Considering I have already stated that multiple donations from a single person that go above $200 are bumped from the small donation category, difference between donations and donors does not matter.

You are trying to push a conspiracy theory that there are a lot fewer small donation donors than the government published data takes in to account. Cheating is possible but I expect it to be at the margin of error level. Do you have proof it is wide spread or are you just talking out your ass?

Is this data correct, yes or no?

According to Opensecrets.org Bernie's 2016 run had 57.70% >$200 donations. Do you have proof this data is incorrect?

Your accusation is the first I have heard of it. You own it. Can you back it up?

Actually, Don and Herman Schwartz completely talked right past each other. Herman did not address Don's question and Don was to busy with his pedantic correction of small donor to address the points Herman was making.

The big question I see is: it is true with the reoccurring donations both from Bernie and Trump, but legally if you give 5 donations of $50, on that fifth donation your name should become public and you are no longer listed as small donor. Depending on the organization and how one donates this can be automatic or not. At this point the data on small/big donors should be theoretically correct. There are ways around this. Don do you have any proof that the small donor to big donor conversion is not taking place in large enough numbers to change the percentage of small to big donations?

No, idiot.

Let me walk you through it:

1- copy EACH of Schwartz's wrong points and paste each here. One at a time!

2- beneath each SEPARATE point that you disagree with, write a fresh rebuttal to that INDIVIDUAL point. Copying your own comment and posting it here ain't gonna get it. You gotta be here, live and in the room with us.
You have to interact with whomever, and respond rather than shine the tough feedback
that rolls in.

3- Rince and repeat, one point at a time, until you have addressed everything that you want.

4- conclude with a summary, a poignant question or whatever you like. Or not.

5- carefully read some of the back and forth between the rest of Weigantia if you're unsure.

NAME CALLING is juvenile, even coming from folks who have much more compelling arguments than you and I.

Hope this helps. I don't see how you're going to win anybody over here unless you follow my advice. Try it, you'll like it!

THAT'S EXACTLY what I was trying to Caddysplain, but he shined it. *sigh* That's what I get for trying to discuss OD with him. He remains persistently clueless. I hope he doesn't make name calling to attract attention like Michale used to when he ducked questions etc. Of course, if it got him red carded...

King Leopold had millions of hands chopped off but I don't think fully 90% of the native died, as did First Nations did.

CRS wrote,

Did anybody EVER believe that a couple million Native Americans living in the stone age could have the whole North American continent all to themselves in perpetuity? Get real, folks.

Stuck, I trust that everybody here knows that the colonization of North America was inevitable. Acknowledging the reality that all of the Western Hemisphere, most of Africa along with India and parts east means that it's nothing special.

No, idiot. It's up to your lazy ass to go copy and paste and then rebut! It's nobody else's job.

No biggie at all if you don't answer. As a clearly sane Weigantian who appears to lean Right, I'm just curious about your demographic, that's all.

CRS wrote,

[They're efforts] ...Re "Cultural genocide", I'd point out that most of the efforts made by governments, social and religious organizations to assimilate the various tribes into white society, regardless of how mistaken or misguided you might feel they ultimately turned out, were made by people of good faith who sincerely believed that transition would be of benefit to these involved. Certainly not the first nor the worst screw-up ever made by liberal "reformers".

I believe that they were largely Christian people of good faith. Which begs the question, Stuck

the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim to prove, not with anyone else to disprove. just because nobody here can prove that pie isn't a brilliant strategy doesn't make it so. the proof that pie IS a brilliant strategy is in the pie-filling, when you taste it.

JL

Mtn Caddy-
My bad.

So you click the link and read the comment.

Lack of intellect? Based on your inability to discuss OD's myriad problems indicates that I've probably got more intelligence in my pinky than your whole family tree. You did NOT at all answer Schwartz's objections whatsoever in your comments, just like you don't answer anybody's problems here, so I hereby give up on you.

Maybe I do ... ahem.

Could you just cut and paste your comment right here in the meantime?

It's never a good idea to comment on things we know very little about and, at the same time, sound like we know it all.

Let that be lesson number one. :)

Did anybody EVER believe that a couple million Native Americans living in the stone age could have the whole North American continent all to themselves in perpetuity? Get real, folks.

Oh, there is so very much to learn. And, I am going to take it upon myself to do some of that hard work around here.

Consider yourself properly forewarned!

Re "Cultural genocide", I'd point out that most of the efforts made by governments, social and religious organizations to assimilate the various tribes into white society, regardless of how mistaken or misguided you might feel they ultimately turned out, were made by people of good faith who sincerely believed that transition would be of benefit to these involved. Certainly not the first nor the worst screw-up ever made by liberal "reformers".

Re the entire question - Remember, the stereotypical Hollywood image of the noble Indian Brave astride his Palomino pony, with his eagle feather bonnet streaming in the wind, resplendent in his beaded moccasins and vest, with his Winchester rifle held aloft, was always a total fiction. Everything in that picture, the horse, the rifle, and even the glass beads, came from the white man.

Did anybody EVER believe that a couple million Native Americans living in the stone age could have the whole North American continent all to themselves in perpetuity? Get real, folks.

It is now up to Canadians to decide what kind of country we wish to live in ... one that is based on principles of fairness and justice, or not.

The 'Indian problem' is delineated, at least insofar as Canada is concerned, around the concept of Aboriginal Title. Large parts of my country are unceded Aboriginal lands. Ditto for the lion's share of the resources on and under that unceded land that have been extracted by the Crown.

There isn't enough money in Canada to compensate First Nations for all of the stolen land and resources. Settler and Canadian governments understood this, ah, dilemma, all too well.

And, so, what to do. Eliminate the Indians (and Metis and Inuit) and you eliminate the need for compensation.

How to eliminate the Indians? Start by forcibly taking First Nations childrem from their parents and communities and placing them in 'residential schools' where they would be stripped of their 'Indian' identity and therefore completely assimilated into Canadian mainstream.

No Indian identity, no claims to the land, we're all Canadians with 'equal rights'. End of problem.

No, Caddy, this was not simply cultural genocide - it was a way to, over time, eliminate hundreds of First Nations - their people, their traditions, their systems of government, their languages. That is the very definition of genocide.

Don Harris wrote,

What is incorrect about what Prof. Schwartz said about Trump (and what Ralph said about Bernie)?

So read that and engage.

Dummkopf! That's the same b.s. I constantly get from you.

I asked you a direct question -- how is Prof. Schwartz wrong?

"Engaging" means that this is when YOU have to go read the transcript (as, say, I did twice) and YOU have to first quote and then rebut each of his incorrect assertions. Just like YOU have to post any link that you want us to check out. See how well that worked just now?

Why the hell should WE do YOUR job for you? To support your arguments?

This is not rocket science here. Why don't you understand that this is how one "engages" along the way to "persuading" and hopefully even "enlisting" people?*smh*

Good point. Some years ago it occurred to me that these NA themed sports teams should play royalties into an NA fund, kind of as with naming rights in general.

Elizabeth Miller wrote,

The proper word for it was genocide.

Not to nitpick (which is exactly what I'm doing) but the proper term in this Canadian and American case is cultural genocide.

That just points up the difference between talking the talk and walking the walk, mascots versus inherent rights.

I'm not suprised at all by the reaction of members of the Crow First Nation.

But that's as different from white billionaires use ofRedskins or Chief Wazoo as black folks calling themselves the n-word versus white racists doing so.

When I lived on the Crow Reservation in Montana, I asked some of the tribal leaders how they felt about sports teams like the Atlanta Braves, KC Chiefs, and the Cleveland Indians using NA as their mascots. Their answers shocked me, actually. They loved them! They did not feel that they were being mocked by the teams. As one told me, “It is just nice to see that we are acknowledged to have existed in this country.” If it weren’t for them being the mascots for different teams in different sports, we would never discuss Native Americans at all. And the mascots were beloved by their fans…no team had a mascot named the “Drunk Injuns”. When I asked if they had a problem with the mascots looking too “cartoonish”; their response was,

“Do you have a problem how Elmer Fudd is portrayed? Him being a cartoon of a white guy?”

“Of course not, I do not associate myself with being Elmer Fudd so why would it?”

That was exactly their point! Most NA communities love a good laugh, and take joy at laughing at themselves. They have a good sense of humor.

You make an extremely salient point.

It's one thing to talk the talk and decry sports teams' names and mascots but it's quite another to walk the walk and get right down to recognizing Indigenous rights.

This past September 30 marked the first annual National Day For Truth and Reconciliation in Canada. Which came about in the wake of the discovery of hundreds of unmarked graves of First Nations' children on the sites of former Residential Schools. These 'mission' schools, run largely by the Catholic church, were put in place by settler and then Canadian governments to eliminate the 'Indian problem' by forcing all First Nations children to attend these schools where they were prohibited from speaking their languages and practicing their cultural traditions. The proper word for it was genocide.

It's not a holiday per se but a day where Canadians are encouraged to learn about the history of First Nations and to listen to Indigenous Canadians.

Our non-Indigenous political leaders never talk about Tribal or inherent sovereignty so I applaud president Biden for using those important terms.

There can be no reconciliation without truth and there can be no truth without the recognition of Indigenous rights including land and resource rights and the inherent right of self-government.

This "Indigenous People's Day" and Washington Football Team et al seems all well and good but strikes me as a form of talking the right talk, virtue signaling our respects but not paying Native Americans, Inc. or laying down money and political capital to ameliorate our NA's horrendous circumstances and historical injustices. Which is to say, they aren't walking the walk.

I would point out that tons of NA High Schools etc. have NA themed team names, borne proudly onto the Gridiron on Friday nights. But that's as different from white billionaires use ofRedskins or Chief Wazoo as black folks calling themselves the n-word versus white racists doing so.

We've started somewhere but indeed, we've a long way to go.