Califan007 The Constipated

Well of course it did...

Don't forget he's gonna hold a press conference before the next court date and provide evidence that completely exonerates him, too, also...

Full text: "Mitch McConnell is the reason why the United States hasn't passed a renewed Voting Rights Act. He is the reason why the United States hasn't passed democracy reform. He is the reason why Donald Trump is still able to run for office (he had the opportunity to end this nightmare but didn't). Mitch McConnell is the reason why Roe v. Wade was overturned, and why IVF is now illegal in Alabama. McConnell is responsible for turning the U.S. Senate into the House of Representatives. McConnell has never been a friend to labor, the environment, or responsive to climate change. History, if it remembers him, will remember him for the things he did, and the things he prevented. He put his own ambitions before the needs of the United States whenever he could."

From the article: "Crye, along with fellow board members Patrick Jones and Chris Kelstrom, wanted to get rid of Dominion amid unfounded claims that the company was behind former President Donald Trump’s election loss in 2020 — such claims cost Fox News $787 million in a defamation case won by Dominion, but did not deter the Shasta board from remaining skeptical. "Moderate Republicans came together last year to organize the recall effort, and routinely attend the increasingly contentious board meetings to voice their disapproval during public comment." "Jones, who is running for reelection, may also lose his seat on the board. He received just 39.41% of votes, while his opponent, Matt Plummer, received 60.59% as of Tuesday night." 2 things: - I sincerely hope there really ARE "moderate Republican" in every state that are motivated to try and remove the extremists from their ranks. - This idiotic campaign ad against Plummer and in favor of Jones is apparently not doing squat to help Jones, since he's behind Plummer by 20+ points:

Ah, gotcha...For the record. the article he posted to came out 3 days ago, I assume it covers the same ground although I guess there could be new info. I'm also assuming you said "it's been more than 3 days since the story came out" just as a comment about (as you said) how quickly stories die in today's news cycle, and not because the article literally came out 3 days ago lol...just for clarity's sake.

So are you saying that it was talked about a lot? Or just that you posted about it in January?

No real reason for the concern. There isn't a Democratic voter out there who thinks their vote in the primary will have any effect whatsoever on who ends up the nominee...so it's far easier to vote "uncommitted" as a mild form of protest. The mindset is significantly different when people know beyond doubt that how they vote effects the country and its government. Could be that some of those "uncommitted" voters simply wish someone else was running besides "grandpa Joe"...voting "uncommitted" is a safe way to voice that opinion. But once the reality is confirmed that either Biden or Trump will be the next president, the mindset of Dem voters will change drastically.

I thought you were gonna say it was AI lol...

Who are these people?? lol...

Adding to what others have said...I think I've voted in a primary one time. That's it. I think I skipped a general election vote one time. That's it. People are not motivated to vote in primaries where they already know what the result will be whether they vote or not...it's exactly the reason why higher ups in the GOP were wringing their hands over Trump's continuous declarations of rigged elections: they felt it would suppress the vote for Republicans if Trump basically kept telling the base that their votes don't count because it's all rigged anyway. That's kinda what is most likely happening with Dem primaries--voters know who is gonna win it, so their vote doesn't really matter at all...it won't change anything. Right now, Repub voters are motivated to vote in primaries, and that's to either show support for their "dear leader" Trump or to use their vote to protest against him. There's nothing like that motivating voters for the Dem primaries.

Liberals, huh?...

Were you the guy getting all mushy over George Michael? lol...That was you, right? And the RR HOF isn't about what any of us personally like in music...that's why I'm able to present arguments for and against artists regardless of how I personally feel about their music. And, for the record, Jukebox Hero is some lame-ass songwriting lol (I know you didn't bring it up). If that's the type of music anyone likes once they take the corn cobs out of their ears, then I'm inserting about 12 more cobs in each ear.

Cher is more iconic for her personality and overall celebrity than for her music. She had a few iconic songs, but a ton of musical artists have had iconic songs. And I'm not sure anyone can make a valid argument that Mariah Carey is not also iconic. I went looking for reasons why Cher was influential in the music bidniss, and came across an article in Billboard magazine. I mean, that should be as legit a publication for this exercise as they come. The article, though, left me unimpressed. It tried putting Cher in the same category as David Bowie in terms of androgyny because...well, she had a deep voice on "I Got You Babe" lol. The article also claimed Cher paraded around in androgynous fashions and outfits during the 70s, which I'm guessing they said that because she wore pants?...Patti Smith was the epitome of androgynous women singers in the 70s, as where Cher had zero qualms about showing off her body during that time. Patti and Bowie should be mentioned together, not Bowie and Cher. Not to mention, Grace ****ing Jones lol...she surpassed Cher in terms of androgynous fashions and hell, perhaps even surpassed David Bowie. The article further mentions her star power on stage and on the screen. For the RR HOF I don't think star power in movies should play any role, especially when those movie rolls have nothing whatsoever to do with music. The article also says, almost apologetically, "Cher did not, admittedly, pioneer musical genres or take lyrics to new poetic heights." Those tend to be important here. I don't think Mariah Carey did, either, for that matter lol...but while Cher did sell 140 million records, Mariah Carey has sold 220 million records. And Mariah's talent--vocally anyway--eclipses Cher's. Hell, Cher unleashed AutoTune onto the world with "Believe" lol. Further, Cher had either 4 or 5 number one hits, which is impressive...although apparently she didn't like half of them lol, those hits were written for her. By contrast, Mariah Carey has had 19 number one hits...far more than Cher...and wrote or co-wrote 18 of them. So MC comes out on top in terms of singing talent, songwriting ability, record sales, and number one hits. What could possibly make anyone think it's laughable that Mariah Carey might be more deserving of the HOF than Cher?

You're making the mistake of thinking you have to be one or the other (either New Wave or Alternative Rock). There's a lot of overlap. And the idea that the music we now call "rock and roll" didn't exist until we called it rock and roll is laughable lol...there's no way you believe that. And for the record, Chuck Berry's first song was recorded in 1955...four years after the term "rock and roll" was first coined. And it was coined because--wait for it--there was music already being recorded and played that fit that description long before Chuck Berry came along. Hell, he was inspired and influenced by it. So by your own logic, rock and roll existed before Chuck Berry because someone named the genre lol...and by my logic the founders of Rock and Roll came onto the scene before he did. At most, you could say he popularized it, made it even more mainstream. But that doesn't mean he founded the genre. The only argument you can make--for both Berry and JA--is to say rock and roll and alternative rock were both established over the decades...but that's not what you've been saying.

Why did they vote for her to begin with? lol...I don't understand Colorado at all.

I'm sorry, what?...I couldn't hear you over the sound of her boobs...

This is a bit like saying rock and roll music didn't exist before a DJ called it "rock and roll" lol... But apparently from my admittedly flimsy Google search just now, the term "Alternative music" was being used in 1979 for this stuff. But I do remember the Talking Heads being called "alternative" when I started college in 1981...so there lol.

I wanna know if the SC ruiling means each individual state is allowed to keep Congress members from their state off the ballots if it's determined that they participated in insurrection...because if so...

(and, yes, that really is me lol) You could trace Alternative rock back to the 60s, at least its influences. The 70s, though, are when I got heavy into music so that's as far back as my mind will allow me to go lol...

Did you notice he never said WHAT they were the founding fathers of? lol...Hence, why I asked. And Alt Rock was started in the late 70s, before Jane's Addiction was even formed (had to look up when they were formed lol...but I knew it wasn't the 70s). I'm hoping you're not thinking Alternative Rock wasn't started until the 90s. If by "greatness" you mean "A bit above average for the most part," then yeah lol...

I like how you think I haven't heard any of those songs before lol...

Founding member of what? (I'll take your word on the rest of what you said lol)

My thought exactly, except with far stronger terminology lol...