I'm the parent poster, and that's not what struck me at all.

We should not have elections at the drop of a hat, every time public opinion sways one way or the other. That would be unworkable. Certainly elections should happen regularly, to allow the governing party to have its mandate re-approved, or rejected in favor of another party's. But have them too often and you reduce the government's activity to seeking approval constantly, without actually getting anything done.

No, what concerns me is that there is no way in a system with strictly-scheduled elections to act sooner when a government has gone astray. In a parliamentary system, defeating a government and triggering an early election is an onerous decision and should never be taken lightly. But sometimes it is necessary.

For better or for worse, if a US president becomes a tyrant, there are no ways to remove him/her before their term ends, except by impeachment or the 25th amendment. You should be able to remove a president more rapidly for behavior that seriously damages the country -- not just because his/her ideas have become unpopular. And if the VP follows the same course as her/his predecessor, then impeachment is still there. All of this makes dissolving the government and calling an election seem a whole lot simpler, doesn't it?

Trump has announced that the USA "will run" Venezuela until someone the USA likes can take over. How is that not an invasion?

And Trump is in the White House, so he's fair game for criticism. Get over that.

There are far less drastic ways to deal with a tyrant. For example, in the USA (to which you allude per the 77 million 2024 Trump-voters) you can impeach the president. Or at least try. We know how hard that is.

In a parliamentary democracy, the head of state has mostly ceremonial (and very little executive) power, so you have little need to impeach him/her. Instead, if the government slides into tyranny, then the head of state does have the authority to call an election -- even if the government's mandate is a long way from expiring. Usually s/he doesn't do that unless asked, but who knows? Perhaps circumstances could justify it.

And this is where the US system puzzles me: having elections at fixed times and not sooner when warranted. As Will Rogers said:

Or perhaps you meant the state I live in (which you don't know) is "backward" because it doesn't offer EDLs. Well as a matter of fact it doesn't, and I fail to see how that makes it backward. There are other ways someone can prove they're a citizen -- ways they would need in order to get an EDL in the first place.

In Washington State, an Enhanced Driver License (EDL) can prove US citizenship because you must be a US citizen to get one. It's one of the few states that offer such a thing.

I don't live in Washington State. I have given you no reason to think I do.

Yes, a passport can be used to get a RealID if you're a citizen. But non-citizens can get RealIDs too. Which is the whole point of this conversation: a RealID is not proof of citizenship. It's proof that you have legal status in the USA.

Your username seems oddly reflective.

I forgot to mention: if you so wish, you can in fact be tried without legal representation for a felony or misdemeanor, provided you can convince the judge that you know the risks and are competent to represent yourself pro se. It's a really bad idea though.

What are you talking about? You most definitely have the right to have a lawyer represent you for an immigration hearing or traffic ticket. The government just won't pay for one, unless you're mentally disabled.

To obtain a ReaIID, you do not need citizenship, but you do need to demonstrate legal status in the country. That could include one of the following:

- birth certificate from a US state;
- US passport;
- proof of permanent residency (green card); or
- employment authorization documents (i.e., visas or work permits.)

An electric bill or property-tax bill may show proof of residency but it does not show legal status.

Stallone is an actor, not a boxer. He played a boxer in a movie series about one. Ever heard of make-up?

That was the whole point of my post.

For you especially, it seems.

I am forced to agree that 60 billion dollars does not equal 99 percent. Units don't match for one. Learn how to math.

As for him pledging to give away 99% of his wealth (which I admit $60B is not) ... note that he's not dead yet. You don't know what his plans are for the future, or in his will.

You sound like a Christian Nationalist.

You can't just redefine things to conform to your own opinion. Here, this may help.

And now I'm done with this conversation. Over and out.

I beg to differ on both counts.

A secular society separates church and state. In other words, governmental and public affairs are not determined on religious grounds.

And freedom of belief necessarily includes freedom from belief, i.e., the absence thereof.