WalrusDragonOnABike

My last trip to the DMV was surprisingly smooth. They finally implemented appointments, and, unlikely private doctors, they didn’t make me wait in the lobby for 30minutes to 1 hour and then in the examination room for another 15-30 minutes.

No matter the infrastructure, it takes a while to go 15 miles each way. Granted, its more consistent (with an ebike at least). At the extreme end, the drive to work has taken over 2 hours once. So biking would have been much faster. Most days is like 15-20 minutes for the drive vs 55-65 minutes for the bike ride

I still prefer when people do that if it after people already replied. Especially if those typos were significant enough to cause misunderstandings. The whole chain just becomes confusing if you fix them without any edit log.

Probably just RNG tear in the fabric of space-time. Definitely no causes.

I wonder what they plan to do to the south…

They aren’t. But people treat them like they are. I do care about people using constitutions as if they were moral documents. I’d be just as annoyed if someone used a constitution to defend something like freedom of press or freedom of speech. I don’t care about what the particular issue is: its the citing constitutions like they prescribes perfect morals that I care about.

Why is it so important to you that they don’t follow their laws?

I don’t care if they don’t have an election right now. Its fine with me if they don’t. My complaint is using “the constitution says so” to justify things like dictatorships as if its a real argument rather than simply begging the question. I don’t even like when people use it as if it were an argument for things like being pro-freedom of speech. Its simply deflection.

Twelve states were occupied by the confederacy and simply excluded from the US elections and the amendment process.

The person I replied to cited a constitution. My reply is about constitutions. Anything after that is a discussion about constitution where people keep bringing up Ukraine for some reason.

So, in your opinion - in order for Zelensky to not be a dictator, he has to break all the existing rules of law in order to completely replace the existing constitution?

Not unilaterally, no. The constitution establishes a dictatorship, therefore it would need to be replaced or amended to no longer have a dictator. Alternatively, they could rescind martial law, thereby ending suspension of elections and no longer be a dictatorship. And that would be required to allow them to amend the current constitution following its rules. Not saying any of those are good ideas. Just listing the options they have to not be a dictatorship (technically he could just step down as well, but that wouldn’t change their government structure; just change who the dictator is).

Not his fault he’s a dictator. But dictator literally refers to someone who rules in time of emergency. So by definition he’s a dictator. I don’t mean it as a personal insult of the person who happens to be in the position nor am I saying its outrageous for someone to keep such a position.

He’s not a fucking monarch dude, he’s the elected head of state - he doesn’t have supreme authority to do whatever the fuck he feels like.

Which is irrelevant to the question of whether he’s a dictator or not. Don’t forget that the first dictator most people probably think of was also an elected head of state. Obviously I’m not comparing the actions that the two did using that position. Simply being a dictator doesn’t say anything about whether their rule is justified or whether they’re committing atrocities. I do think leaving the loophole in the constitution is a liability, so it eventually should be changed. But its not exactly a high priority right now.

And that’s all putting aside the question of how you would even hold an election in war ravaged Ukraine right now, a significant portion of which is under hostile occupation lol

Irrelevant, since my critique actually has nothing to do with Ukraine, but about constitutions in general.

The people are the foundation of a country. Religious documents are just excuses.

I don’t really care. Irrelevant to my point, which has nothing to do with Zelensky or Ukraine.

The 14th amendment in the US and the 1864 election happened in war time.

Changes can be made during war time. An old constitution saying you can’t is irrelevant.

A new constitution that is identical to the old one except it takes away dictatorial powers from those passing the constitution wouldn’t be sketchy at all.

An old constitution can’t control a new one. Its literally replacing the old one. Nothing it says is relevant.

A broken clock is still right twice a day.

Not really criticizing him. My criticism is the weird constitution worship used as non-argument that simply begs the question.

Pass a new constitution then. Could be identical minus those two things.

Constitutions can be changed (Alabama’s 6th constitution was amended 977 times before they made a 7th constitution last year, for example). Headline is definitely inflammatory, but just because you happen to be in the position of dictator doesn’t mean can’t work towards not being one.

Same. The electronics screwdriver set also includes a SIM ejector bit, so its a bit redundant.

…Grapploct is in the human-like egg group…