The yellow card was not justified.

Your failed attempt at political activism is illegal.

It would have been justified for Kick and Listen.

Bashi is correct; you are obviously and majorly butthurt. You're a butthurt troll with a shitty idea that you refuse to stop spamming on this forum.

Your definition of "Big Money" is actually chump change. Individuals are already limited by statute in the amount of money they can contribute to a political candidate, and individuals through Political Action Committees are not limited at all. Your bullshit would do absolutely nothing to limit the amount an individual can contribute to a candidate through a PAC and would thereby make the PACs stronger and give them a louder voice while individual voters in your scenario would be de facto self-disarming what little power they have by refusing to cast a valid vote that isn't counted in the vast majority of states. Those are the simple facts.

Now eff off... but not before shoving your repetitive bullshit up your backside... but not before removing your tiny head.

I think you should probably look up both "dodge" and "coward" in a dictionary. You seem to be a bit fuzzy on the definitions...

you're just copying my brilliant idea by pretending that big cake can be part of the process of pie-based reform. cake has had its day, and has failed time after time to improve the voting process. only by sticking to pie (and no lesser pastries) right now can we bring in true voter participation by those who have never voted before and seem likely not to vote in the future. you might call this a pie purity test but it's really just simple baking.

don't buy the cake lie, vote for pie.

JL

You label anything that disagrees with you as a "dodge". No one buys it. It has become the code word for you unable to handle a rational response.

Then the website dodge.

Perfect example...

I never should have received a yellow card. That was CW's lowest moment. That you are not capable of recognizing that or just don't care to admit it just shows how low you are.

Yes, we get it, you are seriously butt hurt over it. That yellow card was quite justified though...

Cowards.

It's hilarious that this is your end of argument cop out. Oh noes, I've been called a coward. How will I ever live with myself? Quite easily it turns out...

There you go again pushing your extremist pie agenda.

The more you push your extreme pie agenda the more you alienate those of us who are more centrist.

If you really wanted reform that is for all of us you would be pushing <a href="https://melaniemakes.com/apple-piecaken-apple-pie-baked-in-a-cake/" this... it is as American as apple pie.

The beauty of this agenda is that it can be adjusted to satisfy the leanings of both the the center cake and center pie crowds that make up the majority of our countries population.

Isn't it time to push a agenda that unites vs the old school pie/cake based divisive politics?

Our intrepid master of democracy and election laws and processes will explain how his "entity" that is in no way shape or form registered as a voter or election advocacy group is going to force invalid write in votes to be counted.

So... Don Qui how about enlightening all of us with how exactly you plan to utilize FOIA's? you know with real detail, like who you are going to FOIA, how are you going to pay for the FOIA, who is going to be doing all of this work, you know... details.

For example, what part of your comment addresses whether or not using votes to influence candidates is not how democracy is designed to work?

Because we have all addressed this many times in the past and all have been accused of dodging when we did not agree with you.

Pulling out the old dodge of wanting a list of small donor candidates to choose from without first making a demand for small donor candidates does not address how democracy is designed to work.

But it was how your website was designed to work. You do remember you have a website, right? Just think if you had got off your lazy ass and learned html, a bit of css and a touch JavaScript over the last seven or so years instead of spamming comment sections you could have built something these political commentators might actually want to write about instead of consistently ignoring you. By the way, do have the full list? We know CW, Dore and Nader. Who else is giving you the old cold shoulder? Heh...

You are just making up the "past experience" as that has never happened. The only dodges I have pointed out have been dodges.

Moving on to straight out lying, eh?

You are not "shaking in your boots" because you have not actually engaged in discussion which is what exposes your weakness and incessant spamming/trolling that you try to project on to me.

I've never received a yellow card...

Until citizens take direct action by demanding small donor candidates and enforcing that demand with their votes it will remain an exercise in futility as this is how democracy is designed to work.

If only there was a website or organization to tell us who was a small donor candidate...I guess we will never know.

The next question is, can anyone here really engage is a discussion or will there just be more "no it isn't because you say it isn't" or can anyone really make an argument against that being how democracy is designed to work?

Have you evolved enough to handle discussion? Past experience tells us "discussion" with you is we heap massive praise on your idea and throw you on our shoulders and carry you in to the sunset as hero and anything short of that is a dodge.

Put up or expect that your bullshit will be exposed.

Ooh, shaking in my boots! Talk about the weakest of weak sauce...

The fact that commenters here want me to be red carded or just go away is the smoking gun that exposes that you have no rational argument. If you did you would make it instead of using dodges and begging CW to save you from being exposed as a bullshitter by banning me.

Actually, I think it was the incessant spam...

I don’t think established pundits worry much about audience shifts from a single column. What they DO worry about is about is having something to publish at the next deadline. A shift in polling results, however unreliable will do on an otherwise slow day. The poll shift was “newsy” if not exactly “newsworthy.” To his credit, CW pointed this out last Tuesday…among other tihings.

the whole 'DINO' and 'RINO' thing is so twelve years ago. i prefer to call senator manchin a paleo-democrat. trouble is, without them there's be no democratic majority and mitch would be calling the shots.

#4 Mtn Caddy -- This [is] EXACTLY how I and many others here feel. Message to Don --- Either engage with us in discussing solutions to the problem of money in politics or go home. Your broken record screeds just get in the way of conversations of real value.

____________________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__________
________________________________________

The question is, when will the disenfranchised electoral majority take more direct action to reform the federal election system, when they are deprived of the most logical path to doing so: winning national elections.

I guess that depends on DINOs Manchin and Sinema, doesn't it.

And this is the tradeoff we get with a "free" press. The press has to attract eyeballs to support itself, and nothing breeds interest like uncertainty.

And blood. Normally politics don't get bloody, per se, but then January 6th happened.

This may increase the severity of the constitutional crisis that Republicans seem to be working towards in the 2024 election: nullifying blue votes in red states, if necessary by having the legislatures declare blue votes fraudulent en masse and sending red electoral votes to Congress, despite red losses at the actual polls.

To this depressing tactic, now we can add ever-larger popular vote totals in the blue states for the blue candidate, thanks to this kind of increased ease of voting by mail.

So, imagine in 2024 the Republican candidate winning by a slim electoral vote margin, thanks to restricted or hijacked voting in the disproportionately powerful red state bloc. Imagine also the Democratic candidate winning the national popular vote not by, say, 3 million as Clinton did when losing in 2016 -- but by, say, 20 or 25 million votes thanks to overwhelming voter turnout in the blue states with their easy-to-do mail-in ballots.

I'm not sure this will play out exactly like this, but that's the direction these two opposite trends are taking the country and its democracy. The question is, when will the disenfranchised electoral majority take more direct action to reform the federal election system, when they are deprived of the most logical path to doing so: winning national elections.

Absolutely, positively, unequivocally!!!