MJohnston wrote: » It's a strange choice. Time have given person of the year to generic groups before, like persecuted journalists, people who spoke out during #MeToo, and famously "You" back in 2006. I would definitely have given it to something like frontline workers.
Water John wrote: » I'll up you and give you, Ted Cruz. Just don't understand how anyone votes for them. You have Mitch wanting peoples unemployment benefit cut in return for the next Covid relief cheque.
Tell me how wrote: » If you were meeting a friend for a socially distant drink on New Years eve, and you were talking about the people who would attracted most attention this year, you'd spend 70% of the conversation talking about Trump. Again, that doesn't mean that you'd be praising him but he attracted so much attention for 3 very distinct things; his Covid performance, his reaction to BLM protests and his campaign, defeat and subsequent post election behavior.
looksee wrote: » I understand, I think, how the Electoral College works, and I understand that there can be faithless electors who do not go with the popular vote, but vote on their own preference. Many states have some sort of laws to ensure this does not happen, and electors have to vote with the popular vote, and the Supreme Court upheld this. So why is the Electoral College needed at all? It is not unreasonable to weight the system a bit, the EU does the same thing I think to ensure that smaller countries do have a voice. So why not just automatically add up the votes that would be given to each state if electors were true to the popular vote? Am I missing something?
looksee wrote: » So why is the Electoral College needed at all? It is not unreasonable to weight the system a bit, the EU does the same thing I think to ensure that smaller countries do have a voice. So why not just automatically add up the votes that would be given to each state if electors were true to the popular vote? Am I missing something?
looksee wrote: » I'd say Barr quit. He said he would stay until he saw the axe falling - well more or less he said that. Then he would quit.
dogbert27 wrote: » If you tell a narcissist they are person of the year, even for the wrong reasons, they will only see it as a positive for them. Times Magazine was right to not feed the bad behaviour.
Brussels Sprout wrote: » He didn't win by 57%. He won with 57%. That's a critical distinction. He got 57% of the vote. Trump got 62% so McConnell trailed him but he still got enough support to beat McGrath by 19.6% despite some split ticket Trump/McGrath voting. The logical fallacy at play here is that people think just because McConnell is unpopular with Kentuckians that he should have lost. That didn't happen because his opponent was even more unpopular.
Rjd2 wrote: » Best for all involved really, Barr will be one of the few trump employees who won't hammer him in the next few years while in return an amicable break up means a political run if he is that way inclined won't be derailed by a bitter Trump.
MadYaker wrote: » A political run?! He belongs in prison along with Trump.
Igotadose wrote: » Interesting FB post from an old attorney friend who used to live in WI about the most recent failed lawsuit: "So a friend of mine shared the link to the Wisconsin Supreme Court decision affirming the circuit court decision against Trump, Pence & the Trump Campaign regarding voter fraud. As I am reading the petitioner's complaint (4 points) I am struck on how totally unrealistic and illogical they are ....."
Igotadose wrote: » "But I would have expected with literally hundreds of millions of dollars of donations to overturn the election results that the Trump campaign would have engaged a larger firm with vast resources and experience in election law. "
dogbert27 wrote: » It's been said on here that Trump often accuses others of what he is guilty of himself. Because he lost the election nobody is saying to dig in to his votes but for him to win 70 million maybe someone should turn the tables and start investigating voter fraud for Trump votes.
Robert R. Lynn has been charged with felony counts of forgery and interference with an election A Pennsylvania man has been arrested after allegedly forging the signature of his dead mother on an application for an absentee ballot. Robert R. Lynn, 67, of Luzerne County has been charged with felony counts of forgery and interference with an election, The Huffington Post reports. Lynn, a Republican and Trump supporter, is accused of requesting an absentee ballot for his mother Marie P. Hannigan, who died in 2015. The application noted Hannigan’s reason for the request as “visiting great-grandkids Oct. 24-Nov. 10,” the complaint states, according to the report The application was also flagged because the signature reportedly did not match the one on file for Hannigan in the database of voter information. Election officials notified county detectives of the suspicious application. When questioned by investigators, Lynn initially tried to blame a relative before later confessing to his misdeeds. This is the first case of alleged voter fraud in the county in three decades. “There’s always going to be people out there who are trying to take advantage of the system or cheat the system, but most importantly, there’s people on the other side making sure that doesn’t happen,” Luzerne County Manager David Pedri said. “I hope that this case really proves as an example to any individual who’s thinking that they can do anything with regards to this election. People are watching these things,” Pedri added.
