Phantom_Engineer

Look into technical writing. I took it in college but I'm sure you can find free resources online about it. In short, good technical writing is:

• accurate
• concise
• clear
• usable
• readable

Of course, that's easier said than done. It makes sense to make a rough outline of what you want to write before you write it. It's also good to look over what you've written afterwards. If you keep these basic principles in mind while planning, writing, and revising, you can make your writing more effective.

• Soap box
• Ballot box
• Jury box
• Bullet box
• ??? <- you are here

I can't believe he would say that! I am literally shaking rn

It matters very little. It's performative, trying to justify the conflict by framing it one way or another. The reality on the ground will remain the same no matter what the media calls it. Ultimately, it will be historians that name the war.

The combatants are Israel and Hamas. The location is Gaza. Conclude from that what you will as far the "proper" name for the conflict.

Not that bad, to be honest, but those Oklahomans are kidding themselves.

This coming massacre brought to you by taxpayers like you! Thank you!

Dr West is already running independent, so I doubt it makes much of a difference. How many potential RFK voters would have voted for Biden over Trump or West?

https://xkcd.com/1002/

The prompt just says the revolution was successful and that now it's time for a new constitution. It's not even US-specific, so there's no reason to assume that state governments even exist in the context of the prompt, much less need to approve this new constitution. There's no need for such niceties if we're in a world where a revolution has destroyed the old regime in its entirety.

Frankly, that's a ridiculous scenario. States are an artificial construct. There's no reason California couldn't be split into five states so they can get more senators, and there's no reason tiny east coast states couldn't be merged together. It's just a matter of political will. States rights do nothing to benefit the individuals living in those states. Often when we talk about states rights, states are imposing some kind of oppression or restriction on their citizens, abortion being the most recent example. The Supreme Court threw it back to the states, many of which banned it immediately.

The states don't matter! They're overgrown, glorified municipalities. If we are going to redesign the system, we need to reduce their power all together. States are a relic of a colonial system founded by the British, where each colony was individually granted a charter, and a of a constitution written at the same time the Holy Roman Empire was alive.

What stops ridiculous, punitive laws from being passed? What stops them from being passed now? The courts, for one, and the federal government. Often it's the states that are trigger happy in committing some kind of mayhem.

We've lived with states for so long that we've been gaslit into thinking that their existence is in our best interest. While states might be useful in some form, like in organizing regional infrastructure projects, their power should be diminished, and they are not deserving of house on par with the house of the people.

Of course, Congress is in need of other dire reforms as well. It should be bigger, for one, and first past the post should be replaced with some kind of alternate system (perhaps California-style jungle primaries?).

Should we care about the states or the people in the states? There are less people in Rhode Island than California. Are those people so much more important that they get more representation, proportionally speaking?

People have locational representation in their local governments. Let them rule over themselves if you want, but don't give them disproportionate authority over the rest of us.

Occupy and commit war crimes in the name of "nation building." Do this until political winds change at home and force us to pull out.

What was the question, again?