Such delicious username/comment synergy.

Well, not voting = bad citizen in my book, but I wouldn't say you're a bad person based on that. I'd have to know more about how you treat other people to make a judgment.

So you're a bad citizen and proud of it. Gosh, I wonder why so many people disagree with your sentiments.

No. My point is how you vote is utterly unrelated to the structure of the system. Such a vote doesn't change the system at all, positively or negatively. Your vote doesn't affect the two-party system, no matter how purely and earnestly you want it to.

Like you, I believe the two-party system is damaging to us as a nation. I also recognize that voting as if the USA were a parliamentary system is stupid. There's no advantage to be gained, only disadvantageous risks. It's a profound mistake from a game-theory perspective.

There all is aiken.
—Forrest MacNeil

undereducated men skilled laborers

Anyone who says a system will be "impenetrable" is either blatantly lying or knows fuck-all about computer security. There is no such thing as an unhackable system.

All that, plus the GOP's long history of voter disenfranchisement and suppression!

You're absolutely right. That's the crux of it: when Republicans in Congress are sure that Trump is hurting the plutocrats' agenda, they will turn on him.

Thanks for being the ombudsman on this thread.

I agree with you there. The idea that the omniscient omnipotent Creator can or should be swayed by individuals' wishes seems contradictory and/or absurd.

In my experience, rinsing or soaking the onions in cold water just after slicing or chopping is worthwhile, but only if the onions will be eaten raw and they're the strongest flavor in the dish.

Thanks for the fine article, Doctor Science. It's definitely in the top tier of Supper Club features.

Many people are well aware of all three terms' etymologies, and they decide not to use "retarded" as a glib pejorative because they don't want to insult innocent third parties.

I always thought asking saints to intercede on one's behalf was among the most reasonable parts of Catholic dogma. At least it requires no doublethink ("it's a mystery"); it's consistent.

You never said what qualifies as an empire, even after I asked you directly. Just that whatever anyone else says is not enough. You can play No True Scotsman without any further interference from me. Enjoy yourself.

Oh good, it's just a cynicism contest; nothing substantive to be concerned about.

Three posts ago, you were flatly declaring America is no empire and anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool. You've softened that position in stages when challenged for evidence. Now you're mumbling the US's puppet states are not the best they could be. What does that have to do with it?

How is that normalization? Is it normalization because I won't throw up my hands and concede defeat?