Huh. Found something on twitter:

It’s not on the msnbc.com website, and a google search for Nicole Wallace for the last 24 hours shows zero results re: Russia. Maybe it was another commentator?

One big risk of mandatory voting is that it can boost the (apparent) legitimacy of a government. Imagine voters were forced to choose between, idk, Hitler and Stalin (just chose them for illustrative purposes), and imagine most people hate both (sadly not a given in these times) - I’m sure you get the point.

But srsly, I think it’s hard for nearly everyone to wrap their head around how big $1 billion is, let alone $1 trillion. So many zeros...

I expect it’s $75 Billion - or at least more than $75M - but it’s hard to keep track of all those zeros.

I guess I’ll have to take your word for it; tbh I’m actually one of those assholes who couldn’t find Yemen or Saudi Arabia on a map.

I also googled him. AFTER reading the nymag.com article.

“Afghanistan? That is so 2011.”

Gotta say, sounds like you nailed it. This is probably the pattern everyone should follow. For one, it would help democratize the platform: “Who the fuck is John Podhoretz and why the hell would I care what he has to say about anything?”

The Fairness Doctrine would be a big improvement over what we have now (essentially no regulation whatsoever), but I’m not sure the whole policy was great to begin with.

How the fuck did I forget that? Jeezus, my blood sugar must be low.

I mean, we SHOULD investigate Goldman Sachs, but not because of some “false flag” bullshit; maybe over money laundering, insider trading, god knows what else...

Agreed on all counts. As I mentioned to others: I think “gangster capitalism” (solid phrase) could and would still exist and work w/o racism, sexism, etc., but I’m probably splitting hairs and it doesn’t seem like a point worth arguing.

Excellent point; attacks against abortion rights, LGBTQ rights, and persecution of religious minorities don’t fit quite as neatly into the frame of economic injustice, although Republicans are great at exploiting them to further their economic agenda.

Agreed. As I told Dikt1: I think “gangster capitalism” (solid phrase) could and would still exist and work w/o racism, but I’m probably splitting hairs and it doesn’t seem like a point worth arguing.

Agreed. I think “gangster capitalism” (solid phrase) could and would still exist and work w/o racism, but I’m probably splitting hairs and it doesn’t seem like a point worth arguing.

I’m usually on the same page as you, but I’m especially with you here.

EXACTLY

YUSSS.