It’s not actually about winning against the military. The civics justification for having guns is to make harassment campaigns more accessible when necessary. (Any sustained resistance resistance campaign would have to have outside supply lines.) No modern rebel group has taken on an established military on equal footing. The goal is to make oppressing the population extremely annoying, not to actually be in control yourself. In order to actually run a government you need a different set of skills than to run a resistance campaign, but a resistance campaign might become necessary until we can restore the government to a just one.

There’s other justifications for individual ownership of firearms, but that’s the one most similar to what you’re thinking of.

Drive throo.

Drive throo.

“Highways shouldn’t have guard rails because if you hit one you’ve already gone off the road anyway.”

Popular encrypted messaging app Signal is facing criticism over a security issue in its desktop application.

Emphasis mine.

When it stops being illegal to help vulnerable people, I’ll stop cheering for folks who open carry firearms to deter cops that might otherwise try to stop them.

I genuinely, honestly, 100% believe you should be able to option for physical punishment when being reprimanded for minor things. Pepper spray to the face, electric shock, mild caning, etc. Anything that would have little to no harm, even in the short term, but hurts like a bitch. I don’t think you should be able to sentence someone to pain, but that the person being sentenced should be able to choose pain instead.

Grain or labor, but one way or another you gotta pay the state your taxes!

They know what they did.

“okay, we’re not gonna have political parties, right guys?”

Immediately form federalist and anti-federalist factions

It’s only federal numbers and I think they might be a few years out of date but I’m too lazy to check.

If we had god-damn Approval Voting you could literally just vote for everyone but the evil candidate and that would actually help everyone else and hurt them. “Anybody but Dr. Evil” would be a legit PAC interest group.

I like Approval Voting for single-winner elections and Sequential Proportional Approval Voting. Approval is way easier than RCV in every sense (RCV is complex enough to disenfranchise minorities) and it gets more accurate results because it doesn’t have spoilers (RCV actually does, they’re just different than what you’re used to).

Approval is great for third parties because their full support in the final results, which RCV doesn’t always do. Those results are important because they influence voters in the next election, helping little parties build up legitimacy even when they lose.

It’s currently in use in Fargo and St. Louis, and of course they’re very happy with it.

If you’re referring to the House of Representatives, single-member districts is a federal law, not a constitutional requirement. Congress could simply pass another law changing the old one, no constitutional amendment required. The method of representation in the Senate is codified fairly narrowly into the Constitution, but the House requirements are more lax and doesn’t forbid multi-seat representation. Technically the federal law allows for it too, but only if your state is grandfathered in. I’m not sure when the bill was passed or why that specific exception was put in.

If you’re talking about lower levels, multi-seat representation happens at the local level all the time. There’s a few states that have at-large districts in their legislatures, but single-member is way more common.

That’s fine if you don’t want to respond, I just want to make sure people reading have an opportunity to follow these links and realize that we do have plenty of multi-winner elections in the US.

As far as the other comment suggests, it wasn’t so much a case of choosing to die or choosing a ridiculous “treatment” but just getting unlucky with having step go real bad in a hurry.

The Florida reprocessing plant was an absolute mess. So many people were getting ridiculous exposure levels from that place and dying young.

The entire theory depends on ignoring the actual ideology on the ground and assuming Palin voters would just as soon vote for a Democrat.

It literally says the opposite, and there’s no assumption, it’s right there in the voting data. Begich beats Palin and Peltola one-on-one. I’m sorry that you’ve heard other people talk about this particular election in bad faith, but that’s not what I’m doing. We can talk about other particular RCV elections that had spoilers, if you like.

And you haven’t mentioned any other type of approval voting until now so yes that’s what was assumed.

I mentioned both regular approval and SPAV in my first comment. Maybe that’s where some of this confusion is coming from.

STV is also a multiple winner election system. Which is also incompatible with our Constitution.

Can you quote the section that prohibits multi-winner elections? At this point some of the things you’ve said have me believing you might an inauthentic account, unfortunately. I apologize if you’re an earnest American, but I have now have my doubts.

The entire theory depends on ignoring the actual ideology on the ground and assuming Palin voters would just as soon vote for a Democrat.

It literally says the opposite, and there’s no assumption, it’s right there in the voting data. Begich beats Palin and Peltola one-on-one. I’m sorry that you’ve heard other people talk about this particular election in bad faith, but that’s not what I’m doing. We can talk about other particular RCV elections that had spoilers, if you like.

And you haven’t mentioned any other type of approval voting until now so yes that’s what was assumed.

I mentioned both regular approval and SPAV in my first comment. Maybe that’s where some of this confusion is coming from.

STV is also a multiple winner election system. Which is also incompatible with our Constitution.

Can you quote the section that prohibits multi-winner elections? At this point some of the things you’ve said have me believing you might an inauthentic account, unfortunately. I apologize if you’re an earnest American, but I have now have my doubts.

The entire theory depends on ignoring the actual ideology on the ground and assuming Palin voters would just as soon vote for a Democrat.

It literally says the opposite, and there’s no assumption, it’s right there in the voting data. Begich beats Palin and Peltola one-on-one. I’m sorry that you’ve heard other people talk about this particular election in bad faith, but that’s not what I’m doing. We can talk about other particular RCV elections that had spoilers, if you like.

And you haven’t mentioned any other type of approval voting until now so yes that’s what was assumed.

I mentioned both regular approval and SPAV in my first comment. Maybe that’s where some of this confusion is coming from.

STV is also a multiple winner election system. Which is also incompatible with our Constitution.

Can you quote the section that prohibits multi-winner elections? At this point some of the things you’ve said have me believing you might an inauthentic account, unfortunately. I apologize if you’re an earnest American, but I have now have my doubts.