Gromnir

@ShadySandsposted a similar story... were march or april 2020... maybe? am getting old and maybe our memory for dates is getting fuzzier. in 2015 (and 2020) we couldn't figure out why anybody would object to a private business owner taking less income to guarantee his employees got more. hope the happier employees would be more efficient and less likely to quit? am suspecting employee dissatisfaction and turnover is not low in the credit card processing biz. weren't government forcing dan price to take less in personal compensation, so why would fox business pundits or rush limbaugh see as problematic? we were admitted baffled by the venom from a few so-called conservatives. still don't get the over dramatic angst. HA! Good Fun! ps even if you thought dan price were wrong and doomed to fail, wouldn't you be hopeful he succeeded? is not much down side to success as such a win at least suggests some o' the preconceptions 'bout the costs o' maintaining a business dependent on employees who tend to suffer high turnover rates is less absolute than many believe.

am suspecting most reasonable people will not view similar to dp. "Or causes the death of a human being without intent to effect the death of any person, while intentionally inflicting or attempting to inflict bodily harm upon the victim when the perpetrator is restrained under an order for protection and the victim is a person designation to receive protection under the order." were custodial and the cops had a duty to floyd. the restraint o' floyd did harm. period. is not actual worth arguing that point. watch video and have reasonable people decide that at no point during the +9 minutes chauvin understood his restraint were harmful? was police use o' force reasonable? was reasonable for entire +9 minutes. particular during the point in time when floyd became unresponsive and other cops on site expressed concern regarding floyd safety, how convincing is the argument that chauvin were unaware o' harm? over the course o' +9 minutes o' video, it becomes increasing difficult to believe the defense. even if you believe the initial use o' force were justified, and am suspecting many jurors would, +9 minutes makes... problematic. keep in mind this case is a bit different than most in that chauvin's superiors from his own department were put on the witness stand and they did not support the chauvin defense portrayal of events. no blue line o' silence. back in march, the judge reinstated the 3rd degree charge against chauvin. 3rd degree murder is what you described earlier when you suggested chauvin actions didn't look like murder. 2nd degree murder became much more difficult for the defense when minnesota police and training witnesses identified that chauvin's actions were unreasonable and not following policy, and the reason they were not ok from a policy pov is the likelihood to cause serious harm. but... jurors do not like to convict cops. am thinking a majority o' jurors, based on evidence so far, will see chauvin as guilty o' at least 3rd and probable second degree, but you need unanimous for criminal. am not in the court and am not seeing the jurors. assume jurors is being logical and rational is not smart. jurors liked Gromnir, so we should like jurors. nope. the reasons jurors make their descions rare is what you expect and chances are will have less to do with the evidence you is hearing 'bout on tv. the defendant looked shifty or uncomfortable. the defendant looked like a good christian. the judge were overharsh. the assisstant da were mean (is a problem particular if is a woman prosecutor and there is older women jurors, 'cause older women is particular harsh when judging younger women.) etc. whatever is final decision, there is a good chance the real reasons acquittal or conviction won't be based on what you are hearing from news regarding evidence. HA! Good Fun!

is worth dp checking what entails 3rd degree murder in minnesota. even if you do not believe chauvin deserves second degree murder, you are doing a fair job o' describing 3rd degree murder requirements in mn. chauvin is being charged with, among other things, 3rd degree murder, which may be punished by up to 25 years. manslaughter is punishable by max ten in mn? didn't bother to double-check. HA! Good Fun! ps am knowing this will confuse, but chauvin defense were trying to dismiss the 3rd degree charge and not second. second degree is the negligence murder charge and for practical reasons would result in less jail time than succesful prosecution o' 3rd degree. 1st degree is probable what dp is actual thinking o' when he is arguing no murder, 'cause that is the, "causes the death of a human being with premeditation and with intent to effect the death of the person or of another," crime.

some truth to that. russian and chinese abilities is likely to be overstated to an overcautious degree, but would prefer over estimate than underestimate. however, am wondering if you have heard of general paul van riper? do self a favor and do a search for paul van riper + war games. the millennium challenge (2002) were a functional US loss, and the pentagon brass were not happy. HA! Good Fun! ps: (edit) misspelled "paul van riper" once in the post. got it right the second time, but flubbed the first. doubt it woulda' serious borked a search, but jic...

nothing new. as has already been noted, china takes taiwan if it is willing to invest the resources. am repeating self, but... headline clickbait aside, those rand studies mentioned in the article show that china never achieves air superiority and a significant % o' chinese vessels is sunk before ever reaching taiwan. following a near certain successful invasion o' taiwan, china has gotta deal with a hostile population o' 23 million. post ww2, the US has been almost universal unwilling to make the necessary human and monetary investment to achieve successful regime change. is doubtful china makes similar mistakes in taiwan, but am thinking is too easy to forget how expensive it is to bring 'bout successful regime change. is tough to envision a scenario where china comes out looking like a winner following an invasion o' taiwan, even if they is most assured gonna be victorious in their efforts to invade. HA! Good Fun!

fixed. china has a few looming potential catastrophes to address which is undersold here in the west. IF situation gets bad enough in china (and "bad enough" is soonest gonna be years from today) would the chinese invade taiwan as a way to distract the populace from the failures o' the ccp? is a bit too what if for us to serious consider today. however, am not dismissing the possibility. if china were to invade today (not today. would take many months to prepare a massive amphibious assault and is unlikely the west would be caught unawares.) pretty much every model projects a successful chinese invasion o' taiwan, with a few serious caveats. 'ccording to rand and others, the chinese could delay the US from achieving air superiority, which is hardly ideal for china. furthermore, taiwan has a robust typhoon season which lasts better than three months (july-september) so figure at least a few additional weeks pre typhoon season is also gonna be deemed verboten for an amphibious landing making 1/3 of the year impractical for an invasion. a successful invasion o' taiwan is start o' problems for china as they need then deal with a hostile population o' 23 million who enjoy a per capita gdp better than 3x that o' mainland chinese and is unlikely to see the invaders as liberators. invasion sees a substantial % o' chinese vessels sunk before ever getting to taiwan shores. from a couple years ago rand had estimates that subs alone could dispatch 41% o' a potential 2017 chinese invasion fleet making the invasion alone brobdinagian costly. etc. a chinese blockade o' taiwan might be an alternative to invasion. am honest not having seen much serious discussion o' who does what in the event o' a blockade. the thing is, am admitted not certain what exact a blockade achieves. possible explanation: if you make everybody believe you is gonna invade taiwan, then perhaps china can use the threat as leverage to get away with doing something heretofore untenable in hong kong? apologies for double. HA! Good Fun!

you gut his philosophy. am not overstating. when trump seemed to misunderstand the stoopid of abandoning conventional forces and traditional troops in favor o' nukes approach, a few o' the generals were no doubt horrified but they gave the President the same clausewitz-based explanation the 50s and 60s politicians needed regarding the mind numbing stoopid o' depending on nukes as a functional replacement for traditional means o' imposing nation-state will. nukes is less 'bout imposing will. reliance on massive nuclear deterrence functional emasculates the capacity to impose will on adversaries. by surrendering a nation's capacity to exercise its will across the globe in favor o' a defensive posture which would only ever be utilized in extreme examples, the ability to realize clausewitz visions becomes impossible. nuclear deterrence is a crude response to the actions of other nation states and recycling abandoned 1950s era policy and/or trumpian ignorance is no excuse for trying to rewrite clausewitz to suit your purposes. (complete aside: a fundamental flaw o' clausewitz is he did not envision asymmetrical conflicts 'tween nation states and non-state actors. ) nukes is a profound blunt instrument. worse, the military folks who oversee the arsenals but do not control nuclear policy and preparedness has explained, many times, that the most likely nuclear war scenario is accidental. so many near misses. that reality should horrify everybody, but especial somebody who voices contempt and distrust for politicians like some kinda religious mantra. as such is once again impossible for us to square different aspects o' what you claim to ardent believe. regardless, am thinking Gromnir and not gd is the one who may legitimate ask the following question: "Have you ever read Von Clausewitz?" HA! Good Fun!

am gonna assume you is joking, 'cause lord knows clausewitz would roll over in his grave to hear gd opine 'bout US troop withdrawals overseas. sacrifice one o' the most obvious and effective methods for the nation state to impose its will (at least from Clausewitz pov) while simultaneous advocating a poison pill approach made all the more ridiculous by your stated lack o' trust o' any and all persons who might be responsible for making decisions regarding a nuclear arsenal. must be joking, 'cause is no way gd gets to invoke clausewitz serious. HA! Good Fun!

and cia operatives. don't forget the cia. gd again being selective with the details. so it were a US supported invasion o' cuba by cuban nationals and cia operatives. and yeah, in 1962 the range o' missiles were limited and the accuracy were a joke, but recall our statement: "also, increasing accurate and mirv'd icbms and sub launched nukes made the whole rationale for being enraged by missiles in cuba moot w/i a few years anyways, so in retrospect the whole fiasco were even more stoopid." less than a decade and whole rationale is moot. kill millions over what is rendered meaningless in a decade? sure, is no way for kennedy to see into the future, but kennedy's self serving and platform advancing choice looks worse (not better) given a bit o' the 20-20 hindsight. again, preach to the choir. please review. we already stated we ain't marked safer today than back then. is a whole host o' lesser powers who now have the capacity to unleash bio weapons and dirty bombs and whatnot which could have a cascade effect resulting in death o' far too many, but it ain't genuine MAD. am not sure if this is an age thing or not, but for gd there should be less excuse 'cause he does read history. am suspecting he knows better but genuine believes the enhanced possibility o' accidental annihilation and/or world spanning death due to supreme bad judgement is worth the cost. am recalling a post war senate study which quiet recognized near two dozen times the US and soviets were literal moments away from ww3, and reasons were often supreme stoopid-- geese and the moon were actual culprits o' two extreme near misses. which is all particular weird as gd expresses lack o' trust for any and all politicians. can't trust any of them to condemn land to build a damn or pass laws to prohibit smoking indoors or make worthy o' a traffic citation to engage in dangerous behavior while driving, but he is ok with the politicians having the requisite judgment and clear headedness to initiate or forestall nuclear armageddon? okie dokie. HA! Good Fun!

again, the US had already invaded cuba in 1961. that detail is kinda important and keeps slipping through the cracks o' your responses. mcnamara and kennedy's choice only appears wise now 'cause khrushchev backed down. can dress it up however you want, but kennedy and khrushchev opted to play a game o' chicken with many millions o' lives in the balance. the wise choice? also, increasing accurate and mirv'd icbms and sub launched nukes made the whole rationale for being enraged by missiles in cuba moot w/i a few years anyways, so in retrospect the whole fiasco were even more stoopid. btw, no, am not in favor o' ignoring chinese aggression regarding taiwan, but if you genuine think a return to MAD is a good option as 'posed to an admitted terrible choice 'tween a whole lotta horrible options, am genuine a bit saddened. am not advocating a neville chamberlain approach 'cause as we already stated, we ain't a peace at all costs advocate. even so, we recognize just how stoopid and dangerous is MAD and am thinking gd is willful ignoring all the times MAD almost resulted in actual nuclear apocalypse 'cause o' mistakes and bad judgment... narrow avoided. but again, a few years ago we woulda' been at least marginal agreeing kennedy deserved credit, but am think far too many forget just how much o' a hawk he were and how his policies had created a whole lotta arguable unnecessary additional tension with cuba, china and the cccp. HA! Good Fun!

am thinking it is impossible to make people understand what it were like during the height o' the cold war. weren't as if we worried constant 'bout nuclear armageddon, but it were always there. and intellectual we know we ain't much safer today from apocalyptic stoopid than were the case in the 80s or 70s, but such a recognition not change fact it felt different. is difficult/impossible to explain the difference. if there is a way to avoid a MAD standoff with china as a way to keep peace, am in favor of it. am not a peace at any cost guy by any stretch o' the imagination, but a return to MAD is not gonna be our notion o' a win scenario. am knowing gd recent gave kennedy credit for his handling o' the cuban missile crisis, but as we has grown older, we can't help but think the guy who deserves the most credit were khrushchev. keep in mind kennedy had ok'd the bay of pigs fiasco which in part failed 'cause o' a failure to consider daylight savings? serious? bay of pigs were a US supported invasion o' cuba in 1961, and arguable kinda cowardly. so a year later you got the US and CCCP playing chicken with nukes with cuba at the center o' the conflict and kennedy refused to back down. kennedy intransigence were not a shock. as so many forget, kennedy did not run for the Presidency on a platform o' social conscious reform. #1 issue for kennedy were to build up US military and resist soviet and chinese aggression wherever such were happening 'cross the globe. resist soviet and china were his raison dêtre. khrushchev and kennedy woulda' ridden out armageddon in their bunkers as the world burned. real courageous. were political suicide to back down, but somebody had to... and that somebody weren't kennedy. ... ten years ago we woulda' agreed with gd 'bout kennedy courage insofar as the cuban missile crisis. am just not sure anymore. HA! Good Fun! ps am not suggesting kennedy were a coward even if the bay of pigs was chicken sh!t. kennedy proved his mettle during the war. no need to convince us he were brave.

after obsessive checking for vaccine appointment availability w/i a 30 mi radius since we became eligible on april 1, we managed to get an appointment on monday at 10:45 am at literal the closest possible vaccination site. the appointment became available late sunday afternoon. moderna. second shot will be may 10. we were warned of possible side effects, but most common 'ccording to the health care professional administering the shot would be injection sight discomfort and/or next day fatigue. no side effects worth noting so far. we were a bit early for our vaccination, but we didn't have anybody waiting immediate before or after us to receive the shot, so am not certain if folks hadn't shown for their scheduled appointment or if there were some other explanation for the lack o' any kinda que. from what we could tell, the appointments were being staggered fifteen minutes apart. based on when we arrived and the time it took to administer the shot, we woulda' expected to have seen at least either the previous or subsequent vaccine candidates, but such were not the case. HA! Good Fun! ps have not gotten a haircut since late last february. we learned that Gromnir's hair grows kinda quick as we went from high and tight using #2 clippers side and back, blended in on top, to having our hair ~2" past shoulder length. is kinda silly, but am much looking forward to full vaccination so we may get rid o' our excess hair.

first season o' daredevil did a good job o' making matt murdock's faith central to the story and father lantom got some o' the best dialogue in the show. is tough to do faith and sooperpowers. overt expressions o' god's approval is incompatible with faith. however, if it makes you feel better... "The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision." --j.r.r. tolkien all those folks who loathe religion but adore lotr were covert indoctrinated by tolkien. HA! Good Fun!

and Gromnir were initial responding to shady observations 'bout the ussr. more specific, the baltic states is having significant russian expat populations, and the expats is curious more pro putin than those current living in russia. also, the baltic state economies were inextricably linked with russia during the dismal post 1991 years. same problems. the thing is, it is our admitted limited experience (mostly lithuania) that the the baltic governments is hardly pro moscow. as recent as a couple years ago (haven't checked recent) lithuania were calling russia a terrorist state and estonia is always at the forefront o' nations pushing for tougher western sanctions o' russia. HA! Good Fun!

fake news. western lies. only kinda kidding. russians know there is better than what they have, but particular the older generation o' russians remember just how bad things can be. for near a decade after 1991, russians were promised how much better things would be. just wait a little bit for free market magic to work. starve. freeze. putin made things better. is not complicated or deep or profound. HA! Good Fun!

looking at it the wrong way. the russian economy, by any western metric, is not good, but the situation from 1991 until near 2000ish were kinda nightmarish. germany and japan, after ww2, were rebuilt by the winners. the russians/ussr lose cold war and then the west stands by and watches as many freeze and starve. putin shows up and and gdp functional doubles in eight years, lowest wages is significant supplemented and pensions is restored. not a surprise people in russia love putin. today, no matter how bad things get and regardless o' how many is sent into poverty with each new self-inflicted financial crisis, putin has convinced russians it is the fault o' the west. putin's playbook is based on deflection and whataboutism and he uses with his own people as much as in foreign policy. but again, post 1991 were a terrible and frightening time for russians. can bring up statistics ' bout how terribad is the russian economy in 2008, 2014-2017, today, but none living in russia has ever known better. is not a hard sell for putin to convince russians they is doing good, 'cause compared to how bad things were, putin is not wrong. HA! Good Fun!

yeah, that was ugly. the army lt did not immediate pull over and did not mindlessly follow all police instructions. cops reflexive see as a contempt of cop situation justifying force? serious needs to be an effort from cops to end contempt of cop /attitude test nonsense. until cops see as wrong, am not sure we are gonna see widespread change. HA! Good Fun!

would hardly surprise us if you do **** up as much as the average cop. lord knows Gromnir were hardly infallible and we were considered to be kinda near the top o' our admitted underpopulated professional specialty. the thing is, we knew that given the volume o' work and time constraints we faced, we needed folks to double and triple check our work, and we still made errors. our mistakes were, as far as we know, never fatal. relative high pressure and not near enough resources (typical time were our greatest adversary) led to ordinary and everyday mistakes which were usual minor, but am wondering how perfect we woulda' been in our field if a large % o' our work were done literal under fire, or at least under threat o' immediate lethal retaliation. am suspecting most o' us, if we were honest (*snort*) would admit our work errors would increase substantial if we were in the situations US cops face all too often. US population is so well-armed that every adversarial confrontation 'tween cops and public has the potential to get extreme ugly. take any volatile confrontation and add at least one participant who is armed with a lethal weapon. how many is shocked when somebody gets hurt in such situations? nevertheless, we expect cops to be better than ordinary people... which is fine. Gromnir hopes cops is having training enough so that they behave better than the average citizen. even so, am thinking all too many o' us is expecting improbable infallibility. have mentioned before how we did work as part o' a probation department-- juvenile detention facility. counselor? as a counselor, we were security and we made mistakes. am recalling a unit wide fight which happened in a high security portion o' the hall on a day when we were working. hindsight. our first mistake were there were signs o' imminent trouble, and we failed to recognize. serious am not sure how we missed the obvious tells, but we did. not only that, once the fighting started, we had a charlie fox scenario as Gromnir had one pair of handcuffs, pepper spray (which we never used) +20 residents trying to beat each other to death, and at least a couple o' those residents woulda very much enjoyed hurting us. there were only one other counselor with us in the unit when the p00p started and we lost track o' her almost immediate. so we restrained a particular violent resident (not gently we might add) and cuffed him, and then we moved on to another resident who needed restraint. the guy we handcuffed and left sitting on the concrete floor were promptly beat into unconsciousness by multiple other residents. the guy we handcuffed coulda' been killed and for all intents and purposes we were the guy who rendered him defenseless. probable made other mistakes that day, but sh!t were happening and Gromnir were reacting more than thinking. same observations as always: 1) cop training sux. 2) cops, while is never explicit stated in court, near universal punish those who fail the attitude test. so called contempt of cop violations is punished not by courts but street level by cops. 3) as cop education increases, excessive force complaints tend to decrease. am knowing people not like to hear the last observation 'cause sounds elitist, but excessive force complaints 'gainst cops drop dramatic as education level o' the cops increase. education is the single best defense 'gainst excessive force complaints. education don't prevent the ordinary and everyday mistakes which all o' us save kp makes, but for cops, education does prevent the most terrifying errors. unfortunately, in spite o' fact cops is well paid, is difficult to hire cops who pass physicals, background checks and psych profiles when education requirements is only high school as the minimum. in our juvenile hall situation, we personal exceeded any ordinary minimum requirement for education which woulda' been applied for any police force in the US, and we were not a contempt of cop d-bag neither. it is true our training didn't prepare us for the unit wide bruhaha, but am not sure what training woulda' prepared us for that particular scenario. we made mistakes. period. can't help but wondering how bad we woulda' looked if the entire debacle were caught on video and made it to evening news local and/or national. given our admitted limited observations o' board behaviors, am guessing the average cop is no more a mistake magnet than kp, but such a recognition ain't particular significant. cop mistakes has a much higher likelihood o' resulting in lethal results, so is understandable if as a society we demand higher than kp level competence. the thing is, we is near universal unwilling to pay for more competence (education levels) and the contempt of cop and training shortfalls need be changed department by department. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_law_enforcement_agencies_in_Minnesota the fed can't fix the problem. have tried to explain this many times. the fed is specifically prohibited by the Constitution from interfering in police power o' states and local. the fed can offer additional money to states if those states embrace new hiring or training policies, but the fed capacity to bring 'bout meaningful change is extreme limited. is an understandable mistake, but we do wish media and teachers would do a better job o' educating the public 'bout the limits o' what the federal government can do about state and local police violence and/or mistakes. oh and the states has somewhat limited practical power to bring about change, particular at the county sheriff level. many sheriffs departments is functional autonomous and do not rely on state dollars for funding. the folks in st. paul can pass all the laws they want and more than a few sheriffs will just ignore such laws. example: would be amusing to see how many county sheriffs public ignored state mask mandates. more than a few. what could state governors do to enforce such mandates at the county level if sheriffs were not supporting? little. welcome to america. change is gonna come city by city, county by county and state by state. how many people demanding change is happy with such a reality? oh, and don't point out a specific situation to us and say such n' such example were an unforgivable cop mistake, 'cause chances are we agree with you. ain't how this started. we responded to a silly generalization which ignores certain realities. cops make mistakes. is likely due to experience and training they make far fewer mistakes in high pressure situations than most o' us would be making. nevertheless, there is clear shortfalls in cop education, cop training and cop acceptance o' the complete bs attitude test/contempt of cop punishments. need make changes, but am worried most people have no idea what is the practical obstacles to fixing the all too real problems. HA! Good Fun!

peter jackson film btw. HA! Good Fun!

am suspecting most o' the modern westerns is inspired by a handful o' older westerns which were less silly and perhaps a bit more dreary. high noon, the searchers and the wild bunch is among our favorite westerns o' all time. am s'posing wild bunch could be deemed silly as it has tarantino levels o' the ultra violence but if it were campy it weren't meant to be so. the more silly westerns is still being made today, but they ain't set in the old west. superhero films and action movies owe much o' their genesis to the old less dour westerns with impossible characters (heroes and anti-heroes) doing the improbable as they confront a cartoony villain who is getting his/her comeuppance at the climax o' the film. actors and directors is fans o' the dreary old westerns, so they wanna be part o' making more such films. high noon in space... sans grace kelly. am recalling once having read that every american actor wants to do at least one western and every english actor wants to be in a gangster film. inspired by the debate in the political thread, am not sure where that leaves scotsmen. the thing is, am thinking the american actors who wanna do westerns is less interested in doing a rio bravo reboot. HA! Good Fun!

am most likely to think 'bout scotland 'cause o' entertainment: shakespeare's play which actors refuse to mention by name, if we happen to see trainspotting (arguable all-time best example o' a movie which did not need a sequel btw,) nerdy highlander references, and anytime gerard butler tries to do an american accent, etc. from an economic pov, scotland is middle o' the pack if we were to place it on the list o' oecd nations by per capita gdp, right along with uk, france and nz btw. not adjusting per capita and scotland is on par with the US state o' oregon. offshore oil is a significant contributor to scotland gdp and as such scotland economic numbers can fluctuate more than a little in a given year. dunno. am genuine not having more than trivia question answers knowledge 'bout scotland economy. most curious from a personal pov, having spent a couple years in europe decades past am admitting racism in scotland were kinda unique. from what we could tell, being racist in scotland were, as often as not, linked to loathing o' the irish. "fenian bastards" were an invocation which somehow found its way into racist tirades no matter how incongruous. weren't many muslims in scotland at the time when we were there... not many religious or ethnic minorities period. indian and pakistani were most common minority groups. clearly the locals weren't sure what to make o' Gromnir. were just kinda weird to hear drunk racists in a bar in glasgow or edenborough 'cause eventual, in our admitted limited experience, the bigots would turn their ire to the "fenian bastards." 'pon reflection, we probable know more 'bout james clerk maxwell, ctr wilson and long past history o' scotland than 2021 events, people and issues. am ok with that. HA! Good Fun!

*sigh* am knowing what you were talking 'bout, but again, is utter irrelevant. similar weapons were used in the french and indian war. so what? the kit guns owners is not being forced to suffer some kinda special limit. opposite. the kit gun is now having same restrictions all other similar firearm sales need meet. point out fact that some such guns is modeled on firearms from the american revolution is some kinda attempt at deflection or just misguided. couldn't possible put a second amendment limit on an american revolutionary weapon? once the Constitution became the law o' the land, pretty much every state, and a whole lotta municipalities had gun control laws which would necessarily have impacted revolution era weapons. however, because certain specific kits are not getting a special exemption, you somehow see as onerous to the 2nd amendment? serious? the requirement that ghost guns need have serial numbers and ownership must be following same background checks as other firearms baffles you why exactly? of course there will be select ghost guns which while still lethal is unlikely to ever be used in some kinda crime. so what? the second amendment infringement resulting is no greater than the burden on other current firearm ownership and it would be utter asinine to try and carve out individual exceptions (which necessarily create opportunities for exploitation) when the burdens is negligible. who do you want deciding which firearms is not scary enough or lethal enough to require serial numbers and background checks? again, the burden being imposed is no different than other firearm ownership. more no compromise silliness. HA! Good Fun!

am not sure what relevance you see regarding the american revolution, but we went ahead and fixed your post... although it kinda lacks the no compromise bite it had previous to our needed edit. HA! Good Fun! ps biden is not infringing on any weapon used in the american revolution as all weapons manufactured pre 1900 is exempt from federal regulation.

our position on the filibuster has been stated many times, so won't repeat. HA! Good Fun!

wrath uses pathfinder rules and adds mythic, so whatever issues you had with kingmaker and its tendency to increasing encourage exploitive bs to survive late/end game battles is gonna be magnified as 'posed to dispelled. more pathfinder options ironic results in fewer choices as players need plan from level one to overcome challenges which sans meta knowledge is unlikely to be anticipated. there is right ways to build a pathfinder character and/or party. for wrath players w/o meta knowledge, is gonna be a whole lotta trap builds and insta-fail parties which perform great for 1/3 to 2/3 o' the game and then become impotent w/o a drastic lowering o' game difficulty. oddly enough, some o' that metaness(?) is part o' pathfinder's appeal. by comparison, there were early game telemetry from poe2 which showed that literal nobody had played a shaman character, so Gromnir prompt created a shaman and realized such a combo were highly effective at virtual any level. 'pon reflection, we most likely had most fun in poe2 with a contemplative (priest of eothas + hellwalker monk) and not 'cause it were the obvious win-button build but 'cause it were offering a relative unique gameplay approach. more than a few pillars diehards were enamored with chanters, and am understanding why, but that class offered a much different gameplay approach compared to our priest focused characters. there were no loser class in poe2, though am admitting that it were possible to make a loser multiclass character, but such were exceptions as 'posed to rules. and yeah, am thinking that the developers o' poe2, in hindsight, would do something 'bout the brilliance + salvation of time exploits in poe2, but you did not need to use such cheese to win any poe2 battle. however, am gonna observe the difficulty slider in wrath makes a big difference. normal is a far different challenge from core. one o' the owlcat developers is (were? no update in near a month) doing a core difficulty play o' the beta material and she were getting gobsmacked by battles over and over and over again. more than once the developer observed how she had played such n' such a battle on normal and it were much easier. by comparison, the owlcat community manager is doing a walkthrough on normal difficulty, and she clear ain't a pathfinder expert with foreknowledge o' battles. the community manager is having a relative leisurely run through wrath's beta material. regardless, the pathfinder system is what it is and owlcat is not gonna change the rules particular as kingmaker were, as we understand it, a financial success. example: maximized blade barriers (particular with the new mythic path option which makes 'em do 75% damage instead o' 50% on a successful save) is gonna be endgame cheese in wrath same as kingmaker... but even more so as 'posed to less. should not expect owlcat to fix that which from their pov were not broken, even if Gromnir agrees with you that such degenerative gameplay silliness diminishes our enjoyment as 'posed to increasing. Gromnir opinion don't count, which is probable a good thing. HA! Good Fun!