I’m gonna be extra nasty to him.

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.

Did any of the passengers on those 7,000 flights get any compensation? Or just a “so sorry, out of our control?”

Looks like delta tried to dismiss the passengers claims, but they are being sued for it.

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.

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 find it hard to believe that it’s legal to buy a company, but not it’s contractual obligations. Seems line a hell of a loophole for getting out of things you don’t want to do.

I’m not a huge fan of intrinsically connecting medication for sexual function with medication for gender-affirming care.

If that were the case, then bottom-surgery wouldn’t be gender affirming care either.

Or maybe I’m just misunderstanding the entire concept. To date, I’ve never seen a single concrete statement on the topic that doesn’t upset someone (discounting bloody right-wingers for whom the entire concept is upsetting, bless their hearts) because it somehow invalidates someone else.

However, we seem to be in agreement that these people are raging assholes, and that’s the important takeaway.

ED meds are gender affirming care, aren’t they? If they are gonna cut it out of military spending, cut all of it out.

I seem to recall reading that a German scientist did the experiment that lead directly to the atom bomb before we did our in the US, but that he misinterpreted the results, and tossed the whole line of research.

You could always just say “whoops, I read the question wrong,” particularly since the rest of your answer was right.

They can just have Congress give the nod, and it would all be legal and correct. But for some reason, they don’t seem to want to do that.

If you’re a practicing attorney, can you explain to me what roll the judge and jury have in charging someone with a crime? I had always thought that was done long before they game into the picture.

Arguably, you don’t tell them, and they don’t try to steal the idea, or try to sabotage it, or decide to build was plans that don’t depends on a successful nuclear strike.