Tenth Amendment, might apply here.

I inching that’s why the union is doing this. Seems to me like a “soft strike,” or something. Making sure they know, and everyone else also knows, they can’t do the job without more people.

when it quits bring entertaining.

It’s utility for the original purpose, communication without limits, (or checking for coffee) is being diminished, and at some point, ill stop using it for that. But as long as there are jokes and titties, it will still be a source of entertainment.

Maybe hire some more guys?

The fact that he’s bitching about it means it was effective.

If the president can ignore the court, the court can ignore the laws.

Of course, down that road lies. . . well, we passed Madness a while back. Not sure where this road leads, anymore.

Agreed on all points. But rational thinking is necessary for a functioning democracy.

As you observe, that’s one reason we don’t have one.

I think you missed the entire point of my statement, which, amusingly, proves my point.

The older generations get pissy about being called the “Democrat party” rather than “Democratic party,” which, to be fair, is the proper name. But it’s really a stupid thing to get worked up over.

The fact that you didn’t even realize that I we talking about such a silly little thing is reasonably good evidence that it is, in fact, irrelevant to modern democrats.

The DNC can do far better, yes. But the voters can also do better. Thinking critically is an important part of participating in democracy.

As I said before the election, there was no option that did not include US funded murder of children. If Trump had been an outspoken opponent of the war in Gaza, (and we had any reason to believe him) then I could see the argument. But that was not the case, was it?

When your choice is keeping the status quo, or everything getting a lot worse, that doesn’t seem to be a difficult choice.

Democrat Party

This “red flag” is meaningless to people broke the age of 50 or so. I am a Democrat. I vote for the candidate who is a Democrat. Obama was a Democrat.

I don’t have time to get pissy over the difference between the noun and the adjective. If that’s all the points they can score on us, they are welcome to them.

The review by 538 is a much more important judgement.

Best we keep reminding them of it.

Italy was a constitutional monarchy under fascist rule.

And the US is, theoretically, a democracy, and if we aren’t under fascist rule, we will be soon enough. Fascism can spring from any form of government.

your second paragraph is something only ignorant bootlickers say

So you feel that Obama-Trump-Biden-Trump was as stable as any government needs too be? No improvement to be made there?

The reason one has a constitutional monarchy is to try to split the difference, I think, and get the best parts of each system.

But I’m with you. No kings.

As it is we in the UK are stuck with a mind-meltingly wealthy, influential and unaccountable family who have extremely questionable members and histories.

They influence laws to benefit their own ends, they shield abusive behaviour and individuals, and they do it all in the name of maintaining a tradition that fundamentally says that some people are simply “better” than others.

We have these too. Is just that they are more unofficial.

Do none of you people have clothes pins? Or does that count as Neutral Good?

Also, CG and CN need to be switched. There is no way the bottle hack counts as “good.”

I wouldn’t choose such a system, I think, but I can’t say that there aren’t at least a few half decent arguments for it.

A constitutional monarch may have a wide range of powers, depending on the constitution. It doesn’t automatically mean “powerless figurehead.”

Given the way the US has been recently, I’m willing to admit that there may be some benefit to having a leader in some position of power that had been there a long time, and has, more or less, been training for the responsibly since birth.

Of course, there are plenty of arguments against such a leader, but the least of which is how much you have to stretch the word “training” to make it fit that sentence above.

I’ve made up my mind already that if they try to take me or my wife, they are gonna have to kill me, and I’m gonna try as hard as I can not too die alone.

Of course, that’s big talk from me. I’m weak, overweight, and pasty.

I think you (and everyone else) have lost the thread, mate. He was replying directly to the question “why can’t they just stay in Europe.” The answer is “Europe had immigration laws.”

I don’t see anything wrong with this exchange.

I’ve explained it to you twice. I’m going to use small words, this time.

“States rights,” is the right of the state government to pass it’s own laws.

The right to fight a law in the courts belongs to individual persons, not the state government. If the state government disliked a law, they would not go through the courts, they would just change the law.

“States rights” are for the state government, not the people of the state. Nothing the state government does to the people of that state can go against the rights of the state government, because the people do not have states rights, because they are not states.

Just so we are clear, you are not a state, are you? If you happen to be New Jersey, for example, I could understand your confusion.