many times early on in your crusade and all I got was dismissive copy pasta, as has just about everyone else here. That is why you are labeled troll. What is the end game of your idea? If you can not articulate that, then you have half an idea that is destined to failure. Keep in mind rational argument is not just agreeing with you.

  137. [137] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Or something very close to that (just going by memory).

    if forced to choose, i'd take your memory over most people's hard evidence

  138. [138] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick-
    I am not whining. I am pointing out your bullshit.

    You are the one whining about it.

    The posts prove it.

    I am not the naked one.

  139. [139] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Bashi-
    More repeating the bullshit that was already answered and false claims of discussing One Demand.

    You do not fool me with the bullshit that fools you or you spew knowing it is not accurate.

    Why am I the only adult in the room?

  140. [140] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Don,

    So you can't defend your idea at all? Not even slightly? I'm not trying to fool you. I'm trying to see if I can get you to think.

  141. [141] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    138

    I am not whining. I am pointing out your bullshit.

    You are a whiny effing troll; you always have been.

    The posts prove it.

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2020/07/08/trump-sabotaging-gop-efforts-to-boost-mail-in-voting/#comment-163303

    ^^^^^^^^^^ Yes, the posts prove it. ^^^^^^^^^^

    [54] Chris Weigant wrote:

    Don Harris [49] -

    Yes. You are a troll. Deal with it....

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

    Is that clear enough?

    -CW

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

    *
    That "we" CW was talking about included me. So kindly please take your "OneDamnMan" (props to Russ) and stick it in your troll hole. :)

  142. [142] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    137

    if forced to choose, i'd take your memory over most people's hard evidence

    That's not how the force works!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiFck6h6VaA&feature=youtu.be

Comments for this article are closed.