The Sicatoka

A couple of those are patently false.

We have a series.

No, AOC did it in-party first. She "primaried*" a person who as at the time the House Majority Whip**. That's a pretty good trick, and overtly signaled where the D party was headed politically. *defeated in the party primary, before the general election **at the time the #3 D in the House, behind the Speaker and Majority Leader

I'm going to sent Baretta after you.

If Omaha used the formerly known as CenturyLink they'd have an attached Hilton hotel.

Can I get the over on that?

That's like throwing snowballs at Santa Claus ... nevermind ...

Coming in to start an inning, with a four-run lead, Romo just had to bring the tying run to the plate last night. < shakes head >

Personal anecdote: I almost stayed home in 1992 (Clinton/Bush/Perot) as I was living in upstate NY and knew where NY was going. But then I realized the neighbor down the street (a real jerk) was on the town council. I went to vote.

Allow me to put this out there: How many conservatives in CA or NY don't go to the polls because they know they aren't majority in that state? If it became straight national popular vote, it would incentivize CA and NY conservatives to come out. I'm saying in 2016 Hillary would've still won CA, but by 8,753,788 vs 4,483,810? Just imagine 1 or 2 million more CA conservatives deciding it's worth going to the polls and that national impact. The folks winning popular vote but losing EC today want to go to popular vote. But would such a rules change keep the outcome the same? We don't know.

You've heard the story of democracy where two wolves and a lamb vote on what's for lunch, yes? That's why the Electoral College. Without the EC, well, a national candidate would only have to go here.

As the resident libertar-conservative at USCHO (haven't haunted there in months) I said that and was heckled that only Rs do that.

Scott Adams explains the "McConnell Rule" to his arch-nemesis.

Then why post something that's "obvious".

He is a master persuader. Scott Adams wrote a whole book about it.

An EO can not override the Constitution, and election of the President is Constitutionally mandated and proscribed.

In light of the Nevada ruling (where casinos can be full but churches are still restricted), I respectfully disagree. It should've been both or neither.

"The Wall" is a foreign relations matter (the wall would go up between Arizona and sovereign Mexico, not Arizona and California). Foreign relations is Constitutionally (Article II) the Federal domain.

But because there's no past precedence for something ('nothing on the books') doesn't mean something is legal either. What you're saying is we'd be in uncharted waters with no precedence.

"The highest-ranked, uncommitted, college-eligible player ..." He is 96th. Happy to have him? Heck-yah. But this ain't Jonathan Toews ... yet.

I'm always willing to give a whole lotta Mike.

You just spelled it out. Authority --> Justification --> Mandate --> And they'd have to make their argument because there's nothing on the books. At this point, it must be noted that if they have to make a legal argument for it, they don't presently have authority to mandate.

The trademark notation is all over this cloth.

Gee, and some would like to change "1st" in your statement to "2nd" I'm sure. And please explain how one can "mandate" if one does not have "authority". -- I mandate you eat a PB&J for supper tonight! (You laugh because I'm not the boss of your meals.)

As the article title says, that is wonderful Commentary; but, until the issue is argued and adjudicated in the courts it is just that ... commentary (aka opinion).