You assume that the originalists on the court care what the framers of the amendment thought, when it goes against the decision they want to render.

And yet, somehow this article does nothing to dispel my opinion that a lot of people like Trump because he says the fascist part out loud.

Unless I'm mistaken, a regent is someone appointed to rule temporarily, e.g., if the rightful king or queen is still a child, a regent can be appointed to rule until they grow up.

Maybe a non-binary ruler can be "Emperox"?

I believe that's the tl;dr summary of the article in the OP.

From the article, I get the impression that the number in the headline is a severe undercount, because a lot of people in charge of running anti-domestic-terrorism programs in the military don't see the value in them, so they either don't see the problem in their ranks, or turn a blind eye to it.

"When somebody tells you who they are, believe them."

No. Donald Trump told us he was a brilliant deal-maker, a stable genius, and a gifted billionaire.

A better idea is to do as Maya Angelou said: when somebody shows you what they are, over and over, believe them.

That's what Republicans do. The platform is what they run on. And the Republican platform is "whatever Lord Trump wants."

I’m pretty sure I saw that headline, with X = Obama or Elizabeth Warren or someone. Then it got shot down because… Idunno, they probably would have blown it all on rent and food and car repairs instead of Job Creation.

We're not the kind of authoritarian follower that propaganda machines like Fox work best with. We have our flaws; just not that particular one.

This.

McCarthy did the right thing for once, and came up with a solution to the looming shutdown that managed to pass by getting both Republican and Democratic votes. And he got shitcanned for it.

The message here is that as far as MAGA Republicans are concerned, bipartisanship is a firing offense.

Remember that when push came to shove, Democrats kicked Al Franken out of the Senate, while Republicans doubled down in their support for Roy Moore.

Of course, the press never asks any of this.

The horse race reporters might not, but pollsters do. They worry about this sort of thing a lot, and try to correct for it, when possible.

Uh-huh-huh! Thank you, thank you very much.

Oh, wait. You’re serious. Let me laugh even harder.

That's not even it. At the time the Constitution was adopted, there were states like Virginia that had a lot of people, but rather few voters. They were afraid that they wouldn't have a real say in who the president was. The Electoral College was a way to inflate slave states' power, and entice them to join the Union.

Reminds me of the Blackadder episode where Baldrick won by 16,000 votes, even though there was only one voter:

H: One voter, 16,472 votes — a slight anomaly…?

E: Not really, Mr. Hanna. You see, Baldrick may look like a monkey who’s been put in a suit and then strategically shaved, but he is a brillant politician. The number of votes I cast is simply a reflection of how firmly I believe in his policies.

Part of that is due to the feeling that one's vote doesn't matter. IMO having the president be elected by popular vote would bring a lot more people to the polls.

Mostly. Yes, RCV tends to elect compromise candidates, ones who may not be anyone's first choice, but that most people can live with. I think Joe Biden is a good example of this. Everyone was rah-rah for some else during the primaries: Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Rand Paul, Mike Huckabee... but Joe Biden has broad tepid appeal.

How do you do that without violating the First Amendment right to freedom of association?

As it stands, there’s this notion that a candidate has to try and have broad appeal; they need to spread their campaign out a bit in order to “capture” the electoral votes of a state.

That's currently not the case: in most states, the vote isn't close, so we know before the campaign even begins how most states will vote. There's no reason for Republicans to appeal to Kansans, because Kansas will vote R no matter what. Likewise, there's no point for Democrats to appeal to Kansans because it won't do them any good.

Sans the electoral college, I see presidential campaigns becoming even more polarized and exclusionary. The Democrat campaign will become the “big city loop.” Continually visit Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, NYC, and Miami.

There's a word in politics for a candidate who wins in big cities, and nowhere else: "loser".

Check the demographics. Get a list of the 20 biggest cities in the US and add them up. You'll see that's only about 30% of the vote. So even if you somehow managed to get everyone in the big cities to vote for you, including children under 18, felons, and people on student visas, that still wouldn't be enough to determine the election.

Maybe they slide in a few secondary metros if it’s convenient. The candidate won’t have to worry about any non-urban messaging, and if they’re particularly incendiary could even preach “dumping those hicks in the sticks.”

Just in passing, there are more Republicans in the California sticks than the total population of several other states. If the president were elected by popular vote, candidates could no more ignore those voters than California gubernatorial candidates can, today.