We do Sunday night for everyone!

Hope you will decide to come, for a change. :)

Hilarious.

No, I don't find your repetitive bullshit hilarious at all.

Public financing is available in 14 states?

But if you can't do it in all states at once then you can't do it- isn't that your bullshit claim on write in votes?

No, idiot. Your confusing your some of your bullshit with some of your other bullshit. You told MtnCaddy (whom you claimed was Bashi) that it wasn't impossible. Things that are already in existence and being implemented are by definition already possible. Your shit isn't being done anywhere. You should endeavor not to confuse your "idea" with things that are actually already implemented. Also, everything isn't about you or your bullshit; for instance, CW's columns aren't ever about you.

So it's been tried and not worked or are those 14 states free of big money in politics?

If I was trying to sell your type bullshit, I would already know the answer to this. The fact that you don't know is indicative of your primary problem.

It's also not the 100% public financing that Mtn Caddy mentioned.

I'm not surprised the point flew right over your tiny head, but the point I was making is that it was possible and your shit isn't possible.

You did not address who would pass that.

It's already passed in those 14 states, and that's what makes it possible.

Have you checked how long it takes (15-20 years at best) to get a constitutional amendment passed, ratified and implemented and you have not addressed who would pass it.

Lie or you're ignorant of the facts regarding amendment to the Constitution in the same manner you're ignorant of a shit-ton of the majority of the bullshit you post. A proposed amendment could be passed via two-thirds majority in both chambers of Congress (Article V). The proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States). The time limit for ratification is 7 years.

I can't help it if you're ignorant, but you sure can. Educate yourself and stop posting bullshit.

Once again you do a garbage dump around the write in votes being counted.

Sorry, asshat, write-in votes are only allowed in 8 states. They're not counted in 42 states at all no matter how many times you whine about it. The percentage of the population that could even do your ignorant pledge and keep it is likely around only 4% of the population because the 7.65% of the people who live in the states where it would be allowed aren't all eligible to vote because they're either underage or aren't citizens or aren't registered to vote at all because they don't vote even though they're eligible.

Those are the facts.

Your information proves me right.

Lie.

Eight states allow write in votes.

Prove it.

Thirty-three states do not count the votes as valid for electing a candidate. But it says that citizens can write in votes and the votes cast that are rendered invalid will be counted as invalid votes.

Lie... or are you blind or illiterate? It doesn't say that at all. It says:

In order for the vote to be counted, the candidate must have submitted all the necessary registration documents by a specific deadline, either by filing paperwork, paying a fee, collecting signatures, or some combination of the aforementioned. Conversely, if a voter writes in the name of a candidate who has not properly filled out and submitted the paperwork, the vote will not be valid and counted.

What part of not counted is confusing to you? It says the votes won't be counted. They're not valid and not counted. Learn to comprehend English.

So they are counted for the purpose they were cast.

Dumb Ass: They are not counted. Not rocket science.

You are making a foll of yourself and do not provide anything positive or worthwhile with your comments.

You're illiterate as well as demonstrably effing ignorant.

Get lost.

Your mother makes a lot of sense. If I had an grown-ass man/asshole like you living in my house, I'd sure shit tell him the exact same thing.

Eff off.

Great idea!

You remember asking what city? I responded London... twice.

On the rest of your premature defecation:

That defecation you're seeing is due to your head residing permanently up your own asshole.

CW has not addressed One Demand multiple times.

Liar... yes, he has.

he pretended to address it only twice (when it was still called Voucher Vendetta), the last time was I think 2017 and what he addressed was not One Demand. he changed it to something else and argued against that instead.

Like I said, he addressed your bullshit on multiple occasions; too damn bad if you didn't like his multiple responses. He did nail it perfectly, though.

CW was wrong when he called me a troll just as the rest of you are wrong when you do it.

Opinions are like assholes. If you're not sure what an asshole is, here, let me help you:

* That thing you're head is shoved firmly up into is one.
* Check your mirror and you'll see one.

Nonsense trolling.

Yes, you are still a troll.

All you did was repeat bullshit claims that have been debunked.

Incorrect. It is also your standard answer, as you've been informed by multiple other commenters multiple other times. It is impossible for you to debunk a fact. You can't debunk a fact; that's why it's called a fact and not an opinion. The FACT is that every federal politician already takes thousands and thousands of dollars from taxpayers in the form of their salary... so I cannot fathom why you believe refusing any donation over $200 proves anything when they're already routinely receiving far in excess by just accepting their six-figure salaries paid 100% by taxpayers. Those are facts.

Have you nothing real?

Yes, you genuinely are dumber than you admit in you bio.

How is public financing or a constitutional amendment achievable?

Dumber than you admit in your bio; you can stop proving it already, we get it!

* Public financing

It's achievable because there are already 14 states that provide some form of public financing option for campaigns. Each of these states require the candidate to accept public money for their campaign in exchange for a promise to limit how much the candidate spends on the election and how much they receive in donations from any one group or individual.

It's available for qualifying candidates for President of the United States during both the primaries and the general election. Is it mandatory? No. The SCOTUS decided in Buckley v. Valeo to strike down a provision of the Federal Election Commission mandating public financing for presidential elections, but it is still already available. So don't tell me it's not possible when it's available.

* Constitutional Amendment

How is an amendment to the Constitution possible? I'll check with the multiple constitutional amendments already ratified and get back to you. Duh! I'm not wasting my time explaining to you how a constitutional amendment is possible, you'll just have to take my word for it that there is a mechanism by which the Constitution can be amended.

No matter how many times you anyone else says write in votes are not counted to elect candidates in some states, enough citizens can cast write in votes in enough states to get this started as it does not require the write in votes to be counted for electing candidates as that is not the purpose of casting those write in votes and they can be counted for the purpose they are cast.

Liar. They are not counted at all and/or they don't exist on the ballot at all.

Can you seriously not grasp the fact that a write-in vote containing your own name is not possible in FORTY-TWO of the FIFTY states? It's not just that they're not counted, there is no space existing on the ballot wherein one can actually write in their own name unless they pay thousands of dollars to register and put it there. You choose a candidate from those listed; there is no write-in space existing on the ballot.

Eight states do not have any requirements and will allow voters to write in any name as a write-in vote. This means that regardless of who you write in, the vote will be counted. Those states are Alabama, Delaware, Iowa, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont, and Wyoming.

Thirty-three states will only accept votes for write-in candidates who have officially registered with the state. In order for the vote to be counted, the candidate must have submitted all the necessary registration documents by a specific deadline, either by filing paperwork, paying a fee, collecting signatures, or some combination of the aforementioned. Conversely, if a voter writes in the name of a candidate who has not properly filled out and submitted the paperwork, the vote will not be valid and counted.

Nine states (Arkansas, Hawaii, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Carolina and South Dakota), do not allow write-in votes.

Pretending as if this makes your "idea" workable is delusional, and claiming repeatedly that it does is redundant and demonstrable ignorance. Your "idea" is only available to 16% of the states, which does not mean 16% of citizens since one of those states is teeny tiny Delaware and another is Wyoming with its smallest population in the United States.

Census population
04/01/2020

AL.. 5,024,279
DE.... 989,948
IA... 3,190,369
NH.. 1,377,529
NJ.. 9,288,994
OR.. 4,237,256
VT..... 643,077
WY.... 576,851

TOTAL 25,328,303

Census of 50 states: 330,759,736

Your total population in those 16% of states equals around 7.65% of the population in 2020. Are all of those 25 million persons eligible to vote? Of course not... because some of them aren't citizens and some of them are children and not of legal age to cast a vote. Not rocket science. So don't tell me it's enough people to make your bullshit viable when it's less than 7.65% of the total population, and not all of them are eligible to vote.

Stop the bullshit or go away.

You're the bullshitter... you are free to SFTU or be called out for your ignorance and lies. You choose.

What should be our theme for Sunday night!?

Already told you: London.

In my opinion CW should write about One Demand or at least address why he won't. Ignoring my opinion is not respectful.

Lying isn't respectful either, and your characterization that he has ignored your "opinion" is a lie. He's addressed you on multiple occasions. You didn't like his answer; too damn bad. In my opinion, CW should yellow card you like he said he would if you wouldn't stop with your monomania (which is a fact).

Again you don't seem to understand or are just pretending to not understand in order to troll.

You are the board troll who can't seem to grasp the concept that if you're going to troll this forum repeatedly with the same redundant monomania, you're going to get a lot of opinions from people telling you to STFU already. Years and years of this redundant shit out of you that never varies is enough. You've failed. No one here owes you a damn thing, but you'll likely get responses if you continue to troll this forum. If you don't like people's opinions, don't troll the forum repeatedly with the same bullshit.

We disagree apparently that Bernie, AOC, etc. are not part of the Deathocrat Establishment even though they take big money.

If you don't want them to be controlled by big money why do you keep voting for them?

Write in candidates are not allowed in the state he lives so he votes for someone on his ballot instead of throwing away what little power he has. Not rocket science.

That approach has not worked for decades.

Voting hasn't worked for decades? Duh. If you believe that voting for a valid candidate doesn't work, then perhaps you really can imagine how stupid it would be to not vote for a valid candidate at all and just throw away your vote.

AGAIN you make the false claim that I am not addressing any shortcomings raised about One Demand.

That isn't a false claim. Over all these years, you've never acknowledged that your "idea" isn't possible in the vast majority of states and changed nothing about it except the name. Spamming this forum repeatedly will never change the shortcomings of your bullshit; it's not workable.

Every federal politician in America takes thousands and thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money far in excess of your $200 purity test... so according to your "big money" definition, they're already owned by the "Big Money" taxpayers of America whom provide them six-figure salaries, yet for some reason you believe they shouldn't be allowed to take more than $200 from a donor!? It's laughable considering they're already taking hundreds of thousands of dollars in salary.

No one has raised legitimate objections.

Lie... or you're even dumber than your bio claims.

I have repeatedly addressed the bullshit objections such as the nonsense in Bashi (14) of the write in votes not being counted.

Okay... so you're blind as well as dumber than your bio claims.

The result has been that it is repeated claiming it has never been addressed. That is trolling.

You are the troll.

[54] Chris Weigant wrote:
Don Harris [49] -

Yes. You are a troll. Deal with it.

As for your language, you are pushing me very very close to banning the first person ever from my site. You have been warned, and this is your final warning.

If ignoring you doesn't work, then banning you just might. Address the issues in the articles or the comments to those articles, and quit with your own monomania, because nobody's listening. Instead, you are just trolling.

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

Is that clear enough?

-CW

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2020/04/01/april-is-the-cruelest-month/#comment-156925

Keep spamming and trolling the forum with your unworkable redundant bullshit and expect nothing less than the same. CW answered you; now he is ignoring you. I suspect CW doesn't respond to commenters like he used to because in the process of ignoring you, he's ignoring us.

Here's your chance to man up instead running away as you have done repeatedly.

Here's your chance to get a clue and eff off.

Why haven't I gotten anywhere with OD?
One reason is people don't know about it.

That's your problem and no one else's. The people you've spammed repeatedly on this forum have already told you why it won't work, and all those reasons are factual.

Another is that it challenges the conventional wisdom on how to approach politics.

It challenges nothing! Write in candidates are only allowed in a handful of states, making your "idea" unworkable in the vast majority of states. This ain't rocket science, Don. Your shit isn't possible in the vast majority of America. You have this page on your website wherein Americans must pledge to write in their own names... which is not possible. Might as well pledge to survive without breathing oxygen; it's not possible.

These things take time to catch on as people must reconsider the approach they are used to and are being told is how it gets done.

It doesn't get done if write-in candidates aren't allowed in the vast majority of states. Not rocket science.

But now I have made some progress (see the Ralph Nader Radio Hour).

You got brushed off by Nader and just called it "progress." That's delusion... not progress.

How is that not doing more of what hasn't worked for decades?

You have to admit your shit hasn't worked for almost a decade, now has it? When you prattle on and on about more of what hasn't worked, just keep in mind that your spamming of this forum and your "idea" fits that description perfectly.

The big money politicians will not pass any 100% public financing of elections because the big money interests have no interest in 100% public financing of elections and getting rid of Citizens United suffers the same flaw and would take decades to get done as it would require a constitutional amendment.

I wouldn't shit on this plan if I were you because there's a difference between this plan and yours: It's achievable no matter how difficult it would be. Your idea to vote for yourself isn't achievable and cannot be accomplished in the vast majority of states; it's not possible at all.

You seem to not understand the very parts of CW's mission statement you quote. One Demand is all about the hypocrisy and foibles emanating from Washington, D.C. and has been ignored by the MSM.

Incorrect. It's a pile of unachievable and outdated prattle on a website that hasn't been updated for multiple years, contained an idea that isn't achievable by voters in the vast majority of states.

You also seem to not understand CW said he would respect all commenters opinions.

I missed the part where your "idea" and the steps to achieve it were an opinion. You want a pledge that people write in their own names for every candidate that takes a whopping $201 from a single donor. The vast majority of voters in America cannot do that for every candidate who refuses to meet your purity test. That's not an opinion; that is anYou requesting bullshit isn't an opinion. It's a fact

In my opinion CW should write about One Demand or at least address why he won't. Ignoring my opinion is not respectful.

How exactly am I contradicting myself when I say that just because they do some things the same that they are not exactly the same? You are interpreting my statement incorrectly when you claim I say they are exactly the same when I point out where they are the same.

Again you don't seem to understand or are just pretending to not understand in order to troll.

So we agree the the Establishment Deathocrats are controlled by big money.

We disagree apparently that Bernie, AOC, etc. are not part of the Deathocrat Establishment even though they take big money.

If you don't want them to be controlled by big money why do you keep voting for them?

That approach has not worked for decades.

AGAIN you make the false claim that I am not addressing any shortcomings raised about One Demand.

No one has raised legitimate objections.

I have repeatedly addressed the bullshit objections such as the nonsense in Bashi (14) of the write in votes not being counted.

The result has been that it is repeated claiming it has never been addressed. That is trolling.

Here's your chance to man up instead running away as you have done repeatedly.

Gratuitous name-calling is so juvenile ... especially when it is directed at members of this blog.

Uh...wut?

Either I was sleep posting or you are mentioning the wrong critic. Not that I disagree with the criticism...

We can expect another scintillating dung burner episode....

Blah, blah, your wrong.

Blah, blah, your part of the problem if you don't talk about me.

Some worthless prattle about a supposed political party that has some non serious name that no serious reform movement would use.

Some more non related prattle about another political party that also has some non serious name.

A lecture about how we should all run like lemmings to some cobweb on the internet and give a guy, who is not set up to be a legitimate electoral advocacy org, our personal information and that we should not worry about the fact that he does not disclose what will happen with said information nor does he have a disclaimer about not using the information for commercial gain...like "everyone else" that is legitimate.

Some sort of blather about how the one dumbman "movement" will change the way politics and elections work, All while blissfully ignoring the fact if you write yourself in, in a majority of the country your vote is not counted thus ensuring that the guy with the most counted ballots wins.

Another blah, blah, why aren't you talking about me yet.

A request for a clue...

A screech about injecting electoral bleach in your veins.

Brought to you by sancti... Try a steaming hot mug of sanctimonious judgment For those times when you need to really just show how under educated you are.

Thanks, Madame Kick, I study this shit intensely (40 hours in a week is below average) and I do try..

I wonder when fuckhead Don Harris is gonna show his face? The moment he does I'm on it like white on rice.

as opposed to "france"

Heh. I didn't see this before I responded with [11]. Yep, you nailed it! :)

hmm, carville... does he come from... france?

Yes, sir:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrUOFs-hZ-M&t=85s

I reread Carvill's responses and can't find a single sentence in there to disagree with.

Me neither.

The Democratic Party needs to stop speaking in complicated terms and using "woke" words like "communities of color" and begin talking like most of America does.

Incorrect: Democrats have formulated a policy that will provide high-speed gateways to communities of color.

Correct: Democrats' bill is bringing the Internet to your neighborhoods and directly into your homes.

Democrats need to define their opponents by their least flattering members in the same way Republicans do:

* Searching for child abusers? Look no further than the Party of Grand Old Pedophiles: Dennis Hastert, Mark Foley, Roy Moore, Matt Gaetz, Jim Jordan who turned a blind eye to nearly 300 young victims of rape and abuse at Ohio State, and Donald Trump, of course.

* Don't like crime and criminals: MAGAA
Mobsters Aren't Governing America Anymore.
Let's keep it that way.

I know you get the idea, MC. You're pretty good at telling it like it is. :)

hmm, carville... does he come from... france?

I got this theory that this is the reason he dang near always wears a hat. ;)

You led off yesterday's column with, Obviously, Democrats need to do something different over the next year if they're going to have any chance at all in the midterm elections. That was the overwhelming message from last night's dismal election returns.

I cant let this go. (starting 12:25)

Rachel Maddow points out that all the Democratic handwringing makes NO sense, as EVERY first term President going back to Bush the Elder has lost BOTH the VA and NJ Governorship races to the other party!

That is, by ONLY losing VA Joe Biden did something not accomplished since Saint Ronnie!