SaysWho?

So all six officers have been released from the hospital. The gunman is still armed and in the home.

When you lose Liz Cheney. Imagine being wrong about everything except this one thing.

tbh, that map won't because Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico have trended plenty blue over the years. It's still a damn good point at how much they could lose if Dems continue to gain strength in Texas, which is the point: if Dems do, then you still have big states deciding the fucking election.

NBC reports six officers were shot responding on the shooting.

So. What. You talk about LA like it's the Borg; it's just a bunch of people, and a bunch of them vote Democratic. What about Oklahoma City? Votes heavily Republican. It being a city doesn't automatically mean that it dictates the state's issues. It's not this big alien that controls the state; it's a bunch of people who happen to live there. New York used to be a swing state because the entire upstate voted opposite of New York City, whereas now upstate is way more competitive, so the entire state shifted. If you move half of NYC to Buffalo and Albany, the state doesn't magically become Republican because there are fewer people in NYC. Atlanta votes heavily Democratic not simply because it's a city, and it clearly hasn't controlled the state since the last time it voted Democratic was 1992. WHY do people think this way? What happens under the current system is I only count if I'm in a swing state. If I'm not, I'm irrelevant. If I'm a Democratic voter in a heavily Republican state, my presidential vote means shit. At least I can vote statewide (which is gerrymandered), but I'm sick of every single branch and part of every government benefiting Republicans and this dumb idea that, somehow, if more people vote one way, that's bad so the winner should be the minority because "representation," when the majority of people aren't necessarily represented in the current system.

Let's put aside the bold, which I'm sorry, is such a ridiculous statement since campaigns already safely ignore all but 10 or so states. Why did you single out LA? The argument is, "I don't want such-and-such big states deciding the president alone," but we're taking California's most populated city in this example to further a point. There are many rural areas of California. And Nevada. And Texas. And New York. And Florida. If I'm in a suburban town in Kentucky I may be voting more Democratic as my county is, but I'm outnumbered by the vast majority of rural areas that vote Republican, which means I never really get a vote that counts. Rural areas aren't voting for my interests, either, and sometimes they completely outnumber urban areas. I'm in a suburban Florida area; I'm not "Florida." It's quite a diverse state. So are New York, California and Texas. And if there's a point where all big states are swing states, then there's even more reason to ignore small states. The notion that big states are homogeneous is so ridiculous that I hate that I'm still arguing this nearly 20 years after someone first brought this argument to me. In Florida, you have big Jewish areas, big Cuban areas, agricultural areas, diverse tourist areas, rich coastal areas, Alabama-like areas, college towns, etc. When I lived in Georgia, I had no power nationally (and very little statewide due to gerrymandering). National vote would allow me to have a voice no matter what state I live in.

Here's what happened: The 10-year Treasury bond yield fell below 1.6% Wednesday morning, dropping just below the yield of the 2-year Treasury bond. It marked the first time since 2007 that 10-year bond yields fell below 2-year yields.

Perhaps these people live in a (•_•) ( •_•)>⌐■-■ (⌐■_■) bubble. YEEAAAHHH!

"Social agenda" is typically code for "Guy is saying something I don't like please stop" People typically talk about their political opinions when talking politics; you have to get used to that.

If he's who I think he is, he's Canadian.

Allowing majority vote to decide a president would allow more of the nation to be represented by the person they voted for, so we come back to how you convince voters that increasing the bureaucracy and amount of politicians is good and how do you convince House members to diminish their power? Because the crux of your argument is that we can do your idea but not the others. I don't have anything against your idea (I like it a lot); I just don't agree with the logic behind pursuing that only.

Cuccinelli says the Statue of Liberty's poem refers back to Europeans.

And why do you think it's possible to increase the number of politicians in the House and make that popular among voters and among House members who would have less power if there were more voices?

Somehow, if I live in West Virginia, I'm considered one of those people who should be glad I have a voice, but if I move to New York and vote the same way, I should count for less and shouldn't overpower the small states. I didn't change because I crossed state lines; we made up the fucking borders and number of states, but I'm looked different depending on what piece of land my home is. I had this conversation with someone on my FB and happily talked about how ever single part of government is rigged toward Republicans. Senate - Tons of small states that have equal power to big states. Many of those states were split to artificially increase the number of Senators. These same people don't want Puerto Rico to become a state to limit Democratic Senators even though herp derp, they want to become a state, are a US territory and want to be able to vote on things as well. House - Gerrymandered. Democrats killed it in the popular vote and should have won even more than Republicans did in 2010. It was still impressive, thankfully, being the best since Watergate, which shows how overwhelming they have to win to overcome gerrymandering. State Legislatures - Gerrymandered. Democrats won the popular vote easily in Virginia but Republicans have control of the State House. They destroyed Republicans in the state legislature in Wisconsin but are not in the majority. This stuff also means that Republicans control redistricting unless they're finally defeated in 2020, which will keep them in power in many of these smaller states. Presidency - For the second time in my short life, the Republican lost the popular vote but won the presidency because they won the "correct" states since the presidency comes down to a handful of swing states, not all 50 states. Yes, please tell me more about how small states are disadvantaged. Somehow these people would change their tunes if California was artificially cut up in a gerrymandered way to split it into 5 strongly Democratic states and quintuple their Senators.

The other characters are certainly happy the rangers need to be that close.

"States with large populations are the same." Yes, and not by district because gerrymandering makes that useless.

In March, the state of Colorado handed a historic win to opponents of the Electoral College by becoming the first purple state to sign on to the National Popular Vote interstate compact. Next November, however, it could make history yet again by becoming the first state to renege on the agreement. How it works: Why it's going on the ballot where it could potentially be overturned:

Trump appears to back off plans to commute Blagojevich's sentence after pushback from Illinois Republicans

I do agree there need to be more people out there that are "far-left" in America in the media (aka actually center-left). The fact that some/many MAGA folk think Cuomo and Tapper are media heads of the Democrats is cute. But I see the line, "There are not many/no moderate Republicans/Never Trumpers," so often that I really wonder what the hell your social circle is and how small it is. Many of those people are older, and while my friends circle ranges from 20s to near-death, I don't feel many people here actually have many cross-generational friendships. If your circle is mostly 20-something socialists and Twitter world, then yes, the world looks a lot different to you.

Very interesting that some Twitter warriors put Sanders in those political cartoons of him taking fire from opponents during the second debate -- as he deserved to be -- but conveniently left out Warren as @SFLUFAN noticed. Curious.

Finding out this sold 700k+ on Steam is a mind warp for me.

Tom Steyer has reached the donor mark. He just needs one more qualifying poll to get into the next Democratic debate. Steyer didn't reach the donor mark by the time the article ran so he won't show on this, but here's where the candidates stand: Delaney, the good businessman, has spent his money wisely. Gillibrand: Hickenlooper: Inslee and Williamson:

US Citizen and Immigration Services Ken Cuccinelli has a different version of the famous Statue of Liberty sonnet.

This op-ed from the Houston Chronicle has been making its rounds. Thoughts?