The rules at the start of the thread strongly recommend against the use of sarcasm, as it's easy for sarcasm to be taken seriously and even easier to be disrespectful. Mocking the "other side" is not the purpose of this thread.
It's best to talk straight when it comes to politics.
Think Ohio's 'Heartbeat' Bill is Strict? This Legislation Could Bring Murder Charges for Abortions
https://www.citybeat.com/news/blog/21032956/think-ohios-heartbeat-bill-is-strict-this-legislation-could-bring-murder-charges-for-abortions Flexing their renewed majority in Ohio's House of Representatives, Republican lawmakers last week passed a number of pieces of staunchly conservative legislation. Those included a potential law co-sponsored by Republicans Ron Hood and Christina Hagan that would outlaw abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected — as soon as six weeks after conception. But another bill in the House also co-sponsored by Hood, along with fellow Republican A. Nino Vitale, is even more conservative. HB 565 would seek to abolish abortion in the state of Ohio by stipulating that both doctors providing abortions and women seeking them could be slapped with criminal charges for doing so. The bill would also define a fetus as "an unborn person," opening the door to murder charges that could carry life in prison or even death penalty specifications for the woman or her doctor. There would be no exceptions for rape, incest or for pregnancies that threaten the health of the mother. Under the proposed law, unintentional loss of a fetus during a medical procedure would not count as abortion.
I am... I am just stunned. These people are so heartless as to prosecute a woman for choosing to get rid of a fetus that threatens her life? So she should die, and possibly the baby, too?
Trump's midterm message: 'Pretend I'm on the ballot'
Is Trump going to call for his daughter to be locked up? Keep in mind, when Hillary Clinton did it, this stuff wasn't against the law. Now, it is, and Ivanka just did it. Nor is she the only one who did so. So did Steve Bannon, Reince Priebus, Jared Kushner, Steven Miller and Gary Cohn. Where is the rage of Trump's followers against these people? When are they going to chant "Lock her up!" about Ivanka?
It's like the caravan it's an illusion. Months, years of lock her up because something something emails. Ivanka uses personal emails? Doesn't matter right. The caravan was a world ending threat until it wasn't after the midterms.
The scheme is this: a bunch of right wingers repeat the same talking points until it becomes the truth. The Republican party and it's media are the alternative truth party.
The truth about Christopher Columbus. I knew a bit of this tangentially through my varied interest in the Age of Sail, pre-Colombian Native Americans, and reading about Bartholome de las Casas.
On an unrelated note, there's a nice webcomic about government and politics called Laws and Sausages. It's an informative, non-partisan comic that clearly explains a lot of stuff about how our government works on the technical level. It's funny at times, but it's not goofy and it doesn't bend the truth for comedic purposes.
I'm not totally bothered by things like 50-47 resulting in 48-52.
But 54-46 resulting in 36-63. That's just fucked up. All those states listed are beyond what could be explained through statistic uncertainty, the least bad was still a 5.5% swing.
That isn't the only thing wrong in Wisconsin. Even though Democrats have now won the governorship, the Republican House and Scott Walker are taking a page out of the North Carolina playbook. And twice is a pattern. What pattern you ask?? The outgoing Republican governor and Republican legislature, just like in NC, are working in the lame duck to actively diminish the power of the position of Governor for no other reason than a Democrat is taking the seat. Stripping powers Walker had from his successor for the simple reason that they lost the vote, so they are going to change the very essence of what it means to be the Governor of Wisconsin in response to losing. This is essentially nullification. It already took place once in North Carolina, now they are poised to do it again. The contempt for democracy is becoming palpable:
Are you a Democratic President?? That's too bad, you no longer get to fill Supreme Court vacancies. Did you just get elected governor of a State?? Ha, jokes on you, we are simply going to diminish the power of the governor before you take office. Won the state by 8% points?? How naive that you think that would translate into anything meaningful. Even though YOU got 8% more votes across a relatively small state like Wisconsin, WE are going to have a 27% edge in seats, which is a discrepancy of 36%. This entire experiment is failing. You can't win a rigged game. Winning elections isn't enough. Being WAY more popular isn't enough. Nothing but massive tidal waves get you into a fair position of power and actually reflecting the will of the people. And even THEN it doesn't break through the levee that has been put up.
I constantly hear about the "marketplace of ideas" on the right, but it becomes clear that they themselves don't actually believe their ideas can stand up to the actual electorate. They don't want certain people to vote, but if they DO vote, by god we are going to do everything in our power to make sure it meant as little as possible. And, as @Quickblade said, a 5% difference state-wide between popular vote and actual power distribution can be reasonably explained away. A nearly 40% difference cannot be explained by anything other than a rigged board.
The vast majority of people who vote, especially those who are younger than 30, have absolutely no idea for what they are voting other than a political party or a candidate's "cool" factor. They cannot name any policy their chosen candidate wishes to implement other than generic things such as "free healthcare for all" (which, of course, is not actually free) or "creating jobs" (which politicians do not do regardless of the policies they implement).
Signing up people to vote just so you can pad your election numbers is not actually a good thing, especially if those voters are completely uninformed. We need *informed* voters, not a drooling mob who manage to pencil in the designated box on an election form. Becoming "informed" does not mean "I saw some articles on Facebook" or "I read some Twitter feeds"; instead, it means that you know the policies for which you are voting, that you know the candidates' stances, and that you are aware of legislation they have passed or how they voted (if they are incumbents).
Speaking of candidates whose primary campaign tactics are "being cool" and "appealing to Millennials", some Democratic power brokers are already wanting to float Robert Francis on the ticket for 2020. If he does choose to run, other younger Democratic hopefuls such as Harris and Booker will be sidelined because they aren't as popular as RFO and he can raise more money than they can.
@Mathsorcerer You're not wrong. But I'm curious as to the context of this post with the last couple. Are you insinuating that Democratic voters are less informed than Republican ones?
@ThacoBell No, I am *not* saying that. There are uninformed voters on both sides. Incidentally, my post was not a response to the ones which came before it.
@FinneousPJ On the one hand, the anecdotal evidence I have is anecdotal. On the other hand, how many people under 30 really understand how taxation works at the Federal level? Can the average person under 30 name their city council representative? Have they read the legislation their chosen candidates have written or co-sponsored? Do they get their news from Facebook and John Oliver or do they read legitimate sources? Do they spend the vast majority of their time in left-leaning echo chambers or do they engage with people who have different points of view?
Uninformed voters who simply follow the crowd and listen to some talking head or celebrity for their political views....*that* is how you wind up with a dictator, not with a blustery windbag half of whose own party doesn't like him.
Most approval rating polls have GOP support for Trump at 90ish percent. I believe this is generally above the amount that Obama had in 2010 from Democrats.
The point is - partisanship feeds from uninformed voters on both sides. I think the larger issue is that Conservatives only have Fox News and Talk Radio as major media based opportunities to get informed. Unfortunately - these two sources are consistently some of the worst in accuracy, and are combined with political "entertainment" that intentionally tries to walk the line between news and entertainment.
Ideally - voters wouldn't use the media to gather information, and thereby eliminate that bias... but that's unrealistic to expect. I suspect most voters get the lion's share of their information from major media outlets.
On the other hand, how many people under 30 really understand how taxation works at the Federal level? Can the average person under 30 name their city council representative? Have they read the legislation their chosen candidates have written or co-sponsored? Do they get their news from Facebook and John Oliver or do they read legitimate sources? Do they spend the vast majority of their time in left-leaning echo chambers or do they engage with people who have different points of view?
Uninformed voters who simply follow the crowd and listen to some talking head or celebrity for their political views....*that* is how you wind up with a dictator, not with a blustery windbag half of whose own party doesn't like him.
Why are you asking me when you made the claim? Please show the answers to these questions, since you apparently have discovered that under 30 year olds perform worse.
I don't like how some voters choose their candidates either. But I don't see how me arguing they shouldn't participate at all because I personally think they are too stupid makes me any different than those who in the past implemented poll taxes, literacy tests, or land ownership requirements. I may think certain people's votes are destructive to the country. I still believe they should be allowed and encouraged to participate. My only problem is that the people I tend to disagree with seem to have completely disproportionately advantageous voting power.
Yes. The problem with uninformed voters is the "uninformed" part; not the voting part.
"Misinformed" is the bigger issue. Everyone is forming their opinions based on some source of information, unless they have instituted a blackout of all media, which in this day and age would require living as a hermit in the woods.
And a voter doesn’t need to be informed and educated on all the issues, just issues that effect their daily lives.
For example: If a city just passed a frisk law, as a minority you maybe offended and think that it goes against the constitution. The next election, you have a choice between an person who wants to abolish the law and another who thinks it’s good for public safety. That’s educated enough to know who to vote for.
It's probably also worth pointing out that the 18 to 30 year range of the voting population are the most highly educated in the US - and while being highly educated doesn't necessarily mean they are well informed politically, I suspect there is a potential correlation there.
I don't like how some voters choose their candidates either. But I don't see how me arguing they shouldn't participate at all because I personally think they are too stupid makes me any different than those who in the past implemented poll taxes, literacy tests, or land ownership requirements. I may think certain people's votes are destructive to the country. I still believe they should be allowed and encouraged to participate. My only problem is that the people I tend to disagree with seem to have completely disproportionately advantageous voting power.
You misunderstand--I am not arguing to have anyone's right to vote taken away based on how "informed" they are. I am merely stating that uninformed voters in mass numbers--voting for its own sake--is not the best way to move forward because "lots of uninformed voters" leads to bad decisions.
@deltago In your example *I* disapprove of frisk policies because they violate the Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure.
@FinneousPJ No. My opinion is that many voters under 30 are uninformed. You may choose to agree with me or not but I am not defending my opinion. People under 30 may choose to offer themselves as counterexamples if they so desire.
@ThacoBell No, I am *not* saying that. There are uninformed voters on both sides. Incidentally, my post was not a response to the ones which came before it.
@FinneousPJ On the one hand, the anecdotal evidence I have is anecdotal. On the other hand, how many people under 30 really understand how taxation works at the Federal level? Can the average person under 30 name their city council representative? Have they read the legislation their chosen candidates have written or co-sponsored? Do they get their news from Facebook and John Oliver or do they read legitimate sources? Do they spend the vast majority of their time in left-leaning echo chambers or do they engage with people who have different points of view?
Uninformed voters who simply follow the crowd and listen to some talking head or celebrity for their political views....*that* is how you wind up with a dictator, not with a blustery windbag half of whose own party doesn't like him.
This is just age-bias. How many people OVER 30 really understand how taxation works, or have read legislation from their candidates? How many people senior citizens wearing "Trump That B**ch" T-shirts and carrying "Keep Your Government Hands Off My Medicare!" signs delved into the policy whitepapers of the Trump 2016 campaign?
People of all ages can be informed or uninformed. And, they can be informed on some issues and uninformed on others. One voter may not be informed on tax issues but highly informed on LGBTQ issues. Another may know a lot about taxes but next to nothing about LGBTQ issues.
When it comes to how informed people are vs. their source of news, a study by Fairleigh Dickinson University shows that viewers of news-comedy shows like the Daily Show and Colbert Report were *better* informed than people who get their news from cable news. The best informed were listeners of NPR, but viewers of the Daily Show scored better than viewers of CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News. Actually, Fox News viewers did worse than those who don't watch the news at all.
Out-of-date study is out of date by 6 years. At that time, I do not disagree that the Daily Show was a better source of news than major outlets. These days, though...not so much--the Daily Show and its copycats/spinoffs are merely echo chambers. At least, they all were the last time I looked at them about a month ago.
As far as age bias is concerned...so what? I admit my bias freely, unlike most people. That doesn't mean that I am incorrect, though. Younger voters who cast a ballot for RFO here in Texas did so for reasons such as "he's cool" or "he's young and charismatic", at least according to The Texas Tribune (an Austin-based news source).
Moving on....apparently Trump is still on the fence about whether Mohammed bin Salman had anything to do with Khashoggi's death. Truthfully, I would be surprised if MbS did not *personally* order the murder. I still don't care about his death, of course, but it is quite clear that it was definitely an assassination.
No it doesn't mean you're incorrect but it does nean you have no good reason to think you are correct. "That's just like my opinion man" is a poor argument to fall back on.
It's funny, most people don't have a clue how the economy, taxation or most fiscal policies work...including the people we vote into office. Many can give their best guess, but most people are way too biased to be able to look at just what the numbers tell you. I find that the older you are, the more likely you just want to have your ideology fortified.
"As far as age bias is concerned...so what? I admit my bias freely, unlike most people. That doesn't mean that I am incorrect, though. Younger voters who cast a ballot for RFO here in Texas did so for reasons such as "he's cool" or "he's young and charismatic", at least according to The Texas Tribune (an Austin-based news source). "
What does that mean? Does that mean that they voted for him because he's cool, or that was a factor in why they were interested in what he said.
I am putting $1000 on the Vikings tonight. Why? Cause they wear purple. And their DVOA is 4th best in the league and they are playing indoors at home, while the other team blah blah blah...
He's putting money on the Vikings cause they wear purple!
That isn't the only thing wrong in Wisconsin. Even though Democrats have now won the governorship, the Republican House and Scott Walker are taking a page out of the North Carolina playbook. And twice is a pattern. What pattern you ask?? The outgoing Republican governor and Republican legislature, just like in NC, are working in the lame duck to actively diminish the power of the position of Governor for no other reason than a Democrat is taking the seat. Stripping powers Walker had from his successor for the simple reason that they lost the vote, so they are going to change the very essence of what it means to be the Governor of Wisconsin in response to losing. This is essentially nullification. It already took place once in North Carolina, now they are poised to do it again. The contempt for democracy is becoming palpable:
Are you a Democratic President?? That's too bad, you no longer get to fill Supreme Court vacancies. Did you just get elected governor of a State?? Ha, jokes on you, we are simply going to diminish the power of the governor before you take office. Won the state by 8% points?? How naive that you think that would translate into anything meaningful. Even though YOU got 8% more votes across a relatively small state like Wisconsin, WE are going to have a 27% edge in seats, which is a discrepancy of 36%. This entire experiment is failing. You can't win a rigged game. Winning elections isn't enough. Being WAY more popular isn't enough. Nothing but massive tidal waves get you into a fair position of power and actually reflecting the will of the people. And even THEN it doesn't break through the levee that has been put up.
I constantly hear about the "marketplace of ideas" on the right, but it becomes clear that they themselves don't actually believe their ideas can stand up to the actual electorate. They don't want certain people to vote, but if they DO vote, by god we are going to do everything in our power to make sure it meant as little as possible. And, as @Quickblade said, a 5% difference state-wide between popular vote and actual power distribution can be reasonably explained away. A nearly 40% difference cannot be explained by anything other than a rigged board.
Reminds me of a Cure Insurance commercial about how they can get information about their drivers and set rates accordingly...
"Younger voters who cast a ballot for RFO here in Texas did so for reasons such as "he's cool" or "he's young and charismatic", at least according to The Texas Tribune (an Austin-based news source). "
What does that mean? Does that mean that they voted for him because he's cool, or that was a factor in why they were interested in what he said.
The Texas Tribune interviewed some younger voters and those were among the responses to the question "why did you vote for Beto?".
Newly elected Minnesota congressmember Ilhan Omar is at the forefront of a move to overturn a long-standing ban on headscarves and other religious headwear on the House floor. Omar is the first Somali-American elected to the U.S. House of Representatives and will become—along with Rashida Tlaib of Michigan—the first Muslim women in Congress.
I don't care whether he hair is covered or not as long as she represents the interests of the people who voted her into office. Other people, though, are going to be *alarmed*. I am curious what she will do, though, if she is unsuccessful in her bid to overturn the ban. Is covering her hair more important than doing the job for which she was elected? The ban will probably be overturned as a relic which is no longer needed...but it may not be and she needs to be prepared for that outcome.
Out-of-date study is out of date by 6 years. At that time, I do not disagree that the Daily Show was a better source of news than major outlets. These days, though...not so much--the Daily Show and its copycats/spinoffs are merely echo chambers. At least, they all were the last time I looked at them about a month ago.
In 2016, William Poundstone, the author of "Head in the Cloud: Why Knowing Things Still Matters When Facts Are So Easy to Look Up", did a study of how informed consumers of various news sources were on current events, geography, history, science, and personal finance. Viewers of "Last Week Tonight" scored the highest. Fox News viewers still scored second lowest (only better than viewers who don't watch news at all).
@AstroBryGuy Now *that* is current information which addresses the point directly. The problem with Fox News is that its target audience is "people over 50" and "people who lean far to the right"--that is not a model designed for long-term business success.
I don't see how Muslim women wearing a headscarf is offensive to anyone, but certain people (and I notice this just observing while out in public) seem to have a REAL problem with it. Now, wearing a burka while driving is a problem, but despite all this screeching about Sharia Law and whatnot, I have never see Muslim women out in public wearing anymore than the hijab and what is called a chador. It is entirely modest (which is the point) and should be none of anyone's business.
Comments
It's best to talk straight when it comes to politics.
Think Ohio's 'Heartbeat' Bill is Strict? This Legislation Could Bring Murder Charges for Abortions
https://www.citybeat.com/news/blog/21032956/think-ohios-heartbeat-bill-is-strict-this-legislation-could-bring-murder-charges-for-abortionsFlexing their renewed majority in Ohio's House of Representatives, Republican lawmakers last week passed a number of pieces of staunchly conservative legislation. Those included a potential law co-sponsored by Republicans Ron Hood and Christina Hagan that would outlaw abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected — as soon as six weeks after conception.
But another bill in the House also co-sponsored by Hood, along with fellow Republican A. Nino Vitale, is even more conservative.
HB 565 would seek to abolish abortion in the state of Ohio by stipulating that both doctors providing abortions and women seeking them could be slapped with criminal charges for doing so. The bill would also define a fetus as "an unborn person," opening the door to murder charges that could carry life in prison or even death penalty specifications for the woman or her doctor. There would be no exceptions for rape, incest or for pregnancies that threaten the health of the mother. Under the proposed law, unintentional loss of a fetus during a medical procedure would not count as abortion.
I am... I am just stunned. These people are so heartless as to prosecute a woman for choosing to get rid of a fetus that threatens her life? So she should die, and possibly the baby, too?
Trump's midterm message: 'Pretend I'm on the ballot'
https://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2018/10/03/lead-panel-3-live-jake-tapper.cnn?fbclid=IwAR1g5ywdmL05t6vYlLoUywNX7HIC7_lMsKC65vxZuw9LUSOCG-Scw9IPK3gAnd then the Republicans lost and he explained it by saying, "I wasn't on the ballot."
Ivanka Trump used personal account for emails about government business
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/19/politics/ivanka-trump-personal-email-account/index.html?fbclid=IwAR343DXCxgtvi99ktkkSWx6EihnbdBdhbUTW35z0a3FYpvzgVdk1Ro3pgu4Is Trump going to call for his daughter to be locked up? Keep in mind, when Hillary Clinton did it, this stuff wasn't against the law. Now, it is, and Ivanka just did it. Nor is she the only one who did so. So did Steve Bannon, Reince Priebus, Jared Kushner, Steven Miller and Gary Cohn. Where is the rage of Trump's followers against these people? When are they going to chant "Lock her up!" about Ivanka?
The scheme is this: a bunch of right wingers repeat the same talking points until it becomes the truth. The Republican party and it's media are the alternative truth party.
The truth about Christopher Columbus. I knew a bit of this tangentially through my varied interest in the Age of Sail, pre-Colombian Native Americans, and reading about Bartholome de las Casas. Started reading.
I kind of want hardened cheese shivs now.
But 54-46 resulting in 36-63. That's just fucked up. All those states listed are beyond what could be explained through statistic uncertainty, the least bad was still a 5.5% swing.
https://www.thenation.com/article/scott-walker-wisconsin-fitzgerald-vos/
Are you a Democratic President?? That's too bad, you no longer get to fill Supreme Court vacancies. Did you just get elected governor of a State?? Ha, jokes on you, we are simply going to diminish the power of the governor before you take office. Won the state by 8% points?? How naive that you think that would translate into anything meaningful. Even though YOU got 8% more votes across a relatively small state like Wisconsin, WE are going to have a 27% edge in seats, which is a discrepancy of 36%. This entire experiment is failing. You can't win a rigged game. Winning elections isn't enough. Being WAY more popular isn't enough. Nothing but massive tidal waves get you into a fair position of power and actually reflecting the will of the people. And even THEN it doesn't break through the levee that has been put up.
I constantly hear about the "marketplace of ideas" on the right, but it becomes clear that they themselves don't actually believe their ideas can stand up to the actual electorate. They don't want certain people to vote, but if they DO vote, by god we are going to do everything in our power to make sure it meant as little as possible. And, as @Quickblade said, a 5% difference state-wide between popular vote and actual power distribution can be reasonably explained away. A nearly 40% difference cannot be explained by anything other than a rigged board.
Signing up people to vote just so you can pad your election numbers is not actually a good thing, especially if those voters are completely uninformed. We need *informed* voters, not a drooling mob who manage to pencil in the designated box on an election form. Becoming "informed" does not mean "I saw some articles on Facebook" or "I read some Twitter feeds"; instead, it means that you know the policies for which you are voting, that you know the candidates' stances, and that you are aware of legislation they have passed or how they voted (if they are incumbents).
Speaking of candidates whose primary campaign tactics are "being cool" and "appealing to Millennials", some Democratic power brokers are already wanting to float Robert Francis on the ticket for 2020. If he does choose to run, other younger Democratic hopefuls such as Harris and Booker will be sidelined because they aren't as popular as RFO and he can raise more money than they can.
yours?
@FinneousPJ On the one hand, the anecdotal evidence I have is anecdotal. On the other hand, how many people under 30 really understand how taxation works at the Federal level? Can the average person under 30 name their city council representative? Have they read the legislation their chosen candidates have written or co-sponsored? Do they get their news from Facebook and John Oliver or do they read legitimate sources? Do they spend the vast majority of their time in left-leaning echo chambers or do they engage with people who have different points of view?
Uninformed voters who simply follow the crowd and listen to some talking head or celebrity for their political views....*that* is how you wind up with a dictator, not with a blustery windbag half of whose own party doesn't like him.
The point is - partisanship feeds from uninformed voters on both sides. I think the larger issue is that Conservatives only have Fox News and Talk Radio as major media based opportunities to get informed. Unfortunately - these two sources are consistently some of the worst in accuracy, and are combined with political "entertainment" that intentionally tries to walk the line between news and entertainment.
Ideally - voters wouldn't use the media to gather information, and thereby eliminate that bias... but that's unrealistic to expect. I suspect most voters get the lion's share of their information from major media outlets.
For example:
If a city just passed a frisk law, as a minority you maybe offended and think that it goes against the constitution. The next election, you have a choice between an person who wants to abolish the law and another who thinks it’s good for public safety. That’s educated enough to know who to vote for.
@deltago In your example *I* disapprove of frisk policies because they violate the Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure.
@FinneousPJ No. My opinion is that many voters under 30 are uninformed. You may choose to agree with me or not but I am not defending my opinion. People under 30 may choose to offer themselves as counterexamples if they so desire.
People of all ages can be informed or uninformed. And, they can be informed on some issues and uninformed on others. One voter may not be informed on tax issues but highly informed on LGBTQ issues. Another may know a lot about taxes but next to nothing about LGBTQ issues.
When it comes to how informed people are vs. their source of news, a study by Fairleigh Dickinson University shows that viewers of news-comedy shows like the Daily Show and Colbert Report were *better* informed than people who get their news from cable news.
https://www.businessinsider.com/study-watching-fox-news-makes-you-less-informed-than-watching-no-news-at-all-2012-5
As far as age bias is concerned...so what? I admit my bias freely, unlike most people. That doesn't mean that I am incorrect, though. Younger voters who cast a ballot for RFO here in Texas did so for reasons such as "he's cool" or "he's young and charismatic", at least according to The Texas Tribune (an Austin-based news source).
Moving on....apparently Trump is still on the fence about whether Mohammed bin Salman had anything to do with Khashoggi's death. Truthfully, I would be surprised if MbS did not *personally* order the murder. I still don't care about his death, of course, but it is quite clear that it was definitely an assassination.
"As far as age bias is concerned...so what? I admit my bias freely, unlike most people. That doesn't mean that I am incorrect, though. Younger voters who cast a ballot for RFO here in Texas did so for reasons such as "he's cool" or "he's young and charismatic", at least according to The Texas Tribune (an Austin-based news source). "
What does that mean? Does that mean that they voted for him because he's cool, or that was a factor in why they were interested in what he said.
I am putting $1000 on the Vikings tonight. Why? Cause they wear purple. And their DVOA is 4th best in the league and they are playing indoors at home, while the other team blah blah blah...
He's putting money on the Vikings cause they wear purple!
"That should be illegal."
"Turns out, it's only immoral."
*************
This should be an interesting debate.
I don't care whether he hair is covered or not as long as she represents the interests of the people who voted her into office. Other people, though, are going to be *alarmed*. I am curious what she will do, though, if she is unsuccessful in her bid to overturn the ban. Is covering her hair more important than doing the job for which she was elected? The ban will probably be overturned as a relic which is no longer needed...but it may not be and she needs to be prepared for that outcome.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/07/21/a-rigorous-scientific-look-into-the-fox-news-effect/#b5291b212abc
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-Fox-News-effect-What-causes-it