That’s like 5% of it. The farce of the Senate parliamentarian comes to mind as an obvious example.

Another is when Manchin scrapped everything progressive from the omnibus bill and was awarded for it, never being disciplined for standing in the way of what Biden and the rest were pretending to want to do.

And of course, there’s the means testing everything to death, like the Dem leadership always do in order to not inconvenience their owner donors too much.

Well, how much sanity and competence were you really expecting from the leader of a neo-nazi murder cult?

No sane one. Their lives haven’t improved under Biden either, though, which isn’t great for their motivation to go wait for in line for hours to vote against Trump making everything even worse than it already is again.

If your base doesn’t vote, they will adjust their program to those who will. Old people get their way, because they ALWAYS vote

This as well as the OP ignores the fact that the top two reasons for people not voting are politicians alienating them and politicians making it too difficult to vote.

Victim blaming the alienated and encumbered nonvoters does nothing about the root of the problem and is the equivalent of scolding someone working 60 hour weeks for minimum wage for not exercising and cooking healthy meals for themselves often enough.

Disclaimer to save some time rebutting the obvious strawman: I’m not an 18-24yo nonvoter myself. I’m 41 and never missed a chance to vote or told anyone not to.

Absolutely!

I dunno, stuff? And junk like that? 🤷

Your original comment made it sound like words are inherently inconsequential, which couldn’t be further from the truth.

the opinion of one of the guys who wrote the amendment ≠ the amendment OR the reason for the amendment, which explicitly mentions the ACTUAL reason.

That shouldn’t be so difficult a concept to grasp.

The entirety of federalist 29 is about the second amendment. I think it’s safe to assume the paragraph I quoted from federalist 29 also is.

Suuure it is 🙄

Calling militias “the best possible defense” against a standing federal army seems pretty cut and dry.

Except that’s not what the amendment itself says. That’s Alexander Hamilton’s opinion, NOT the rationale that was agreed on when drafting the text

No mind reading necessary, just regular reading.

And a bit of imagination to make the unconnected pieces fit together to mean what you want them to mean.

You’re acting no better than the libertarian nutjobs who insist that taxation is theft and also unconstitutional.

Fun fact: sometimes the founding fathers didn’t agree on everything.

The section of his editorial you quote doesn’t say that it’s the rationale behind the second amendment. It doesn’t mention it OR tyranny.

The amendment, which specifically spells out the reason before the conclusion does NOT reference standing armies or tyranny.

You’re just assuming connections that aren’t there and then accusing ME of pretending to be a mind reader 🤦

I mean, that’s the exact opposite of what the federalist papers said

The Federalist Papers were a bunch of editorials, not laws. The amendment itself clearly says that it’s for the security of the nation and doesn’t mention tyranny at all.

Alexander Hamilton’s opinion on standing armies is not the second amendment.

Yes, this is the exact intention of the second amendment. Armed resistance against tyrannical government

Nope. Judging by how they used militias at the time, they meant it for defending the federal government against both invasions and rebellions. The “defense against tyranny” reason is just an invention of people trying to justify their guns.

The founding fathers envisioned state militias that would rival the power of the federal army and keep it in check

Nope. There WAS no federal army at the time. They used militias IN STEAD OF a standing army, not as a check on an existing one. Which of course invalidates the entire amendment now that the country has the biggest and most advanced military in the history of humanity.

All of that being said, I consider assassination of a tyrant you can’t rid the people of in any other way the only form of murder that’s acceptable as it serves the common good.

Putin is one such tyrant, Orban probably is, and Donald Trump DEFINITELY is. The world would have been a much better place if Crooks had been a better shot.

Probably because Trump himself heard them talking about it and ordered them to stop because he’s afraid of inclines.

Leaning to his right against a streetlight, hip thrust out slightly.

Fun fact: words said or not said by politicians in high office often have far-reaching consequences.

“I don’t want my kids to grow up in a racial jungle”.

Why do you keep making up quotes

I’m not. I misremembered the exact wording, but here’s his statement against desegregation bussing in full:

Unless we do something about this, my children are going to grow up in a jungle, the jungle being a racial jungle with tensions having built so high that it is going to explode at some point. We have got to make some move on this.

Under the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, the federal Department of Health, Education and Welfare had a powerful tool to fight school segregation: It could withhold funding from districts that refused to integrate — and integration effectively meant busing. Mr. Helms wanted to strip the agency of that power.

As Mr. Biden rose on the Senate floor in September 1975 to embrace that approach, Mr. Helms wryly welcomed him “to the ranks of the enlightened.” Mr. Biden objected to the education department mandating desegregation absent a court order, and warned of white flight to the suburbs and even racial unrest. … Mr. Helms’s amendment, which would have also barred the education department from collecting data about the race of students or teachers, failed. But a slightly narrower measure written by Mr. Biden, which prevented schools from using federal dollars to assign teachers or students by race, passed, 50-43.

She thinks Biden said ~~hurtful~ racist things in the past but she doesn’t think he is racist.

Which would mean she was being disingenuous or wrong.

It doesn’t get much more racist than protesting desegregation bussing because “I don’t want my kids to grow up in a racial jungle”.

That’s almost Trumpian levels of turning the dog whistle into a bullhorn.

Yeah, all of those assumed that she was being genuine rather than just covering her ass. Not always a good idea when dealing with politicians, and almost never when dealing with her specifically.

Nope. Just following the logic of “everything before the ‘but’ is usually disingenuous” to apply to an otherwise self-contradictory statement from a notoriously disingenuous politician 🤷