Sectionalism, isn't that what JD Vance was up to?

The T was actually short for Tal Rasha. Kissinger's soul shard was plunged into his body and he now fights eternally to prevent his escape.

I tried kissing ass and they put me on a PIP

To an observer, I would be indistinguishable from cis het, but finding oneself can be a fuck, so let's call me a work in progress trending towards "not strongly identifying with or performing" my AGAB or another gender. Parent to plural children.

If they grow up to become bigots, it is my obligation to work to change that fact. The best chance I have to enact such change is to remain a part of their lives as much as they'll allow. Above all else, however, I have an obligation to look out for their well-being. It may break my heart to be around them, but I brought them into this world, and so long as I'm around they will have a roof and a meal should they require it.

Castle of the Winds is tons of fun, I remember getting part one on an old demo disc and replaying it constantly when I was a kid. Not the most complex or detailed game of its kind, but the sprite work is still fresh in my mind an embarrassing number of years later

Milei Massacre

no commercial application for missiles makes them unprofitable

Low key glad they've actually learned a lesson and aren't trying Project Plowshare again

I'm going to argue myself and everyone else in the thread to the point of exhaustion as a bit

Has convinced me to disengage. Have a good night.

Historically, indefinitely.

A case remarkable for its singular, improbable nature makes a poor argument for calculated policy.

I don't understand this notion of 'most legitimate heir' that keeps cropping up

Then pick a different name for it, "person whose claim to the throne could mobilize the most rubles, guns, and hands to hold them". Non-legitimate claimants may still gain the throne by force of arms motivated by virtue of their adjacency to the last legitimate holder of power. The law exists, but its ability to influence action and the ways it will be rhetorically implemented are not cut and dry. Legally, Peter I was a non-legitimate Tsar while Ivan V should have ruled alone, but de jure legitimacy and "that quality which will motivate believers in a feudal monarchy to support a candidate materially" are not one and the same. "Being the child of the last guy" is a rhetorically resonant plank for such a believer.

Can you demonstrate that, had their deaths been confirmed, removing the ambiguity, there would not have been competing claims to the throne? It is a sound line of argument that removing the most legitimate heir to the throne would necessitate that monarchists either arrive at an agreement on a suitable substitute or else settle their differences, consuming their time and energy.

You instead seem to be making the case that he could have been kept alive, but with rumors of his death disseminated. How long could such a situation really have persisted? Everything leaks, and faster than expected. If there was a prince locked away, who is providing for their needs of life? What do the locals say about that location? It's difficult to accept the claim that a live prince publicly declared ambiguously living is equivalent in its effects to a dead prince not confirmed dead.

And yet monarchists feuded amongst themselves until 1929 over the rightful heir. I have a low level of confidence that this would be the case with a surviving Alexei.