“That sounds even less fun. Why would anybody want to keep playing if somebody is already going to win no matter what?”

I was gonna say, cool move, but also a textbook carry. Defending is tough when the ballhandler gets to do whatever they want. 

These Fox bootlickers sure love capitalism until it turns against them.

But those folks you know are wrong. It isn’t that conservative Americans aren’t being listened to, it’s that they are being listened to and their ideas are rejected for being illogical or founded on flawed foundations and false assumptions.

While we can quibble on timelines — others have pointed out that even my timeline is probably undercutting the true span of modern Republican ratfucking — I agree with your larger points that this is not a recent phenomenon but something that has been in the works for many years now.

I wouldn’t say the rules are hard to follow, just that most people choose not to follow them because it makes the game overly harsh.

1. No, it usually doesn’t. Particularly not if people are willing to make trades. Games can take forever when people rely entirely on the dice to determine a winner, but then that gets back to people not playing correctly.

I posted this above, so I’ll repost it here:

The charitable interpretation is that it’s trying to highlight the problem of the gender pay gap by reversing the real-life version of it and imposing it on male players, who are presumably more prone to deny its existence or problematic nature.

Counterpoint: People that don’t like Monopoly either weren’t playing by the rules or were simply bad at it.

I’ve heard of Monopoly being used in schools to teach about the gender pay gap by only paying female players $150 when they pass Go, etc. Seems like a pretty effective, straightforward lesson on why it matters.

My folks used to listen to Paul Harvey in the mornings while they were getting ready for work. Sometimes that would carry over to the car ride to school. “And now ... the rest of the story.” Some propaganda is more subtle than others. 

I think we’re not too far from this being the case. Anywhere Republicans hold a majority, however slim, they will simply rule by fiat and dare the opposition to stop them. 

On the contrary, they love it and want more of it. They would celebrate if Democrats were denied a voice at every level of society. 

It boggles the mind that an entire political faction can blatantly lie to their opposition about taking a vote, then claim their anger about the lie is what “erodes the trust in the institution,” and suffer no political consequences whatsoever for it.

“It’s been almost two decades in the making ...”

I think Greenwald too often lets his need to be contrarian overwhelm his responsibility to be accurate, and that compulsion leads him to some stupid and dangerous places. 

Tucker’s idiotic equation appears to be:

“If John Bolton got fired for being too progressive, that says entirely scary things about the people he was working with.”

The only thing Republican voters would be upset with them about is that they got caught. Republicans stopped giving a shit about integrity (and honesty and decency) a long, long time ago.