TheDoozer

You're focusing too much on the "rights" and not enough on the "Mah." Not "Our rights."

It was never about universal rights. They were pretty clear about them caring specifically and only about their rights.

90s Dominos was trash. Even Dominos recognized old Dominos was trash.

Thank you for this. It seems more in keeping with the original idea of the US, a federation of states.

Can you give some examples of how that works? Like, who pays for roads, who handles environmental regulations (or are there any), who establishes education standards (or are there any), etc. I'm not trying to argue, it just seems like on the internet people referring to "state authoritarianism" and "central government tyranny" ranges from "adults can't be transgender" to "I have to pay taxes and the government won't let me own slaves."

Technically an amendment to the constitution, the third section of the 14th amendment, that nobody who has engaged or helped an insurrection can hold office in the government or military (except with a 2/3 majority of congress).

Yeah, there was already established law to prevent him from running for president. It got ignored. He ran anyway. He won anyway. He became president anyway.

Any of these legal mechanisms only work if they are upheld.

I think you're missing the point. Personally, when I watch those movies, I think about whether the guard who just got turned into a parapalegic was just an ex-military guy who picked up a security job. For that matter, I wonder about how many people joined the German military in 1932, with no idea what their country would become. They still had to be fought through to affect the leader. Yes, any given grunt, any given infantry, is hurt considerably more than the big fish, but the way of the world is that a lot of little fish must suffer before the big fish feels it.

Not every big fish can be luigi-ed. Some have a security detail.

You know in those movies where the hero has to beat the living hell from a thousand grunts before they are able to get at the boss? And you don't feel too bad for the grunts, even though they're not millionaires or the guys doing the big evil stuff, because they chose to align themselves with a villain like the boss?

It's kind of like that. If people don't want to own a Tesla because they'll be targeted for aligning themselves with Musk, Tesla's stock goes down, which hurts the boss.

I'm not saying I support it (and I'm not saying I don't), but saying that this is hurting the Working Class and not the real Bad Guy is missing the point.

The Trail of Tears was always taught to me as a black spot in our history, a horrible thing that we (the United States) did to natives.

Damon? Do you mean Dicaprio?

Can't you setup a structure where people from both sides would together commit to voting third-party?

Can't really do that with a First-Past-The-Post system because someone needs to get past the post. If there are four major parties (left and right both have significant numbers voting 3rd party), there would ultimately have to be a coalition or two that just ends up being the Republicans and Democrats all over again.

The system itself has to be changed first, and the two parties who benefit from there only being two parties aren't going to change it to allow for that.

In all fairness I bet he gets a lot of gender fluids going...