The excellent Sept. 21 commentary on the misleading Yes on Question 3 commercials is being swamped by the volume of these commercials. The opinion piece points out how the commercials, funded from out of state, avoid mentioning ranked-choice voting and all its impacts. I fear that, because of the misleading commercials, Question 3 will pass, and I wonder if any legal challenges are possible to ensure the public gets an accurate view.
The criminal-elect has nominated a fellow criminal to investigate criminals.
I am considering a bumper sticker that reads “Slow down, the coroner will wait.”
Georgetown offered Legos, coloring at a post-election day “Self-Care Suite” for students to deal with “stressful times.”
The legislation, as proposed, calls for $1.9 billion in taxpayer subsidies over 20 years. It will create a “projected” 7,500 jobs? That’s $253,330 taxpayers will pay for each job.
The odds of a failing teacher, tucked comfortably under the blanket of the teachers union, being let go are approximately 100 million to 1.
We Nevada voters had presented to us a bumper crop of examples of campaign signs using distortions, strawmen and appeals to fear, to name just a few.
And Nevada should benefit. Solar power is now cheaper than oil and gas, and battery prices are dropping.
Want to guess how long it takes until the GOP gets rid of the filibuster? The GOP could not care less about what the norms are.
