Well, Lindsey knows the score… find out something on Mr Acting AG (I’m not bothering to learn his name just yet - if he goes 5 Scaramucci’s I’ll do so), feed him to the wolves while beating his breast, decrying the damage done to such a glorious and illustrious President. This will earn forgiveness and possible nominations, until the long knives are turned on him.
That might literally be true. The odds are there isn’t much other actual cash coming in (though as has been noted, left-leaning aid groups have been providing food and medicine and blankets and such).
Now a clip I caught on Hannity last night makes sense. It was supposedly one of the migrants yelling to the camera that Trump is right - this is an invasion! I thought, now there’s an agent provocateur, trying to incite others and feeding Trump’s fans exactly what they want to hear.
Or Highlander II?
You can actually watch that clown?
If Graham were any weaker, the President would be grabbing him.
For upwards of 10-15 seconds at a time. 
Then the gag reflex takes over.
How hilarious would it be if Graham got the AG nod, then got his Senate seat sniped by a Democrat?
Might happen in the next election cycle, although given how heavily gerrymandered most states are to favor electing Republicans even when the majority of the votes are for Democrats, it’s unlikely. Prior to the next election, though, the governor appoints and, of course, the governor of SC is a Republican.
By the way, conservatives and Republicans? If the only way you can win a majority is by cheating, then you should probably rethink your “principles”. Eventually, even cheating won’t save you.
What is it called when done before the adversary arrives? “I left something in the fire”?
Of course Trump loves Saudi Arabia’s strongman. Dishonest Don already complimented other thug dictators and openly avowed he wants to be just like them. Heck, he probably wishes he’d thought of this very way of getting rid of Acosta.
The only crime of note reported in regards to the caravan and the administration’s asinine response has been a rape. To wit: a US soldier is accused of raping another US soldier.
In this case: bonespurring.
Nitpicking … Senate seats aren’t subject to gerrymandering – their boundaries are fixed (ie, they’re the boundaries of the state).
Although (constitution, blah, blah, blah) - it really has the effect of gerrymandering, particularly given the population differences.
Any stats on the relative state sizes now vs. 1787? I could look it up, but I’m on vacation.
In the 1790 census Pennsylvania (the 2nd largest state) had 6.3 and 7.4 times the population of the two smallest(*) states, Rhode Island and Delaware. In 2017 those factors were 12 and 14 respectively. And Pennsylvania is no longer the largest state (Calif’s population is roughly three times Penn’s); and in addition to Delaware there are six other states smaller than Rhode Island. California has 68 times the population of Wyoming.
(* - Georgia and Kentucky had smaller populations than Rhode Island if slaves are excluded.)
It would be a fun exercise to see what state boundaries would look like if they were subject to the same partisan gerrymandering as congressional districts.
If that’s your point of view, then the entire world (not just the US) is gerrymandered, rendering the term rather meaningless.
Yeah, I wish there were a way to make some corrections to the Senate setup.
I teach US History to university students, and I understand very well why the framers of the Constitution chose to make one body of the Congress represent all states equally. I’ve read many documents from the Constitutional era including the Federalist Papers from cover to cover, as well as many of the anti-Federalist writings, and there’s little doubt that these sorts of issues were carefully considered and heavily debated.
Still, I can’t help think that the framers never quite envisioned a society where the largest state would have a population well over 50 times the size of the smallest state. In the first US census in 1790, the difference was just over 10 to 1, and in practical terms it was even smaller (about 7 to 1) because almost 40% of the population in the largest state (Virginia) were slaves with no voice in the political system. Even though the constitution was designed to create a confederation of states, with some consideration for treating them equally, that sort of discrepancy just violates my own sense of what is reasonable.
Americans in the 9 largest states make up just over 50% of the total national population, but have only 18 out of 100 senators. And this Senate imbalance has a knock-on effect in Presidential elections, giving smaller states proportionally more power in the electoral college system. California, with almost 40 million people, gets 55 electoral college votes for President. The 22 smallest states (actually 21 smallest plus the District of Columbia) combined have a population about the same as California, and together they get 95 electoral college votes.
Again, there were good reasons for adopting this system in the 1780s, but I think we could preserve some of the spirit of the system while making some adjustments for the massive size differences between states in modern America. Maybe set a maximum ratio (e.g., 10 to 1), and when states fall out side that, they get an extra Senator (if they’re really large) or maybe lose a Senator (if they’re really small).
I understand very well that this is never going to happen, not least because making it happen would require a Constitutional amendment, in which the very system we’re trying to change would ensure that the change never happens. Each state has basically equal power when it comes to amending the Constitution, and no way are those small states going to vote against their own interests.
Thank you, mhendo, for the informative post!
Double ditto that! Very interesting.
Funny, you mention that. For right wingers, it’s always Soros.