If Hillary Clinton had won in November, what are the odds we’d be seeing this argument?
The Electoral College is a national security threat, argues Matthew Olsen, former Obama counterterrorism chief https://t.co/Scl2kUcV9b
— Blake Hounshell (@blakehounshell) September 20, 2017
The subtitle of the article co-authored by a former Obama national security official is “The founding fathers never anticipated the rise of Facebook and fake news.” That sounds a little like the anti-gun activists’ “muskets” argument applied elsewhere. It was bound to happen:
This is invariably the last refuge of domestic political arguments that aren’t working. https://t.co/TYFnbOZXTX
— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) September 20, 2017
Democrats would do away with the strongest protection of humans ever, the United States, because: Facebook. https://t.co/emxXlqyuGx
— Ben ?? ⚜ (@Artfull01) September 20, 2017
It’s an even dumber argument when phrased like that.
Shorter explanation: "Elections are only fair when Democrats win" https://t.co/YqCe8tCLC3
— Downtown Indy (@SSJIndy) September 20, 2017
There’s no way this would have been an issue if Hillary Clinton had won.
We've never before been held hostage by uninformed or misinformed voters.
— Mostradamus (@molratty) September 20, 2017
It's all empty signaling because they know there's no chance in hell a constitutional amendment gets ratified to do it. https://t.co/3tuSDA8VB4
— RBe (@RBPundit) September 20, 2017
— Ashley Everett (@jgsingr) September 20, 2017
— Defund NPR PBS & NEA (@Jarjarbug) September 20, 2017
Your failure to understand that the electoral college is a threat to national security is in itself a threat to national security.
— MBC ? (@MoonbatCatnip) September 20, 2017
Coming up next week: The Electoral College is a Public Health Risk.
— Christopher J Scalia (@cjscalia) September 20, 2017
Oh, that goes without saying!
To change your comments display name, click here.