ChrisWeigant.com

A Bright New Day

[ Posted Wednesday, January 20th, 2021 – 17:26 UTC ]

It is morning in America again.

Ronald Reagan famously made a lot of political hay out of that slogan. The phrase worked so well because Americans generally favor optimism and a bright future over the gloomier alternatives. All modern presidential candidates since Reagan have struck optimistic themes while campaigning. Except one.

Donald Trump actually did campaign on optimism, but only during his first run. He borrowed the language of populism and painted a rather rosy worldview for the forgotten blue-collar Midwestern worker, back in 2016. By doing so, he flipped the "Big Blue Wall" that Democrats had previously relied upon to give them the necessary Electoral College votes, and he thus won the presidency.

But Trump's second campaign was nothing short of raw and unapologetic fearmongering. This was easy for Trump to do because he had already caused rampant fear among half the population with his presidency. In a lot of ways Trump beat himself in 2020, because I have never seen a bigger unifier of the Democratic base as the wave of determination and revulsion directed against Donald Trump. Petty factionalism and intra-party bickering were set aside, to fully concentrate on the ultimate goal of removing Trump from office. The safest possible candidate was chosen by the Democratic Party voters because everyone knew this was too important an election to gamble on an unknown.

And it worked. Joe Biden has long had ties to the very same community of blue-collar and Union workers that Trump tapped into four years before, and enough of them had realized that Trump's populism was nothing more than a sham that Biden flipped Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin back into the blue column. And picked up previously-red Georgia and Arizona, just as icing on the cake.

Biden did it with honest and heartfelt appeals to unity. This was seen as naive by many Democrats (many progressives, especially), but Biden did respond to their concerns by starting to talk less about incrementalism and more about foundational changes that he could be usher in. Throughout all of it, Biden remained relentlessly positive.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump had doubled down on fear and loathing. It really was all he had. Throughout his entire 2020 campaign, Trump never once specifically talked about anything he would do in a second term. He expected the flim-flam that worked so well for him in 2016 was just going to work again, so no details would be necessary, and the voters would conveniently forget that Trump had been in office for four years and hadn't achieved any of his grandiose promises to them. Trump used all his campaign's time and energy to warn about the dire future America would face if Biden won and Democrats took control, because he thought that would be enough to guarantee a repeat performance at the ballot box.

On Election Day, optimism beat fearmongering, plain and simple. On Inauguration Day, optimism reigned supreme. And a welcome sense of normalcy began to spread throughout the land.

Which is why I had to expropriate Reagan's slogan today, because morning has indeed come to America again. A bright, new dawn and a bright, new day.

The nightmarish past four years have finally come to an end. Joe Biden became president at noon Eastern time today (he was sworn in 12 minutes early, but the Constitution is pretty clear on this). Donald Trump has retreated to his Florida golf resort, where he will sit and fume, Twitterlessly. Even better news -- Vice President Kamala Harris just swore in three new Democratic senators (the two from Georgia and her replacement from California), meaning political control of the Senate has flipped once again and Chuck Schumer -- not Mitch McConnell -- will now dictate which bills get voted on and which do not.

The inauguration ceremony itself was unique, for a number of reasons. COVID-19 restrictions meant a tiny crowd to begin with, and it got even smaller with the total lockdown of the federal enclave in the District. For the first time since the Civil War, troops (25,000 of them) are protecting the U.S. Capitol and the rest of the federal government from attacks by their fellow Americans.

Lady Gaga's national anthem was one for the ages. So was her dress -- but she got beat out in the sartorial category by Amanda Gorman, the young poet laureate who absolutely stole the entire show with her poem, her delivery, her presence, and her presentation, all of which were superb.

Building on the success of the Democratic National Convention's 50-state roll call video, Biden held a "virtual inaugural parade" with performers and participants from all over the country, and from every walk of life. The entire day was just bursting with optimism all around.

A very dark chapter in American history has ended -- at least, for now. For the next four years, President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris will lead our nation as it has always wanted to be led -- with loyalty, with intelligence, with compassion, with humanity, and with heart. These basic qualities have been noticeable in their absence, these past four years. In their place, we have had egotism, narcissism, mean-spiritedness, cruelty, and naked greed.

But that dark night is now over. Morning has broken, once again. It's a sunshiny new day.

The challenges and crises the country faces are daunting, to be sure. But now they'll be tackled competently and intelligently, without regard to petty politics or outsized egos. President Biden and Vice President Harris will work with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, and Democrats will have the chance to show the public that they are worthy of the trust they have been given. There will be a lot of obstacles in their way. But at least we'll finally be heading in the right direction once again.

So wake up happy, America. Stretch and feel good. Smell the coffee. And then let's all start this bright and glorious day optimistically and with lots of energy. We've waited for this day for a very long time, and it is finally here, so let's enjoy it to the fullest.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

76 Comments on “A Bright New Day”

  1. [1] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Well, now we get to watch Kamala Harris 'Biden' her time for 4 yrs!

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The safest possible candidate was chosen by the Democratic Party voters because everyone knew this was too important an election to gamble on an unknown.

    Safest? I dunno but, that has always rubbed me the wrong way. Not sure why. Maybe because it implies a kind of mediocrity. Maybe because it sounds like the only reason Biden was chosen was because he was a known quantity and not because of his expertise on any number of critical issues.

    In any case, I think the American people decided on the best, the only candidate who they thought could beat Trump. And, I agree with their wisdom. If best = safest, then I guess they went with the safest choice.

    Safe is good, right?

  3. [3] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    CRS,

    Barring any health issues, why do you suppose Biden won't run again?

  4. [4] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Amanda Gorman, the young poet laureate who absolutely stole the entire show with her poem, her delivery, her presence, and her presentation, all of which were superb.

    She was exquisite, in every imaginable sense of the word - THE highlight of the day for me!

    Whenever I'm feelin' down, I listen to one of my PRiSM cds. And, now, there is another burst of inspiration to listen to.

  5. [5] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Nice ending paragraphs - an absolute joy to read. :-)

  6. [6] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'm done for the evening. CRS, you have the floor. :)

  7. [7] 
    John M from Ct. wrote:

    Nice. Thanks for the optimism fix.

    Liz, on [2], I think Chris was remembering that the Dems put up an extremely diverse and interesting field of potential candidates in the primaries, who tempted a lot of their voters to take a chance on beating and replacing Trump with [fill in the blank, the first ____ president].

    But Biden was in fact the safest, not least because of his unmatched experience as longtime senator, 8-year VP, virtually scandal-free career, and exquisite skill at skating between the two wings of his party. His downside, to me, is his advanced age, but that was the price of doing business this year.

  8. [8] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    EM [3]

    Just way too old, wouldn't you think, plus health issues, gaffe-itis, and all the related things incident to being 'over the hill'. At my age, you're more cognizant of the problems of aging.

  9. [9] 
    andygaus wrote:

    And apparently many QAnon supporters all across the country spent the day choking on their vomit because Trump left office without ever following through with the prophesied mass arrests of the worldwide cabal of pedophile cannibals. And as a pedophile cannibal myself, I must say I'm vastly relieved. Whew, that was close!

  10. [10] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: The safest possible candidate was chosen by the Democratic Party voters because everyone knew this was too important an election to gamble on an unknown.

    Wait, what!? I will give you "the safest" since I think I see what your meaning is there, but Bernie Sanders was hardly an "unknown" and was clearly on track to win the nomination if the majority of the Party hadn't united behind Joe Biden after his decisive win in South Carolina.

    Bernie was a known known... hence the resultant rallying behind Biden. :)

  11. [11] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: Throughout his entire 2020 campaign, Trump never once specifically talked about anything he would do in a second term.

    You must have simply forgotten about Trump prattling on and on ad nauseam about his eminent "full and complete" health care plan being revealed within "a very short period of time" and/or also frequently referred to as "two weeks"?

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

  12. [12] 
    Kick wrote:

    andygaus
    9

    And as a pedophile cannibal myself, I must say I'm vastly relieved. Whew, that was close!

    I know, right!? The lizard people and I were having a good laugh about this last week at a meeting in the basement of Comet Ping Pong when JFK, Jr. bolted down the stairwell and caught us in flagrante delicto just as we'd begun ingurgitation. The years have not been kind to "John John," no doubt necessitating his decision to remain a behind-the-scenes crimefighter versus joining the ticket as Trump's vice presidential candidate, but I digress.

    Heh. The only "storm" today was the thousands of MAGA and QAnon tiny tears that filled the air -- snowflakes -- just before the sun arose. :)

  13. [13] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    It seems like years since it's been clear.

  14. [14] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    C.R. Stucki, haha yer killing me. Age, who cares? He's obviously got it together. Gaff-itis, who cares? Like, after Trump who gives a flying bleep?

    Elizabeth, "safest" in that Joe checked two yuge boxes,
    1- competent
    2- decent

    That's nothing but good, says the Bernie Bro. It doesn't matter what Don or you or I think, Joe's going to be Joe.

    andygaus - as a cannibal pedophile myself we are truly fellow members of an oppressed minority*snort*

    Like cigarette smokers and stuff.

  15. [15] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Only we're not iron deficient.

  16. [16] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    So, me and the Comrades down at the Democratic Club were kicking around some apocalyptic-Socialism-distopia ideas for the Trumpanzies. And I voted for mandatory sex-change operations for some of the Rushes and Alex's and Hannity ringleaders.

    As 2nd-Assistant Commisar for Reeducation and Public Outreach, I think we should throw open the list to the public to stir enthusiasm. Nominate your favorites! Vote early and often!

    In the spirit of the McLaughlin Awards we could call it the Catlin Jenner Awards. I'm told I have potential to rise in the Party.

  17. [17] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Don't everybody talk at once. It's not even midnight on the lEast Coast.

  18. [18] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz-
    "Safe is good, right?"

    If you consider that safe is what gave us Bush and Trump in the first place and will inevitably lead to another that is worse in the progression- not so much.

    Safe is where democracy goes to die.

    The only people Biden is safe for is the big money interests.

    And safe is the last thing we want the politicians to feel. That allows them to throw us crumbs and give the pie to the big money interests to divvy up.

    The only way democracy works is if we make the politicians feel unsafe in getting elected or re-elected and it is the only way they will provide more than crumbs.

  19. [19] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    CW-
    New day, same failed attempt to pass off moose poop as caviar.

    This is not the day we all have been waiting for.

    It is the day we are stuck with because we kept waiting for the big money politicians to work for us instead of the big money interests and give us something after we give them our votes for nothing but promises of future action they never deliver.

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

  20. [20] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Of course we Big Money donors want the pie. Who doesn't want the pie? I donated $201. I own Big Money Joe. Make mine Derby pie. Now.

  21. [21] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    I don't want the Big Money politicians to give me something after I give them my vote for nothing. I want the Derby pie. Now.

  22. [22] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Don,

    The only people Biden is safe for is the big money interests.

    Which big money interests? Can you name a few? Can you describe how Biden will help them?

    Even better: Biden just signed 17 executive orders. Please, do tell how all of these are related to big money interests? How is business profiting at the expense of the common man? If your ongoing name calling and extreme views as to the corruption of Biden is correct then you should be able to point out who is getting what with most if not all of the 17 orders.

  23. [23] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    promises of future action they never deliver.

    Look in the mirror...

  24. [24] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    He's got a point, Don. Like the troll Formerly known as... what's his name, it's nothing more than a prediction. An opinion that you believe strongly -- um, we got kinda that. But nothing more than an opinion.

  25. [25] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    This from an Atlantic article Trump leaves QAnon and the online MAGA world crushed and confused:
    The prophecies did not come true. And people are fuming about it.

    “Let this be a wake-up call for QAnon followers and normies,” one post read just ahead of the inauguration. “No one is coming to save you. No one man can defeat this evil marxist machine.”

    It seems the time has passed for The Storm.

  26. [26] 
    Speak2 wrote:

    Very interesting take. Specifically,

    >>>
    Donald Trump actually did campaign on optimism, but only during his first run. He borrowed the language of populism and painted a rather rosy worldview for the forgotten blue-collar Midwestern worker, back in 2016.
    ...
    But Trump's second campaign was nothing short of raw and unapologetic fearmongering.
    >>>

    First of its kind, I think. Really good. Thank you for that.

  27. [27] 
    Kick wrote:

    John From Censornati
    13

    It seems like years since it's been clear.

    Little darling, I feel that ice is slowly melting. :)

  28. [28] 
    Kick wrote:

    IF WE SAW PATTERNS IN THINGS® ™ ©

    And now it's time to play a quick game of:
    If We Saw Patterns In Things... Wednesdays in January 2021

    January 6..... Insurrection
    January 13.... Impeachment
    January 20.... Inauguration

    Bonus Point Opportunity:

    January 27....

    Will it be:

    A. Inoculation
    B. Immigration
    C. Indictment
    D. Infrastructure

    The answer is D because every day is Infrastructure Week.

  29. [29] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    19

    New day, same failed attempt to pass off moose poop as caviar.

    Nice of you to admit that and own it, Average Don. They say that admitting your problem is the first step to recovery.

    This is not the day we all have been waiting for.

    You're not one of us.

  30. [30] 
    Kick wrote:

    John From Censornati
    20

    Of course we Big Money donors want the pie.

    I almost always usually want the pie.

    Who doesn't want the pie?

    It's just right this second, I don't think I actually want the pie, but I could definitely go for something to wet my whistle.

    I donated $201. I own Big Money Joe. Make mine Derby pie.

    Hold your horses, pal. I gave him $201.99, and I hereby demand a mint julep. ;)

  31. [31] 
    Kick wrote:

    John From Censornati
    21

    I don't want the Big Money politicians to give me something after I give them my vote for nothing.

    So you're saying you're a cheap date?

    I want the Derby pie.

    For nothing? Pony up, pal.

  32. [32] 
    dsws wrote:

    [77] nypoet22 wrote:

    @Dan,
    Show some love/hate for Andrew Johnson. What, a hundred years of Jim crow isn't enough to make your list?

    I don't think Johnson earned a disproportionate share of the blame. Jim Crow got going in earnest under Rutherfraud B. Hayes et seq. During the Johnson administration, Reconstruction was underway, enforced by federal troops.

  33. [33] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Mtn Caddy (24)-
    No, he doesn't have a point. But you do.

    It is an opinion. My opinion. And I am posting my opinion just like everyone else here is posting their opinions.

    Speaking of opinions, you seem to be done with your taxes.

  34. [34] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    JFC, Kick-
    201 and 201.99 dollars

    That is the same as saying someone going 26 mph in a 25 mph school zone is only 1 mph over the speed limit so let's not worry about the speed limit at all.

  35. [35] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Bashi-
    I don't have to provide proof of any specific corruption. There is so much of it that it is easy to spot.

    80% of citizens, including a majority of Republikiller voters have consistently for years said they already know that big money corrupts our political process and they want the big money out.

    What is the look in the mirror supposed to mean?

    I have not made any promises that I did not deliver.

    I only said that One Demand could work and that current trends show that it is likely to work so we should try it and find out.

    So even if we try it and it doesn't work I will not be breaking any promises.

  36. [36] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick-
    You are right that I am not one of you and your "us" here.

    I actually make rational argument while your "us" does nothing but deflect and avoid rational argument.

    I am proud to not be one of your "us" because being one of your "us" is bad for our country, democracy and the comments section here.

  37. [37] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Death Harris,

    That is the same as saying someone going 26 mph in a 25 mph school zone is only 1 mph over the speed limit so let's not worry about the speed limit at all.

    Unsurprisingly, you're talking nonsense. A speed limit is a law. That $200 limit is your absurd Big Money purity limit. The law says $2,800. I could buy 13 presidents. At $201, I get my Derby pie and no speeding citation.

  38. [38] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    JFC-
    Once again you are talking nonsense.

    Whether the speed limit is a law is not the point of the analogy and you know it. And if you don't then you have comprehension deficiencies.

    Yes. The 200 limit is not a law. It is a demand made by citizens that want the big money out of politics.

    Something citizens have a right to do- make demand of politicians and enforce that demand with their votes. Basic democracy.

    Are you against democracy or do not believe democracy can work?

  39. [39] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Death Harris,

    The 200 limit is not a law. It is a demand made by citizens that want the big money out of politics.

    Nonsense. It is an absurd purity limit set by you that will never ever be adopted.

    Are you against democracy or do not believe democracy can work?

    Oh look! A false choice. It turns out that you actually do know how that works as opposed to the actual choices that you repetitively assert are false.

    Democracy works just fine with the existing $2,800 campaign donation limit. Your nonsense does not even begin to address Big Money (which is not donated to campaigns). Big Money would laugh at your purity test and bury your candidate if you ever recruited one (which you won't).

  40. [40] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    JFC-
    It is not a purity test. It is an adequacy test.

    It is a starting point that demands basic integrity of the candidate.

    It is no different than not voting for a candidate that is for or against any other issue, such as the War on Habitat.

    The 200 dollar limit is universally accepted by the vast majority of organizations that cover money in politics as the threshhold for a small donor.

    Your purity test claim is just another dodge.

    Asking if you are against democracy or don't think it can work is not a false choice.

    One Demand is basic democracy in action.

    You are against One Demand and say it can't work.

    Explain how that is not being against democracy or thinking it can't work or explain how One demand is not basic democracy in action.

    Yes, I have addressed how One Demand can have an influence on the big money not donated to campaigns.

    How would big money bury a small donor candidate?

    Small donor candidates can raise enough money to be competitive. Just 10% of the 150 million 2020 voters contributing just 100 dollars to small donor candidates would total 1.5 billion dollars. That would be just the tip of the small donor iceberg as explained here in detail many times.

    And this money would come with more than 10% of the vote as many citizens that can not afford to contribute can participate with their votes.

    And just 10-20% national participation in 2022 can be successful by winning some primaries and having third parties and independent small donor candidates changing the dynamics in a few gerrymandered districts so that the safe district for one CMP gets flipped to the other CMP.

    This would lead to more participation in 2024 from citizens and candidates.

    Basic democracy. A long term rational plan that is not pie in the sky or a false promise of a magic bullet.

    Democracy works just fine with the existing 2800 dollar limit?

    That is pure delusion unless there is some special exception for GWB, Obama and Trump. And Biden, Pelosi, McConnell, Schummer, etc.

    80% of citizens disagree with your claim that politics works just fine with the 2800 dollar limit or they wouldn't want the big money out of politics.

  41. [41] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    I saw some excerpts from Biden's speech.

    With the NFL season almost over thank goodness that Empty Rhetoric Season is going full swing!

  42. [42] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Don,

    I don't have to provide proof of any specific corruption. There is so much of it that it is easy to spot.

    If there is so much of it, you should be able to come up with examples quite easily.

    80% of citizens, including a majority of Republikiller voters have consistently for years said they already know that big money corrupts our political process and they want the big money out.

    Can you back this up? Show real polls? Anything?

    This is the problem, we just came out of four years of hell. Where truth and facts were under constant attack. Trumpism is a methodology more than an ideology and just because it has come from mostly the right the last hundred years or so does not mean it can't come from the left. If we are to prevent it in the future, fact checking the left is as important as fact checking the right. And your "facts" just don't check out.

    The Qanon crap was also opinions pawned off as real. How are you different? In the end you do need to back up your shit! You besmirch a good man because of an opinion. All through the campaign Biden's wealth was attacked by the right. Not much came of it. His wealth mostly came from investing his salary, speaking engagements and book deals. I see no "big money" in his wealth. Prove me wrong. Put up or shut up.

    I have not made any promises that I did not deliver.

    Don, you have not delivered anything. But go on and hide behind semantics...

  43. [43] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    thank goodness that Empty Rhetoric Season is going full swing!

    Please point out the empty rhetoric...

  44. [44] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    That is pure delusion unless there is some special exception for GWB, Obama and Trump. And Biden, Pelosi, McConnell, Schummer, etc.

    More accusations without providing validity? Maybe we should refer to you as Don Q. You can peddle your "opinion" on 4chan. Better chance of it being taken up there than in the land of "reality based political commentary"...

  45. [45] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    B B

    Sorry man (woman?) Don is absolutely correct about money, big, little or medium, constituting a basis for corruption and personal gain at the expense of the public. You can't be rational about denying that, specific examples or not.

    Re Biden's wealth, if he made money "from investing his salary", it was because members of congress all have inside info, not because they are astute financial gurus. If he made it from speaking fees and/or book sales, that's no more than thinly disguised bribery (Think Hillary's speeches teaching Goldman-Sachs guys how to invest.) Some ex presidents make legitimate book income selling memoirs, but NOBODY buys books from congressmen simply because they enjoy a good read.

    And how about the fact that his whole family tree is stinkin' rich, spouse, kids, in-laws and outlaws, scarcely a single one that ever having held a meaningful job in the private economy. Are they writing books and delivering stimulating speeches along with Joe?

    Don Q's problem is NOT that he's wrong about corruption in the political/governmental system, his problem is that he's a hyper-idealist who prefers not to face the unrelenting, incurable reality of how the world works.

    Hope that qualifies as my "put-up"!

  46. [46] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Bashi,

    I already suggested DAnon. He could post as the Wizard of OD, but if he wants to pick up the disillusioned Qnuts, he'll need to repackage. They may be gullible, but they need more than the same repetitive assertions over and over. Maybe the Lizard People are buying little kids for $2,800 and selling them to Iran.

  47. [47] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Stucki,

    How does a $2,800 campaign donation corrupt a politician?

  48. [48] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    JFC

    I don't recall saying or even implying, that to be the case.

  49. [49] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Stucki-

    Who got paid, and what did they get? Nebulous accusations of government and this is just how it works, without back up is no better than Don Q. And at an estimated wealth of $9 million, half of which is real estate, Joe Biden is far from "stinkin' rich"...

  50. [50] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Stucki,

    You said: Don is absolutely correct about money, big, little or medium, constituting a basis for corruption and personal gain at the expense of the public.

    His One Demand is all about campaign donations and nothing else.

  51. [51] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Little more off-topic rambling.

    I wonder if Joe, Kamala and Nancy, pushing their rental, mortgage, student loan etc., pmts moratoriums, realize that it is those pmts that underwrite damn near everything at the local gov't level - Cops, firefighters, teachers, utilities, etc.

    We may have only a very short time before that shit hits the proverbial fan.

  52. [52] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Bashi-
    Of course my facts check out.

    Look at any legislation from Obamacare to the Cares act and there are plenty of articles that point out it the legislation is primary benefiting the big money interests with nothing but crumbs for ordinary citizens.

    If you haven't seen any of the polls that say 80% of citizens want the big money out of politics then you are just not paying attention or just not paying attention to things you don't want to hear because it conflicts with what you want to believe.

    I have delivered a way for citizens to work together to demand small donor candidate to get the big money out of politics.

    CW has failed to deliver this information to the public. He is free to do so.

    And I can comment here telling him he should provide this information.

    Just as all of you can speculate about my motivations even though I have addressed your bull poop i can speculate about CW's motivations- and he refuses to address them.

    It certainly appears that he wants to be able to continue to peddle the you have no other narrative as he did in 2020. To me it seems he is afraid that if citizens were offered One Demand they might decide it is preferable to what the Deathocrats are offering and the you have no other choice narrative would no longer work.

    The only time or two in five years CW addressed it at all it was with the same dodges and ridiculous claims that the rest of you use. That doesn't count as addressing it. It only counts as avoiding it.

    I have backed up all my statements here many times. You are just using that as an excuse to try to make me do it again as a means to avoid addressing the points I made.

    It is childish and ineffective.

  53. [53] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    CRS-
    I am not wrong about how the world works or how it could work better.

  54. [54] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    34

    That is the same as saying someone going 26 mph in a 25 mph school zone is only 1 mph over the speed limit so let's not worry about the speed limit at all.

    No, it isn't "the same" because "partners are not the same. Cheech and Chong are partners. Abbott and Costello are partners. Penn and Teller are partners" and because Bullshit and "The Englishman Who Went up Benny Hill But Came Down a Bullshit Mountain" because hills can never be mountains except in movies based on real life.

    So to recap: JFC and I are partners in "Pure Evil" and have both received the Death Harris penalty for contributing 1 mph over the speed limit... exactly like Sheldon Adelson.

  55. [55] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    35

    I don't have to provide proof of any specific corruption. There is so much of it that it is easy to spot.

    If there is so much of it, then it shouldn't be too hard for you to post the list that proves your prattling.

    80% of citizens, including a majority of Republikiller voters have consistently for years said they already know that big money corrupts our political process and they want the big money out.

    So your "idea" to accomplish that is to herd the kittens while ignoring the lions and tigers and bears... oh, my.

    I have not made any promises that I did not deliver.

    Liar.

    I only said that One Demand could work and that current trends show that it is likely to work so we should try it and find out.

    Knock yourself out, skippy. No one not named Don Harris is impeding your trying it.

    So even if we try it and it doesn't work I will not be breaking any promises.

    We? Who is this "we"? You are not one of us.

    Better run along and get busy. You can start by eliminating the voter disinformation on your website wherein you suggest that voters in America can perform a write-in vote for themselves when the vast majority of voters cannot do that.

  56. [56] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    OMG. Qnut Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) is following that orange brick road. She hasn't filed her articles of impeachment against Biden because she thought it would be a lot easier than it is.

  57. [57] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    36

    You are right that I am not one of you and your "us" here.

    No shit.

    I actually make rational argument while your "us" does nothing but deflect and avoid rational argument.

    Liar. I do more than deflect and avoid rational argument. For instance, you actually just claimed you "make rational argument" and then turned right around and lied that I "avoid rational argument." Well, you don't see me avoiding you, do you?

    I am proud to not be one of your "us" because being one of your "us" is bad for our country, democracy and the comments section here.

    Being "not one of us" means you don't get a vote to decide what is good/bad for us because you've pledged to vote only for yourself, and that makes you lots of things but definitely and most assuredly not one of us.

  58. [58] 
    Kick wrote:

    John From Censornati
    37

    Unsurprisingly, you're talking nonsense. A speed limit is a law. That $200 limit is your absurd Big Money purity limit. The law says $2,800. I could buy 13 presidents. At $201, I get my Derby pie and no speeding citation.

    But what about my alcoholic beverage?

  59. [59] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Don,

    Of course my facts check out.

    Do they? Then prove it!

    Look at any legislation from Obamacare to the Cares act and there are plenty of articles that point out it the legislation is primary benefiting the big money interests with nothing but crumbs for ordinary citizens.

    No, that is your job. You point out the big money interests. You do the research, it's your idea. Back it up.

    If you haven't seen any of the polls that say 80% of citizens want the big money out of politics then you are just not paying attention or just not paying attention to things you don't want to hear because it conflicts with what you want to believe.

    I have seen many polls that show quite a bit of different opinions depending on the wording of the poll. Which ones are you referring to?

    I have delivered a way for citizens to work together to demand small donor candidate to get the big money out of politics.

    How is that working for you? Down to 4 supporters from 10 and zero candidates over the course of six years. Not what I would consider "delivered". More of an excuse to spam comment sections while rarely leaving your comfy chair...

    I have backed up all my statements here many times. You are just using that as an excuse to try to make me do it again as a means to avoid addressing the points I made.

    No you haven't. You spam the same accusations over and over without EVER backing them up. When asked clarifying questions about One Demand, you dismiss them as stupid. Why would CW or anyone else write about your poorly thought out idea if you are too lazy to do the research and back up it up with a coherent argument backed up by verifiable facts?

    The world is not against you. You are against you.

  60. [60] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    38

    Once again you are talking nonsense.

    In JFC's defense, it is impossible to avoid talking nonsense when discussing anything regarding Bucky Harris and Who's on first, What's on second, and I Don't Know is on third.

    The 200 limit is not a law.

    No shit. It's the same as forcing people to drive 20 mph in a 55 mph speed zone and claiming they're "Pure Evil" because they won't drive at a pace that is preferable to Grandma and Grandpa McTurtle.

    It is a demand made by citizens that want the big money out of politics.

    Liar. If it was an actual demand made by citizens, you wouldn't be here grifting to try to force another citizen to advertise it because there is no demand for it because there's already a legal limit.

    Something citizens have a right to do- make demand of politicians and enforce that demand with their votes. Basic democracy.

    Your Bullshit Mountain is replete with false equivalency. Voting for yourself doesn't constitute a "vote" in the vast majority of America, and a shit-ton of invalidated or disqualified ballots does not somehow magically constitute "votes"... quite the opposite, actually.

    Are you against democracy or do not believe democracy can work?

    False equivalency. Your Bullshit Mountain isn't democracy.

  61. [61] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    40

    It is not a purity test. It is an adequacy test.

    It is a Stick Measuring Contest. Don Harris is Small and therefore wants to feel Big by forcing everyone to be as Small as he is. Those with Big Sticks are therefore inherently labeled "Pure Evil" so that Don can feel better about his Small Stick.

    Meanwhile, the speed limit is already set and most people don't drive a Stick and couldn't care less about Don's pathetic limitations.

    Not reading any more of this Bullshit Mountain.

  62. [62] 
    Kick wrote:

    BashiBazouk
    42

    If there is so much of it, you should be able to come up with examples quite easily.

    This! :)

  63. [63] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    When ever I have posted supporting evidence the person requesting it either disappears or deflects to something else. Then you reappear a few days later claiming the information was never provided.

    Childish.

    All of you always seem to be able to find all the things I posted that you think you can twist to fit the argument you want to make. You can find where I previously posted the information you are again requesting as a diversion.

    And the information you are requesting is like asking for all the math that proves the earth travels around the Sun before you believe that the Earth travels around the Sun.

    It is transparent and apparent and not rational discussion.

  64. [64] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    If it's a bright new day, how come the rolls are still doing exactly what they were doing yesterday and for years?

  65. [65] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    That's trolls, not rolls. But that was probably understood just like the trolls understand who they are- the ones that keep accusing me of being a troll for posting my opinion.

  66. [66] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki
    45

    Sorry man (woman?) Don is absolutely correct about money, big, little or medium, constituting a basis for corruption and personal gain at the expense of the public.

    More bullshit! Stucki, you have just basically claimed that all amounts of money regardless of size are inherently evil and a threat to society. Did you skip breakfast? Need to take a walk outside and get some fresh oxygen?

    You can't be rational about denying that, specific examples or not.

    What's not rational is y'all's assumption that any amount of money is inherently evil.

    Re Biden's wealth, if he made money "from investing his salary", it was because members of congress all have inside info, not because they are astute financial gurus.

    *laughs*

    If he made it from speaking fees and/or book sales, that's no more than thinly disguised bribery (Think Hillary's speeches teaching Goldman-Sachs guys how to invest.)

    Speaking fees and books sales are "bribery"!? And here I thought they were capitalism. Are you mental? Rhetorical question.

    Some ex presidents make legitimate book income selling memoirs, but NOBODY buys books from congressmen simply because they enjoy a good read.

    Because "congressmen" obviously aren't capable of good books; I mean, just look at Profiles in Courage as a prime example. Pffffffffffffft.

    And how about the fact that his whole family tree is stinkin' rich, spouse, kids, in-laws and outlaws, scarcely a single one that ever having held a meaningful job in the private economy. Are they writing books and delivering stimulating speeches along with Joe?

    Bullshit. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. So now it's not a "meaningful job" to serve your country in the armed forces? Your ignorance is showing.

    Don Q's problem is NOT that he's wrong about corruption in the political/governmental system, his problem is that he's a hyper-idealist who prefers not to face the unrelenting, incurable reality of how the world works.

    Both of your problems is that you whine incessantly about Money and how it's inherently evil and how anyone who has some of it must also be inherently evil because they got near some of it or gave a speech or (God forbid) wrote a book.

    What do y'all have against capitalism?

  67. [67] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Don,

    And the information you are requesting is like asking for all the math that proves the earth travels around the Sun before you believe that the Earth travels around the Sun.

    Examples of big money corruption to back up YOUR accusations is this hard for you? Really?

  68. [68] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Bashi-
    No, it is not.

    In fact it is right here in this thread in comment 52.

    Look at any legislation from Obamacare to the Cares act and there are plenty of articles that point out the legislation is primarily benefiting the big money interests instead of ordinary citizens.

    The polls that say 80% of citizens that want the big money out of politics.

    All that information is there and can be easily found. I do not have to find it for you and keep posting it so you can ignore it.

    If I remember correctly even CW said at one point that there was too much of that here.

  69. [69] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki
    51

    Little more off-topic rambling.

    Rambling is your thing.

    I wonder if Joe, Kamala and Nancy, pushing their rental, mortgage, student loan etc., pmts moratoriums, realize that it is those pmts that underwrite damn near everything at the local gov't level - Cops, firefighters, teachers, utilities, etc.

    I wonder if the so-called economics expert in Podunk, Idaho, knows that the "moratoriums" on "those payments" aren't exactly designed to stop those who can afford them from paying them but designed to stop penalties from accruing and evictions from occurring to those who can't. There isn't a moratorium on payments, Stucki, there's an extension of penalties accruing on the wonderful and saints among us who at the current time are unable to pay. We know they are saints and angels because having no Money means you are uncorrupted and pure... I mean, "adequate."

    We may have only a very short time before that shit hits the proverbial fan.

    Like I tried to explain to you already, Money isn't always a force for evil and can be a force for good and from keeping bad shit from happening to good fans.

  70. [70] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Don,

    Repeating your spamming is not backing up your argument. "plenty of articles", "The polls that say..." which articles? which polls?

    All that information is there and can be easily found. I do not have to find it for you and keep posting it so you can ignore it.

    Yet you seem to find the time to spam the same crap day in and day out. Interesting that...

    You have posted that Biden is the same as Trump. Yet, starting in 1973, his first year in the senate, Biden championed complete public financing of political campaigns. Here [joebiden.com] is his plans for campaign finance reform. What is wrong about it and why is it the same as Trump?

  71. [71] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    68

    Look at any legislation from Obamacare to the Cares act and there are plenty of articles that point out the legislation is primarily benefiting the big money interests instead of ordinary citizens.

    It's just as well... since y'all believe Money is inherently evil, best not to corrupt the "ordinary citizens" who ain't got any by giving them some.

    All that information is there and can be easily found. I do not have to find it for you and keep posting it so you can ignore it.

    That's the same as CW not having to republish your Bullshit Mountain no matter how many times you troll him to do it because you already have your own website where "all that information is there and can be easily found."

    ^^^^^ Rational argument ^^^^^

    . It's called "rational thought." e can ignore you. on your own website.

    it's all there on your own website.

    If I remember correctly even CW said at one point that there was too much of that here.

  72. [72] 
    Kick wrote:

    Well, that posted prematurely when I grazed my touchscreen.

    ^^^^^ Rational argument ^^^^^ is the end of the post containing the rational argument.

  73. [73] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Bashi-
    I do not have to look up stuff for you every time you ask.

    I have posted articles here and they have been ignored and then later it was claimed they were never posted.

    You are just using that as a cheap dodge.

    Just because you keep repeating it does not make it true.

    This is common knowledge easily attainable with a quick search.

    What's next- holding your breath until you turn bluer?

    No I did not say Trump and Biden are the same. I pointed out similarities such as they are both working for the big money interests and they are both King Kong Capitalists. That's another example of you changing what I say to fit the argument you want to make. Pitiful.

    I have seen your link before. It is all proposed legislation that may or may not happen at some point in the future. If history remains even close to consistent it will not happen.

    What is wrong with it is that the problem with big money in politics is that the big money legislators will not pass any legislation that does not benefit the big money interests. The big money interests have no interest in getting the big money out of politics.

    So in order to get the legislation passed the big money legislators need to first be replaced with small donor legislators (including Biden).

    The problem has to be solved before the legislation to solve the problem can be passed.

    Biden knows this. And if Biden doesn't know this then he hasn't learned much in forty plus years.

    So Biden is either purposely misleading people or too stupid to know what he is doing.

  74. [74] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick (69)-
    That's what you call rational thought?

    Hilarious!

    Even grading on a curve using you and 5 slugs that kind of thinking would come in seventh in being separate from rational thought.(one being closest to rational thought.)

  75. [75] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick-
    Sorry. Went back a bit too far. It was supposed to refer to 71 not 69, though it most likely applies to both and just about every one of your comments.

  76. [76] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    75

    Sorry.

    *laughs* Yes, we're well aware of your obvious limitations.

    You should read and reread your posts explaining over and over like a hamster on a wheel how you don't have to perform for anyone. Then read them one more time and pretend that it's CW explaining to you how he doesn't have to repost your bullshit either. It's already posted out there and falling flat on its face in silent repetition every single day. :)

Comments for this article are closed.