Some don't have stamps. They don't know what postmarked means or how to send mail and have no access to any resources to explain such a thing because it's their parents' fault. One adult human is not motivated, and thinks that some someone should explain the issues and somehow enable voting on Snapchat or Instagram.
I knew that was clickbait designed to make me mad, but I let it sucker me anyway.
Georgia Secretary of State and GOP gubernatorial candidate Brian Kemp had problems with his voter ID when he went to cast his ballot on Election Day.
“It turns out his voting card was invalid,” a reporter with Atlanta’s WSB-TV revealed in a video report on Kemp’s issues voting at his polling place in Winterville, Georgia.
__________________
Cēterum cēnseō factiōnem Rēpūblicānam dēlendam esse īgnī ferrōque.
“All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.” -Adam Smith
Seven years ago, a brave & composed 19-year old named Zach Wahls stood up in front of the Iowa legislature and delivered a speech about growing up with two mothers in a lesbian household.
__________________
Cēterum cēnseō factiōnem Rēpūblicānam dēlendam esse īgnī ferrōque.
“All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.” -Adam Smith
When Facebook users learned last spring that the company had compromised their privacy in its rush to expand, allowing access to the personal information of tens of millions of people to a political data firm linked to President Trump, Facebook sought to deflect blame and mask the extent of the problem.
And when that failed — as the company’s stock price plummeted and it faced a consumer backlash — Facebook went on the attack.
While Mr. Zuckerberg has conducted a public apology tour in the last year, Ms. Sandberg has overseen an aggressive lobbying campaign to combat Facebook’s critics, shift public anger toward rival companies and ward off damaging regulation. Facebook employed a Republican opposition-research firm to discredit activist protesters, in part by linking them to the liberal financier George Soros. It also tapped its business relationships, persuading a Jewish civil rights group to cast some criticism of the company as anti-Semitic.
I was on the fence about Schumer before - he had some points where the Senate Democrats were reasonably effective, but these deals lately with judges seemed suboptimal at best.
After an election in which fake news and propaganda on Facebook were used to help the right-wing elect an authoritarian bigoted idiot, and likewise Facebook has been fomenting ethnic violence in Myanmar and elsewhere, and has been exploited to promote authoritarianism and undermine democracy across multiple countries, etc. and taking advantage of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories to deflect blame. The Democrats' Senate leader can't be covering for them. Schumer can't be telling Mark fucking Warner to moderate.
"A female wearing clothes is like a man without any profits."
Ferengi Rule of Acquisition No. 108.
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis
"Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko
Beto O'Rourke? Did anyone get the substance of his platform? Whenever the news cut to him campaigning it always just sounded like a stream of happy talk to me.
__________________
Chained out, like a sitting duck just waiting for the fall _Cage the Elephant
Second, the supermajority rule is just awful policy—especially when combined with a proposal to bring back PAYGO rules, which Nancy Pelosi said months ago Democrats would adhere to if they gained the majority—the bonkers trickle-down policy that requires Congress to either cut the budget or hike taxes to offset any new spending. Republicans always vote against tax increases—always, under any circumstance and for any purpose. So guess which option they’ll always choose?
__________________
Chained out, like a sitting duck just waiting for the fall _Cage the Elephant
The only people who'll be worse off as a result of this are Seth Moulton and the vote-suppressing fascists in the GOP. Fudge has released a statement that she's supporting Pelosi for leadership, which you can see by clicking through to the Twitter thread. Regardless of whether she could be more progressive or not, Pelosi is a goddamn legislative ninja. If you want to get rid of one of the House dinosaurs, I suggest Steny Hoyer. And the fact that Schumer's at best questionable Senate leadership - after we actually lost seats in the Senate, mind you - hasn't come under the same kind of fire seems telling to me.
__________________
Cēterum cēnseō factiōnem Rēpūblicānam dēlendam esse īgnī ferrōque.
“All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.” -Adam Smith
This is Jon Miller. How notorious he is I have no idea, sitting as I do way over here in Europeland. (Please feel free to fill me in.)
But that isn't what I'm looking for. What I would like is a wide range of views on how best to answer him on this topic, (and by extension, similar Bannonesque shock-jocks on similarly uncontentious* topics).
I realise Miller is plain wrong on a load of small details ("NBC: The Saudis say he was part of the Muslim Brotherhood and an enemy of the State. Those two things are not true" Miller: "Yes they are" ) but I don't believe point by point rebuttal is the way to go about the task of undermining his message among those who are right-leaning, because wall of points to rebut and many of them are pretty inconsequentially nitty. Rather I am looking for one or two broad-brush observations that might show that Miller's rhetoric is crooked. One liners, if you like, that will raise troubling doubts in those who are inclined to trust him.
So, how would you tackle it?
*Uncontentious? Yes, because the point here is that the murder of Kashoggi has been condemned on all sides. It should be uncontentious. Yet here is Miller contending it.
I consider the crucial point to be that Trump has essentially taken the position that the ethical judgement of the US can be bought if the price is high enough. He justifies his rejection of the CIA conclusion, that the SA prince is certainly responsible for the murder of a journalist citizen of SA, by trying to hide it behind the lies of an inflated weaponry sale to SA and associated inflated US job loss if the sale doesn't happen. He also credits the Saudis for the crash in oil prices, which is also largely false, as if that should somehow excuse the killing of journalists even if it were true. Trump is an amoral lieing sack of shit. He has an obvious penchant for the tyrannical by his demonstrated contempt for free press, the essential underpinning of undemocracy. In order for democracy to be of any value, citizens must have some grasp of objective reality.
__________________
Chained out, like a sitting duck just waiting for the fall _Cage the Elephant