Supreme Court justices are nominated by the president and then the house and Senate approve or deny the nomination. The current justices were nominated by Democrat majorities.
Kamala Harris is actively campaigning with Dick Cheney.
Electoral districts are drawn via bipartisan committee.
This is ultimately the problem with metaphors... What specifically are you looking for to confirm or deny?
Are Democrats holding a gun to your head?
Yes. They are called police, the gun isn't figurative.
But if you want to change metaphors:
"if you leave him alone with your stuff he's going to steal it, you better leave me alone with your stuff as I won't steal it."
They then invite the other guy over and help them steal it, but blame it on the other guy and say "we tried to stop it". Who would you be more angry with?
Holding a gun to your head is "not doing anything"?
Yes, dictatorships and monarchies sometimes have a petition process, but they tend only to pay lip service. Not because they care, they will do as they please becaue they have the power-- hence a dictatorship.
You're so close to getting it...
So if one person is holding you at gunpoint while another rummages through your pockets, you should definitely only be mad at the one going through your pockets right?
The promise is that Harris is essentially a continuation of Biden so with that in mind comparing to your list above:
Similarities ✓ the "Muslim Ban" on air travel, employing white nationalists as staffers, packing the supreme court with extreme conservative justices, giving permanent tax cuts to the rich, expanding the presence of immigrant concentration camps, cozying up to foreign dictators, directly pursuing strikes and assassination attempts against middle-Eastern military generals and diplomats, trying to start a trade war with China, discrediting his chief medical advisor on factual statements about Covid, saying Black Lives Matter protestors were "burning down cities", wanting to designate Antifa as a terrorist organization, declaring "far left radical lunatics" part of his "enemy from within", sexually assaulting over a dozen women and underage girls, being a generally abusive sleazebag, also funding a genocide (Israel has always been ethnically displacing Palestinians), also building the wall, also not implementing healthcare reform (and being against what we have), also not protecting abortion rights, and also denigrating anti-genocide protestors (but not as harshly since he wasn't the one in charge when it happened)
Differences: X Popularizing the idea of the wall in the first place, calling illegal immigrants "murderers and rapists", moving the US embassy to Jerusalem, being an avowed friend of Epstein, stating he wanted generals like Adolf Hitler's behind closed doors when his own generals refused to nuke North Korea and blame it on someone else, egging on a far-right insurrection attempt, calling climate change a Chinese hoax, calling Covid the "China virus"
They are faaaarrrr more similar than they are different as honestly some of the "differences" I've noted are just because the exact quotes aren't the same, even if some similiarly spirit quotes have been said.
Okay, nobody I can vote for will change the process. Now what?
Also dictatorships, monarchies, etc. pretty universally have some form of petition process as well, so not actually a difference...
The history of that phrase and how it re-entered modern English is fascinating though!
Likely contentious but my experience has been "newb" has a slight vocal raising to indicate light-heartedness, ie:
Noob: no͞ob Newb: nyo͞ob
And if you actually read the Wikipedia article you linked:
The work of Elinor Ostrom, who received the Nobel Prize in Economics is seen by some economists as having refuted Hardin's claims.[1] Hardin's views on over-population have been criticised as simplistic[2] and racist. [3]
...
Hardin's work is criticised as historically inaccurate in failing to account for the demographic transition,[191] and for failing to distinguish between common property and open access resources.[192][193] Environmentalist Derrick Jensen claims the tragedy of the commons is used as propaganda for private ownership.[194][195] He says it has been used by the political right wing to hasten the final enclosure of the "common resources" of third world and indigenous people worldwide, as a part of the Washington Consensus.[196]
...
Other criticisms have focused on Hardin's racist and eugenicist views, claiming that his arguments are directed towards forcible population control, particularly for people of color.[210][211]
The "tragedy of the commons" is one of those things that's very Intuitive, but doesn't actually hold up to much scrutiny.
As well as the original story as reported by Skynews before they replaced it in lockstep with other media.
How would you make it more reliable?