SuingToGetAMessageBoard?

Nikolas <Boo-ee>

It’s EV manipulation. Make red states bigger, blue states smaller.

It is easier to fit through the eye of a needle, because you are nothing but pink mist, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.

miss miss hit

one thing i've been turning over in my head is that the SEC part of the country has more of a bunker mentality than the rest of the US, which ties to the unfailing loyalty to whatever is 'theirs,' despite it crumbling all around them. don't really know. still trying to think through it. but anyway, maybe now jones is one of 'theirs', so he gets defending. he's sort of like diamond and silk or something to them, needed to be held up as 'one of the good ones' to show that they are not narrow minded.

it's got to be national polls.

At least Dersh’s arguments are consistent with the facts. He’s not trying to gaslight us. I think he’s arguing the president’s case the right way.

Texas Tribune thinks it is. https://www.texastribune.org/2020/01/29/special-texas-house-election-democrats-bit-more-they-could-chew/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6674139-Hobbs-en-banc.html 9th Circuit finds violations in Arizona of the VRA in a breezy 400 page opinion, including violation of not just discriminatory impact, but discriminatory intent. good job, republicans. interesting facts in there: in 2012, 33,000 votes, more than 5% of all votes, were tossed. A cool bit of evidence from the opinion. So, in Arizona, they will toss your vote entirely if you vote in the wrong precinct. That is, even though everyone can vote for the same President and Senator regardless of where in the state they live, if they show up at the wrong voting precinct, you vote with a provisional ballot so that you'll feel like you voted, and they (eventually) toss it in the trash. The facts show that white neighborhoods tend to keep the same voting precincts, while minority neighborhoods keep getting theirs moved around. it amazes me how clever these people get at figuring out how to suppress votes.

i would like to know where that line of reasoning ends. my reelection is good for the country . . . so my campaign will be publicly funded. my reelection is good for the country . . . so i've decided not to hand over power in 2021. my reelection is good for the country . . . so i've decimated (original meaning) the registered democratic population in swing states. of course, it doesn't have to be "my reelection." The logic seemingly extends to whatever he believes is good for the country. also true. there isn't any way to test trump really believed it. there is no objective components. and we certainly can't, say, have thorough examination on the topic. so i believe the real answer is, every president begins each term with the phrase "everything i'm doing the next four years are things that i think are in the best interest of the country." Seems to be impeachment proof at that point.

quite the extrapolation

i'll convince them by being right, not by being nice.

I always liked how that scene was lit and the tones. It makes you feel the exhaustion they feel.

Actually, the whole cast of no country for old men was awesome all the way down to the Gaelic wife or whatever she is that they cast as a West Texas gal, and the old man Tommy Lee Jones commiserates with at the end of the movie about the passage of time.

Friendo and Sporto were both solid nominees.

Ones I think that I don’t always see on these sorts of lists. misses: Christoph Waltz in the Bond movie. Channing Tatum in Hateful 8. Eli Roth as the Bear Jew. John C Reilly in Gangs of NY. Cameron Diaz too. The guy who played Desh in the Bourne movie was about as boring as you could play a super assassin.

because you're cripple, boomer rubes. because you're stupid. /agent cujan.

checks out.

it's not really the lying that offends me so much about the R party these days. it's the stupidity. i'm personally offended knowing that i'm smarter than some senators.

i also found that interesting.

i never made it through the man in the high castle largely because i couldn't stand the guy from road trip.

there is a ton of writing about what it takes to be an impeachable offense. if that tweet is a true reflection of starr's argument, he's off the rails. it also occurs to me that a trial judge can shut down argument that is contrary to the law. seems like roberts has that option here, no?

holy shit with this list. there are legitimate stars in the 100s. Norm is 139 out of 145? 80 spots behind something called beth cahill? and uh jane curtin? brooks wheelan? denny dillon?

every non-eastwood in that movie was a bargain basement actor.