> Personally, I think we need a full rewrite and do-over.

And how do you want to accomplish that? A coup? Any rewrite or do-over is going to require overthrowing the current government in some way.

One thing I find interesting is how everyone expecting a coup is also calling for a coup themselves. That's fully why I expect the civil war to happen, not because one side is going to cause a coup, but I'm expecting two coups simultaneously. Or three or four or something. Like everyone is trying to grab at their own interpretation of the constitution minus the parts that inconvenience them.

Or we could, you know, stick to the one we have during a moment of like 10 national crises and figure out the politics after the entire world stabilizes a bit rather than destabilize our own government right when China and Russia want us to so they can distract us fighting ourselves while they reach into the cookie jars of Ukraine and Taiwan setting off a chain reaction that would put us at a severe disadvantage at.

Their entire playbook has been spoken out loud multiple times by them, by the people here domestically, then the people here repeating the same warnings domestically end up just forming their own version of it. It's the same thing they did in Crimea, announce they are subverting your ideology, then leave the enemy to Lord of the Flies it out fight it out to figure out who is the enemy ideologically subversive element McCarthyism style. Except here I think they don't really care what happens and would rather we just fall to anarchy (as if we aren't already there), just to keep us away from their doings abroad.

I'll just finish with something I've been saying for at least 20 years, since many people have been saying "we need a constitutional convention for X" on both sides of the aisle for so long. If we have a constitutional convention (or a "full rewrite and do-over", what do you think the people you disagree with are going to add in there? This applies to anyone of any belief system. Just think about it. Do you want that?

> To make it more fair, I think maybe everyone should be allowed a vote who maybe passes a competancy exam showing they know the subject material or have a base understanding of how the country works.

Who is going to make these tests? That's literal voter suppression, and anti-democratic. That idea by itself is a literal threat to the concept of democracy, even if it's non-violent. People should not need to be experts in all fields just to vote. I've followed politics for decades and stuff still comes up that I don't know, and I know lawyers who have practiced for many decades who say that despite knowing everything they know and everything they've experienced, they don't feel they know enough about anything. The world is not a simple system that you can fit into any brain, let alone all brains.

> Or we could just select lawyers who at least know constitutional law really well, some economists, scientists, educators -- maybe even elect the individuals who'll represent their 'field' at the table so there's a well-rounded discussion on everything going into.

That's why we have the federal and state bureaucracies to inform the legislature with educated skilled professionals in their fields.