If you check the about this blog section it is also how CW defines his job.

Liar. The word "job" isn't even in there. You do understand what a "blog" is, right? CW defines the blog's purpose:

This blog's purpose is to present to the public one man's view of politics.

~ Chris Weigant

http://www.chrisweigant.com/about-this-blog/

*
If you think he meant Don Harris's view of politics, then you'll understand why I think you sound like a stupid, whiney, entitled, and aggrieved victim.

In fact he PROMISES to inform.

Liar. He promises to always make the attempt to inform, but he's very much like the rest of us in that he can't fix stupid or make stupid people understand that the purpose of his political blog is to present his political views because he is that "one man" he is referring to... and you're not the man.

Bashi used the word obligated and I was answering his question. I do not say CW is obligated but when he promises to inform and says he will inform readers about things other media doesn't cover and explore all ideas in my opinion that should include One Demand.

You're misrepresenting what he said (again). He never promised to "explore all ideas." Why must you repeatedly lie about damn near everything and damn near all the dang time?

If you don't like my opinion you are free to disagree but posting my opinion is NOT trolling.

Yes, you are a troll. When you troll a blog author with the same bullshit opinions of yours seeking an advertisement from him over and over to the point where the blog's author declares that you are indeed a troll, then you are definitely a troll. Put another way: If you expect CW's words to have meaning to the rest of us and you insist his words should, then every one of them should have meaning to you and not just the ones with which you choose to troll his blog and insist it is his job to present your views when it is not because you're not the man. If CW says you're a troll, then you are a troll; otherwise, none of his words mean anything.

Because that is the definition of his job- to provide information to citizens.

Damn, you are shovel-digging-a-deep-hole-into-the-ground-level dumb. CW is a political blogger; it's not "his job" to promote anyone's ideas besides his own.

Does anyone else pay CW to write about their ideas?

Who cares? It's his business and none of yours.

If so, then maybe I am wrong about CW being part of the media and he is just a publicist.

There is no "maybe"... you are wrong. It doesn't matter if CW is a publicist or not. Are you so damn dumb that you don't understand that CW could be both a publicist and a blogger? Yes, it appears you are that stupid.

And if a person in the media claims to be presenting reality promotes you only have two choices and leaves out a real option which One Demand is because people could do it if they choose to then that is not presenting reality and is not living up to the mission statement of presenting reality.

Your shit is only a real option in your fantasies. Millions and millions of citizens are basically already unknowingly doing it by not casting a vote and by contributing zero dollars to political candidates. That's reality.

No one on Earth is required to promote your fantastical bullshit wherein politicians will suddenly start paying rapt attention to those who pledge to refuse to vote for them. Politicians seek out those who will support them and ignore those who won't. That's reality.

It was those that are claiming to advocate for a free marketplace of ideas when it is the ideas they support but not when it is other ideas that are hypocritical.

It's never too late to seek higher learning. Then perhaps you could write in coherent sentences instead of this meandering type shit I quoted directly above. Do yourself a favor and at the very least spend the same amount of time learning something that you spend whining incessantly on this blog. What could it hurt?

You always sound like a whining aggrieved victim who believes he is owed something. No one here owes you a damn thing... least of all CW. Yes, you are entitled to your whining stupid opinion, but so are the rest of us. You keep whining like a poor victim, and we'll keep pointing out what a stupid, whiney, entitled, and aggrieved victim you always sound like. Your call, troll. :)

You try to spin ME as a crackpot, lazy and a spammer to justify CW not writing about the idea of One Demand or explaining why he won't address it.

No, I do it because it's true. You are a crackpot, lazy and a spammer...

that's an obvious evasion, and a poor excuse not to promote pie when there's an opportunity to do so.

JL

Don Harris wrote:

Free services for the whinny?

Because that is the definition of his job- to provide information to citizens.

Idiot! That's not the definition of his job it's your definition. It's his blog so it's his rules.

OD sucks and no one is obligated to either promote (CW) or agree with (we in the Comments section) anything we don't want to. Effing troll, what's wrong with you that you don't get it?

CW is absolutely obligated to write about pie!

JL

Posting an opinion is one thing. Posting the same opinion over and over with the same formatting is spam.

I agree, defaulting to the cloture vote really killed the spirit of the filibuster. I like the idea of a battle of wills. How long can the speaker keep going compared to the rest of the bodies desire to outlast them to pass the bill? But the "oh well, we don't have 60 votes, lets move on to the next order of business" is just lame and needs to go, one way or another...

Reform it. Bring it back to the way it was originally. Require Senators to be present and stay in the Senate chamber rather than leave and go out of town during the filibuster. Make them have to actually speak for a sustained amount of time like they used to have to do.

Would Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio really stick it out if they could not go on their precious vacation? How could they object to bringing it back to its original form?

Instead of 60 percent of the full Senate required to end a filibuster, what about just 60 percent of those present and voting? Most of the time, with so many Senators absent and not actually bothering to be there at all, that would require only 48 votes!

Or, as another alternative, rather than requiring 60 votes to end a filibuster, why not do the opposite and require 40 votes to start a filibuster?

What about suggesting these ideas to those in power?

The environmental crisis for example. Wait too long, don't impose immediate mandates, and the problem you are trying to solve becomes beyond your ability to rectify at all. We have only a tiny window regarding greenhouse gases, say the experts who are paid to know in the first place, to do something about it before it becomes too late. So, let's not worry about light bulbs, after all, what impact could they have on the need for more polluting energy plants? What impact could efficient toilets have on the amount of water available in drought stricken California. Let's not hurt someone's feelings by imposing a mandate. Would you rather have more efficient toilets, or restrictive lawn watering, or buy bottled water trucked in from elsewhere rather than use your tap?

Would we have been better off just introducing alternatives to CFC chemicals and let the free market work, or sign the treaty banning CFC production right away like we actually did? Would it really have been better to just let the free market work, and let the ozone hole get big enough until half the world got skin cancer before we had a working solution?

Workplace safety and OSHA rules and mandates are another example. Sure, you don't like big government telling you what to do. But then the alternative is workers dying from black lung or radiation poisoning. Or Love Canal, if anyone still remembers that, and EPA clean up sites, because corporations valued a quick and easy cheap profit and haphazardly dumping chemical waste over responsibility.

Sometimes, you know, the pointy headed elite experts really do know best, and resentment be damned. Not everyone can be an educated expert in every field. Maybe we ought to just listen to them in the first place? Choose your battles carefully and the hills you are willing to die on.

There is also the question of who objects when the government's pointy-headed experts tell us simpletons what we can and cannot do - in areas that conservatives approve of. It's called 'government by law' in both cases.

Freedom of choice and the logic of market competition are fine, but there are areas of society and life in general where competition is counter-productive or impractical, such as natural monopoly markets like public utilities, roadways, property rights, and mass communication. Telling someone they have the freedom to start their own version of Facebook, when they complain about being banned by a 'private corporation', reminds me of the old gag about how both the rich and the poor are equally forbidden to seek shelter from the rain by sleeping under a bridge.

And to point out at the beginning of the essay that logical arguments won't work to combat nonsense like 'cancel culture' and 'fake news', etc., and then to use at the end of the essay very logical arguments to combat claims about what the First Amendment and 'freedom of speech' actually mean, is just confusing.

In the end, too much of this scolding of liberals for their dominating insistence on low-flow toilets reads like all the earnest news coverage of the 'Trump voter' in 2016-17, whereby it was suddenly the liberals' duty to find out what these people really wanted, and to see if they could somehow be given it without actually destroying the republic.

Speaking of the snail mail, did you ever get the 'birthday' card/pledge I sent a few months back?

Guess what I got in the mail today? An income tax refund! Yeah, a refund on my 2019 return. So, I was a bit late in sending that return in and, according to my calculatios, had to pay a hundred dollars or so. Figured they'd charge me interest on top of that - it was a few months late. Ahem.

But, no - no interest charge. Just a word about reassessing my return and discovering that I deserved a couple hundred dollars back!

Imagine that!

:-)

For some reason, though, it doesn't seem to be working with the idea to raise the federal minimum wage. Which wouldn't be raised to $15 or $20 all at once but, incrementally.