Yeah, how dare he omit the amendment which permits electors from the district of Columbia!

I think the previous authour is suggesting that if this offering omits not 2, but sequentially from 11-27 inclusive (aka, everything ratified after 1791) that this isn’t “cherry picking”. A line was drawn, reasonable or not, and that’s the line.

On the other hand, reporting and headlining 2 specific amendments, implies that they were specifically hand-picked (dare I say it, “cherry-picked”) to maximize outrage. Because let’s face it, nobody gives a fuck about how many electoral votes DC gets.

It might even read, to some readers, that maybe these were the ONLY two amendments removed. Even though that’s not true.

Now, see, this is the BRILLIANCE in it. Trump can ARGUE that it was an arbitrary line. And people like me might say “it wasn’t cherry picked per amendment, because it’s consistently applied by ratification date”, and argue that for him.

But let’s get real. It’s no coincidence the line was drawn where it was. It’s telling that “prohibiting disallowing the vote based on sex” (19th amendment) or race (15th) and maybe most ominously “limiting presidential terms to 2” (22nd) are all after the 10th. It’s also kinda telling of where the media sees its barrier for rage inducing material (sorry POC, Trump toasting your rights to vote doesn’t make the cut. We don’t gauge this as something people will get upset about)

They had to get the 2nd amendment in there. The 10th is about states rights. Republicans are generally onboard w/ the first 10. The rest are pretty “woke”.

So, it turns into an argument around semantics. Perfect. Plausible deniability.

Edit: revised after pointed out that the cutoff was the 10th, not the 11th as my original post stated.