Kethal

So a second-rate burger joint instead of a third-rate joint?

There are small annoying differences. The way it handles downloads is irritating. The settings menus are not well organized. There's a big stupid Bing button unless you remove it. It randomly fails to honor the option to open PDFs in an external program. It's nothing big, but if you're forced to use it for work, it's constantly annoying.

I wondered what this could possibly look like and found some examples here: https://www.baeldung.com/linux/view-media-no-graphical-env.

I was expecting ASCII art. It's low resolution video though. Seems like a small use case, but pretty nifty.

In those places one would need to register for the appropriate party an appropriate amount ahead of time. What the field will look like overall is taking shape well ahead of time, and in some places ballots will have already been set before party registration deadlines arrive.

Does it hurt his case that they haven't been arguing that what he did wasn't illegal, and instead that he can do illegal things with impunity? Or can they simply change the argument without consequence if this doesn't work?

This is not "messing with Trump". Anyone in any party should participate in primaries. They decide who everyone else will get to vote for, and in some regards they are more important than the general election. For example, if someone is in a gerrymandered district, primaries are the only elections that matter for district level races.

If one party literally has only a single candidate, and thus there is no choice, don't vote in that primary. It's pointless. Vote in the other primary, for whatever candidate you like best, even if you don't like the candidate. Then there's some hope that when the general election comes, you'll at least be OK with both candidates. In the general election, vote for the one you like best, and if the candidate you like loses that election, you made a difference in the primary. Republican, Democrat, any party or no party, it's the way to give your vote the most influence.

I just want to point out here that I haven't downvoted a single one of your comments. That's other people weighing in on this.

I've already explained it and repeating myself would be pointless. Reflect.

Someone took the time to answer your question, then you mocked them. That's derogatory. Then after having it explained what you did wrong, you blame everyone but yourself. Choose your own words more carefully.

It's not much: https://file.io/PYHlCpv2LgdE.

The Nowar thing is from a GitHub repository and there's probably a newer version. I pick parts from it to run rather than running the entire thing.

I don't feel that I've been derogatory or acted upset. I've explained that people are not likely to know an inside joke. That's what inside jokes are. And if part of an inside joke involves mocking someone, then you'd certainly hope that the jokester would be confident that the other person was in on the joke. And if it turned out the other person didn't get it, you'd hope that the jokester would apologize and politely explain the joke - not act like everyone else is the problem.

It's great that there are a lot of people that like chess. I assure you though, that by far, the majority of those people do not have any idea about your joke, from a tiny part of the chess community.

No one said you can't make jokes. It was only pointed out that someone not getting a joke from your insular club isn't a whoosh.

What's weird is that the wording on the ballot appears clear. How did this altered wording get into the constitution? That wording wasn't voted on, so how can different wording legal?