The issue isn't compromise, it's control.

Under a multiparty parliamentary system, a party can make the (short term logical) choice to ally with whichever other parties will bring it into government even if it's supporters dislike those parties....

You as the voter have no control over the eventual coalition - you just have input into how many seats the party you support has.....

In a 2 party system you know very clearly who will be in the government and what their agenda is.

I would love to see that in the US for candidate selection.

Would get rid of the 'a handful of the most politically whacked out people in your state choose these 2 crazy pants candidates some time back in February, vote for whichever you hate the least' problem we have now ...

Chevron doesn't change anything about existing law. It just lets the courts overrule an agency legal interpretation.

Further, as noted in this term's bump stock ruling, anything that automatically fires multiple shots (FRTs, super safeties, any sort of spring loaded stock) using recoil eneegy is still fair game for the ATF to consider an MG.

The bump stock ruling itself hinged on the notion that bump stocks did not operate automatically.....

'Shit, world domination just got harder'

Life before cars and trains.

If you had to ride a horse to DC to assume office, you didn't want to be trying that in January.

Because the Constitution has specific dates for both elections and the assumption of office.

Also because the appointment of agency leadership is a political act, such that when the President leaves office all of the leaders of various government agencies are obliged to resign, and a new president is entitled to replace them with his own people, subject to Senate confirmation.

If the Senate and the President are not members of the same party (or if the Senate is closely split between parties) then the task of staffing up the government can become extremely drawn out, as Senators object to appointees they find politically unacceptable.

The highways are already built. Land was already acquired.

To set up a train (as California is finding out) requires buying new rights of way and is prohibitively expensive....

Underground? ROFL... You have no concept of scale - everything in the US is spread way, way out...

Even connecting 'smaller cities' with underground trains would require 30, 40, 60+ mile tunnels. And you would still have to pay for tunneling rights.....

The US has the transportation system it does because of its size & general lack of density....

P.S. Row houses are a form of high density housing where you build one long 2 story building and then chop it up into 'houses' that are laid out like a single family home but still share a wall with your neighbors on both sides.

The point is that Americans by an overwhelming majority want to live in detached single-family homes and that makes cars far preferable to public transit.

Because trains are an incredibly shitty way to get around (and incredibly expensive to obtain land for) when you live spread out all over the place.

The real statement is that Americans will do anything to avoid living in tower blocks and row houses - which makes trains impractical.

Imagine having no clue what sort of government you are going to get, because it's all decided by wheeling and dealing after the election....

2 parties = you get one or the other, rather than voting for party A assuming they would ally with Party B, and then they actually team up with Party C.

Because outside of parliament everything is non-political...

Essentially the bosses (ministers) change & some seats of the house of commons change, but everything else stays the same.... You go home one day having worked for a right wing boss, come back the next and you now have a left wing boss, and you did what each one told you to because politics isn't your business & you just follow orders....

There is no confirming new department heads like there is in the US where they are all appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

There is also no divided government - eg the US very commonly has the Senate not under the control of the President's party, so transitions can be drawn out by objections to appointees...

Yes, actually, I do.

The old way (well, since the Reagan years anyway) was that an agency's interpretation of an ambiguous statutory authorization was to be deferred-to by the courts.

Post Loper-Bright, such deference is not required.

However for any of that to enter the picture, the action being taken has to involve an administrative rule or regulation of some sort, based on ambiguous or assumed statutory authority.

So unless the VA only has the authority to forgive debts because they twisted/stretched statutory law to create it by regulation, nothing has changed.

Felony charges for theft by fraud.

I mean if it's online shopping they have proof of delivery to your house....

If it's in person shopping they have cameras...

And they definitely recorded you when you lied about it being fraud....

Go directly to jail....

Not how that works.

The concept of Chevron deference applied to interpretations of the CFR (administrative regilations) not to statutory provisions.

If Congress gave the VA specific authority to forgive debts, that is still there....

Well. If you are the dictator of Italy, and you are talking about bringing back some glorious past when your people ruled the world....

Seems obvious that ancient Rome is what you would focus on.....

Of the ones we can talk about JFK wins that 'prize'.....

Chevron doesn't enter the picture for this....

That said as long as you're not a 20 something seeking to welch on your college loans the courts are unlikely to be bothered by forgiveness assuming it's authorized by law.....

I'm talking about the idea that 'being the good guys isn't working because the Democrats play dirty, so we should play dirty too' (say, by nominating a career criminal for President persistently, no matter how many elections he makes us lose)....

The rank and file MAGA types have been bitching about this for years leading up to 2016... And eventually managed to turn it into the present nonsense....

From an absolutely literal perspective, only if the Supreme Court tries to apply such immunity to an impeached president at some unlikely point in the future....

But yeah, that was a very bad decision overall....

Technically a violation of 134 (adultery) but most commanders won't care....

That said if your boss is a holy roller or just went through a bad divorce, it's the sort of thing you could get in trouble for....

You would have to be a complete moron of a commander to order such a person to be taped.....

He passed the HT/WT screening, box is checked, your slide is green-er, move on...

That said, it is also theoretically possible that such a dickhead exists... Somewhere.... And the Army has allowed such authority to exist, so it can legally be used.....

There's that too...

The whole evil empire analogy fits even better given the last SW film's oops palps is back thing.....

The Supreme Court doesn't make laws. They just say what laws can be made.

What they ruled is that the 8th Amendment only restricts the punitive portion of a law (the fine, jail time, etc) - not the prohibitive part (the section that says what you can and can't do).

Prior to that, in 9 western states, it was considered cruel and unusual punishment to enforce laws against homeless presence - such as parks being closed at night or off limits to tents (whereas in 41 other states it was perfectly legal).

This puts the 9 western states back on the same page as the rest of the US - it's not cruel or unusual to have such laws (because a law itself can't be cruel and unusual punishment unless the punitive portion is such) however it would be if the punishment for pitching a tent was 10 years in prison instead of a small-dollar fine and loss of your tent.

That is a general impossibility given how the US is organized/governed. There will always be outlying areas, forestland and so on.... The places you find anti camping laws enforced are cities large enough to have local police departments, and that's a vanishingly small portion of the US land area especially out here in the western states.

Prior to the 6 years that the ruling which was overturned last week was in force (as well as DURING those years in the states not subject to the 9th Circuit) there was never a problem of 'homeless people not having somewhere to sleep legally'.

What the 9th did in Martin is more or less create a right for them to sleep on any public property they wished, anywhere in 9 western states.

And that's just nuts.

Personally owned weapons and ammo are a NO vs a vs JAG and LOAC.

Beyond that, there is no real benefit to the average troop who presently has a rifle carrying a pistol.

There would be one in pushing down the rank at which you trade in your rifle - for the same reason we used to give the men muskets and the leadership swords: at the point where your men are your primary weapon, you should be armed with a weapon that encourages you to not get personally wrapped up with shooting targets personally.

No, it's very clear - you are a licensee not an owner and EA has no obligation to keep the game online forever.

The idea of online games that can be played forever ended when consoles went online and game developers stopped expecting players to self host the game servers.