It's Time For Bernie To Drop Out
It's time for Bernie to make an exit from the Democratic presidential nomination race. I don't say this lightly, as I'm actually a Bernie supporter myself. I voted for him this year and back in 2016 as well. I feel free to now say this because I never admit to my own preferences while I think the race is still up in the air -- my own way of attempting to limit my bias in my writing. But I do feel free to say it now, because the race is now essentially over.
Joe Biden is going to be the Democratic nominee this time around. At this point, barring any completely unexpected and drastic changes in circumstance, it is realistically impossible for Bernie Sanders to catch him in the delegate race. This was not true until the final weeks of the 2016 campaign, but it is true now. Which is why Bernie needs to concede this reality.
Tom Perez, the chair of the Democratic National Committee, should help facilitate this right now by offering Bernie and his supporters a large role in writing the party platform document this year. Not just a seat at the table, but almost half of all the seats at that table is what Perez should offer. Bernie's earned that much. This will assure him that he will have a huge impact on the Democratic agenda, which is really all he has left to hope for.
Bernie could stay in the race until the end, but what would he hope to achieve by doing so? In normal times, he would achieve a prominent but secondary role in writing the platform document. He'd have a strong showing of delegates to prove to the party that he deserved this role. But that's the best he could hope for. So why put the party and the country through two or three more months of primary campaigning to secure this goal if the party chair will offer it to him now? If Perez offers Bernie all that he can now hope to achieve anyway, then it would remove any remaining justification for Bernie to continue campaigning. Bernie has already won more delegates than anyone other than Biden, so racking up a few hundred more of them won't change his standing at all, really.
I've said it before and I'll continue to say it: over the past five years, Bernie Sanders has done more to change the direction of the Democratic Party than anyone in my entire lifetime. I can think of no other one individual who has had such an outsized influence over the party's direction in the last half-century, personally. Bernie has forcibly wrestled the Overton Window into a whole new progressive direction for the party. He hasn't done this singlehandedly, of course, but he has been the unquestioned leader of these efforts -- and he has already achieved an astonishing amount of success in doing so.
Think about what Bernie has changed for a moment. Bernie has redefined the entire concept of campaign fundraising. He proved -- twice -- that grassroots support is all an authentic grassroots candidate needs. By doing so, he has changed how the entire party (other than the fatcat donors, of course) now views fundraising. Bernie has pushed an agenda that used to be derided and is now largely accepted by most Democratic candidates. On raising the minimum wage, on taxing wealthy people, on healthcare being a human right, on battling climate change, on free college and student debt forgiveness, and on any number of other important issues, Bernie has been the one pushing everyone else's envelope. This has led to an absolute sea-change within the party.
It is a stunning and historic achievement -- one that will likely be felt for decades to come (one can hope so, at any rate). Up until Bernie first ran for president, the Clintonian direction of the party had been largely unchallenged for two decades. The entire party was sold on the idea that if they could only keep Wall Street happy, then they wouldn't have to worry about much else, because that would secure them enough in campaign contributions to win national races. Bernie blew up that model in spectacular fashion, to the point where few Democrats now even advocate the politics of "triangulation" that used to be so prevalent in the 1990s. This is precisely why Bernie has more than earned something just short of half the seats at the platform-writing table. The party can't just sit Bernie in a corner anymore and ignore him (and his millions of supporters).
If Tom Perez hasn't already offered this to Bernie, then he needs to pick up the phone and do so immediately. Offer Bernie all that he can now hope for at the convention, in an effort to show him that it would now be pointless for him to continue campaigning. With the coronavirus pandemic, Bernie can't even hold his signature huge rallies any more, so he doesn't even have that to look forward to. All he can hope to win now is influence over the platform, so why not just offer it to him anyway?
If such an offer is made in good faith, then Bernie needs to accept it. It's tough to end a campaign, and it's even tougher to admit that your revolution is not going to win you the race. It's really tough for Bernie, since this is the second time he will have fallen short, and also his last realistic chance at ever becoming president. But as hard as this is to realize, Bernie needs to do so. He fought the good fight and will continue to do so within the party ranks. He has nothing to be ashamed of at all, because he has been so instrumental in charting a much more progressive path for the Democratic Party as a whole.
But reality is what it is, and the hard cold reality now is that it's over. Once he has secured the promise of influencing the platform document, Bernie needs to gracefully end his campaign. As I said, it pains me to say it because I really wanted to see Bernie take on Donald Trump, but it is now time to admit that that is not going to happen, and to call on all Democrats to rally behind the party's presumptive nominee. Bernie Sanders now has to send that clear message to his supporters.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Well, that is certainly a reality-based suggestion if your vote wasn't. :)
Let me rephrase that … your suggestion for Bernie is certainly reality-based, if not your vote. Heh.
I'd like to understand what it is all about with California political analysts and feeling the burn??
if the primary race really is over and biden is the nominee, my question is whether michale will honor the terms of our wager and cast his vote for biden in the general election. when it seemed highly unlikely that biden would be the nominee, he offered me the chance to chicken out in good faith without breaking my word, so it's only fair that i offer the same.
and no comments from the peanut butter gallery. though we have some very strong differences of opinion i have always found michale an honorable and forthright individual.
JL
Note to self - always use the preview button.
@don,
since you made a wager with yourself, perhaps you'll also pay yourself what you owe yourself. the tricky thing about interacting with other people is that they generally won't do what you want them to just because you think they ought to, and will rarely change their mind on that point as a result of being insulted and/or cursed at. pie is definitely a good first step.
JL
Don,
I understand that the whole idea behind OD is that the only way big money will be stripped from the political process is through a grassroots movement that advocates voting only for candidates that make the pledge to limit their campaigns to accepting small donations only.
You may be right about that being the only way to get big money out of the political process. I would be more convinced if more people in your country actually came out to vote.
In any event, I think you must first start building support for that idea yourself with others who you can recruit on the ground in your district and build from there.
That kind of effort is going to take a lot of hard work on your part and a lot of persistence in the field as opposed to posting on one blog. Update us, yes but, you will have to put in the blood, sweat and tears for the effort in your community first.
I was involved in a grassroots effort to promote the recognition of Aboriginal and Treaty rights of First Nations, Metis and Inuit in Canada.
I often felt as though we weren't making any progress at all back then but, over the course of years, we have come to the point in Canada where non-Aboriginal attitudes are beginning to see the light. And, yet, there is still so much work to be done, it'll probably never be done.
Don't let that experience deter you, though. My point is that in order to achieve your OD goals, I think you have to take the bulk of your fight away from this blog in order to maximize progress.
And, in the meantime, I hope you will put your faith in Senator Biden and push him to make progress from the legislative end of the problem.
And, Don ... talk to me about the Citizens United SCOTUS decision and how that complicates the effort to get big money interests out of the political process; what can be done about it; do you think OD is the best way around it etc. etc.
I hear ya, Don. And, I didn't know how much time you've put in on this valid issue.
I certainly know where you're coming from with your mom and I wish you all the best for you and her, sincerely.
I don't know what the answer is. Maybe the way to go is to adopt how we Canadians do political campaigns. You could do worse.
Liz-I'm really not in the mood for a discussion right now. :D
Ha!
A prominent part of the early Russian collusion delusion for Weigantians suffering from PTSD immediately following Hillary's defeat was the nonsensical claim that Sanders supporters, the most rabid of all the lefties, were so mad they either abstained from voting at all, or even crazier, had voted for Trump!!
I'd think those who believed that then ought to be edging into catatonia tonight.
Don Harris
17
Imagine that. It would be like traveling back in time and changing the timeline to one where CW wrote about One Demand four years ago and it had become viable and effective by now.
Imagine if CW had allowed you to write and post anything you wanted whatsoever on the comments board of his blog and advertise freely regarding One Demand (and its former name) and without abatement of any kind whatsoever... despite his claims of no advertising therein.
You needn't imagine it at all because that's what has happened, and if One Demand hasn't become "viable and effective by now" -- by your own assessment -- then I cannot fathom why you would wax sentimentally about "what might have been... if only" when CW has allowed you to write about it yourself over the entire four-year period of which you magnify.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Hint: I'm not wrong. :)
Don Harris
20
I told the agent to tell the underwriters that I had successfully filed my own appeal in a child support case with the state supreme court that rejected 75% of appeals filed by lawyers so I would be filing my own lawsuit.
If the agent on the phone didn't laugh his ass off the minute you claimed that you filed a common appeal of child support to the Supreme Court of New Jersey, I'm here to tell you that he most likely did when he hung up. :)
I'll the state supreme court a case regarding a simple child support?
^^^^ Goobed that up ^^^^
EDIT [24]
The state supreme court hearing a case regarding a simple child support. You're funny.
Don Harris
22
correction: If anyone cares it was the state appeals court, not the state supreme court.
Okay, then, but you still threatened to file what amounts to a class action case regarding "constitutionality" (your word) against an insurance company based on your filing of a common child support appeal. I would wager he still laughed his ass off. :)
Don,
Under NJ law the insurance company was allowed to charge anyone having someone on the suspended list for drunk driving living in their home as if that person had a drunk driving conviction because the law said a person living in your home had an implied consent to drive your car (not kidding!).
Not sure what the specific NJ statute says on this, but most states require that you have given that person permission to drive your vehicle at some time in the past for implied consent to exist. I know that is the case if it is a roommate that you are not related to; family might be the exception.
FPC
Don,
So the witnesses that said the officer pulled Brown into the car and that Brown was not attacking are not to be considered?
They are not considered because what they claim is physically impossible. How does someone sitting in a car force a 6’4 295# person to go head first into vehicle through the driver’s window? And even more importantly, WHY would anyone ever want to start a fight by pulling someone that big on top of them? Seriously, think about what they are suggesting: the officer started a fight with someone as big as Brown by trying to pull him in on top of the officer —going against all of the training officers are given on how to physically engage someone!??!
The Grand Jury testimony will not contain anything from witnesses that did not testify or evidence not presented to the Grand Jury.
As I pointed out when I explained why the prosecutor had allowed someone who could not have witnessed the incident testify that they had, the prosecutor allowed anyone claiming to have witnessed the shooting to offer their testimony to the grand jury so that Brown’s supporters could not claim that the prosecutor had kept people who knew the truth from testifying on Brown’s behalf.
If they did not provide their testimony to the grand jury, then they are not witnesses in the eyes of the law. If their testimony could have brought the Brown family the justice they sought, then they are cowards
You are basing your justification for the shooting on incomplete information by just relying on witnesses that say Brown attacked the officer in the car and disregarding other witnesses that may or may not have testified.
Actually, I based my decision on the criteria the statutes say must be met in determining whether a shooting is justified as being done in self defense. I did consider all of the witnesses testimony — .both those that thought Brown was charging the officer and those that thought Brown was surrendering — but their testimony does not carry the most weight.
It is the mind set of the shooter at the moment they fire their gun that determines if they are innocent or guilty. If it was reasonable for the officer to believe that their life or the life of another was in peril if they did not shoot when they did, then the law says that the shooting was justified. This is how the law works. Even if Brown had survived to tell us what his intentions were, it would NOT really matter as his intentions are not what the law says matter in deciding this case! It is the reasonableness of the shooter’s mindset that determines if the shooting is justified.
Wilson said he believed Brown was moving to attack him again. Was it reasonable for him to think this? All of the witnesses - those who thought Brown was surrendering and those that thought he was moving to attack Wilson - agreed that Brown started moving toward Wilson when he was shot. This supports the reasonableness of Wilson’s testimony and of his actions.
@don,
get real is a slogan. fuck you is an insult.
if donald trump made your small donor pledge, would you vote for him? or would this only apply to biden and sanders?
get pie.
JL
FPC,
DH,
It is an opinion, jusy like people might say OJ is a murderer.
Actually, if the prosecutions case was accurate, it is impossible that OJ was the killer...
It was not a statement of legal determination.
An opinion based on facts I saw.
No.. It's an opinion based on what the biased bigoted ALLEGED documentary chose to show you..
Regardless, as long as you acknowledge it's your opinion not fact, we're good..
FPC,
Russ,
You don’t need to trust Michale’s ever-changing claims regarding his work history (it’s now “Public Safety” when I could have sworn it was in Law Enforcement this whole time)
It's ALWAYS been Public Safety, dolt..
It's just until Uber Moron (You) came around and ruined this place, there wasn't any need to make the distinction because everyone else here were all friends and understood...
-- my own way of attempting to limit my bias in my writing.
Uh... er.... Oh shit, never mind...
Joe Biden is going to be the Democratic nominee this time around. At this point, barring any completely unexpected and drastic changes in circumstance,
A brain aneurysm... It could happen..
If Perez offers Bernie all that he can now hope to achieve anyway, then it would remove any remaining justification for Bernie to continue campaigning.
That's a pretty big 'IF', you have to admit, CW...
The DNC and establishment Democrats HATE Bernie..
I have no doubt their road is the JUST GO THE FRAK AWAY road...
I've said it before and I'll continue to say it: over the past five years, Bernie Sanders has done more to change the direction of the Democratic Party than anyone in my entire lifetime.
Factually accurate.. But not in a GOOD way.. At least, not in a good way for the country..
Bernie has forcibly wrestled the Overton Window into a whole new progressive direction for the party.
And yet, there are STILL Weigantians who deny that the Democrat Party has moved far Leftward...
If Tom Perez hasn't already offered this to Bernie, then he needs to pick up the phone and do so immediately. Offer Bernie all that he can now hope for at the convention, in an effort to show him that it would now be pointless for him to continue campaigning.
Yea, but Democrats never do the right thing...
Perez ain't gonna give Bernie jack sheet..
Why??
Because, as you say, Bernie has been neutered.. With the pandemic, Bernie can't hold his minor-mega rallies...
Bernie is no longer a threat to the DNC or establishment Dems..
Perez is like Rahm Emmanuel..
"Fuck the retards"
-Rahm Emmanuel
Liz,
Well, that is certainly a reality-based suggestion if your vote wasn't. :)
I hope you didn't hurt your wrist twisting the knife... :D heh
Let me rephrase that … your suggestion for Bernie is certainly reality-based, if not your vote. Heh.
Yes, the suggestion for Bernie is reality based..
The suggestion for Perez and the DNC is la-la land..
:D
JL,
if the primary race really is over and biden is the nominee, my question is whether michale will honor the terms of our wager and cast his vote for biden in the general election. when it seemed highly unlikely that biden would be the nominee, he offered me the chance to chicken out in good faith without breaking my word, so it's only fair that i offer the same.
As you said, a bet's a bet..
I will honor our bet..
and no comments from the peanut butter gallery. though we have some very strong differences of opinion i have always found michale an honorable and forthright individual.
"Brought a tear to me eye..."
-Scotty, STAR TREK 7 Generations
Thanx JL... :D
Liz,
And, Don ... talk to me about the Citizens United SCOTUS decision and how that complicates the effort to get big money interests out of the political process;
I would rather talk about how Democrats castigate and denigrate the CU decision...
And then turn around and happily use it to their advantage...
The purest form of hypocrisy...
CRS!!!
Glad ta see ya... Thought ya had kicked the bucket....
A prominent part of the early Russian collusion delusion for Weigantians suffering from PTSD immediately following Hillary's defeat was the nonsensical claim that Sanders supporters, the most rabid of all the lefties, were so mad they either abstained from voting at all, or even crazier, had voted for Trump!!
I'd think those who believed that then ought to be edging into catatonia tonight.
hehehehehehe... Now THAT's funny... :D
ListenWhenYouHear wrote:
FPC
Don,
And, once again, Michale defines Weigantia... :D
I love it!! :D
DiFi, Burr among senators who dumped millions in shares right before coronavirus mauled market
Dianne Feinstein, 3 Senate colleagues sold off stocks before coronavirus crash: reports
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dianne-feinstein-3-senate-colleagues-sold-off-stocks-before-coronavirus-crash-reports
Remind me again that Democrats are better than Republicans??
I seem to have forgotten, what with all the FACTS to the contrary...
Considering all the... er.. Data Points Of Similarity... :D.. it's safe to say that there really isn't ANY difference between Democrats and Republicans.. :D
The reason why Bernie lost... TWICE... is because he didn't want it bad enough..
He should have hammered Hillary on her emails..
He should have hammered Biden on Biden's Ukraine extortion...
Bernie doesn't have the killer instinct to win...
Trump would have utterly DESTROYED Bernie if they had matched up...
PSA ANNOUNCMENT
FOR THE FIRST TIME IN HISTORY.....
WE CAN SAVE THE HUMAN RACE BY STAYING AT HOME, LAYING IN FRONT OF THE TV AND DOING NOTHING..
LET'S NOT SCREW THIS UP!!!
:D
Liz,
Too bad the chosen one didn't act sooner. :(
President Trump acted in a perfectly calm and rational manner befitting the seriousness of the issue at the time.
THAT is what a good leader does...
A good leader doesn't bow to the hysteria of the Media that is PROVEN to be 96% AGAINST him...
You can bet that, if the media says to do something, the BEST course of action is to do the EXACT opposite of that something..
Yes, Bernie has moved the Dems left.
YOU know that.. *I* know that..
But there are those here in Weigantian who denied that..
That was my point..
But since they were starting from the center-right where they had moved to over the last few decades the Dems are still not left, just closer to center in their center-rightness.
Whatever.. :D
The people the documentary claims were not called to testify by the prosecution that knew the witnesses were available to testify are cowards be cause they didn't testify?
Why don't you point a link to this "documentary" so Russ and I can judge for ourselves what it actually shows??
:D
I shouldn't have to, but OK..
STRANGER FRUIT
What really happened on August 9th, 2014 in Ferguson, Missouri? That afternoon, Officer Darren Wilson killed 18-year-old Michael Brown. 'Stranger Fruit' is the unraveling of what took place, told through the eyes of Mike Brown's family.
OK, so the criminal's FAMILY is telling the story...
And you find that credible???
This isn't COR-AI, yunno...
It's not available thru torrents and I am sure not going to pay for criminal's family's propaganda...
The fact that they are selling their story is a tip off it's bullshit..
AND JUST LIKE THAT...
#NotMyPresident becomes #WheresMyPandemicCheck
:^/
Funny.. Odumbo never gave us a Pandemic Check..
And the FACTS come out..
Odumbo V Trump
http://sjfm.us/pics/OdumboVTrump.jpg
Animals Roam Freely In Italian Cities With Humans In Lockdown
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidbressan/2020/03/20/animals-roam-freely-in-italian-cities-with-humans-in-lockdown/#10d2a4fb7956
Good.. When society breaks down, we'll need a target rich environment for our food.... :D
But then you have to accept that I saw it and not say I haven't provided the information.
I never claimed you are not providing information..
I simply claimed that it is biased information and not factual..
Your source being the criminal's family simply confirms my claim..
You don't have to accept what I say they said is true, but you do have to accept that it is what I saw.
If I gave that impression, you have my sincerest apologies...
I have no doubt it is what you saw..
I simply maintain that what the documentary showed you is not what occurred..
Yes, the fuck you was an insult. And it was well deserved.
i think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who agrees with that opinion. CW's post you were responding to that way wasn't even addressed to you.
JL
It's official...
It’s Official: Tom Brady Signs His Contract With Tampa Bay Buccaneers
https://boston.cbslocal.com/2020/03/20/its-official-tom-brady-signs-his-contract-with-tampa-bay-buccaneers/
It truly IS the End Of Days..
Wasn't there something in the bible about the seas boiling, the sky turning black as sack-cloth, the dead rising from the grave and Tom Brady leaving New England???
Wasn't there something in the bible about the seas boiling, the sky turning black as sack-cloth, the dead rising from the grave
As you can see, I get all my bible info from GHOSTBUSTERS...
we apologise for the inconvenience
~God
Ex-FEMA boss bolts from MSNBC interview: 'I don't have time to listen to bullshit, people'
https://www.foxnews.com/media/ex-fema-boss-bolts-from-msnbc-interview-i-dont-have-time-to-listen-to-bull-people
Funny.. :D
IRONY DEFINED
The people who claim we don't need that much ammo are buying 500 rolls of toilet paper...
:eyeroll:
Touche' :D
Yunno why there is such a big run on toilet paper..
Because every time someone coughs, 100 people shit their pants... :D
Chris, I am not so certain that Sanders should be offered half the seats at platform-writing. I trust you aren't suggesting this as an inducement to cede the nomination and not cause difficulties, and I don't feel that he has in any sense earned it. A number proportionate to his share of primary votes, yes. Include people who speak for younger voters, yes. (And I really want to see younger people mentored and brought on at all levels.) But I don't think Sanders and his supporters should have places at the expense of people from marginalised groups and of women, so often doubly or trebly marginalised and shouted down.
so often doubly or trebly marginalised and shouted down.
Oh, com'on!
Those groups you mention are put on a throne!!! :^/
Seriously, Mamma..
Tell me which groups are "doubly or trebly marginalized" by the Democrat Party...
You can't, because non exists..
Mezzomamma,
You make a good point.
I mean, the American people have spoken in large number in favour of moderation and practicality. Two words that have developed bad reps over the last many years, and for good reason, I admit. But, I think that is mostly because we haven't seen anybody really put moderation and practicality to good use lately. I'm hoping that will change in a way that makes progress not only possible but inevitable!
Being an unabashed and unapologetic cockeyed-optimist, I was pleasantly surprised by something president Trump said today at the daily presser, perhaps providing more proof of the 'Bern' having wide-ranging impacts.
Trump lambasted corporations for not using their tax breaks to build plants and otherwise improve the economy but rather for their selfish stock buybacks. He emphasized this point more than once!
Well, that isn't good use, is it Don … sigh.
Can you show me the testimony of the people the documentary says did not testify testifying?
Of course not. But tell me, what did they say in their testimony that differed from those that did testify and said they thought Brown was trying to surrender?
Can you show where the forensic evidence the documentary says was not presented was presented?
Seeing how I do not know what they are claiming, all I can do is point you to the grand jury report that listed all of the evidence the police collected during the investigation.
The FORENSIC EVIDENCE in the documentary that supported the testimony of witnesses that said Brown was NOT charging and that the documentary said was NOT presented to the grand jury makes the witnesses that said Brown was not charging more credible.
The witnesses’ credibility was not the issue. As I tried to point out in my previous post, the only question the jury was answering was whether it was reasonable for the officer to believe that his life was in peril the moment that he fired the shot that killed Michael Brown.
You keep calling it “FORENSIC EVIDENCE”, but you do not seem to have any idea what that actually means! How did they come to possess it if it wasn’t found at the time of the shooting? When was it found, where was it found, and by who was it found?
Furthermore, you simply ignore the fact that all of the witnesses described the same exact physical movements by Brown just prior to his being shot and killed. He stopped moving away from Wilson, turned around to face Wilson and started moving forward. It is what they believed they were witnessing — their perception of what was taking place— that differs, not the actual movements by Brown. Brown might have been lunging forward to take a knee or he could have been charging the officer — the two movements are the same. What differs was how they perceived the intent for those movements.
cockeyed
I gots to wonder at the etymology of that word.. :D
One Demand is only concerned with one thing — that the candidate campaign only accepts small donations under $200. You claim that we cannot trust anyone who accepts more than that to act in our best interests. But what makes you think a person who only accepts small donations can be trusted?
So One Demand would back a Neo-Nazi running on a “kill all gays” and “bring back slavery” platform just as long as they agreed to your ONE DEMAND — that they run a “only small donations” campaign? It would seem like One Demand would have a hard time explaining how it wasn’t backing a candidate that meets your One Demand.
Do you believe if Congress passed a law tomorrow capping campaign donations to just $200, then that would get Big Money out of our elections? That would fix everything?
if you want to know why go back to the last time you spewed your bullshit that I answered it.
I have...and you never did provide an actual answer to how you could justify not supporting any candidate that meets your criteria.
No, you simply claimed to have answered it before. That’s the question every reporter would ask you about your idea. The answer has to be “yes, One Demand is not concerned with a candidates positions or political views as long as they are meeting our ONE DEMAND.” But let’s forget this one and focus on the main question that followed it.
I do not recall ever asking you If campaign donations were capped a $200, would that solve our nation’s problem with Big Money in politics. That is what you are claiming with One Demand, is it not? So humor me and answer this question, please.
Don,
You are just as wrong as the many times you and others have raised those questions
Listen to yourself. I can be a little slow on the uptake but, I get it now. And, fair warning, I understand I have no time for it, anymore.
Don
It's my understanding that there are already limits on how much money people or groups can contribute directly to political candidates/incumbents etc. so what is it you hope to restrict?
Are you hoping to eliminate the Citizens United (PAC) type indirect money, or what? That simply ain't gonna happen
As I said.. All this has been gamed out in EXECUTIVE ORDERS... Except there, it was IRAN who was the culprit, not China... :D
The latest on the Coronavirus response
President Trump and the White House Coronavirus Task Force announced additional actions today as part of the ongoing, government-wide response to the global pandemic:
° To help American families and businesses, the Treasury Department announced that Tax Day will be moved from April 15 to July 15. No interest or penalties will be charged for filing during this extended window, but any American expecting refunds or credits may claim now to get their money sooner.
° To minimize impact on our nation’s students, the Department of Education is temporarily waiving all interest on federally held student loans. Secretary Betsy DeVos has also directed federal lenders to allow borrowers to suspend their student loan payments without penalty for at least the next 60 days.
° Early, decisive travel restrictions helped slow the spread of Coronavirus to our country. Today, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced that the United States and Mexico have agreed to restrict non-essential travel across their border.
° More help is on the way. The Trump Administration worked with Congress last week on a bipartisan deal to deliver economic relief and support for American families, which the President signed into law on Wednesday. More legislative action is expected in the coming days.
Thank the gods we have President Trump and not President Hillary.. :D
Hell, even Ilhan Omar is praising President Trump..
There's another campaign ad for The Re-elect President Trump committee... :D
No Don, after giving it my best shot, again, please understand that it's just all become so tiresome, you know.
Yes.
New column up soon … hopefully and mercifully.
Don Harris,
Doesn't Biden , Bernie and Nader working together have a better chance of beating Trump and is therefore more practical?
Yes, and hopefully Bernie and Nader will fully endorse Biden’s campaign. Your idea of Biden suddenly turning his campaign into a “small donation only” crusade would never happen, especially after this coronavirus outbreak ending large gatherings and putting a strain on most people’s pocketbooks.
The 200 dollar law?
Another stupid question that is not designed for discussion but probably because you think it is a gotcha question or just to be combative or annoying.
I have repeatedly said that legislation cannot solve the problem because the big money legislators will not pass any legislation to get the big money out of politics. Decades of proof to back this up or the big money would be gone by now.
For a question you refer to as stupid and suspect, you sure as fuk don’t seem to want to answer it directly! I find it odd that you seem to be the only person who determines what could work and what definitely won’t work.
The question was not whether you believe Congress WOULD cap campaign donations at $200, it assumes that they not only would, but that they have passed it and if that would rid our elections of BIG Money’s corrupting influence?
I am simply taking the premise of what you are trying to convince CW deserves being reported to the masses as our best way of getting rid of the corrupt influences in politics and asking you if you believe that your idea can fix the problem. It really should not be that hard of a question for you to answer...but you have a habit of avoiding discussing whether One Demand will do what you want us to believe it will do.
You called Citizens United a “red herring”, but it is what allows unlimited amounts of money to be poured into our elections without us knowing where the money is coming from. Your idea takes $5200 of a $5400 reported corporate donation out of the campaign’s bank — leaving it with $200 — but does nothing about the $20 million the corporation pumps into a PAC named “The Institute for Helping People” that will work to get their politician elected.
Face it, you do not want the $200 cap on political donations to become the law because that would mean that there is no longer a “movement”... you are not cool for making a stand that lets you look down on others who don’t follow your wisdom... it’s the law for everyone. If everyone has to do it, that robs you of the glory you think you are deserving of.
Well said, Russ.
Don Harris
42
Yes, that's right. They were laughing.
It's a cute story, Don, but please realize that insurance agents get threatened with lawsuits by every Don, Dick, and Harry on the other end of the telephone line on a quite regular basis. They record those phone calls too and use them to train other agents regarding what they're going to hear all day and how not to laugh their asses off that everybody in America seems to think they would have made a good lawyer.
I guess they appreciated the laugh so much they reduced my insurance bill by over 4000 dollars.
If you say so. Sometimes if you get the "right agent/adjuster," they'll just file you under "crazy" and go ahead and recode your data.
Does that make me a professional comedian?
If you have to ask, then you know the answer.
Don Harris
48
Yes. CW lets me post my opinion here in the comments
and I have said I appreciate that.
Yes, he quite obviously does, but you've got a funny way of showing your appreciation.
Any other ridiculous nonsense you want to spew again as if you never said it before and had it debunked?
You just agreed with me, and then you referred to my 100% factual post as "ridiculous nonsense" that you "debunked." How fucking ignorant is that?
Michale [40] -
Your PSA announcement was hilarious, I have to admit.
Heh. heh heh.
Couch potatoes unite!
[63] -
OK, that Bible quote was funny, too!
My sincerest condolences on Brady infesting your state, and I do mean that deeply. At least now my New England friends won't be so insufferable...
Heh.
Don Harris [66] -
Perhaps one of reasons there aren't actually millions of people reading comment sections is because of the content of the comment sections.
[holds mirror up...]
I've easily gotten twice the complaints about you in the comments section than I've ever gotten about Michale.
And that's saying something.
-CW
Mezzomamma [72] -
Your comment was worth a response apart from all the others, I thought.
You'll notice I always (I think) said "almost half the seats at the table" not "half."
Yes, Bernie's earned this. But you seem to want him to prove it, once again, by extending the primary season right through to the end, so Bernie can rack up as many delegates as possible rather than just gracefully making an exit now and avoiding the rest of the primary season. I disagree.
Bernie has had an influence on the DNC already. He singlehandedly got the superdelegate rules changed, for the better (in my opinion at least).
And please step back and think about it for a moment -- of what real importance is the platform document anyway, these days? It's nowhere near as big a deal as it used to be -- hardly anyone even bothers to read it, and it certainly doesn't determine elections in any way. So why not toss Bernie this bone and let him argue for all the changes he wants in it?
With just short of half the delegates, he couldn't muscle through any changes that at least a few others agreed with. So what's the real harm? If he wins somewhat-less-than-half of the delegates, then why wouldn't he earn somewhat-less-than-half of the seats at the table? So why force him to prove this strength by prolonging the primaries rather than just offer it to him now on a plate?
-CW
LizM [76] -
Yep, once the Overton Window shifts, then everyone starts accepting the new direction of the conversation!
Michale [84] -
You're going to be disappointed. The OED says it possibly derives from the Irish or Gaelic caog "wink" or caogshnil "squint eye." First usage cited was from 1820s -- "an eye that must be cocked like a gun."
So stifle the Beavis and Butthead snerking, because it has a totally different root.
[heh heh... he said root... heh heh heh]
[Couldnt' resist]
[94]
Thank the gods we have President Trump and not President Hillary..
Yeah, because that would have meant all of this would have happened about a month earlier. How terrible!
[rolls eyes...]
LizM [97] -
Amen.
Don Harris [98] -
[holds mirror up]
-CW
Liz [102]
Thank you. I have come to realize that Don realizes his great idea is deeply flawed and won’t work. I think that is why he hasn’t done any work to make his website look more professional... he knows that Chris isn’t going to do an article on One Demand with their homepage being such a clusterduck, and Don is OK with that.
As long as CW refuses to write anything about One Demand, Don can keep blaming him for One Demand never becoming the grassroots movement to end all movements. And it’s always nicer not having to admit failure and just blaming others instead!
Russ
108
Nailed it!
Again... :)
@cw,
i posted with a link but it was swallowed up by the filters. no need to retrieve it from NNL unless you want to, but you might want to check the link location.
JL
michale, this one's for you:
RuPaul has yet to comment publicly on fans’ concerns that the drag star is fracking. RuPaul’s Drag Race is currently airing its 12th season. One of the guest judges on the show will be Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who coincidentally introduced a bill in the House that bans all fracking by 2025.
got that? rupaul owns land in wyoming and leases it to oil companies for fracking. AOC is going on his show, which is essentially an endorsement of someone who does precisely what she's written bills to outlaw.
JL