And...this is the important bit...if you changed SuperBowls to be scored by yardage instead of points, you're changing the game to such an extent that both sides would change their tactics (as would voters.)
I mean...DUH!
2/5
This progressive's argument is literally "if you change the rules, both sides will behave in exactly the same way."
No...they won't. Obviously.
3/5
Weirdly, the only leftist who seems to grasp this incredibly basic concept is...Louise Mensch.
Under current EC rules, far more GOPers are effectively disenfranchised and not voting than Dems.
(See what's happening right now in VA for a good example.) 4/5
Also when "football would be better off if games were decided by yardage, not points" is the rallying cry of someone who's team lost close Superbowl on points they'd have won on yardage...
Well...it is hard not to see as self-serving...even if that wouldn't be the outcome.
5/5
Also, in the SuperBowl example, both the Cheifs and the Bucs agreed beforehand that the game would be decided on points...not yardage.
Trying to call an election sketchy because it followed the agreed upon scoring metric is something so dumb only a progressive would do it.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
So I recently tried to share a @TimKennedyMMA video ...only to be told "independent" fact checkers found it "partly false" that authoritarian regimes used gun control.
So I went down a rabbit hole...and TLDR is that fact checking is a total lie. 1/5
"Independent" Politifact claims theres "no direct link" between said regimes and gun control.
Politifact's position is literally "Yes, Tim K's right that this happened, but authoritarian regimes didn't say they murdered people bc they were disarmed so he's wrong."
2/5
That is...extremely stupid.
Something someone could only believe if they were being paid to do it.
Speaking of that, seems like "independent" is owned by the Poynter Institute...so who funds Poynter?
What if I told you that in this overly woke era constantly on the lookout for new prejudices to denounce... there's a group society DEEPLY oppresses by lib "disparate impact" standards who Libs actively encourage discrimination against?
That group is "short men."
1/Many
I'm 6'3"s though, so I'm not saying this for myself. Only to make the point.
I think it's time we asked why Libs think discrimination against the short is not only considered tolerable...but amusing? Height prejudice isn’t demonized today
2/Many
Evidence for discrimination against short men is widespread (and I'll discuss that more directly with any doubters the comments, but I think we can agree this is true for the sake of argument.)
Interestingly enough, Wyoming has a murder rate the same as right across the border in more gun-controlled Canada...about a third of the US as a whole.
BC factors giving Canada a low murder rate give Wyoming a low murder rate...and those don't include lower gun ownership.
Similarly, there are many US states that combine very low firearm ownership with very high murder rates.
The highest "state" murder rate in the country is that of Washington, DC, which has a murder rate of 21.8, more than twenty times that of Wyoming
It took SIX WEEKS to declare a victor and (more) progressive candidate refused to concede...went on MSNBC and said “voter suppression is a real thing" in the Dem party.
This happened because #USPS got overwhelemed in a fairly low turnout race relative to general election.