GAP: Golden Ass Party
5 Likes
Yup, every chance they get:
11 Likes
Something tells me that this was intentional on the part of the organizers
10 Likes
Not mentioned: the conservative members of the court facepalming because saying the quiet part on the record makes it that much harder to BS an “originalist” ruling with a straight face.
19 Likes
Wow, honesty and introspection from the corner you least expect it. I guess they assumed that was a winning argument? “If we let the Blacks vote, we lose. You know how traumatic that would be for us?”
17 Likes
A GOP member in my county said basically the same thing not too long ago.
The GOP could look at the landscape, dispense with their racism, and figure out what policies they can advocate for that would win over voters. They’d rather do this instead.
16 Likes
Is that part stated right? The exchange would make more sense to me if she’d said,
“What is the interest of the GOP in removing (laws that suppress minority voters) from the books?”
Seems to me THAT would put the GOP “at a competitive disadvantage relative to Democrats,” no?
3 Likes
2 Likes
But how would that “own the libs?” I mean, seriously! (not seriously)
9 Likes
Could they? All of the current party leadership are ill equipped to actually win over voters with policy, and they haven’t exactly been building bench strength in that area, either. They are decades behind on talking substantive issues with voters.
8 Likes
But at least 2 decades ahead in emphasizing local elections and control of state houses. And then you get shit like this!
9 Likes
I mean they could do the work of having policies and trying to win voters over, but you’re right that that won’t happen with the current party leadership.
6 Likes
If I say “Tom has an interest in doing X”, that means “There is a reason why Tom wants to do X”. If I say “What is Tom’s interest in doing X?”, it means “What is the reason that Tom wants to do X?”
Thus if Justice Barrett says “What is the GOP’s interest in keeping laws that suppress minority voters?” that means “Why does the GOP want to keep laws that suppress minority voters?” and the answer would be that removing laws that suppress minority voters would put the GOP at a competitive disadvantage.
On the other hand if she asked, “What is the interest of the GOP in removing laws that suppress …” as you have it, that would mean “What is the reason that the GOP wants to remove laws that suppress minority voters?”, which wouldn’t make sense because the GOP does not want to remove laws that suppress minority voters.
Perhaps I’m confused by your question.
I think it’s a case of poor copy-editing while live-tweeting. This one is a bit better-worded:
15 Likes
tucker mcnear swanson carlson has gotten to the bottom of things–
12 Likes
Savings kids. Savings.
16 Likes
I’ve officially hit the point where I can no longer tell if these chyrons are photoshopped or not.
19 Likes
that was real, it was part of a story about how legal marijuana was going to result in the extinction of humanity because it caused falling sperm counts.
17 Likes
10 Likes
Oh, ok, now it makes sense. 
9 Likes
