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

They were badly treated. They endured lawfare. I think all of them should stay in jail if they jail all the rioters in 2020.

 

There is no feigned ourtage, it's simply my personal compassion and mouring that the land of the free is on a steep way down. Once, the USA was the lightfire for freedom (this is, what witnesing loudly" means), but it isn't anymore, sorry.

Could you please give me the names of some communist countries? Besides China and North Korea, which are highly respected by your leader and there is no threatening that USA will take Tibet for national safety purposes.

For me, I'm not living in the states, and you mentioned nothing that could me want to move over. I'm German, and I feel that I am more free than you and have tons of rights you don't have. What's your answer?

 

You need to elaborate. Was the drunk guy on the UFO and saw Bigfoot on the ground, or perhaps the drunk guy saw the UFO with the Bigfoot or were they both on the UFO probably going through intelligence tests?

Some of the posts here definitely fall into the category of drunk, stupid or blind.

 

There will be a democratic vote in 2028. Until then relax. You will be just fine.

 

I call it like I see it.

Whether you like it or not.

 

You haven't been paying attention.

 

Vacuous drivel isn't much of an argument.

 

Thank you, I accept your surrender on the points.

 

Now, lil Mike, on claims of fact, where the work of searching the net and compiling data, a veritable chore, given the size of the task, is a good one for AI. I put the query to Copilot:

 

That's an allegation, now, if you don't mind, please substantiate it.

Sure, simply put....

The DOJ applies the "aggravated circumstances" threshold for prosecuting classified document mishandling cases (apparently limited to) involving executive branch staff, including senators and congresspersons with security clearances. This policy focuses on intent, obstruction, or willful misconduct. Biden's case, involving accidental possession, immediate disclosure, and full cooperation, lacked such aggravating factors. Conversely, Trump's deliberate retention, refusal to comply with subpoenas, and alleged obstruction clearly met the DOJ's criteria for prosecution under this policy.

My guess is that this standard is adjusted for congresspersons, senators, those with security clearances on committees, and exec staff, including VP and president who come into contact with such classified docs, especially the VP and president, lest all VP's and PResidents be prosecuted, since the occurrence is rather common, such that they have adjusted the threshold for them compared to the average person outside of those circles.

 

I think you have, or rather Copilot has, provided as good a summary of a response for your claim that "no president in history -- none -- has come even close to weaponizing the legal system the way Trump has."

However I'm immediately suspicious when Reality Winner is described as a "whistleblower." That's so laughable that I'm immediately suspicious of the other claims, however I will take a look at these and see if you are right or this is rebuttable. Obviously the "whistleblower" claim is nuts so I suspect if I dig deep I won't agree with your(well not your) claim.

 

Nope. You didn't even mention the most obvious defense Trump had over Biden in this circumstance.

 

Wasn't Elvis in there, somewhere?

 

Okay, but don't change the goal post of my point.

 

Which is, what?

If it is what I think you think it is, I didn't mention it because it wasn't a defense.

 

Hey, here's the problem with your premise: you're mixing apples and oranges -- no, scratch that -- you’re mixing apples and bowling balls. You’re confusing the goal of a presidential campaign, which is to hustle for the Electoral College, with the goal of figuring out how much public support a candidate actually has. Guess what? These are two different things. Not close, not related, not even distant cousins at a family reunion.

The first? It’s all about the Electoral College. That funky system does one job and one job only: decides who gets to sit in the big chair in the Oval Office. That’s it. It doesn’t tell you who’s loved, hated, or even mildly tolerated by the masses. It's just a numbers game with some seriously outdated rules.

The second? That’s about weighing public support -- actually understanding who the people like, dislike, or wouldn’t even cross the street to save from a puddle. And here’s the kicker: the Electoral College is terrible at this. Why? Because of those unearned electors cluttering it up, making the whole thing as distorted as a funhouse mirror. It’s not a measure of public support -- it’s a measure of how the system tilts and cheats.

You want to know the real score? Count the votes. All of them. Popular vote -- ever heard of it? That’s how you get the straight dope on public opinion. And speaking of votes, let’s talk about Trump’s so-called “victory.” Sure, his margin over Harris was 1.5%. Big whoop. Harris ran a campaign that lasted, what, three months? Meanwhile, Trump had two whole years of rallies, slogans, and his greatest hits tour of grievances.

Oh, and don’t forget, Harris was tethered to Biden, who was tied to inflation. Inflation! The thing everyone hates more than long lines and bad coffee. She had every disadvantage, and yet she still held her own. Trump’s margin of victory wasn’t impressive -- it was a joke. If anything, it shows he’s coasting on fumes. Two years of campaigning, and that’s all he could manage?

So, no, this isn’t a bragging point for Trump. It’s a sad little footnote in the annals of mediocrity. Next time, try not to confuse two completely different objectives, and maybe you won’t trip over your own argument.

 

Sorry, midterms will suffice for me.

 

That's monumentally ridiculous.
The talk of pardons began in October 2022.
"Aid and comfort" refers to the timer before and immediately around the event in question, not almost 2 years later.

Federal law enacted under section 5 requires a criminal conviction for section 3 to apply.

 

All this blather just to say "I don't like Trump. He's a poopy-head".
Maybe next time we elect the president by the number of attendees at his campaign stops? Or how many different colors of ties he wears. Put on your big boy pants, concede that Trump won legally. And hope for mid-election success.
And once again Trump's margin was by law 58%-42%. Victory is defined by rules, not whiny desperation.

Oh, and inflation wasn't the only anchor Biden was dragging.

 

False:

Trump won 49.9% of the popular vote, while Kamala Harris received 48.4%

Trump, therefore, won with a 1.5% margin of victory by ACTUAL public support.

The EC has unearned electors, CANNOT convey ACTUAL public support.

We are not talking about how the presidency is won.

We are talking about the DEGREE of PUBLIC SUPPORT.

That's not a legal point, it is a FACTUAL point.

Clearly, you are challenged with it comes to staying on point.

Victory was not the point.

Weight of public support was the point.

You can win by 1.5%, you can win by 96%,

The latter is greater public support than the former.

The win, by law, is the same.

The win, by actual public support, is not the same.

The legal win does not equal public support, that has to be weighed.

Degree of public support was the point.

You are off point.

Please learn how to say on point.

 

Either way the democratic process will happen again, you are being overly emotional and ridiculous

 

And yet you submit this post.

 

He is not mad. He is just angry about the mess Biden left.

 

You haven't refuted my points.