Not at all. The base of the Republican Party is older and less tolerant of racial and social diversity, in a world where racial and social diversity are increasing and old people continue to die off. Were it not for suppressing the votes of said racially diverse populations, they would be firmly in the also ran column. There was a time that they stood for something more than corporate profit, trickle down economics, social conservatism and white supremacy, but their increasing desperation about losing the vote has distilled them down to a party that simply cannot win fairly. When they get to the point of relying on foreign intelligence services skillfully hacking the gullibility and resentment of a sizable portion of the voting population, there really is only one way that foreign intelligence service is going to assert its influence. If it weren't for COVID making mail in voting the rational thing to expand to keep people safe, we would have lost. It was a fluke. It won't happen again unless while in power, the Biden Administration finds some way to break up the election interference.

Don't know about your polling place but at mine, the machine both recorded my vote and printed out a piece of paper at the end with my actual votes listed on it, which I could audit and deposited in a separate box. Upon recount if the digital count and the paper count match, that's an indication that the digital count is right on the mark. No open source needed. Just voters taking their responsibility seriously enough to make certain that the machine counted their vote in the paper that they drop in the ballot collection box.

I sincerely believe that Biden can do a lot of good by pardoning Mr. Trump for all of the federal crimes he committed while in office...

...all of the crimes that Mr. Trump confesses to, in writing with SCOTUS witnesses. For anything that he doesn't confess to, he should face the consequences.

This would be a very magnanimous gesture by Biden, AND would not let Mr. Trump off the hook for his culpability. Him admitting to all the crimes would also be admitting to all the lies he told whilst trying to cover up his wrongdoing, which would buy us a lot of leverage over the souls of the cultists he left in his wake.

Have y'all noticed that the social media companies finally found out that it was possible to curb Trumps destructive influence on the same day that it was confirmed that Democrats will be running all the committees that govern them for at least the next two years, probably more considering the seats up for grabs in 2022.

Given that the small print on the legal defense fund donation pages stipulate that _at least_ 50% of any donation goes not toward legal defense but toward paying off Trump's campaign debt, my guess is that the sound and fury signifying nothing will go on until he raises at least twice whatever is the amount his campaign is in debt.

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fthehill.com%2Fhomenews%2Fc...

Maybe one of you can tell me how often ferrets rub their eyes, pick their noses or bite their fingernails? My guess is that this will be minimally effective with humans. Besides that, the release of this as a treatment option will make it very difficult to tell which of the maskless people you come across are using the product and which of them are just anti-maskers.

All of the words in the sentence above, excluding "unironically", appeared in 1984 by George Orwell. (of course, he capitalized his name, but I swear I'm not pedantic) Does this mean that you, @nopenopenopenope are the thing that he tried to warn us about? Or is it possible to use words appropriately when their use is called for?

So, if you got 20% more than your 3% raise last year, then what's 120% of 3%? Answer: a 3.6% raise

I see what she did there.

So you have no problem with me putting an "Elect Biden" sign on your lawn, right? I mean... if Twitter should have no control over what someone puts on its privately owned platform because, "Muh-ricah!" then you should have no say in what I put on your front lawn right? Would preventing that or talking down as many as I put up make you unAmerican?

Didn't think this through very well did you?

Before you respond, know that you are responding to a Ranger and Cold War veteran. I've earned my stripes defending your freedoms from your government's ability to oppress you very seriously. Twitter isn't the government. You have no idea what you are talking about and the idea that you got voted up is beyond my ability to comprehend.

Whatever, Ivan. Only a diehard cool-aid drinker or a disingenuous, paid troll can look at someone criticizing the administration for not doing enough in the face of a pandemic and represent it as anything but a call to do more. I wonder which you are, but I'm done with talking to you. You have still entirely avoided the question of:

People should feel free to click through the links and see how your Putin puppet sat on his thumbs all through February while Democrats, the CDC and Intelligence community were telling him that there was a serious crisis here and he wasn't taking it seriously enough.

Dude, I only quoted one article because it included references to all the parties I referenced earlier. Democrats, the CDC and the Intelligence Community. It doesn't mean that more can't be found. And Murphy wasn't the only Democrat in that briefing, he just posted their concerns. Now you're just being f'ing lazy.

Feb 4: Democrats urge emergency funding for coronavirus outbreak

Feb 19: Analysis: The Coronavirus Outbreak Could Bring Out the Worst in Trump

"“We have a president who doesn’t particularly care about competent administration, and who created a culture in which bad news is shut down,” says Democratic Senator Brian Schatz of Hawaii, whose state is home to one of multiple airports screening passengers for the coronavirus. “And when you’re dealing with a potential pandemic, you need to know all the bad news."

Feb 24: Schumer Blasts President Trump For Lack Of Leadership & Lack Of Plan To Address Spread Of Coronavirus

Feb 24: Why the Trump Administration’s Coronavirus Response Continues to Raise Concerns

"Though Democrats in Congress have pushed the administration to call for emergency coronavirus funding since early February, Politico states that “White House officials have been hesitant to press Congress for additional funding, with some hoping that the virus would burn itself out by the summer.”

Feb 27: SCHUMER, PELOSI JOINT STATEMENT ON CONGRESSIONAL ACTION TO COMBAT THE CORONAVIRUS

Read much?

Feb. 5: Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) says that a briefing shows the administration isn’t taking the virus seriously enough and says it isn’t heeding calls for emergency funding.

Chris Murphy @ChrisMurphyCT Just left the Administration briefing on Coronavirus. Bottom line: they aren't taking this seriously enough. Notably, no request for ANY emergency funding, which is a big mistake. Local health systems need supplies, training, screening staff etc. And they need it now. 48.6K 8:09 AM - Feb 5, 2020

Feb. 10: Trump says, “I think the virus is going to be — it’s going to be fine.”

Feb. 14: A memo is drafted by health officials and the National Security Council about the potential need for “quarantine and isolation measures to combat the virus," per the Times, but a scheduled meeting to brief Trump on the plan is later canceled.

Feb. 19: Trump says: “I think it’s going to work out fine. I think when we get into April, in the warmer weather, that has a very negative effect on that and that type of a virus. So let’s see what happens, but I think it’s going to work out fine.”

Feb. 21: The White House coronavirus task force conducts a mock response to a pandemic and concludes that mass social distancing will be needed, per the Times.

Feb. 23: Another Navarro memo warns of an “increasing probability of a full-blown COVID-19 pandemic that could infect as many as 100 million Americans, with a loss of life of as many as 1-2 million souls.”

Feb. 23: Italy begins to see evidence of a major outbreak in the Lombardy region.

Feb. 24: As Iran becomes a hot spot, WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus warns of a possible pandemic. “There is a lot of speculation about whether this increase means that this epidemic has now become a pandemic,” he says.

Feb. 24: Trump says: “The Coronavirus is very much under control in the USA. Stock Market starting to look very good to me!”

Feb. 25: Nancy Messonnier, the director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, warns publicly about the inevitable spread of the virus and says “we need to be preparing for significant disruption in our lives.”

Feb. 26: Trump says, “When you have 15 people — and the 15 within a couple of days is going to be down to close to zero — that’s a pretty good job we’ve done.”

Feb. 27: Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.), who had received briefings on the threat, tells a private luncheon that the coronavirus is “much more aggressive in its transmission than anything that we have seen in recent history” and is “is probably more akin to the 1918 [influenza] pandemic,” in which 50 million or more people died worldwide.

Feb. 28: Trump says: “It’s going to disappear. One day, it’s like a miracle, it will disappear.”

.... Perhaps you'd care to explain then, what "Democtatic hoax" means if no democrats were sounding the alarm?

The funny thing is, he was calling the Democratic Party's messaging on the urgency of an aggressive response to the nascent pandemic a hoax. You might get hung up on the semantics of whether or not he believed it was an actual pandemic or a hoax, but the larger picture is that he knew it was a pandemic, was being told by the CDC and Intelligence officials that it was a pandemic, and yet he went on camera and to campaign events and aggressively downplayed the urgent need to take action, and calling THAT perspective from the Democrats a hoax.

Knowing that something is an existential threat to the entire country - right, left and center - and calling people sounding the alarm about it hoaxers is really... well the opposite of the sort of person one would want running a country.

Right. So when there is 1 polling place per 100,000 people in a predominant democratic district in a state and 1 per 10,000 in a republican district, that doesn't do anything to suppress the democratic representation on a state-wide basis. Is that what you're saying?