Wrong argument: he’s literally citing the supremacy clause.

A better argument would be that same constitution prohibits violation of limits on federal power, especially the bill of rights, enumerated powers, judicial review.

Like this?

That’s pretty good: could that go in the OP body or is editing not possible?

Not in the OP. For primarily text content, images of them are pretty pointless: there are links to source, quotes, etc.

Alternative: put entry point code in file __main__.py & run the containing package (eg, some_package) as a top-level expression (eg, python -m some_package).

Wtf isn’t any confederate symbolism illegal and punishable by prison time? I’d support this.

Basic rule on policymaking: don’t give yourself powers you wouldn’t want your opponents to have.

Quoting A Man of All Seasons

Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law for my own safety’s sake!

Sacrificing basic civil liberties when they don’t suit you is a threat to everyone. Their willingness to do that is why everyone hates authoritarians. It’s cutting off your nose to spite your face.

There are better ways to beat these shitheads.

Trump voters love to “own the libs”.

Is the liberal version of “owning the libs” also “owning the libs”? 🤔

The same way that the vaccine conspiracists won’t learn until they watch their unvaccinated child shrivel and perish from a horrific and completely preventable disease.

You’re wrong: they don’t learn either. Humans have an incredible capacity to not learn shit. Let’s empathize with them: just kidding!

Rubber, glue

Again, not my opinion.

Look around: who voted Trump into office? What thoughts voted him in? I doubt they’re anti-capitalist.

But [wealth] is a problem

Again, many don’t share your anti-capitalist sentiments. They’d say the problem is cronyism such as political connections & undue influence of moneyed special interests in politics. These are not the same.

They aren’t opposed to accumulation of wealth. They’re opposed to wealth gained through illegitimate means (eg, connections to win government bids, pass laws in their favor, capture regulatory agencies, reduce competition): economic government corruption, ie, crony capitalism.

They boil down to the same answer: get money out of politics (eliminate the dependence of campaigns on fundraising, reform lobbying) & break up the 2-party system.

If we believe wealth inequality is the source of the issue

Many think it’s a symptom: the problem is political access from wealth disadvantaging others from gaining wealth or crony capitalism.

“A presidential cabinet position shouldn’t be for sale to the highest bidder” is more direct without requiring buy-in to an idea many don’t accept. You focus on wealth rather than that no level of wealth should be able to buy that sort of thing.

one is addressing the actual issue

Questionable: the actual issue is illegitimate power as originally stated. Some people care more that it was gained at all: they shouldn’t have that illegitimate power through wealth or any other means (personal connections, favors, etc). They want the cronyism removed from capitalism.

so nerfing your messaging and platform

It’s not: it’s framing the same goals in language other voters will accept. Neither oligarch nor kings implies capitalism as you stated.

Democrats will not win on the messaging being proposed

Until Democrats build in other states the kind of establishment they have in California & New York, Democrats in other states will need to adapt their message to their voters.

Frankly, adapting a message isn’t enough. They need to beat Republicans at social media, have their own answer to right-wing influencers & podcasters like Joe Rogan, probably pump out their own viral bullshit, answer Republican troll farms with Democrat troll farms.

Wtf is a ‘cognitive’ meaning?

Source:

Cognitive meaning is when words are used to convey information and emotive meaning is when words are used to convey your own beliefs (your emotions).

And how do you think those elites are stacking the deck??

It’s not about me. It’s about how others think, and they don’t necessarily think wealth is a problem. They may think more about power & corruption.

I think you’re intentionally dismissing something that most americans understand extremely well

I think you overestimate Americans & don’t know how many think unlike you.

they have always shared my resentment against those with ill-begotten obscene wealth and influence

That’s cool for your family.

It’s a mixed bag: plenty of people in those states also vote the way they do because they think they someday could be rich. There’s an anti-intellectual strain that dislikes people who say words like oligarch.

Merely complaining that someone is rich is oblique & takes some steps & assumptions to arrive to the part that bothers people. Complaining that they exercise undue power over you & cheat you out of a fair shot makes the point directly.

Many had little problem with the wealthy itself until they saw the Musks, Bezos, & Zuckerbergs line up with the president for favors, ie, corruption.

I think we’re both talking past each other: oligarchy doesn’t imply capitalism, either.

The order you wrote the 2 sentences—kings…oligarchs then one…the other—isn’t parallel. Oligarchs have lesser, shared authority than a king, and neither implies capitalism, so semantic cues weren’t clear enough to reject suggested parallelism.

Someone who knows the cognitive meaning of oligarch would be confused the way you wrote that.

Anyhow, anti-capitalist sentiment isn’t really that relatable to many Americans: too many Americans dream about gaining obscene wealth, socialism is still a dirty word among too many, they think those business elites somehow “earned it more” than others. There is some reason to think criticizing power (elites stacking the deck in their favor like unelected rulers) is more likely to broadly appeal to those folk. Meeting them where they at with a more familiar word isn’t irrational, either.

While I’m fine with explicit language to oppose business oligarchs, I also see an argument for a different tact & same results in rustier, less urban states.

b/c you believe they are too stoopid to understand what an Oligarch is

They’re not? Have you looked around?

One is very clearly a result of a capitalist system, the other is a looser critique of authority generally.

I’m sure the average, middle-of-the-road voter with mundane concerns thinks that. So relatable.

“King” isn’t even related to capitalism.

People really like first not admitting they didn’t read, then doubling down on absolute nonsense around here.

Look at this guy go past the headlines & read the article: that’s heresy around here.

This is the web: we can attribute source with link, and the original source in markdown could be quoted without breaking accessibility. The web is built for it.

👊 TARIFF 🔥

The GREATEST, most TREMENDOUS Python package that makes importing great again!

About

TARIFF is a fantastic tool that lets you impose import tariffs on Python packages. We’re going to bring manufacturing BACK to your codebase by making foreign imports more EXPENSIVE!

Installation

pip install tariff

Usage

import tariff

# Set your tariff rates (package_name: percentage)
tariff.set({
    "numpy": 50,     # 50% tariff on numpy
    "pandas": 200,   # 200% tariff on pandas
    "requests": 150  # 150% tariff on requests
})

# Now when you import these packages, they'll be TARIFFED!
import numpy   # This will be 50% slower
import pandas  # This will be 200% slower

Text: it’s accessible!

The selective illiteracy gets me: clearly, they can read each other’s messages. The text in an error message? Brain shuts off.