Destroying Communism by invoking statist solutions like ordering corporations what to invest in and who should be running them.

Hmmmm.....

With the defunding or underfunding of most of the departments actually involved in determining whether there is an emergency or not, what's the point? Under Trump, there won't be emergencies to alert. It's all smooth sailing from here on out.

Yup, if only there was some small Central-European country that could have demonstrated that direct democracy could work at the nationnal level.
But no, nope, there absolutely none, nothing to see here, move along...

Up until the Newt Gingrich's rise to power, the Libertarians were, fairly or unfairly, deemed Conservative's useful idiots.

The Republicans know full well what a destructive force he is, and they know to one extent or another he's going to do them damage. But the core desire of the Libertarian wing of the party is the decimation of the Federal Government, so they'll accept a few body blows in service of the cause.

They have core beliefs. Those beliefs are orthogonal to what we would deem to be normative politics.

Or being one of the companies with so much cash that, as of yet, Trump doesn't have sufficient levers of state in his hand to bring to bear.

The difference between statism and regulatory capture approaches 0 as you increase authoritarianism. The difference between capitalist oligarchy and party apparatchik is a distinction without a difference. They just spout the same sermon with different adjectives.

The main missing point on your list:

- popular initiatives and regularly held referendums (i.e.: the general population voting on most decisions, and bringing new decisions to be voted upon).

i.e.: what a *direct* Democracy (a.k.a. the only *true* Democracy in the sense of directly giving political power (cratos) to the general population (demos) - not merely putting, in decision-making roles some "representatives" who will be then subject to legalized bribes... huh... sorry to "lobbying")

You might notice there's a certain overlap between "country that follow direct democracy" and "country which avoided the last two rounds of world war" (despite rampant fascism at the same time in the rest of the continent around). These might be at least somewhat linked.

You can certainly write a lot of verbiage to mask the bigotry, that is for certain. You seem to think you can win debates by typing endlessly and using ChatGPT to increase the number of words.

Plenty of couples cannot have children, and are allowed to marry. Unless you want to ban infertile heterosexual couples from marrying, this is a bizarre point.

The twisted logic bigots have to apply.

I'm sure many liberals, communists and moderates thought the same thing of the Brown Shirts in late Weimar Germany.

There was a very nasty surprise waiting for them. Once you gain the levers of power, and you are sufficiently motivated and unhinged from any kind of sense of obligation, decorum or constraint, you don't have to be a majority. You just have to be willing to use raw applications of power. Illegal immigrants are not the only people that are going to end up getting sent to Alligator Alcatraz. They're just the test subjects for the inevitable liquidation of all political opposition.

And even if he does, or doesn't make it until the end, do you actually think his allies and backers, and the Republican Party itself, is ever going to give the Democrats a chance to hold any kind of power again?

And this AC, even if trolling, exemplifies the kind of people that cheer on tyrants, always believing that only the people they hate will be targets.

Noun-genders have little (but not exactly zilch) to do with emotions, and a lot (but not everything) to do with the very complex and messy evolution of language.
(Some very old language, including reconstructed proto-indo-european, had two genders..."animate" and "inanimate".
then a messy lineage of sometime reassigning(*) them to- or co-using them along with- "masculine" and "feminine",
some time adding back a neutral on top of that to bring back inanimate and/or try to (partially**) assign objects(***),
then reshuffling stuff around.
English notoriously started putting all objects and inanimates into neutral, though there are a few exception where older noun-genders were kept around. I knew for ships for sure (as pointed out: because "navis" in Latin) I wasn't sure if submarines fall in the same category.

Given the answers I got: apparently yes, it's customary to use "she" for submarines too, as a sub-type of ship.

(*) modern French has notes of that (that were carried through latin). Normal noun-genders are masculine and feminine, but concepts tend to mostly feminine, agents tend to be mostly masculine. (But of course, French being French, it has fractal-pile of exception all the way down)
(**) German, lots of slavic languages (including my own Bulgarian) have neutral, but not all objects are neutral
(***) all neutrals aren't object: children are neutral in several language (bg: "dete" is neutral (to). I've heard that's the case in Finnish too?)