Please support this
holiday season!

California Should Vote The Way Alaska Votes

[ Posted Tuesday, February 15th, 2022 – 16:46 UTC ]

That headline is specific because I have my own personal bias from living in California, but it really could have been generic instead: "All States Should Vote The Way Alaska Votes." Because Alaska (of all places) seems to have come up with the best mix of new ideas in redesigning how people get to vote. They've combined the "jungle primary" system with "ranked-choice voting" and by doing so eliminated the worst aspects of both while keeping the best parts intact. That's quite a feat, which is why I am so strongly endorsing their concept.

The subject caught my eye today when I read an update about Alaska's voting system in the New York Times. Here are the first and third paragraphs from the article:

The Alaska Supreme Court recently decided a case that an experienced lawyer told the court was "the most significant case since statehood." The court confirmed that the state's new primary and ranked-choice voting system -- which would eliminate traditional party primaries -- is here to stay.

. . .

Through a 2020 ballot measure, Alaskan voters enacted a top-four primary. In this system, candidates list themselves on the ballot in three possible ways: as affiliated with a political party or political group, as undeclared or as nonpartisan. The four candidates who get the most votes move on to the general election, in which ranked-choice voting is used to determine the winner. (In ranked-choice voting, rather than selecting just one candidate, voters can instead choose several and rank them.)

So rather than the traditional primary and general election setup, where every party holds their own private primary election to determine their nominee, after which all the parties' nominees run against each other in the general election, Alaska has chosen to change both the primary process and the general election itself.

Instead of closed primaries, Alaska holds a "jungle primary," where only the top vote-getters advance to the general election. This is similar to what California has, but with one big difference. In California only the top two candidates advance, whereas in Alaska the top four move on to the general election.

I have long been opposed to California's top-two primary system, for a very simple reason: it is unfair. In far too many statewide races since the system was instituted, the top two candidates have wound up both being Democrats. This is patently unfair to the Republican Party as well as all the minor third parties, who used to be guaranteed a slot on the general election ballot. Now, if you are a Republican voter in the Golden State, you have little to no reason to vote for statewide office in an increasing number of general election races. As I said, that's unfair.

In effect, what the political scientists tried to do was to shift the importance of participating in the general election back to the primary election. California's just like everywhere else (with rare exceptions for certain intense races) in that turnout for the general election is usually multiple times what the turnout for the primary is. But why shouldn't people who only vote in the general election get to have the choice of a Republican or a Green Party candidate? The top-two jungle primary has guaranteed we'll never see a third-party candidate in a general election ever again, and it often denies a slot to Republicans as well. In a state with close to 40 million people, that is just unfair, plain and simple.

Alaska, on the other hand, moves four candidates on to the general election. So even if there are two strong Republicans competing against each other (for instance, since Alaska has a much different partisan makeup than California), there will almost certainly still be a Democrat who advances to the final round. That's a lot more fair to the minority parties, and it allows people who only want to participate in the general election more of a voice at the ballot box. It doesn't shift the importance of the primary nearly as much as in California.

Of course, when California gets to the general election, there simply is no need for ranked-choice voting. With only two candidates on the ballot, one will win and the other will lose on the first count. It's a binary choice, in other words.

Alaska, though, will have four candidates. So the voters will rank their choices -- they will vote for "first choice" and "second choice" and "third choice." With only four slots, there can only ever be three rounds of vote-counting (the first with four candidates, the second with three, and the final one another binary coin-toss between two). This eliminates the worst problem ranked-choice voting has in other places -- having so many rounds of vote-counting that it takes forever just to determine who won.

It's the best of both worlds, really. And it should be presented as such, in other states considering election reform schemes. Because this really deserves to spread not just to California but to more states as well.

But I have to say I object to the way the new scheme is presented to the public by its most avid supporters. Here are the second and fourth paragraphs from that article, to explain what I mean:

The decision is significant not just for Alaska; it could also have considerable implications nationally. For the reforms in that state, like those that have taken hold in other states and localities across the country, are among the most promising structural solutions that could help mitigate the forces of extremism in our politics.

. . .

This reform aims to increase the likelihood that candidates with the broadest appeal to voters, rather than more factional candidates, will win the election. In a traditional primary, in which many candidates can split the vote, factional candidates can prevail by drawing, say, just 25 percent of the vote. Because factional candidates often hold more extreme views, this reality helps fuel dysfunction in American politics.

This is absolutely and utterly wrong. It is so wrong it is hard to know where to begin. How about with a moral slant? It is morally wrong to design any American voting system to give the advantage to any ideology, period. This should be seen as wrong no matter if it is Republicans or Democrats trying to "rig" elections to give themselves a partisan advantage or if it is merely "this will improve centrists' chances over extremists from both sides." Both are just as wrong. This cannot and should not be the reason to institute any reform. It is a naked attempt to predetermine the outcome of elections to suit one flavor of ideology over another -- which, to me, is about as un-American as you can get.

Besides, what the proponents argue is still nothing more than an untested theory, really. There just haven't been enough elections since any of these systems were instituted to draw any solid conclusions or causality at all. There's just not enough data yet. So at present it is just an academic theory that is still being tested -- it is not any kind of guarantee of getting more moderates elected instead of extremists.

So while I support the policy concept fully, I would strongly urge those who advocate for it to come up with a much better argument. They actually already have these arguments, but they are usually presented as supporting or minor arguments to buttress their main "it'll elect more moderates and that's a good thing" position.

Sell the idea by saying: "It's a way to simplify the election process which allows the voters to be as independent-minded as they choose to be." Selling the public on "voter freedom" is a much easier sell, to put it bluntly. Instead of having to register as a member of a party before a primary election, voters don't have to show fealty to any party -- everyone can vote, everyone gets the same ballot, and you can vote for any candidate in any party if you think he or she would be the best person for the job. It simplifies the registration process, it saves the state money (easier to count the results), and it allows for maximum voter choice. Or, to put it another way, voter freedom.

In the general election, the field will have been winnowed to the top four -- the only candidates with any viable hope of actually winning, to put it another way. All the gadflies and vanity candidates won't make it this far. And then you can vote for up to three of these candidates -- first choice, second choice, and third choice. More voter freedom! This way voters don't have to hold their nose and vote for some candidate they may not fully agree with because they are scared another candidate much closer to their own views won't have a chance of winning -- instead they can go ahead and put their favorite down as their first choice. If that candidate truly doesn't have a chance of winning then the voter can use their second vote to vote for one that does. Either way, it doesn't give any advantage to the candidate the voter really doesn't want to see win. Nobody has to "throw their vote away" if they vote for a third-party candidate in the first round.

Ranked-choice voting is a little complicated and it does have a learning curve, but voters where it has been instituted do seem to generally like the idea once they get used to it. And it has led to a seismic shift in the way political candidates campaign as well, since they now routinely ask people to consider them "for their second choice." Maybe you can't totally convince a voter to put you at the top, but you can still convince them you're better than the other choices, in other words. And those second-choice votes are often what wins ranked-choice elections -- they're important. As the politicians have already realized, where ranked-choice voting already exists.

With only four candidates in the final round, voters aren't asked to come up with a huge list of how they'll vote. In some ranked-choice races (with huge fields of candidates) the ballot-counting goes on to the seventh round or even higher, as the complex voting system works its way down to create a result. With Alaska's scheme, there can only ever be three rounds -- which shouldn't be too overwhelming to anyone. With only three rounds, the voters won't have to wait days (or even weeks) to find out who won, either.

The more I think about Alaska's system, the more it truly does seem to be a Goldilocks kind of solution: just right. The top-four jungle primary doesn't weed out too many candidates too early (when far fewer people make the effort to vote), and the ranked-choice voting starts with only four candidates, so it doesn't become an excruciatingly-complicated process after the polls close. So I would encourage both California and other states to consider adopting the Alaskan system as being the best mix of two voting reform ideas -- one which keeps the best parts of both while avoiding the worst problems of either.

-- Chris Weigant


Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant


55 Comments on “California Should Vote The Way Alaska Votes”

  1. [1] 
    andygaus wrote:

    Sounds good. You've got my vote. The main thing I like about ranked-choice voting is that the bad person doesn't win because two better candidates split the good people's vote. (I know that's too simplistic.) Suppose Satan gets 40%, the Angel Gabriel gets 35%, and the Angel Raphael gets 25% of the vote on the first round. With traditional voting Satan wins, though 60% of the voters opposed him. With ranked-choice voting, if all of the Angel Raphael's voters choose the Angel Gabriel as their second choice, Gabriel wins in the second round with 60%, a much better response to the general will of the people, most of whom didn't want Satan.

  2. [2] 
    Kick wrote:

    It has my vote too. It makes perfect sense the way you've explained it.

    I particularly like the way andygaus explains it too, and God willing, Satan will never hold political office again. Amen. ;)

  3. [3] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Ranked choice is an excellent idea. That way people can vote for anyone they want, and don't have to vote for anyone they don't want.

  4. [4] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    From first choice to last resort, as it were, can only strengthen and consolidate the voting power of third parties.

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hillary Clinton dodges questions about Durham probe developments

    Clinton ignores reporter's questions when confronted in
    Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton refused to answer questions as to whether or not her presidential campaign spied on former President Donald Trump.

    "Did you pay to spy on the Trump campaign," Hillary was asked by a Daily Mail reporter in New York City on Tuesday. "When are you going to comment on the spying allegations, Hillary?"

    Clinton declined to answer both questions as she simply waved at the reporter while continuing to walk inside a building

    What did Democrats and Weigantians™ establish at Charlottesville??


    Based on Democrats' and Weigantians™ OWN conclusions, Hillary is guilty as hell...

  6. [6] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris

    Nypoet (5,6)-
    Not in Alaska.

    People can only vote for those on the ballot, not anyone they want.

    How in hell is it that you purport to never not know that there is not anyone on the ballot for which people want to vote? Have you ever even travelled to Alaska? Rhetorical question.

    Your statements are not factually correct.

    No, you are never not confused, and just how the hell would you know, anyway, with your obvious not knowing the candidates and your perpetual inability to never know the people voting that you frequently claim to always, when you could never.

    The only thing we know for a factual certainty is the manifest magnificence of Baked Alaska.

  7. [7] 
    Kick wrote:

    Board Troll Alert

    Uneducated gullible rube with severe deficits in ability at reading comprehension goes way off topic... as per usual.

    "Silence gives assent" to this dipshit's behavior when the assclown board troll grows a brain cell and/or finally "clues in."

    So, to recap: Silence will never give assent. Duh.

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:


    Why on earth does anyone care what Russia did six years ago on the internet, when they're on the verge of a full scale, real-life military invasion right now?

    Your question is completely misplaced..

    None of this is about what Russia did 6 years ago..

    It's about what Democrats did.. Lying, cheating, spying, criminal activities..

    More lying, more cheating, more spying, more criminal activities..

    Are you saying that Democrats should go unpunished for their persecution and their crimes??

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:


    Nope. Nothing that I said had occurred has changed or has been shown to have been untrue.

    Still delusional to the end, eh??

    EVERYTHING you said has been exposed to be total bullshit..

    (2) Durham never once said anything about the White House being “infiltrate[d]


    Do you know what the EOP is, Russ??

    Durham's filing said some of the internet data that was mined was connected to two Trump buildings in New York City, the executive office of the president (EOP), and an unrelated Michigan hospital company that had also interacted with the Trump server.

    You DO know that the EOP is the Executive Office Of The President, right??

    You DO know that the Executive Office Of The President is in the White House, right???

    Jeezus, Russ.. At least present a CHALLENGE, eh??

    So, let's sum up..

    Everything you have ever believed about the Russia Collusion delusion that was criminal has been PROVEN to be bullshit...

    You lost... Deal with it..

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:


    So, to recap: Silence will never give assent. Duh.

    That's not what morons like you and Paula et al said during the aftermath of Charlottesville..

    That's not what Democrat morons said in 22 years (collectively) of Democrat BLM and AntiFa riots...

    Hell, Democrats routinely hold up signs in their riots and protests that state explicitly SILENCE GIVES ASSENT

    So, it's YOU Democrat morons that have established that silence, indeed, gives assent..

    So, since Hillary was silent about the accusations, that means she is conceding the accusations...

    Just like when you Weigantians™ are silent about my facts, you are conceding my facts..

    Once again, vick.. You lose..


  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, since this comment thread has been about Hillary's and the Democrats' criminal activities...

    Let's have at it.. :D


    You said it's only Right Wing sources that are covering Durham's explosive facts..

    Of course.. That's because the Left Wing media totally bought in to the Russia Collusion delusion... They were PART of it..

    And, as CNN has proven beyond any doubt, Left Wing media NEVER covers their own frak ups..

    So, it's up to the REAL media, the REAL news to expose the Russia Collusion Delusion for all Americans to learn...

    Everything you said about the Russia Collusion delusion that was criminal has been exposed as complete and utter bullshit...

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:


    The defendant is charged in a one-count indictment with making a materially false statement to the FBI, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001 (the “Indictment”). As set forth in the Indictment, on Sept. 19, 2016 – less than two months before the 2016 U.S. Presidential election – the defendant, a lawyer at a large international law firm (“Law Firm-1”) that was then serving as counsel to the Clinton Campaign, met with the FBI General Counsel at FBI
    Headquarters in Washington, D.C. The defendant provided the FBI General Counsel with purported data and “white papers” that allegedly demonstrated a covert communications channel between the Trump Organization and a Russia-based bank (“Russian Bank-1”). The Indictment alleges that the defendant lied in that meeting, falsely stating to the General Counsel that he was not providing the allegations to the FBI on behalf of any client. In fact, the defendant had assembled and conveyed the allegations to the FBI on behalf of at least two specific clients, including (i) a technology executive (“Tech Executive-1”) at a U.S.-based Internet company (“Internet Company1”), and (ii) the Clinton Campaign.

    We know that Sussmann is going to jail..

    Unless he names names...

    Again, I have to point out.. These are not bullshit PROCESS crimes like the ones Democrats pinned on President Trump officials..

    These are the ACTUAL crimes committed that are being indicted..

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:


    The defendant’s billing records reflect that the defendant repeatedly billed the Clinton Campaign for his work on the Russian Bank-1 allegations. In compiling and disseminating these allegations, the defendant and Tech Executive-1 also had met and communicated with another law partner at Law Firm-1 who was then serving as General Counsel to the Clinton Campaign (“Campaign Lawyer-1”).

    So, we know for a FACT that Sussmann lied to the FBI when he gave them doctored and planted evidence that created a narrative that there was criminal contact between Russia and the Trump campaign..


  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:


    The Indictment also alleges that, beginning in approximately July 2016, Tech Executive-1 had worked with the defendant, a U.S. investigative firm retained by Law Firm-1 on behalf of the Clinton Campaign, numerous cyber researchers, and employees at multiple Internet companies to assemble the purported data and white papers. In connection with these efforts, Tech Executive-1 exploited his access to non-public and/or proprietary Internet data. Tech Executive-1 also enlisted the assistance of researchers at a U.S.-based university who were receiving and
    analyzing large amounts of Internet data in connection with a pending federal government cybersecurity research contract. Tech Executive-1 tasked these researchers to mine Internet data to establish “an inference” and “narrative” tying then-candidate Trump to Russia. In doing so, Tech Executive-1 indicated that he was seeking to please certain “VIPs,” referring to individuals at Law Firm-1 and the Clinton Campaign.

    The smoking gun...

    Tech Executive-1 tasked these researchers to mine Internet data to establish “an inference” and “narrative” tying then-candidate Trump to Russia. In doing so, Tech Executive-1 indicated that he was seeking to please certain “VIPs,” referring to individuals at Law Firm-1 and the Clinton Campaign.

    Keep in mind..

    This is ESTABLISHED FACT....

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ... This one's for you...


    The Government’s evidence at trial will also establish that among the Internet data Tech Executive-1 and his associates exploited was domain name system (“DNS”) Internet traffic
    pertaining to (i) a particular healthcare provider, (ii) Trump Tower, (iii) Donald Trump’s Central Park West apartment building, and (iv) the Executive Office of the President of the United States (“EOP”) emphasis mine . (Tech Executive-1’s employer, Internet Company-1, had come to access and maintain dedicated servers for the EOP as part of a sensitive arrangement whereby it provided DNS
    resolution services to the EOP. Tech Executive-1 and his associates exploited this arrangement by mining the EOP’s DNS traffic and other data for the purpose of gathering derogatory information about Donald Trump.)

    Russ, you claimed "Durham never once said anything about the White House being “infiltrate[d]” (3)"..

    The FACTUAL BACKGROUND proves that Joffe mined data from the White House AFTER President Trump was in office...

    So, yea.. The White House was a target.. Ya moron..

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:


    The Indictment further details that on February 9, 2017, the defendant provided an updated set of allegations – including the Russian Bank-1 data and additional allegations relating Case 1:21-cr-00582-CRC to Trump – to a second agency of the U.S. government (“Agency-2”). The Government’s evidence at trial will establish that these additional allegations relied, in part, on the purported DNS traffic that Tech Executive-1 and others had assembled pertaining to Trump Tower, Donald Trump’s New York City apartment building, the EOP, and the aforementioned healthcare provider. In his meeting with Agency-2, the defendant provided data which he claimed reflected purportedly suspicious DNS lookups by these entities of internet protocol (“IP”) addresses affiliated with a Russian mobile phone provider (“Russian Phone Provider-1”). The defendant further claimed that these lookups demonstrated that Trump and/or his associates were using supposedly rare, Russian-made wireless phones in the vicinity of the White House and other locations. The Special Counsel’s Office has identified no support for these allegations. Indeed, more complete DNS data that the Special Counsel’s Office obtained from a company that assisted Tech Executive-1 in assembling these allegations reflects that such DNS lookups were far from rare in the United States. For example, the more complete data that Tech Executive-1 and his associates gathered – but did not provide to Agency-2 – reflected that between approximately 2014 and 2017, there were a total of more than 3 million lookups of Russian Phone-Provider-1 IP addresses that originated with U.S.-based IP addresses. Fewer than 1,000 of these lookups originated with IP addresses affiliated with Trump Tower. In addition, the more complete data assembled by Tech Executive-1 and his associates reflected that DNS lookups involving the EOP and Russian Phone Provider-1 began at least as early 2014 (i.e., during the Obama administration and years before Trump took office) – another fact which the allegations omitted.

    Create a narrative.. That was the goal..

    And you Democrat morons bought into that fantasy narrative hook line and sinker..

    Let me repeat it for the cheap seats..

    EVERYTHING..... ***EVERYTHING*** ya'all believe was criminal about the Russia Collusion Delusion was complete and utter BULLSHIT..

    This has been established ***AS FACT***....

    Keep in mind one point, which I will drive home..

    Durham's filing was filed with the courts **AS FACTUAL BACKGROUND**... If none of it is factual, than Durham would not have filed it AS FACT...

    If none of what was filed as FACTUAL BACKGROUND is actually fact, then Durham would be disbarred and prosecuted.. Does ANYONE here (anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together anyways) HONESTLY believe that Durham would risk his entire professional life to file bullshit or lies??

    Of course not..

    So.. EVERYTHING I am posting here is ESTABLISHED FACT...

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:


    . . In his meeting with Agency-2 employees, the defendant also made a substantially similar false statement as he had made to the FBI General Counsel. In particular, the defendant asserted that he was not representing a particular client in conveying the above allegations. In truth and in fact, the defendant was representing Tech Executive-1 – a fact the defendant subsequently acknowledged under oath in December 2017 testimony before Congress (without identifying the client by name).

    Again, Sussmann lied to the FBI to get them to open an investigation.. THIS IS FACT...

    I'll say it again.. EVERYTHING you morons believe about the Russia Collusion Delusion that is criminal?? Is complete and utter crap... NONE of it happened..

    This has been established as FACT...

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    And Russ?? Your claim that it's only Right Wing sources reporting this??

    That's ALSO demonstrably bullshit..

    Special counsel Durham alleges Clinton campaign lawyer used data to raise suspicions about Trump

    (CNN)Special counsel John Durham accused a lawyer for the Democrats of sharing with the CIA in 2017 internet data purported to show Russian-made phones being used in the vicinity of the White House complex, as part of a broader effort to raise the intelligence community's suspicions of Donald Trump's ties to Russia shortly after he took office.

    The accusation -- which Durham couched in vague, technical language in a court filing late Friday -- has been seized upon by Trump and his supporters, who claim the former President was subjected to a smear campaign.
    Durham says in the filing that Michael Sussmann, the Democratic lawyer, spoke about internet data related to Trump in a meeting with a federal agency, which sources say was the CIA, more than five years ago. Sussmann claimed the information "demonstrated that Trump and/or his associates were using supposedly rare, Russian-made wireless phones in the vicinity of the White House and other locations," according to the filing.
    Durham's office said it found nothing to support the allegation. The special counsel also noted that the data showed a Russian phone provider connection involving the Executive Office of the President "during the Obama administration and years before Trump took office."

    So, once again, Russ.. I have PROVEN that you are full of kaa kaa... :D

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    Tech exec used access to White House computers to look for dirt on Trump, says special counsel
    Former President Trump and his allies said the disclosure was proof that Trump was under surveillance while he was in office.

    NBC NEWS is hardly a Right Wing news source, Russ...

    :D Why are you so utterly frak'ed in the head as to make claims you *KNOW* I can expose as BS???

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    Special counsel, Democratic lawyer clash over new allegations regarding data purported to tie Trump to Russia
    Cybersecurity lawyer Michael Sussmann was charged in 2021 with lying to the FBI.

    Once again..

    ABC NEWS...

    NOT a Right Wing rag...

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, the big question..

    Why didn't Hillary deny the allegations???

    Why did she concede the facts with her silence???

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:


    So, to recap: Silence will never give assent. Duh.

    Democrats and BLM are sure making a killing on SILENCE IS CONSENT t-shirts...

    ASSENT is a synonym of CONSENT


    Once again.. I have PROVEN that you are full of shit... :D


  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hay vick..

    Why so quiet??? I guess I shut you up, eh?? :D


  24. [24] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    And Russ?? Your claim that it's only Right Wing sources reporting this??

    I guess you’ve proven that Donald Trump was full of shit, after all. The article was from Saturday and focused on Trump’s claim that no one from “lamestream” media was running the story. So thanks for showing that Donald Trump still cannot be trusted to tell the truth!

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    ^^^^ Has NOTHING to do with the FACT that you claimed it's only Right Wing sources reporting on the FACTUAL BACKGROUND of the John Durham filing..

    I have proven, ONCE AGAIN, that your claims are totally and completely full of shit...

    I get it you can't address the point..

    Because it proves how wrong you ALWAYS are..

    Just like your claim that the White House wasn't compromised...


  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hay Russ... Where's yer ignorant friend???


  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:


    Are you saying that Democrats should go unpunished for their persecution and their crimes??

    That wasn't a rhetorical question, by the bi...

    I would really appreciate an answer, if you would be so kind...

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ... You still there???

    WOW... Looks like I shut up Russ AND vick... :D


  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:


    Are you saying that Democrats should go unpunished for their persecution and their crimes??

    That wasn't a rhetorical question, by the bi...

    I would really appreciate an answer, if you would be so kind...

    How about a little quid pro quo....

    You give me an honest and sincere answer (the only kind you know how to give :D) and I'll shorten my comments today by 10....


  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:


    The fact that the Left Wing media is burying this story is EXACTLY what's wrong with the Left Wing media..

    This is a story bigger than Watergate... And the fact that the Left Wing media (with a few exceptions) is trying to bury the story PROVES that the Left Wing media is nothing but the propaganda arm of the Democrat Party..

    In other words, your claim that the Left Wing media is burying the story is a BAD thing..

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    Durham’s bombshell court filing ignored by mainstream media

    Proves beyond ANY doubt...

    The Leftwing Media is nothing but a propaganda outlet for the Democrat Party...

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    Durham probe: Media suddenly develops 'laryngitis' after years of pushing Trump-Russia collusion, critics say

    'It seems some media outlets were so interested in perpetuating a lie they can’t now say they were wrong,' Jason Chaffetz said

    Weigantians™ here are the same way.. They CAN'T admit that they were completely and utterly FULL of kaa kaa...

    EVERYTHING criminal ya'all believed about the Russia Collusion Delusion con was complete and utter kaa-kaa...

    This is DOCUMENTED as FACT...

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Media Research Center found that ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts alone spent a whopping 2,634 minutes covering the investigations into alleged Russia collusion through July 20, 2019. "That’s nearly one-fifth (19.5%) of all of these broadcasts’ Trump coverage, a huge shadow on his presidency," analyst Rich Noyes wrote.

    The heavy-handed coverage from ABC, CBS and NBC was in addition to the dedicated airtime from both CNN and MSNBC, which focused relentlessly on the investigation's developments. The New York Times and Washington Post even shared the Pulitzer Prize for in 2018 "for deeply sourced, relentlessly reported coverage" of alleged Russian interference.

    All that coverage which amounted to complete and utter KAA-KAA...

    Now that the FACTS have come out and it has been PROVEN to be kaa-kaa???

    Now the media shuts up about it..


  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    I would offer a counter argument to your comment, but you did not include any argument in your comment to counter.

    Just more of your ignorant rube board troll nonsense.

    "I know, right!?"
    -Felix, WRECK IT RALPH

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:


    Yet today, it is the Drudge Report that is Newsweek.

    The Drudge Report might quaintly sport the same typeface it used in the early days of the Internet, but on Sunday and then all day and all evening Monday, a story of Lewinskyesque scale rocked the nation’s capital.

    In a court submission last week, Special Counsel John Durham alleged, as Fox News put it, “that lawyers from Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign … paid to access servers belonging to Trump Tower and later the White House in order to establish an ‘inference’ and ‘narrative’ to bring to federal government agencies linking then-President Trump to Russia.”

    Durham, probably the most straight-shooting, apolitical lawyer in the federal government, now years into an exhaustive probe, revealed that Hillary Clinton’s campaign sought out both the FBI and the CIA in peddling lies that Trump was colluding with Russia, so as to get every news outlet it could to keep that false story at the top of the news during the 2016 campaign, and then, when that failed, to use it to cripple the Trump presidency.

    But if the Drudge site is your go-to news source, you might never have known on Monday that Durham did anything.

    Drudge actually died when it turned into a Trump/America hating website...

    The lack of coverage of a Watergate/Lewinsky news bomb simply made it obvious to all..

    Trump/America Hate killed Drudge just as factly and as obviously as Trump/America Hate killed our old friend, CW...

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    The site offered its readers nary a link nor a word – though it did serve them up about a dozen links to sensationalist stories on the Super Bowl and off-field pro football escapades; three stories on Elon Musk having too much self-made money; the mandatory half dozen or so negative stories on either Donald Trump, his allies, or Jan. 6; three links – in red – gloating about Sarah Palin losing her case against the New York Times; and naturally a half dozen headlines on which to click to get your sex, drugs, or Hollywood bizarre news fix.

    It wasn’t until Rich Lowry’s column was posted online late Monday in the New York Post that Drudge readers got their link deep into the evening. But the Drudge editors paired it with a link to a 2019 NBC News article about how “Mueller declined to charge Don Jr. after meeting with Russian for dirt on Hillary …” A move clearly meant to undermine the importance of the latest Hillary bombshell. As of Tuesday morning, that’s been the entirety of Drudge’s interest in this story.

    Drudge sold out.. He's a has-been.... He was great in his day, but he gave in to Trump/America hate and now he is not relevant any more...

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    Today, Matt Drudge is apparently a confirmed recluse. Did he cash out? Did Trump treat him shabbily, so now he’s getting back at him? Did he change his politics? Whatever the answer, fine. But his past aficionados would like something approximating a manly explanation as to why the Drudge Report died.

    RIP Drudge....

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    Seems like the Durham Facts have had the same effect on Weigantians™ that it has had on the Left Wing media..

    Shuts everyone up.. :D

  39. [39] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris

    I would offer a counter argument to your comment, but you did not include any argument in your comment to counter.

    As anyone with a fundamental ability at reading comprehension can clearly see, there are quite obviously multiple declarations in the post for which you could easily present a counterpoint; the fact you've self-disclosed your inability to recognize a single one of them bolsters my longstanding arguments regarding the folly of your gloating about your education, specifically the lack thereof.

    Just more of your ignorant rube board troll nonsense.

    Nice to see you are emulating my word usage (even if it is in a fit of obvious projection)... lets me know what hits the mark and lets us all know that you actually can learn from others and would therefore benefit from the education we are all so frequently telling you to seek: Don't knock it 'til you've tried it.

    As for the point I believe you thought you were making, thank you for proving my ever-present prevailing argument; it was most generous of you to volunteer to provide it, but if I'm being completely honest, not the least bit unexpected.

    So, to recap: It is never too late to get an education. Just think how exciting it could be to learn to arrange words in proper paragraphs versus sentence fragments and veritable shit piles of word salad? Just think of the possibilities!

    *dream sequence*


    Why... you could finally endeavor to tackle that mess of a seriously outdated website, update that pathetic bio to include an achievement, and once and for all you'd possess the ability to start shilling for yourself instead of trolling another man's blog in flailing attempts to have him perform what you are currently clearly not equipped to manage. And as an added bonus, you could not only use your newfound skills to clean up your Internet presence, you could become gainfully employed and move out of your Mother's house.


    Or not... park your ass, begging anyone/everyone to achieve something/anything/everything for you.

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    vick says:

    blaaa blaaa blaaa blaaa without any facts to back up anything..

  41. [41] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    I presumed he meant (by voting like Alaska), only electing Republicans!!

  42. [42] 
    Kick wrote:


    Shuts everyone up.. :D

    Trollshit Mountain is proof that it doesn't shut everyone up. Maybe we should rename that Scrollshit Mountain... as one does.

    I think you should seriously allow yourself the revelation that your repetitive prattling drivel and spew is being largely (mostly) ignored. CW pegged you dead on accurate: You are "downright boring." Circumstances such as they are, your monotonous clown show has the ability to insult exactly no one on the forum, with the exception of yourself, obviously.

    So, to recap: Silence does not give assent; it just means people don't give two shits or even a cent, let alone two.

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:


    Silence does not give assent;

    Yea, you keep spewing that bullshit..

    But the FACTS prove you wrong..

    Invoking MLK, Clyburn says silence is consent

    If one does not object to or stand up against something that one does not like or agree with, then one is complicit in permitting it to happen.

  44. [44] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:


    Philip Bump wrote an incredibly thorough explanation of how FoxNews is misrepresenting what the Durham filing actually means. Instead of pulling a Michale and posting multiple lengthy excerpts of the article, I will let you read it for yourself:

    Here’s what should have been the biggest clue that you were getting made a fool of by FoxNews’ spin:

    How many more defendants were indicted by Durham based on this info? None?None. How many new charges were added to the indictment of the only person charged after all of these horrific crimes were exposed? None? None.

    And according to you… your posts 21,22, & 23 prove that your posts 33,34,35,&36 are bullshat. I just shut down almost 20 posts of yours in this one single post. Ouch!

  45. [45] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Dang, had to make this a seperate post.

    The Hill had a good article shooting down the claim that this is “bigger than Watergate”:

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    And according to you… your posts 21,22, & 23 prove that your posts 33,34,35,&36 are bullshat. I just shut down almost 20 posts of yours in this one single post. Ouch!

    I posted FACTS.. Court filed and documented FACTS..

    You posted an opinion piece from a Left Wing Rag..


    You shut down yerself, son.. :D

  47. [47] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:


    I am guessing that it was my dual links in the post was what caused my post [48] to get snagged. Sorry about that!

    - Russ

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am guessing that it was my dual links in the post was what caused my post [48] to get snagged. Sorry about that!

    Yer such a JEEP... :D

  49. [49] 
    Kick wrote:


    Yea, you keep spewing that bullshit..

    That doesn't remotely qualify as bullshit, but I blame your ignorance for not being able to recognize what is downright obvious to everyone else. Besides, if you had something against spewing bullshit, there'd naturally be a whole lot less of your Trollshit Mountain for others to scroll through... as one does.

    But the FACTS prove you wrong..

    Nope. But your ever-present confusion does prove you're obviously clearly clueless.

    Invoking MLK, Clyburn says silence is consent

    If one does not object to or stand up against something that one does not like or agree with, then one is complicit in permitting it to happen.

    Well, dumbass, on a political chat board, the act of people (mostly) ignoring your repetitive monotonous prattle and spew is the act of taking a stand against you. If you don't like the fact you're the troll who is being (mostly) ignored because his prattling clown show is demonstrably "downright boring," then I'd say you can shove it where the sun don't shine, but not before removing your own head.

    So to recap: Your trolling clown show is "downright boring" and being (mostly) ignored. That is how people on a political chat board take a stand. So, I reiterate:

    Silence does not give assent; it just means people don't give two shits or even a cent, let alone two.

    ~ Kick

    Or, to rephrase:

    Silence means getting the middle finger.

    ~ Kick

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    Silence does not give assent;

    Yea.. You can keep spewing that bullshit..

    But the FACTS say different...

  51. [51] 
    Kick wrote:

    Incorrect! As usual.

    I'm definitely scrolling through Trollshit Mountain and thereby figuratively giving you and your "downright boring" monotonous clown show the middle finger.

    If you insist on visual evidence, read between the lines:


    Those are the FACTS.

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    No... That's moronic ASCII art that is so childish I passed it by over 40 years ago..

    The FACT is that Democrats have made a COTTAGE INDUSTRY around SILENCE IS ASSENT/CONSENT.... THAT is fact..

    You just don't like it now because it proves what a moron you really are..

    Funny how you keep claiming how BORING I am.. Yet you still come back here and get bitch slapped over and over and over again..


  53. [53] 
    Kick wrote:


    No... That's moronic ASCII art that is so childish I passed it by over 40 years ago..

    Alrighty then, you're a grumpy old bald, fat swamp poon who can quite obviously understand the concept of someone passing by something they deem childish... then you naturally can understand somebody just daily passing by the vast majority of Trollshit Mountain and their silence being the act of (mostly) ignoring the board troll.

    The FACT is that Democrats have made a COTTAGE INDUSTRY around SILENCE IS ASSENT/CONSENT.... THAT is fact..

    So you're saying you're a Democrat?

    Are you so damn uneducated that you cannot grasp the FACT that silence can have multiple meanings and is not limited to one? Seems like it.

    You just don't like it now because it proves what a moron you really are..

    You don't know what I don't like unless I tell you; so I'll tell you. I don't like it when an uneducated poon keeps prattling on and on about something like "silence" and claiming it's a FACT that the meaning of silence is limited to the confines of his obviously inadequate education.

    Funny how you keep claiming how BORING I am..

    Funny how CW described you dead on balls accurate:

    Yet you still come back here and get bitch slapped over and over and over again..

    I am never not here, Mike. It is... in fact... you who keeps coming back and spewing the Trollshit Mountain and foaming at the mouth and can't shut his pie hole up about the FACT that he keeps beating his wife over and over and over again.

    So, to recap: Silence really is a ginormous middle finger.

  54. [54] 
    nypoet22 wrote:


    any and all crimes for which there is evidence that will hold up in court, regardless of the political party of the perpetrator, should result in the convening of a grand jury.

    unless of course those alleged crimes are committed by the president, in which case the proper course is an impeachment inquiry.

    as to whether "democrats" should be punished, i would say absolutely not. criminal offenders, if proven in a court of law, should be punished. political actors, if no crime can be proven, should be mocked and derided thoroughly, but certainly not locked up. if a crime CAN be proven, they should suck it up and serve their time.


  55. [55] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    The only thing we know for a factual certainty is the manifest magnificence of Baked Alaska.

    now you're talking my language!

Comments for this article are closed.