Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Pouncey wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 whembly wrote:
You just know Cheeto Jesus isn't going to do that...

You guys have a very, VERY wide variety of unflattering nicknames for your next President.

Though comparing him to Jesus is incorrect. Jesus preached love for all humans, forgiveness of all sins (literally his death absolved all humans, past, present and future of their sins), and he opposed the death penalty to the point he intervened in a stoning in a very well-known part (Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.)

If you guys were to have a President who was like Jesus, I'm pretty sure I'd love you guys for electing such a person.

Dude... that's dripping in sarcasm...

He had several bad spray-on tans & he has fans that adores to the nth degree.

Why not compare him to a lunatic cult leader then?

Because its Christmas I will let that underhand pitch pass by....just too easy lol.

I'm pretty sure Trump will get his 2nd term. Contemporary Americans have no interest in reality, as long as he isn't a Democrat the tribe will vote for him. Doesn't matter what he actually does, it can be easily blamed on something else. Look a Reagan, you'd think he was competent with how he is worshipped yet reality says otherwise.

 BrotherGecko wrote:
I'm pretty sure Trump will get his 2nd term. Contemporary Americans have no interest in reality, as long as he isn't a Democrat the tribe will vote for him. Doesn't matter what he actually does, it can be easily blamed on something else. Look a Reagan, you'd think he was competent with how he is worshipped yet reality says otherwise.

I literally cannot argue with the statement that some Americans have no interest in reality.

I have argued with Americans online who do not even know where the name "America" originated.

Yes, I know, there is some amount of debate on the precise origins. What I mean is that he believes that the name itself is 10,000 years old, at which time it described both the continents of North and South America together, and that terms like North America, South America, and the United States of America are simply pointless divisionary terms.

I'm paraphrasing, yes, but I don't think quoting his exact words would improve your opinion of him any, as he had spent the previous hour or so typing lengthy, angry rants about the fact Canada does not use the term "Native American" but instead opts for the term "First Nations."

Lunatics are everywhere of course, but god damned do I ever spend a lot of time around American ones. Probably because I only speak English, and there are roughly 320 million Americans in the world.

By the way, did you guys ever consider that since there are 7 billion people in the world, and the commonly accepted statistic is that 5% of humans are gay, that that means there are about 350 million gay people in the world? So that means that Americans are a smaller minority than gay people. You could also look up the statistics for how common blondes and redheads are if you like. I'll just tell you. The world is 2% blondes, and 0.5% redheads.

So something to keep in mind whenever your fellow citizens rant about accommodating minorities (yes, I know they're actually just covering up their homophobia, but they'll just deny it and call you a bigot if you say that) is what kind of minorities you already have no problem accommodating.

So, in summary. The world needs more redheads.

Agreed. *Bangs Gavel.* Next case!

 Compel wrote:
So, in summary. The world needs more redheads.

Agreed. *Bangs Gavel.* Next case!

It's gonna get them too. Because eventually the genes for the red hair color will spread enough that it will be as common as any other hair color that's reliant on a recessive gene. At that point redheads will be way more common than gay people, but by then, racism will have disappeared too, not just homophobia.

Because enough interracial relationships will have occurred between then, many millennia into the future, and now, that every human will have a diverse enough mix of genes that no one will be white, or black, or asian, or any particular race anymore. All races' genes will have mixed together to the point that all humans have a large number of ancestors from each race that currently exists. Individual bigots choosing to not develop interracial relationships can't stop it any more than the fact that some people simply choose to pursue a partner of their own race without rejecting the idea of an interracial relationship.

They'll probably think anyone in our time was pretty stupid for caring about the idea of race.

Oh, and food for thought. Considering that we have things like in vitro fertilization and that there are gay couples who have had their own biological children without ever having had sex with a member of the opposite sex, well, the reality is, if every human ended up gay for whatever reason, humanity would NOT go extinct, we'd just invest heavily in in vitro fertilization to make it cheap and plentiful enough to sustain our population. Humanity has thus advanced technologically enough that we don't actually NEED to have sex at all to reproduce anymore. And guess what, straight couples can use the same systems if any crop up again in the future.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So when an asshat says, "Sex is for reproduction!" you can just let them know that they don't even have to have sex for that if they don't want to, and celibate people can still reproduce.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Then you also realize that a large part of what makes someone gay or not is genetic, but not ALL of it, because there are other factors. And given that gay people can be born to straight parents, and are born all over the world, well, uh, probably if we ever figure out what the "gay gene" is, a lot of homophobes who get their DNA examined will probably be very surprised to find out that they also carry the gene, but are not in fact gay.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And in regards to the American Christians' impending crusade against Islam that might at some point break out into a modern-day Holy War (God forbid, but it's possible), well, I really like this one song about a Crusader. I'll summarize the lyrics rather than quote them. It's one of the saddest songs I've ever heard, and I might end up crying a little while writing this.

The Crusader, a proud, righteous soldier of Christianity, is informed of Christianity's enemy. His enemy is a dragon, a truly evil-sounding beast judging by the terms used to describe it. He says, "Let them come!" and prepares himself to defend his people from the scourge of his time. His father, before he goes to war, tells him that maybe he doesn't know his enemy as well as he thinks he does. The Crusader goes off to war anyways, disregarding his father's words. The Crusader is one of the fortunate few who reaches the dragon's lair alive, having taken many losses. With a prayer to God, he kills the dragon by stabbing it in the heart, and it collapses to the ground, dead.

Then, the Crusader hears a sad whimpering noise, and as he looks, a young dragonling crawls to its father's corpse and clings to it, whimpering sadly. The Crusader realizes that the enemy he had been told was so unquestionably evil, that had killed so many of his fellow soldiers, that was literally a beast from Hell... had simply fought to protect its own children when an army of Crusaders came to its home looking to kill it. And in that moment, he remembers his father's words, with heartbreak, because his father had told him he didn't know his enemy as well as he thought he did, to stop him from going to war, and he didn't listen.

Many years later, the Crusader has returned home and given up war. He has a family now, including a son of military age. His son says exactly the same things about Christianity's new enemy that the Crusader had heard about the dragon he killed. Literally, the EXACT same things. And his son is deciding to go off to war to fight Christianity's new enemy, saying, "Let them come!" It is literally an exact retelling of the first part of the song, only the Crusader is now his father, and his son is him. And he tells his son the same thing his own father had told him, that he probably doesn't know his enemy as well as he thinks he does. The exact same things that didn't stop him from killing a creature just defending its own young. The unspoken lyrics there stop short of having him remember his own father's words again, the same ones he just gave his son, and knowing for sure his dad had done something exactly like he did with the enemy Christianity had in his own day.

His son's enemy in the song was Muslim men. That was a deliberate choice by the artist, because the artist lives in a time when Muslim men are the enemy of Christians in his own country, America. Based on that, had the song been written during the Cold War, his son's enemy would've been Russian Communists, the exact same people living in Russia right now who many Americans elected Trump to avoid starting a war with. When the hatred against Muslims ends, the children of American Christians will just have another a new enemy to fight, won't they? And few will be swayed by the words of those few who saw the truth with their own eyes and told them they probably don't know as much about their enemy as they think they do.

So, just remember, when you choose to believe what people tell you about your enemy, those words are probably coming from someone who's trying to convince you to hate them enough to fight a war over it, so they're probably not telling you the complete truth.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
More food for thought.

No part of the Bible itself tells Christians anything about Islam. Because Islam wouldn't exist until hundreds of years after the eyewitness accounts of the New Testament, which were all written by humans in Christ's day who recorded what they saw, hence the Chapter Names being people's names. John is an account of Jesus by a man who was named John.

And there is absolutely one Commandment we know for sure that no Muslim is capable of breaking. The very first one, about having no other gods more important than God. Allah is not a name, it is simply the Arabic word for god. It is capitalized in the same way God is. Literally, Muslims and Christians worship the same God. Muslims even believe in Jesus, they simply believe he was a prophet instead of the son of god. Like how they believe Mohammed is also a prophet.

Honestly, the Koran probably includes the New Testament and the Old Testament at some point in its pages, as context for the things Mohammed said.

And more to the point, the Bible can't even tell you anything about Christianity, because Christianity first started to exist centuries after Jesus died. Jesus was not even a Christian himself, he was a Jew.

Merry Christmas everyone!

I hope you enjoy this day with your loved ones and friends.

 whembly wrote:
Merry Christmas everyone!

I hope you enjoy this day with your loved ones and friends.

Happy Holidays!

And Merry Christmas as well!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You know that song about the Crusader who kills an innocent dragon? I just realized, there's a dual meaning to the song. Here's how you rephrase the events of the song, so that the Crusader and his son are not evil either. This doesn't change the events that actually happened, only how you view them.

A young man of military age is armed and equipped by the armies of his faith, to fight the enemy of his day. He is told by people he trusts that the dragon is evil and doing things that any ordinary person would conclude means that the creature is a monster who must be stopped. He says, "Let them come!" to affirm his desire to defend his people and home by the lethal force necessary to stop such a foe. His father warns him that he might not understand his foe as much as he thinks he does, but the precise words his father uses leads him to believe his father is instead suggesting knowing his enemy very well, to know its weaknesses and how to kill it.

The Crusader fights to the enemy lair, from which all attacks against his people would be launched. His fellow soldiers die by the hundreds against the powerful foe breathing fire at them. Finally he corners the Dragon in a place it cannot escape to the skies, and he says a prayer for the dragon's soul, that the Lord might be merciful, before killing the Dragon as quickly as possible, so it can finally be over with. He then sees the dragon's child whimpering and clinging to its father's corpse, and he realizes with horror that the Dragon had only done what it needed to to keep itself and its children alive, exactly as he had done. Both he and the dragon had believed their own survival, along with those of their families and people, were at stake, and the sad reality is that one side or the other simply had to die for the situation to be over. And he hears his father's words again, and realizes what his father had actually meant, and he is heartbroken at the tragedy.

Many years later, the Crusader has returned home, and abandoned the life of war. His own son, however, is of military age, and has been listening intently to trusted officials about a new enemy, much like the dragon, but with a new name. He hears his son say the words he himself has heard, and he knows he needs to do something to stop another tragedy from happening. He is one of the few to have actually seen the dragon and live though, so his warning to his son goes unheeded. And on the final syllable of repeating his father's words, he pauses, his voice drops low, because he remembers his father's words, and realizes he's now giving them to his son, expecting them to stop his son when they didn't stop him, and possibly realizing that this may simply go on forever.

So the Crusader's just been misled. He does what he feels he must to save his people. He ends up killing a creature which, while merely defending its home, had killed almost an entire army of his fellow soldiers on its own. He does not prolong the creature's suffering, he simply kills it, and even asks God to help its soul. Only then does he realize why the dragon fought, and only then does he even recognize his father's warning as a warning. He cannot stomach the idea of killing anymore, so he opts to simply raise a family. His son ends up repeating his mistakes, because his son has not seen the things he's seen, and he tries to warn him, but only realizes... the warning probably won't help, and maybe the real evil is not himself or the dragon or his son or the Muslims, but only the people who lie to good men to incite enough of a response to start a war, resulting in the deaths of good men on both sides.

And the reality is that the artist's songs emphasize that there are no evil people or good people. That all people are simply people, like any other, all of whom commit some amount of evil deeds and some amount of good deeds in their lives. And he remembers that when Jesus told people at a stoning that the first person to throw a stone in a public execution should be free from sin, not a single person threw a stone. But Jesus also loved all of those people. Because Jesus loved the sinners too, and he died for all humans' sins. The artist believes that if he, an irreligious atheist who has spent his musical career preaching the idea of peace and understanding, and tolerance for all, yes, even those who are religious, deserves to go to Hell, he will be in pretty good company there, because all humans will be there with him. And the issue he raises is with those who promote senseless hatred and violence in the name of religion, with those who twist religion for their own purposes, not God Himself or anyone who simply believes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Of course, then I change albums, and suddenly find myself listening to songs about Star Wars and Sci-fi which range between "bawdy" and "perverse" in terms of sexual content.

I think he's just a really talented artist who can create music in a variety of themes and styles to suit a wide variety of tastes.

I am not aure what any of that has to do with US politics. Perhaps a new thread for that?

 BrotherGecko wrote:
I am not aure what any of that has to do with US politics. Perhaps a new thread for that?

It's tangentially related to the continuing pressure to declare war on the Middle East in the USA. The US President-Elect has some pretty violent and radical ideas. The pressure seems to mostly be coming from radical Christian groups.

How is that relevant to US Politics? It's still about religion isn't it?

Well, the reality there is that the US Government may end up pressured into declaring a war against... uhh, Islam, effectively, considering Trump wants to deport American citizens to other countries for being Muslims and I've seen support for the idea from random Americans here and there who state outright that Islam is incompatible with western values and ideals and have no issue with the idea of the USA outlawing a religion entirely and deporting its followers to... uhh, Canada I hope, because our current PM has no issue with accommodating displaced people from a country in turmoil.

So, how solid is your grasp on the separation between church and state now? Could it stop the US government from outlawing Islam if they wanted to?

 Pouncey wrote:

So, how solid is your grasp on the separation between church and state now? Could it stop the US government from outlawing Islam if they wanted to?

Outlawing a religion ain't going to happen.

 whembly wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

So, how solid is your grasp on the separation between church and state now? Could it stop the US government from outlawing Islam if they wanted to?

Outlawing a religion ain't going to happen.

Very comforting to hear. Thank you.

I assume that even if somehow the US government managed to pass a constitutional amendment to allow them to do so, the Supreme Court would just say, "Nice try, but that doesn't work in real life. Your amendment is against the constitution. Now it doesn't exist. Just give up, idiots, you're not winning this one." or words which a cynical liberal might paraphrase and summarize as such? And it really, REALLY doesn't matter who's in the Supreme Court when it comes to outlawing entire religions?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hey, a thought occurs.

What happens to Trump's chances of re-election when his followers are informed time and time again that what Trump promised was simply not possible to ever happen in the USA?

But won't the Republicans quite decisively control all aspects of the US Government? And therefore, it's entirely possible that all sorts of... Things... could be passed without much viable opposition?

 Compel wrote:
But won't the Republicans quite decisively control all aspects of the US Government? And therefore, it's entirely possible that all sorts of... Things... could be passed without much viable opposition?

Eh? What are you about?

Amending the US Constitution isn't all that easy.

 Compel wrote:
But won't the Republicans quite decisively control all aspects of the US Government? And therefore, it's entirely possible that all sorts of... Things... could be passed without much viable opposition?

As it turns out, the USA is not purely democratic. You are not allowed to do literally whatever you want just because you passed a vote on anything. There are limits on what you can and cannot do, and it is literally the purpose of the Constitution to dictate the things that a country absolutely can and cannot do.

I'm not American, but from looking from over the pond, my question is simply, who's around to stop something, and would have the power to stop it?

You've said yourself that the main tools of the senate minority have been removed.

 Compel wrote:
I'm not American, but from looking from over the pond, my question is simply, who's around to stop something, and would have the power to stop it?

You've said yourself that the main tools of the senate minority have been removed.

The Supreme Court can and will simply strike down anything THAT illegal.

Consider, in your own country's government, what would happen if one party or another controlled a majority of the votes in all the branches of your government that actually pass legislation.

People attribute far, FAR more power to the American Presidency, Congress, and Senate than they actually have.

In my own country, a "majority government" cannot even stay in power forever despite the complete and utter lack of term limits.

The USA is simply about to have their equivalent of a majority government. It probably won't be the end of the world.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I've heard that to a significant degree, a Congressman's political party affiliation matters as much as what state they represent. If Trump wants to do anything that'll screw over a state, there's just as much reason for that state's Congressman to say yes as to say no. Because they represent their STATE, not their PARTY. Their party is simply an indicator of which political party's ideals they prefer. And their individual opinions, at some level, will simply override their party solidarity, especially later on in his term(s) in any situation significant enough to be dangerous.

Hypothetically that's what the Lord's would help us avoid, and I think our new supreme court is supposed to be apolitical as well.

However, as I understand it, the Supreme court in the USA is far more politically active and involved. Hence the attempts to block the latest nomination.

 Compel wrote:
Hypothetically that's what the Lord's would help us avoid, and I think our new supreme court is supposed to be apolitical as well.

However, as I understand it, the Supreme court in the USA is far more politically active and involved. Hence the attempts to block the latest nomination.

You know, the Supreme Court are appointed for life, and 8 of them were appointed before Trump was elected. Their jobs don't rely on anyone winning any election, and I'm pretty sure that's so they can be as impartial as possible.

You may also recall that you are describing a "nomination" that Obama made, that by definition of the word "block" means that if Trump picks somebody objectionable enough, his party will probably block the nomination.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It's also worth remembering that Trump was only the Republican candidate because the crowds liked him. The Republican Party's actual politicians put a lot of effort in trying to nominate someone else OTHER than Trump, and, uh, couldn't, because he was too popular with the crowds and it really isn't up to them.

Which means that Republican Congressmen, Senators, and even Supreme Court Judges, pretty much universally don't like Trump at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Honestly, I think the reality of the US government is that it is so boring that most people can't stand to watch C-span.

The channel that covers what the government does.

Go watch C-span. That's the kind of stuff that's going to be controlled by Republicans and Trump for the next 4 years.

You'll be fine. The Federal Government in the USA is actually less relevant to your actual life than your State Government.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And by "controlled" what is actually meant is that more than 50% of the seats are held by Republicans. If enough Republicans vote against something, and the Democrats vote against it, it fails to pass.

I haven't actually looked up this statistic. What are the odds that a Congressman or Senator will actually vote in line with their party in the USA?

 Compel wrote:
I'm not American, but from looking from over the pond, my question is simply, who's around to stop something, and would have the power to stop it?

You've said yourself that the main tools of the senate minority have been removed.

What exactly are you concerned about?

 whembly wrote:

 Compel wrote:
I'm not American, but from looking from over the pond, my question is simply, who's around to stop something, and would have the power to stop it?

You've said yourself that the main tools of the senate minority have been removed.

What exactly are you concerned about?

Probably the fact that the US Federal Government controls the US military.

And that the US military is so powerful that it can annex any country on Earth if it were actually sent to war to do so.

And that Trump is a god damned lunatic.

I mean, the reason that we're all so scared of Trump isn't because we're worried about America, it's because he'd be the Commander in Chief of a military so powerful that, frankly, we're worried for our own countries as well.

And, uh, you may recall that Trump has no concept of the horror of nuclear weapons and wants to treat them like another standard weapon that the US employs frequently.

And, uh, that maybe Trump might start World War 3 if he gets exactly what he's been saying he wants to do?

So is the US military nothing but pixels on Trumps Command and Conqueror game now? The US military swears an oath to uphold the Constitution, not the PoTUS. A service member can refuse an unlawful order from the PoTUS. They don't just war and nuke without conscious thought.

They're also members of the same population that willingly, and soberly, elected a pathological liar, all bets are off now.
The whole world should be uneasy about the future, he's the most untrustworthy person the I've ever seen elected to office. You cannot rely on a single word he says. That's very bad news for everyone.

 BrotherGecko wrote:
So is the US military nothing but pixels on Trumps Command and Conqueror game now? The US military swears an oath to uphold the Constitution, not the PoTUS. A service member can refuse an unlawful order from the PoTUS. They don't just war and nuke without conscious thought.

Well Trump had pretty good poll numbers amongst the military, didn't he? Even after he attacked the family of a dead soldier on twitter and said that US soldiers would not refuse to carry out illegal orders because of the way he orders them.

So why would soldiers vote for someone who will order them to commit illegal acts in order to then refuse to follow those orders? Seems a bit of a roundabout way to do it.

And it wouldn't be the first time that US soldiers would have followed illegal orders. It's happened in pretty much every military in the world.

As much as I'm concerned about my own country, I was actually more thinking about America.

There are a lot of social issues that are very much part of the Republican platform, and not just Trump's personal, lets call them projects. As part of my general online gaming community, there's people who are BME, LGBTQ, disabled, receiving health care and those that are simply just white, and female that are just simply going, "oh frak, what if they actually do what they're saying they'll do."

There is a lot more to the why than the idea that military mindlessly desires whole sale death and destruction and Trump will deliver it.

 BrotherGecko wrote:
There is a lot more to the why than the idea that military mindlessly desires whole sale death and destruction and Trump will deliver it.

People voted for a man who said that when ordered to, they would kill the families of terrorists without any reason to and in clear contradiction of the rules of war. So they're either OK with him ordering that or don't think he meant it.

To the first, they are either psychopaths and should not be in uniform or are confident that no US soldier would carry out such an order, which is incredibly dumb as US soldiers have been involved with atrocities including the murder of women and children in the past.

To the second, what if they are wrong and he did mean it?

 Pouncey wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Compel wrote:
I'm not American, but from looking from over the pond, my question is simply, who's around to stop something, and would have the power to stop it?

You've said yourself that the main tools of the senate minority have been removed.

What exactly are you concerned about?

Probably the fact that the US Federal Government controls the US military.

Erm... it's ALWAYS been under Federal control...

And that the US military is so powerful that it can annex any country on Earth if it were actually sent to war to do so.

True. But why would we?

Except, of course Canada... have you not have the greatest stores of Maple Syrup?

And that Trump is a god damned lunatic.

Lunatic? No.

Giant donkey-cave'ness douche bag? Aye.

I mean, the reason that we're all so scared of Trump isn't because we're worried about America, it's because he'd be the Commander in Chief of a military so powerful that, frankly, we're worried for our own countries as well.

Um... are you afraid of some unlawful order? Because in that case, the officers can tell the Potus to shove it.

And, uh, you may recall that Trump has no concept of the horror of nuclear weapons and wants to treat them like another standard weapon that the US employs frequently.

Foreigners 'fraid that he'd use nukes?

AWESOME!

And, uh, that maybe Trump might start World War 3 if he gets exactly what he's been saying he wants to do?

So... um... serious question... you'd think he'd try to be the world's dictator?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
There is a lot more to the why than the idea that military mindlessly desires whole sale death and destruction and Trump will deliver it.

People voted for a man who said that when ordered to, they would kill the families of terrorists without any reason to and in clear contradiction of the rules of war. So they're either OK with him ordering that or don't think he meant it.

To the first, they are either psychopaths and should not be in uniform or are confident that no US soldier would carry out such an order, which is incredibly dumb as US soldiers have been involved with atrocities including the murder of women and children in the past.

To the second, what if they are wrong and he did mean it?

Most feared what Clinton would do than what Trump has said. Trump says stupid stuff and Clinton's no fly zone idea was going to directly bring them in a new conflict. As far as the military is concerned, it voted to avoid war.

 r_squared wrote:
They're also members of the same population that willingly, and soberly, elected a pathological liar, all bets are off now.

:rolls eye:

The whole world should be uneasy about the future, he's the most untrustworthy person the I've ever seen elected to office. You cannot rely on a single word he says. That's very bad news for everyone.

I would like for everyone to understand that POTUS is NOT some Emperor.

Yes, he has considerable power... however, not only he has to contend with his own bureaucracy, but Congress and SCoTUS.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BrotherGecko wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
There is a lot more to the why than the idea that military mindlessly desires whole sale death and destruction and Trump will deliver it.

People voted for a man who said that when ordered to, they would kill the families of terrorists without any reason to and in clear contradiction of the rules of war. So they're either OK with him ordering that or don't think he meant it.

To the first, they are either psychopaths and should not be in uniform or are confident that no US soldier would carry out such an order, which is incredibly dumb as US soldiers have been involved with atrocities including the murder of women and children in the past.

To the second, what if they are wrong and he did mean it?

Most feared what Clinton would do than what Trump has said. Trump says stupid stuff and Clinton's no fly zone idea was going to directly bring them in a new conflict. As far as the military is concerned, it voted to avoid war.

This. So much this.

So another group who voted on "he's got no substance, so we'll elect him to president" ?

I can't be the only one who see's this as a fairly bad train of thought for voting, why not vote for Vermin Supreme if this is the case, you're obviously going to get the same thing accomplished anyway and maybe a pony and free dental care (in your war of one upmanship with Britain, you now have worse teeth than us ).

 whembly wrote:

 Compel wrote:
But won't the Republicans quite decisively control all aspects of the US Government? And therefore, it's entirely possible that all sorts of... Things... could be passed without much viable opposition?

Eh? What are you about?

Amending the US Constitution isn't all that easy.

While true... I do recall that it was you proverbially jumping up and down in joy over how many states are also under Republican control across the country.... Unless a constitutional amendment must go to a popular vote (given the way other bits in the constitution are written, I dont think so), provided it goes to the states, it's possible to make amendments.