You’re talking about La Folette and Wheeler? I don’t remember anything they advocated for being too bad, but I haven’t looked at their proposed policies in a long time. Wouldn’t that be natural of a truly progressive movement, though? What was “progressive” one hundred years ago should hopefully be status quo, and what’s progressive now could scantly be imagined back then.

Keith David

Current.

As the bartender, she had cut-off and 86 authority. Act sideways with a bartender, find another place to drink. But when the creeps are your “peers” I think it’s tougher to navigate.

Tiger Daly

T

The math checks out.

Y

G

The lack of votes for Harris did that.

Rabbi Tuckman?

What I’m saying is not about faithless electors. I never mentioned them, so I’m not completely sure what took you down that road.

There is a legal definition of the term “president-elect” that hasn’t entirely been sorted out. The most widely accepted view is that the candidate who has the majority of EC votes cast for them, regardless of whether those votes have been counted or certified, is legally the president-elect. The nuance to this is that any reference to the president-elect before EC votes have been cast is using the common term, not the legal one.

The distinction is mostly inconsequential, one major exception being the 20th amendment, which you cited previously. That particular usage is specifically the legal definition, which very likely has not been satisfied until the EC casts their votes. The outcome is that, if those who are meant to uphold the law have any interest in doing so, the 20th amendment does not yet apply, and the legal roles of president-elect and vice president-elect are currently vacant.

Citation needed.

We (probably) don’t have a president-elect yet, only a presumptive one. The EC votes have been neither cast nor counted. The most likely point in time at which a candidate becomes president-elect is when the majority of the EC votes have been cast for that candidate, regardless of the counting and certification. Even though we use the term loosely for the assumed winner, the EC adds a layer of weirdness to the legal definition.

The part that still baffles me is the whiplash message-swap from “she didn’t cater to us, so she lost” to “well, there aren’t enough of us to make a difference.”

Also of note is the trend towards “I voted for her, but I didn’t like it” in spaces that I clearly remember seeing full of advocates of voting third party or abstaining. Someone should maybe check to see if all of these mysterious new votes were counted!

Can’t help but notice that they emphasized the smirk on the head sculpt for the Elphaba doll. Does that not deserve a Twitter tirade regarding disrespect from Ms. Erivo?

Yeah, I also can’t stand it when words are used to convey meanings they’ve had for roughly five hundred years.

Etymology of "ouster’

It’s
The
Nut
Hatch

(It’s the nuthatch!)

As soon as I saw this in my feed, I felt like a kid again, sitting under the pecan tree in the backyard, bashing open the ones that had fallen to the ground with a rock while Dad and his best friend burned away the bagworms, and Mom checked the burgers on the grill that she refused to eat. “I grew up having to cook over a fire, I’ll get my meals from the kitchen, thank you.”

Bout to get wrecked

They’re a button-pusher.