The day-to-day business of running a government office isn’t about performative morality. But running for office and keeping it are. And to do that you need to win a general election, wherein large swaths of the population — including those who are not going to be on board with a sex worker — vote.

I am terrible at legislative rules but my understanding is all that would do is waste a little time. The House would then have to schedule a vote within a certain time period (2 days?) and vote and since Republicans have a (slim) majority, the outcome would be the same as what we saw today and Johnson would remain…

100%. States don’t really mean anything anymore. It’s all about cities and how far a city’s sphere of influence/suburbs reach. Washington, Oregon, California even - supposedly reliable blue states are blood red once you get more than an hour drive away from a city, sometimes even less. If you make a wrong turn leaving…

It is absolutely wild a nobody-backbencher with three terms under his belt is now third in line for the presidency.

I presume he didn’t ignore dozens of students being raped, molested, and sexually abused right under his nose, but as to his politics I have no idea. I never knew this turd’s name until this week.

This is maybe slightly less terrible than Gym Jordan? More likely he’s just as terrible but not yet as infamous. It feels like the hardliners got what they wanted and the “moderates” got to play act like they were making some kind of stand before bending over for Gaetz and the MAGA freaks.

Right... that’s not what a strawman argument is though. If anything, the folks chastising me for my supposed prudishness and alleged misogyny are guilty of strawman arguments, because they’re attacking me for having views I don’t have and things I never said, which is frankly quite offensive.

Another coward, got it. 

Now imagine you have two candidates with a good report on taxable spending, support abortion rights, have a better foreign policy, and a decent infrastructure plan... and one has recently been shooting porn videos and the other has not. Whom would you vote for, in a primary election? Assuming your desire is to win a…

How exactly is it a “strawman” question? It is directly relevant. If you believe there is zero hinderance to having a candidate with pornographic videos floating around the internet, it’s a very easy question to answer. 

So you’re unable to answer the question? It’s a crystal clear, easy-to-understand question. That so many critics refuse to answer it is answer enough.

Nah

So no answer then.

I agree Republicans will just invent something else to be scandalized about. But it is common sense to give them as little to work with as possible. I’m all for pushing the needle on what’s acceptable and breaking down the walls of acceptability politics — but is a swing district in a swing state where the state house…

This is all hypothetical. I’m trying to get people to acknowledge that while a particular issue may not matter to them, personally, they know deep down it matters to some people. And if it matters to some people, and enough of those people vote against a candidate, it should matter to everyone who will be impacted.

dishonesty and cowardice it is; thanks for playing 

That’s pretty cowardly but alright then

No one seems to want to answer it.

Engage in a simple exercise: Pretend you’re a Democratic king maker. You have the money or the influence, whatever, to handpick a candidate to win the nomination. Your choice is between two candidates vying for a competitive purple district, nearly identical in every way but one — Candidate A has filmed pornography…

Engage in a simple exercise: Pretend you’re a Democratic king maker. You have the money or the influence, whatever, to handpick a candidate to win the nomination. Your choice is between two candidates vying for a competitive purple district, nearly identical in every way but one — Candidate A has filmed pornography…