@mjj29.bsky.social
If you can impeach the secretaries you can impeach trump and vance, speaker becomes president, fires all the secretaries
February 16, 2026 at 10:48 PM
If you can impeach the secretaries you can impeach trump and vance, speaker becomes president, fires all the secretaries
I once had 'destroy target creature' as a cost on a custom card. Pretty sure it's legal (and obviously busted in half)
February 6, 2026 at 5:36 PM
I once had 'destroy target creature' as a cost on a custom card. Pretty sure it's legal (and obviously busted in half)
It could potentially even cost them Texas seats. That sort of Gerrymandering is done by reducing your margin in more solid seats to take over negative marginals. But if you miscalculate that and there's a big enough swing against you, you can lose the rigged seats and some previously safe ones
February 5, 2026 at 9:15 AM
It could potentially even cost them Texas seats. That sort of Gerrymandering is done by reducing your margin in more solid seats to take over negative marginals. But if you miscalculate that and there's a big enough swing against you, you can lose the rigged seats and some previously safe ones
You only need the first two, because it's not happening unless the house is run by democrats, and the speaker of the house is next in line, who can then just fire everyone else
February 2, 2026 at 7:14 PM
You only need the first two, because it's not happening unless the house is run by democrats, and the speaker of the house is next in line, who can then just fire everyone else
Took me ages, I was like 'what do you have against fursonas?!'
February 1, 2026 at 4:51 PM
Took me ages, I was like 'what do you have against fursonas?!'
Wouldn't the statute of limitations have expired by now anyway?
January 29, 2026 at 8:23 AM
Wouldn't the statute of limitations have expired by now anyway?
I prefer a second sunrise
January 12, 2026 at 9:56 PM
I prefer a second sunrise
Yes, but if you win the house (which is probably a prerequisite to this anyway), then you only need to impeach trump and Vance, then the speaker becomes president and can fire the cabinet anyway
January 2, 2026 at 2:02 PM
Yes, but if you win the house (which is probably a prerequisite to this anyway), then you only need to impeach trump and Vance, then the speaker becomes president and can fire the cabinet anyway
I hope you mean Friday in a week, and not that the longest time off you've had in years is *1 day*. Except it probably is because Americans
December 25, 2025 at 10:01 AM
I hope you mean Friday in a week, and not that the longest time off you've had in years is *1 day*. Except it probably is because Americans
The Cornetto Trilogy (Sean of the Dead, Hot Fuzz, Worlds End)
Firefly+Serenity (even if you've already seen it)
Leon, the Professional
Phone booth
Firefly+Serenity (even if you've already seen it)
Leon, the Professional
Phone booth
December 25, 2025 at 9:41 AM
The Cornetto Trilogy (Sean of the Dead, Hot Fuzz, Worlds End)
Firefly+Serenity (even if you've already seen it)
Leon, the Professional
Phone booth
Firefly+Serenity (even if you've already seen it)
Leon, the Professional
Phone booth
If you can get a 66% senate and a 52% house in 2026 you can have a D president in 2027, just saying
December 8, 2025 at 8:38 AM
If you can get a 66% senate and a 52% house in 2026 you can have a D president in 2027, just saying
Ok, 'we don't pay federal income taxes right now' is a reasonable answer
December 6, 2025 at 9:25 PM
Ok, 'we don't pay federal income taxes right now' is a reasonable answer
You don't think that being a full state would improve your standard of living? I don't see how it could not improve it.
December 6, 2025 at 9:17 PM
You don't think that being a full state would improve your standard of living? I don't see how it could not improve it.
Is that worth having no federal representation and being treated as second class by the rest of the US?
December 6, 2025 at 9:12 PM
Is that worth having no federal representation and being treated as second class by the rest of the US?
Out of interest, can you explain how the current arrangement is better than statehood in any way? It seems strictly worse to me in every way
December 6, 2025 at 9:08 PM
Out of interest, can you explain how the current arrangement is better than statehood in any way? It seems strictly worse to me in every way
Obviously it's possible, but clearly doesn't have support now, or they would have won a ref since 1967. What you have is forcing people to stay with the option a majority of people don't want, even in a 2 option ballot. But you're arguing against the other options for exactly that
December 6, 2025 at 9:07 PM
Obviously it's possible, but clearly doesn't have support now, or they would have won a ref since 1967. What you have is forcing people to stay with the option a majority of people don't want, even in a 2 option ballot. But you're arguing against the other options for exactly that
You don't get decisive majorities in multi option fptp election systems, particularly when the change options are all canabalising each others votes. It's not like status quo ever got a majority either. If 100% of people wanted change but it was 1/3 each for the other options should it stay as is?
December 6, 2025 at 9:02 PM
You don't get decisive majorities in multi option fptp election systems, particularly when the change options are all canabalising each others votes. It's not like status quo ever got a majority either. If 100% of people wanted change but it was 1/3 each for the other options should it stay as is?
If I run these elections: state Vs status quo, state Vs independence and state Vs free association . If state wins all three elections would you say that's a mandate to become a state? Because that's consistent with no majority in a 4-way fptp, or even a loss to a (non majority) status quo.
December 6, 2025 at 8:58 PM
If I run these elections: state Vs status quo, state Vs independence and state Vs free association . If state wins all three elections would you say that's a mandate to become a state? Because that's consistent with no majority in a 4-way fptp, or even a loss to a (non majority) status quo.
You can't do that with a multiple option fptp vote. This smacks of the status quo being upset that they don't have their unfair fptp advantage. The 'not this' vote is split between independence, statehood and free association, but is definitely more than 50% combined.
December 6, 2025 at 8:44 PM
You can't do that with a multiple option fptp vote. This smacks of the status quo being upset that they don't have their unfair fptp advantage. The 'not this' vote is split between independence, statehood and free association, but is definitely more than 50% combined.
What would the point of that be? What would it mean to have a majority reject the status quo, but a plurality pick it over other options? If that carries, then why have two stages? If that doesn't carry, then what's the point of the option?
December 6, 2025 at 8:36 PM
What would the point of that be? What would it mean to have a majority reject the status quo, but a plurality pick it over other options? If that carries, then why have two stages? If that doesn't carry, then what's the point of the option?
The first stage is maintain status quo, you don't get that option again in the second stage, that's not how it works. And that option lost
December 6, 2025 at 7:41 PM
The first stage is maintain status quo, you don't get that option again in the second stage, that's not how it works. And that option lost
I'm confused though as to why you think it was skewed towards statehood? Particularly the the question option in 2012, where status quo lost to change 46/54 and statehood got a 61% majority of the options within change
December 6, 2025 at 4:39 PM
I'm confused though as to why you think it was skewed towards statehood? Particularly the the question option in 2012, where status quo lost to change 46/54 and statehood got a 61% majority of the options within change
Why are you so sure? I think it's very clear that a majority want a change, and I also think it's pretty likely that in a head to head question statehood would beat any other option. I certainly don't think any other non status quo option has a majority
December 6, 2025 at 4:35 PM
Why are you so sure? I think it's very clear that a majority want a change, and I also think it's pretty likely that in a head to head question statehood would beat any other option. I certainly don't think any other non status quo option has a majority
So there's no way to get them statehood even if they want it and Congress would support it? That can't possibly be true. It's certainly strictly better than the status quo
December 6, 2025 at 3:31 PM
So there's no way to get them statehood even if they want it and Congress would support it? That can't possibly be true. It's certainly strictly better than the status quo
Complaining that an election run as fptp didn't return >50% for one option meaning there isn't an overall preference is.. mathematically suspect, particularly when there are options to both sides. But sure, run another proper referendum as part of the process, but that doesn't contradict my point
December 6, 2025 at 2:32 PM
Complaining that an election run as fptp didn't return >50% for one option meaning there isn't an overall preference is.. mathematically suspect, particularly when there are options to both sides. But sure, run another proper referendum as part of the process, but that doesn't contradict my point