Very few incumbent Senate Republicans are up for re-election at the midterm. The Dems, pretty much, can only lose ground in the Senate in 2018 - there are few seats to be gained. The House could be any kind of story, since the whole House is up every two years.
A determined totalitarian administration can produce a lot of domestic law by outsourcing, even without control of the House. Treaties, together with the Constitution, are the supreme law of the land and need only Senate approval.
The siblings may be in a family that contains two sets of identical twins; one set may for example be male and the other female.
And they’re wrong. Some intersex conditions are not genetic, so you could potentially have identical twins of different genders that way. We don’t even need one of them to be trans.
Of course, it could just be lies to children
Lies-to-children indeed. It is certainly very reliable that cissexual twins of different genders are not identical, but given the current fights in our society over gender expression, I think it’s important to spell this stuff out for people and remind them that their simplified ideas about sex are just plain wrong. A lot of anti-trans justification is done based on very naive understanding of biology (you’re either a man or a woman, and that’s that). So this would be a lie-to-children but also a reassurance-for-bigots.
However, I notice the emphasis given to the word “identical” in @mewse’s post. It makes me wonder if this wasn’t a case of someone being wrong, but a case of someone smugly mistaking their poor communication for cleverness.
For what it’s worth, I italicised the word “identical” in the quote because I remember the teacher stressing that word, when he said it.
(Most of the exam questions got a paragraph or two of discussion; that one got only that single-sentence quip. And for the record, I had answered ‘false’ and had my answer marked as incorrect.)
while true, there’s already a mess. the epa, the dept of education, our health care: all are about to be gutted. tr has promised mass detention or deportation: he says he aims for 3+ million. white nationalists are already emboldened.
the time to fight is now. not when it is already too late.
I can certainly see that argument, too, but it’s not exactly what I meant. If tampering is discovered, then people are going to go mental in any case, and all in all, it’s probably best to have the real winner become prez.
But the nightmare scenario I was thinking of is that we would discover that Hillary won after December 19th. At that point, Turmp will be president, and that’s the end of the story – as far as the constitution is concerned, the only thing that counts is who the electoral college voted for, not whether the KGB tricked them into doing it. The only way for Hillary to get into the White House would be for Turmp to appoint her as VP and then resign.
The cost keeps increasing. In a Facebook video announcing the campaign, Cobb — now Stein’s campaign manager, rattled off $2.1 million in potential costs. “In order to file, we need to raise $1 million just to send to the state of Wisconsin,” he said. “Pennsylvania’s is another $500,000. After that, we’re looking to file in Michigan, where it’s $600,000.” The pleas for attorney fees is above and beyond what the party did 12 years ago. One reason? Pennsylvania’s actual recount deadline has passed — the Greens are raising money to go to court.
gulp…
Screw You, Reality. It feels good to donate!
$90,000 left to go.
She was up for it, but reportedly the showrunners just didn’t manage to make her look masculine enough for their liking, even with hair and makeup work.
If this was an effort to make sure the votes were counted accurately in close fought states, then there ought to be some attention paid to Nevada and New Hampshire too, if only to explain why states which went for Clinton are assumed to be counted accurately.
If Trump is concerned about those ones, he’s welcome to raise money to fund audits of those ones.
Perhaps, as a billionaire, he could help to unite us all by funding audits in every state?
Hey, if the intention is to try and take away the election from Trump, Stein is on target. It’s just that it’s misleading to fly the flag of impartiality.
I remember well the closing stages of Bush v Gore, when the Gore campaign argued that in the interests of time it was important to recount only selected (by them) areas of Florida, rather than the whole state. Same principle is being applied here.
Imagine if there were no electoral college, and the nationwide popular vote differential was .5% or less (it’s happened, three times). We’d have to recount the whole fewkin’ nation, precinct by precinct, during the holiday season no less.
Well honestly, the most disturbing part of the whole process is that people are raising money. In a democracy the government should be counting votes accurately without being paid by individuals or companies with a private interest in having that done.
If recounts are a good idea, put in the law that recounts will happen under circumstances X, Y and Z, then do the recount under those circumstances, no appeal or fundraising necessary.
I am kind of surprised that there isn’t a full manual recount automatically triggered in close elections (or maybe there is, and these ones don’t meet the threshold).
http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/automatic-recount-thresholds.aspx
Pfft:
Texas
Tex. Elec. Code §216.001
Tie vote
There is a lot not to like about that list of laws. I don’t think it should depend on the candidates - it should be automatic. I don’t like the fixed number in Michigan, a percentage makes a lot more sense (though a number based on the square root of the number of votes would probably make even more sense). I think the idea that anyone can ever pay to have a recount doesn’t have a place in democracy.
And, of course, none of them say anything about tamper-proofing your electronic voting machines, which I guess brings me to the other question, which I feel like hasn’t really be raised. If the vote was rigged, how sure are we that we can tell?
Because the wrong person won!
Exit polls are one of the common mechanisms the UN uses when monitoring elections. They are only reliable within a margin of error. In the 2016 election the FL results looked normal (they reported a Clinton win but only by 1% which isn’t significant), but WI, OH, PA, and NC all showed Clinton wins that were above the margin of error (and in WI, OH, and PA the exit polls reported Clinton winning by ~4%). In this case, given the unreliability of polling in general, the small samples, the limits of who’s willing to report, the real possibility that people really might not want to admit they voted for a figure who is an obnoxious, philandering, blustering, nit-witted bully, or the possibility that they really believed Clinton was an all-seing, all-powerful arch-demon, that might not be evidence of fraud, but a sociological issue though.
Beside that audits/recounts are the best way. That’s impossible in OH since they disabled auditing on their voting systems, unfortunately.
