Your argument is silly. Ignoring your incorrect understanding that "the people" means only "the militia", the militia is defined by 10 U.S. Code 246:

"The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard."

Unless you're asserting most gun nuts are women and you think women should be disarmed.

I don't know that I'd say they don't belong to be aired - while the science may be make believe, comic books and especially x-men cover issues of racism and bullying very well. Entire major story arcs are devoted to exploring how society struggles to accept someone they view as alien/different. Setting it in a fantastical world allows them to get away with it while still captivating an audience - good luck getting people to sit through a lecture on race relations as entertainment.

"They control literally all of government except a few parts of NY & CA."

should say:

"They control much of government except NY, CA, CO, CT, DE, HI, IL, MD, MA, NV, NJ, NM, OR, RI, VT, and WA."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Doesn't sound as sensational though, after all we'd expect a two party system in first past the post voting, and we'd further expect those two parties to fluctuate between being in charge cyclically, as they have.

As for the meat of the article - saying opinions weren't weighed heavily when making a legal decision is exactly what they should be doing. We should not be ruled by opinions, but by fact and logical application of the law.

I believe internet service is in the same category as water/electric/sewer. In practice in the US you have no real option. If you want cable internet you have one provider, one DSL provider, one electricty provider, one sewer provider. I can't decline electric/cable internet/sewer service from my current provider and pay a different company, they don't exist. Any monopoly should be heavily incentivized to reorganize (legislatively if necessary) in such a manner that there is healthy competition. Failure to do so is on both parties.

Your post seemed strange to me, because off hand I would consider the USSR to be a prime example of "left" in practice (not theory) and they were very good at violence.

This led me to look up the definition of left wing vs right wing, and I see on Wikipedia it is defined as a measure of how hierarchical the power structure is, with flat being left and triangle being right.

This form of left vs right seems to be an unimportant nuance; I can predict an argument that the USSR was not "left" but "right" because while it talked about equality, it led to a singular despot in a very sharp triangular power structure. But that seems to be the problem of the difference between theory and practice. In theory "left wing" policies would be wonderful, but in practice. . .

Do you get to sue someone if compliance with the Paris accords costs you money?

By "giving away as freebies" you mean "not taxing as high". Money isn't inherently the government's, a tax cut isn't "giving away" money, it is "not taking at gun point".

It is not the government's job to employ people, your recommended alternative is likely outside the bounds of their constitution. If the people taking these jobs were unemployed, they were generating zero or negative tax revenue for the state. If they work these jobs they're now contributing.

The globalization experiment has shown that there are many low skill jobs that will leave for the country with the lowest labor cost if allowed. Nobody has a solution that involves a work force with 100% highly skilled labor, therefore if you want to maximize employment you need to protect some amount of low skilled jobs. If protecting those jobs requires taxing those jobs less is that not a good thing to enable? Is it not better for a person to earn their daily wage than have it handed to them by the government? They're not talking about exempting them from minimum wage or child labor laws.

Because women have nipples, and the additional genetic code required to completely remove nipples from males gives no survival benefit.

AI drivers will not phase out truck drivers for a very long time, but it will decrease their workload. The AI will handle the long haul portion on highways, with a human in the cab ready to take over for portions the AI fails to handle. Does this mean there will be fewer truck driving position? Yes, one driver will be able to handle more hours (although don't underestimate the power of unions to maintain hourly limits). There will also be job openings for AI R&D, repair, and the myriad of automated solutions they'll come up with for corner cases (automated refueling? automated loading and unloading? automated non-automated toll payment?).

Why do we end up with people whose skill set limits them to being a fry cook at a fast food restaurant? If that's the best you are capable of, your problems in life aren't starting with the AI revolution. And if society hasn't done anything to lift those people up already, (assuming they want to be lifted?) it isn't going to now.

The WA Mail in voting experience is overall good from a voter perspective, ballots show up early, you fill them out and mail them back in or drop them off at a secure ballot box. From that point onward the system is secure, there are multiple people monitoring the collection, opening, and tallying. But they seem to overlook two essential problems: fraudulently registered voters, and fraudulently filled/coerced ballots.

If you have non-qualified people signed up to vote, they get a ballot at their registered address and you fill it in and mail it in, it will be counted. (this problem is not solved by voting in person)
If you know someone who doesn't vote, you grab their ballot and fill it in for them and mail it, it will be counted. (this problem is likely solved by voting in person)

The most recent WA election scandal was the 2004 Governor election, which was BEFORE mail in voting was State level. They "found" the votes to reach the "right result" after two recounts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

I would be okay with a federal level mail in vote IF they mandated ranked voting or better, not first past the post. Two party system would be gone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

An 1866 act of congress forbids a living person to be on currency. The reasoning behind this is that historically the monarch/emperor would have their face upon the currency of their country - we do not have monarchs. Even having someone on currency only because they were a president seems too close to that, where as having them because they are a founding father seems more appropriate.

Eh, I think I get his point. "Deaths when these items are used as intended" would perhaps describe his approach. Yes a lot of people commit suicide with a firearm, and it is unfortunate, but when it is a intentional choice made by an adult (someone under 18 cannot legally purchase a firearm) I don't see it in the same category as "accidental death" or "murder". If we want to talk about reducing suicides that is a different conversation.

Comparing accidental firearm deaths with accidental car deaths we'd find cars are much higher.
Comparing murders with firearms to cars we'd find firearms are much higher.
Comparing suicide method use between firearms and cars we'd find firearms are much higher.

So why are we so accepting of automobile deaths? I posit it is because everyone finds great utility in cars, and think "that will not happen to me". Many people today live in such comfort and safety that they have never needed to touch a firearm and thus see them as something they will never need or want, and so they're easy to dismiss in a "go ahead and ban them, I have never needed them" sort of way. If you dig further in to the firearm deaths issue, it resolves as an inner city drug dealer/drug war/gang problem, not the general firearm homicide problem it is pitched as. But statistics appear racist to some people so we don't bring it up.

A driver's license teaches you the laws concerning driving, and ensures you have sufficient proficiency. Is your statement implying he didn't know murdering people was illegal? Or that his aim was too poor? How would a licensing system have prevented this? Background checks for FFL purchases are a federal level law that applies to all states.

I'd consider buying one, once the military, secret service, FBI, and the police have them standard issue without complaints or malfunctions. And I hate the idea on its face, as a software dev I'm too aware of the answer to "what could go wrong?".

No, even Elder Scrolls 1 (Arena) had a HUGE number of patches for the time, when much fewer people understood the internet and downloading patches. I like to joke that the patch notes.txt was larger than the game .exe. Elder Scrolls 2 (Daggerfall) was worse, with many more crash bugs, but it was also even more complicated. Morrowind wasn't as bad but it also scaled back on the complexity a bit.

I know you're joking but there IS a law against it.

(state laws vary but mostly:) Under 18 years of age you can't legally own any firearm, and they can only be in possession of a firearm with permission and supervision from the owner.