You think the Missouri GOP voters are going to drop him? Only if someone can run to the right of him or out-Trump him, which seems unlikely. I’m certain there are sane Republicans somewhere in the state, but they are certainly keeping their heads down.
Embarrassingly, neighbor Kansas is doing a better job in reining in their crazies, having finally figured out that running Kris Kobach will actually lose an election.
Pardon my sidebar, but what’s CFSG stand for? My googlefu has failed me.
Actually the fact that nearly as many did not is what I found surprising in a good way. I’d have bet more.
OTOH a third of independents thinking is was a good idea? Much more disturbing.
Cheeto-Faced Shit Gibbon.
I think it originated in Scotland (although I think it was originally Loofa-Faced Shit Gibbon.)
Ayup, and – IMHO – it’s a detour that’s always worth taking:
Some speculate that the gibbons take offense, but they’ve really been mostly mute on the subject.
This could be troublesome for the GOP over the next few years. So many of the federal elections were close that a 5% swing one way or the other could change a lot of results. If the GOP is divided over Trump they could lose a lot of elections.
I always love the irony of this rather childish statement.
His argument isn’t quite right, but yours isn’t either. It is not the end of the rule of law, but it’s also not completely unimportant. It was sedition and an attempt at a coup, which is unprecedented in our nation’s history. It failed due internal problems rather than anything we did, which is not good. It’s just that you can’t really call it the end of rule of law when rule of law eventually prevailed.
Both were emotional reactions, and I have no problem with that. This is the Pit and thus is for venting. But I do love the irony. Wish I could bring myself just to have posted the top line as a one liner, but I’m allergic to not explaining myself, it seems.
Unless the other 53% think it was antifa.
And he puts the ox in ‘dumb as an ox’.
Glad someone finally asked. I was going to ask myself, but there was always something else to talk about in the other thread.
And it seems the abbreviation hasn’t hit Google or Twitter yet. Are we sure it’s not a Doperism, given that the Scottish version is slightly different?
meh - nm, whatevski
I know this is the pit and we should be mean to each other but I literally love you guys for pointed me to this.
Such…poetry…AND an acronym to avoid advancing his SEO.
And he’s dead again.
It sounds likely that he was on life support and effectively gone, but they were waiting for the family. But somebody jumped the gun in announcing it before the family got there.
I detest the assumption that everyone everywhere is on all the social media platforms.
Also, news about such an important event should not be behind sign-ups and paywalls. But that’s just my opinion.
But it was a more than a little disingenuous to give a flat out denial to the report of a murdered cop, without mentioning that there was a critically injured police officer fighting for his life.
And what’s up with the 3 “medical emergency” deaths, one of them was someone that was trampled or crushed somehow? It’s a little disingenuous to call that a medical emergency - why didn’t they just call the gunshot victim a ‘medical emergency” as well.
Speaking for myself, in any fast-moving breaking-news event, I assume many if not most of the initial reports will be at least partially inaccurate over the first 72 hours, and the solid facts will begin to shake out thereafter. Everyone’s chasing details on the basis of rumor and fragmentary information, and a lot will get mixed up in the shuffle. Yes, our hyper-accelerated news cycle exacerbates this effect, and the media could be more careful and put more priority on accuracy over speed. Nevertheless, I think it’s impractical, unrealistic, and frankly irresponsible to insist on putting real stock in any of the details that come blasting out of the big-picture impressionistic fog over the first two or three days. Everything should be wrapped in multiple layers of caveats, like, “if this holds true” and “there’s some inconsistency on this” and “I’m withholding further conclusions pending confirmation.”
I’m glad you do explain. That’s a virtue, not a character flaw.