America's descent into authoritarianism, and it's titular head is a mad man

What you do you care?

1. You can't refute the words in front of you -- you've proven that.
2. Nor can you tell the difference between non AI and AI.

 

Yes, Garland should have prosecuted Trump on Jan 7, 2021, that was his big failure.

However, he's not a democrat, that I know of. Nor is Jack Smith.

But, a dem appointed Garland, so there's that.

 

Sic transit gloria mundi! There where times when all Americans, whether left or right, witnessed loudly for free speech. The USA, drluggit, is not the land of the free anymore, acording to your disgusting language.

 

Well, threatening prosecution without just cause, out of retribution, I'd say is very dictator-esque, wouldn't you?

 

Heh, is it now?

 

Your comment doesn't rise above a 'brush off', which, is not an argument.

Therefore, my comment stands unrefuted by you.

 

You're insinuating Garland prosecuted out of retribution.

No, he did everything he could to avoid prosecuting Trump and didn't do a damn thing until two years into his term, when the Docs case was so blatantly criminal, he had no choice but to appoint a special counsel, all the while, since the first day in his office, allowed the prosecution of his boss's son to continue, not to mention defending Trump twice in court, prosecuting a few other prominent democrats. In fact, the SC's grand jury didn't hand their indictment out until 2 years, 2 months, and 29 days after Garland was sworn in. And, did a GJ investigate with sufficient grounds? Yes. And did the GJ indict with probable cause? Yes.

Hardly the definition of 'retributionist dictator' which you are implying.

 

The fact that there was prosecution at all demonstrates that this was deliberate lawfare as far as I'm concerned. And yes, that's easy for me to say, but the onus to demonstrate the prosecution was above board and totally legitimate isn't on me, it's on those who support it (and also don't support a Biden prosecution for similar issues).

 

If you, as a citizen of the United States of America, and as a grown up, need a definition for this: poor you. Be honest: You're looking forward to all this guy will do, whether authoritorian or not.

 

Oh, it's hysterical, isn't it? These folks on the right, so wrapped up in their MAGA-man crush, they've turned cognitive dissonance into a damn art form. They look at Trump -- a walking rap sheet with a bad spray tan -- a man whose greatest hits include sexual predator, pathological liar, and professional narcissist, all backed by mountains of evidence you couldn’t climb with oxygen tanks. But somehow, they're still hypnotized, drooling over his every incoherent rant like he's the second coming of Ronald Reagan.

And then, like clockwork, they turn around and lose their minds over Biden because of some fleeting diary entry from a teenager -- a single, speculative sentence about childhood, without a shred of trauma -- that they've inflated into a full-blown conspiracy theory. Oh, and their star witnesses? One is a woman who tried to defect to Russia and fawned over Putin on Russian TV like he was her prom date. The other a Russian shill who’s now rotting in prison for lying to the FBI. And yet the right hailed him as the paragon of authenticity -- their smoking gun. Yeah, right.

Seriously, folk -- if this is your “evidence,” you’re not even trying anymore. You’ve got all the credibility of a drunk guy claiming he saw Bigfoot on a UFO.

It’s beyond delusion

 

Sure it's easy for you to say, it's easy for any hyper partisan to say, just ignore the facts and blurt it out.

As far as your concerned? Hardly anything I would give much credence, particularly in the face of the points I addressed, none of which you are able to refute, all of which add up to the AG doing his job.

Using your logic, there is no circumstance a politician could ever be subject to an investigation or indictment.

The evidence for the indictment was overwhelming and given in the indictment. You are just ignoring it.

FYI, Biden 'lawfare' is a myth. there is zero evidence for it.

 

No, not at all. It's when Trump does it to the degree he has done it, above anything done by other presidents in history, would I even suggest it's fascism. Yeah, the term has been abused, but, this is different.

Sure, defamation and slander laws go back centuries -- bravo for reading Wikipedia -- but Trump isn’t just playing by the book. No, he’s rewritten the playbook, scrawling over it in crayon and fraud.

Here’s the thing: no president in history -- none -- has come even close to weaponizing the legal system the way Trump has. Not Nixon, who twisted the DOJ into his personal fixer; not Harding, who let the Teapot Dome spill over in corruption; not even Andrew Johnson, who spent his presidency lashing out at everyone who disagreed with him. Trump took their worst instincts, turned the volume up to 11, and added his signature brand of bottomless narcissism.

Using the DOJ to target political opponents? Check. Whining endlessly about "witch hunts" while trying to bury accountability under frivolous lawsuits? Check. Piling on defamation suits not to clear his namebe -- cause come on, we all know it’s mud -- but to intimidate and bankrupt anyone who dares to speak the truth? That’s a hat trick of tyranny. Trump has turned legal action into a blunt instrument to silence critics, all while claiming he’s the victim. It’s fascism lite, with a side of grievance politics. Do I have to remind you what he said to Acting AG Jeffrey Rosen when Trump, in total dictator mode, said , '"Just say that the election was corrupt, and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen" ?

And let’s not kid ourselves about this “broken” nonsense. The only thing Trump has broken is the right’s ability to recognize the line between reality and performance art. You’ve got people defending this conman like he’s George Washington reincarnated, while he’s out there hawking $99 NFTs and fawning over autocrats. Broken? The only thing broken is the fact that you’re still carrying water for a man whose entire business model is grift and whose governance style is chaos.

So no, Lil Mike, Trump isn’t just another president suing for defamation. He’s the first one to try to make the United States judiciary his own personal cudgel, turning justice into a circus act and selling tickets at the door. Sure, other presidents dabbled a bit in shenanigans, but Trump is a whole new phenomenon. History won’t look kindly on this, and frankly, neither will anyone who can still think critically. Wake up, man. The jig’s been up for a long time.

 

I thought you were the center so it couldn't be me.

 

Oh, it’s you. For sure.

Misrepresenting My Position: You claim I’m making rules. Wrong. I’m not laying down commandments from Mount Olympus here. I’m just asking for some actual engagement. There’s a difference -- one you’ve conveniently chosen to ignore while pretending to hold court.

Twisting My Intent: You say I’m 'hung up on what others think.' Please. Pointing out that people toss around debatable things as facts isn’t some weird fixation; it’s me shining a light on your half-baked notion that facts are these sacred, untouchable truths. Spoiler alert: they’re not.

Blind Faith in Absolutes: And here’s the kicker -- you keep yammering about how facts are indisputable. No. Let me clue you in: if there’s one fact worth betting on, it’s this -- bsolutes don’t exist in the physical world. What you’re calling a 'fact' is just a temporary placeholder until someone smarter pokes a hole in it. Science, logic, life itself -- none of it works without questioning and refining what we think we know. But no, you’re over there treating facts like they’re written in stone tablets, showing off your allergy to complexity.

Here’s the real problem: real conversation -- actual dialogue -- lives in the gray areas, the challenges, and the justifications. If you’re not ready to wrestle with that, then stop pretending this is a discussion. What you’re doing isn’t dialogue -- it’s theater. And not the good kind.

 

I always wonder where the hell lefties get their definition of authoritarian" Trump's working to reduce ineffective and redundant laws and lower taxes while the other side has a hissy fit because some society media are removing "fact checks". I don't "look forward to Trump and I feared continuing barrages of LW authoritarianism.

 

Not your call.

 

LOL, it's the left's strongest tool. Since you offer no concrete example your argument is nonexistent.

 

But I excel and spotting LW BS - I just look for your avatar.

 

You don't understand the meaning of the words "facts" or "logic," at least the way you are using this in this post.

Simply explain why Biden should not have been prosecuted for his documents issue but Trump should.

 

"Here’s the thing: no president in history -- none -- has come even close to weaponizing the legal system the way Trump has"

OK you made the claim. Could you provide some facts to back that up?

 

See below

Only if you redefine the term for your purpose.
If anyone failed, it was Merrick Garland. He chose to not indict and charge Trump with insurrection.
Had he done so, and had he gained a conviction, then federal law, enacted under section 5 of the 14th Amendment, would have barred him from office, under section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
Instead, Garland did not seek indictment of, or charge, a single person for insurrection.
Not one.
Why is that?

 

Speaking of which...
You haven't responded to post #218.

 

Nope. Incorrect. On more than one occasion Trump said that those thugs were "very badly treated" and that if he was elected he would pardon them.
That is offering aid and giving comfort to those who launched and perpetrated a rebellion and sedition. Section 3 says such a person may not hold office.

Any congressman could have stated this and brought it to a court just for a rubber stamp of confirmation if it were needed. But no one did.

 

LOL... The feigned outrage over allowing folks the freedom to be free... I have no idea what "witnessed loudly" means... The right to speak freely in the US is simply something that progressive and liberal folk will no longer tolerate. And as mentioned, unlike communist countries, the US doesn't require that if you don't like other folks to have that freedom, you are free to leave. Live somewhere that you don't enjoy those freedoms. It it makes you happy. Have fun.

 

I recommend you stop taking things so seriously. Seriously.