Deciding the Presidency on voter turnout in two or three states is just plain stupid. It basically comes down to popular vote in a handful of states every year. My vote is purely ceremonial most years so I get why voters are disenfranchised.
I got into a debate w a somewhat reasonable Trumper on the home board about the electoral college. He was hammering down on the Founder's Intent argument. He conceded to that if each state didnt have to award all it's electoral votes to one candidate, it might be a better way. EC votes could/should be award on a proportional scale. If one candidate gets 60% of the vote in a state, they get 60% of the EC votes, the other candidate gets 40% ect... I let him repeat that stance a few times before pointing out how that would work out, and it's barely different than a popular vote. He immediately reversed his position and argued against it. I must give a Trumper credit, it's not the worst compromise to keep the EC yet, make it not as dumb
There is a 0% chance that the president of the United States could correctly identify and label 60% of a map of the United States.
I do wish the democrats would’ve called him in to testify, sure the hearings would be a shit show but Rudy would’ve confessed to crimes that aren’t even being investigated if questioned under oath.
He’d get New York, Jersey and some other states surrounding because they’d be familiar. Same with Florida and California. Probably Texas and Nevada. No way he gets anything from the Midwest or plains states.
I know we're in a new era where nothing matters and all, but it rubs me the wrong way that Parnas and his Lawyer are playing this out like some big game, going on Maddow , replying to tweets w embedded music to make light of things. This shit is serious, it would be nice if it it was presented that way, instead of a sick burn retort. With that said, and understanding we're never going back to that.... Roast Rudy's ass. Take them all down
Can't an argument be made that he hasn't been granted the opportunity to present it in a serious manner?
Man, maga haberman really grinds my gears. She’s openly lobbying on behalf of trump on today’s nyt daily as it relates to Bolton.
What an uncivilized country where the person in charge can be indicted. What are those bozos thinking?
Got a break between calls and flipped on CNN. Jake Tapper interviewing Sen Hirono. Ask her about it being fair for each side to call one witness, and why shouldnt the GOP get to call the whistleblower? She pointed out the obvious - all the claims in the complaint have been corroborated by others, and it's just an attempt to out the whistleblower and create a distraction. No response of follow up from Tapper. That is a picture perfect modern media criticism. Tapper knows damn well how ridiculous that framing is, but the need to look hard on both sides w gotcha questions supersedes objectivity.
Jake Tapper’s career trajectory is an object lesson in how to succeed in corporate media. The formula generally goes like this: go after the fringes of the left and the right––but mostly the left. Never offend any traditional centers of power. Mug. Constantly mug for the camera. Hitch your brand to “The Troops” And-always, always––attack from the neoconservative right. As previously discussed in our John McCain News Brief, the issue with John McCain was less so about the man himself but what he represented: posturing National Security state jingoism at the heart of America’s civic religion; a phony notion of self-importance that animates US militarism. Just the same, this week’s episode is less about Tapper and more about what he represents: the dead center of American corporate media; hollow, faux-adversarialism marked by military worship; less interested in original reporting than serving as a bouncer for Club Acceptable Opinion.
It’s gonna be weird when there are 7 republicans on the Supreme Court, one in the White House, 51 in the senate, and the house is overwhelmingly controlled by the democrats (with zero power). That’s when the real diabolical shit begins.
The way you phrased it sounds like he lobbed an easy question to her so it could be explained by someone other than the media
For a moment there I thought your autocorrect wouldn't let you spell Kyrsten Sinema edit: goddammit truman