This calls for Hundreds of Beavers.

I mean, there’s ways to introduce the proper amount of crazy in fewer words. For example, such as a constitutional ban on the color yellow.

I will only vote for this constitutional if it explicitly enshrines the write to the private ownership of alligators in any quantity, with exceptions for explicit standards of cruelty to alligators, which also must be written into the constitution explicitly. There should also be some language that states a dozen different ways that “alligator” isn’t some metaphor for government power, and that we’re talking about the literal animal here.

What are the limits on the powers of this Senate?

That ultimately doesn’t matter in modern lawmaking. Modern laws are far too complex for lawmakers to draft themselves. They largely have to rely on teams of lawyers to draft their policy goals into law. You think those geriatric Senators are drafting those thousand page bills themselves? They have teams of people behind them. They do this even though most Congress members come from a legal background. Modern society and its regulatory framework is just so complex, that you can’t just have individual law makers directly authoring all but the simplest most ceremonial bills. They get draft legislation from their staff, consulting groups, trade organizations, etc.

It’s the same thing here. You have teams of lawyers on staff to serve the Senate. Or individual Senators would get a budget to hire a team of lawyers to serve their needs. The Senate, or individual law makers, will consult with them and ask them to draft up a law to to do X, just like you would go to an attorney to ask them to draft up a will.

I really don’t see why the average person can’t be a lawmaker. If it’s all done by teams of people, and the person at the top is just pointing the team where to go, why can’t the average person do that?

Or do we really just not the militia part strongly enough? Should states themselves have much stronger rights in creating their own independent militaries? Should California - The State of California political entity - have the right to build the bomb?

Slavery never ended. The country merely transformed into one giant open-air slave plantation. One whose walls are not stone or iron, but raw distance and culture itself.

Here’s a mad nerd sniping problem:

Imagine we took the 2nd Amendment completely literally. It is now unconstitutional to prohibit the ownership of any weapon, no matter the scale. Owning even thermonuclear weaponry is legal.

There hasn’t exactly been a lot of free market innovation in the field of nuclear weapons design. There hasn’t been a whole lot of competition in the field. And the government is optimizing for security, safety, and effectiveness, but not cost. But imagine if we did make it legal for private citizens to own nukes. Just how cheaply could they be made, if we applied the normal principals of mass production to them? Would they always be the playthings of the ultra wealthy, or could some Henry Ford of hydrogen bombs put a nuke in every garage?

Well, you’re an illegal driver.

Yeah, the only actual crime is sneaking across the border. But most people here “illegally” didn’t even do that. Most undocumented immigrants didn’t pay some coyote to sneak them across the US-Mexican border. Most come here completely legally through ordinary travel options and overstay their visas.

Look, there’s got to be a rational explanation for this. Have you considered the old East Wing bunker might have just been haunted as all fuck? Who knows what horrible atrocities past presidents committed down in that dungeon! Who knows how many hookers Nixon tortured to death down there. How many old captured Nazis did Eisenhower personally flay alive in that basement? How many girls did Clinton simply have disappeared down there? That placed was probably cursed long before Trump got there. The only way to get the bad juju out was to completely tear it down to bare soil. It’s no good as a defense bunker if you get torn apart by ghosts when you try to seek shelter there!

Aww, come on. Amontillado is fine, I love the classic approach. But it’s just not appropriate for Trump. If you want to write Trump to have a poetic end, he needs to go out like Manius Aquillius. Maybe in a modern version, Trump in a bone-headed move decides to personally go to Tehran to pound his fist on the table and make his silly demands. The Iranians ultimately end up executing him by pouring molten gold down his throat to punish him for his greed.

We’ll have to demolish the rest of the White House just to get the stench out.

That is a possibility. Maybe it was something they had wanted to do, but it was a project mired in red tape and complexity? Like maybe they had planned to try to do it without demolishing the East Wing, trying to do it in place? Then Trump’s like “fuck it, we’ll do it live” and just orders the whole thing demolished to make it cheaper? IDK.

How about “dry shelly boys” and “wet shelly boys?”

Not to be confused with the rare tortups, which spends nearly their entire life in flight.

This title sentence works multiple ways. My cat is unable to speak English, because it has far too many words beyond the word meow.

Like showing up at an airport with no luggage and a wallet full of cash, demanding a same-day one-way flight to Tehran.

FPTP firmly entrenched the two party system and it would take a herculean reform effort to uproot it.

And yet, Britain’s next election will likely be a contest between Reform and the Greens. The center has collapsed and both centrist parties revealed themselves to be incapable of meeting the challenges of the moment.

Yes, you’re right that FPTP produces a two party system. But what people who point this out miss is that those two parties can be switched out. And the nature of power structures means that it’s usually easier to just let one of the entrenched parties completely die than to try and reform it from within. Remember, the Republican Party started as a third party before becoming one of the two main parties. The abolitionists ultimately found that starting a new party was more practical than trying to work within the existing two party structure.

It was possible to reform the Republican party from within, but that likely isn’t possible with the Democrats. The MAGA wing was able to take over the GOP, but ultimately their message is no different than the same crap Republicans have been pushing for generations. They’re not fundamentally challenging the core beliefs of the party. Trump still takes his court nomination orders from the Federalist Society. He still gets his social policies from the Heritage foundation. Racism is still the primary party value. Very little has actually changed, aside from more nakedly fascist methods.

In contrast, reforming the Dems would require fundamentally uprooting their core values and power structure. And historically that just isn’t very practical. It’s easier to just create an entirely new party than to try to completely transform one. At that point, you’re basically creating a whole new party anyway, just within the shell of the old one. Even if you succeed in taking over the Democratic party, all their old financial backers and supporters of centrist policies will walk away and abandon the party. So you’re not even gaining control of the Party’s resources. You’ll have to build that from scratch anyway. And at that point, it’s easier to just build something entirely new.

And yes, the media is a problem. But that’s always been the case.

Insurance isn’t free. On average, you pay more in insurance premiums than you get in claims. That’s how insurance works. If you become riskier, your premiums go up. If you become catastrophically risky, you become uninsurable.