Is that an act of an insane person? It's apparently legal, now. Do you broadly think that using violence against tyranny is insane? Our founders committed their lives and fortunes to the violent overthrow of tyranny. It would be much easier, sitting in the oval office, with legal authority granted to him by the very people he would be targeting, to authorize the extrajudicial execution of a few traitors. Do you think that extrajudicial execution is insane? Then you'll have to admit that most presidents in the last few decades were insane, especially Obama. Is it only insane when the target is white people in power, rather than brown-skinned people overseas?

I'm not commenting, at this time, on whether it would be moral, or wise, but insane? I can't see how.

I barely know Vim, I'm an Emacs guy. Every time I pair with a colleague using an IDE, I find myself having to exercise great restraint, and not complain about how slow and fussy everything they do is. When I've worked with skilled vimmers, I have to admit that they invoke the deep magic nearly as efficiently as I do. Hotkeys? Pshaw, child's play.

Two things can be happening. People with a legitimate moral concern, such as myself, don't actively act against that concern by helping elect a candidate who would make that concern even worse. There are ways to express our anger and sorrow about Biden's handling of this without supporting Trump.

I do rather like science.

No, you absolutely transparent troll, the people talking about the impact of the primaries and the steps the Democratic leadership need to take before the general to win and stop Republicans are not Republicans. Just stop. We all know what you are doing.

I mean, they actually can. That's a completely facetious argument. Laws can set standards without defining everything. It's done all the time.

Voting uncommitted in a primary isn't going to help Trump. After election, after election, after election, where we've been desperately trying to tell angry, fed-up voters that the time to express that is in the primary, and they have to vote against the worst candidate in the general election, turning around and telling them now that they can't even vote how they want in the goddamn primary absolutely will help Trump.

Fascism is on the rise globally. If enough decent people leave the US, we will fall into a fascist regime, and it will be the beginning of World War Three, with the US leading the equivalent of the Axis powers. No place in the world will be safe for you or your children. That's the hard, honest truth.

when you would literally get a slip of paper that showed you the lyrics.

Insert "If Those Kids Could Read, They'd Be Very Upset" meme here.

Because the Democrats are conservatives.

The thing is that, largely, government works because people all just kind of agree that it should. If a president says "I'm suspending the Constitution to deal with an emergency", what happens next? We have a bunch of masked fascists, at high levels in government and in Washington think tanks, who would talk a lot about the unitary executive theory. It would be presented as a done deal, as if there was no question that it was legal. Who would step in to stop it? In the best case scenario, we would have a major constitutional crisis, that would eventually get worked out between the courts, the press, the public, and hopefully some courageous civil servants. In the worst case, it would straight up end our democracy. Somewhere in between lies civil war, and whatever that leads to. If suspension is explicitly forbidden, it gets a lot harder to defend, and makes the best case scenario a lot more likely.

I'm less sure about the value of background checks for presidents. I'm not sure some routine background check would unearth anything that the other side's oppo-research wouldn't. But hey, can't hurt. I'm guessing the intelligence agencies are already digging up everything they can find; making that an official requirement and publicly reported before the election might be really beneficial, not only directly, but also to prevent rogue officials from keeping the dirt to themselves and using it against a sitting president.

The Columbine shooters did not use hunting guns. We have better access to mental health care than in the past. We also have greater access to more deadly guns. Countries with strong gun control do not have our problem with mass shootings. Implementing strong gun control has been proven to stop mass shootings. A lot of money has been spent by arms dealers to convince you the the problem is your fellow humans, and not the largely unregulated flow of machines of death supplied for capitalist profit.

Should we have better access to mental healthcare, and intervention programs? Sure. Funny, though, how the people insisting it's all about mental illness and not about the gun profiteers also usually oppose any public spending on mental healthcare as well.