You know, I don't disagree with your ultimate point. But if you look through this comment chain you should recognize that the way you chose to make it is:

1. Needlessly antagonistic, and (therefore)
2. Not very effective

If you wanted to convince anyone or provoke interesting discussion I think you failed.

In the future, you should just make your argument/statement instead of asking "clever" bad faith questions.

Most (maybe all) age discrimination statutes only protect people over 40 so may not apply here depending on the specifics.

If you have heavy leaf fall it'll smother the grass and kill the lawn.

Did anyone think we couldn't? We regularly elect people to do that job.

Did musk hire expertise? Or do the actual engineering?

It sounds like your actual argument is that neither he nor they founded the company.

I guess it just sprang into existence on its own...

And thanks to you as well!

Thanks dude!

Sorry, what are the *arr apps? Not familiar with that stuff..

No, the rules have always allowed them to consider promotions individually. It's voting on promos as a bloc that requires unanimous consent.

Because that's not the whole story.

Yes, they can (and have) done a few individually.

The reason they've resisted doing that for the most part is two-fold:

1. They don't want to normalize what Tuberville is doing. If they "give-in" and start considering promotions individually, then they signal that any senator can use this as a tool.

2. They think that what Tuberville is doing is ultimately harmful to Republicans and will help Democrats win more seats in the next election. They will run ads saying that Tuberville and his fellow Republicans are hurting American military members and weakening our military readiness.

Agreed. I actually can't even remember if I finished it or just set it down one day and forgot to come back to it.

The story was... Sort of interesting? The art direction was just way ahead of the gameplay, which was a shame.

Yes exactly. Whichever party has a stranglehold in a given state/county/whatever will object because ranked choice voting has the potential to allow previously marginal (or zero chance) candidates to be elected.

Democrats are not inherently more fair-minded than conservatives. Both parties' (all parties, actually) first priority is to maintain power. Everything else is secondary to that.