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

It is only a clash of opinions. Opinions are just opinions. I rarely share yours.

 

that's a rather convoluted way of admitting you all lost. Four years is going to be fun.

 

quantity is not a substitute for quality. robust commentary=wall of noise

 

As if...

 

Please don't put words in my mouth, I said no such thing.

Now then, the comment made four, substantive, and logical claims based on historical facts, i.e., demagogues in history, Trump's win margin, pre-inauguration chaos, pyrrhic victory, all of which had nothing to do your twist of my narrative, so, let's see if you are capable of countering it with a substantive counter argument.

 

but all of your posts tend to be angry denials of reality-that Kamala was an awful DEI pick, Trump outsmarted her and outworked her, and her arrogant sense of entitlement turned off many working class Americans who were sick of millionaires and billionaires like Oprah and the Obamas telling them that they had to vote for a fake and a fraud and her 'I'm from a middle class family' bullshit

 

The OP does not align with that characterization, nor did I ask you to respond to 'all of my posts'. In fact, your characterizations appears to exude precisely that quality you are accusing my comments of.

THe reason that your rant doesn't hold water is that, for a woman who entered the race just over 3 months prior to the election, garnered $1billion in small donations, how is it possible that Trump's margin of victory was a sad 1.5%? He should have done much better, so I'd give her major kudos for having done that well, which is logical based on this fact, which does resemble whatsoever your characterization.,


None of your comment refutes the matter-of-fact points given. Yours are just rants against Harris. You try and conflate other posts I've made with this one, apparently in order to dodge the salient points I've given. That's a weak debate strategy. We get it, you don't like her or Biden, but rants are not meaningful arguments -- especially when they are overly emotional, as yours often are.

 

you ignore 8 years of law fare, a biased legacy media and big tech, and lie after lie after lie hurled at Trump. The Hitler bullshit. the Hunter Biden laptop bullshit. Even funnier is listening to the TDS crowd claim Trump is too old when they were lock step behind Joebotomy till he pulled out

 

Trump has caused fragile minded people to lose their sanity.

 

Your actual intelligence destroys the product of his ARTIFICIAL variety. Apparently his AI doesn't know that the President is elected by the count of Electoral College votes not the meaningless "national popular vote".

 

Sorry nope that was the civil charge vs Ms Carrol, and that was only the first round. The sentencing hasn't happened on that one and thus the ability to appeal it cannot yet begin. What has happened in the case is a move for summary dismissal by defendant on the basis of prisidential immunity. Marchan as expected rejected it. But it does add another bullet to the ammunition of defense when it does come up for appeal.

 

You really should diagram your sentences -- that one is horrific. Despite its incoherence, it seems to accuse me of being disingenuous. Let’s unpack that.

The Lawfare blog, over the years, has focused on U.S. national security priorities. The term 'lawfare,' however, predates the blog, with a history going back to the 1970s. It gained prominence in 2001 through Major General Charles J. Dunlap Jr.'s essay, where he defined it as 'the use of law as a weapon of war' -- a way to achieve military objectives via legal means (Wikipedia).

In recent years, the term has been co-opted by the political right to describe the use of legal mechanisms against political adversaries. The Lawfare blog itself I do believe debates this shift and appears to reject the term’s pejorative misuse. While the blog was established in 2010, the term didn’t enter common political discourse until much later, at least according to my observation and recollection, I didn't really hear it being used that much until the last several years or so and I knew of the blog before the right hijacked it.

Now then, at no point did I suggest I was referring to the blog in this discussion. Let’s stick to the facts rather than resorting to baseless accusations of disingenuousness. I am using the right's common use of the term, 'using the law as a weapon against adversaries' so cut the crap.

 

You mean libelous. Get your terminology straight.

They were all very credible testimonies, and that they would subject themselves to media scrutiny without any reward other than a sense of public duty, defies credibility, in my view. I can let Kavanaugh slide, but I don't think he's got the right stuff for a Supreme Court Justice. Thomas clearly doesn't, He's corrupt as all hell, and Hill's testimony is very credible. And Trump, what are the odds a guy who brags that a 'star' should be allowed to get away with sexually abusing a woman just because of his celebrity actually did the deed he bragged about?

I'd say 100%.

 

The mob moved on the Capitol Building a juggernaut of rage.

Who do you supposed incited them? Paul Bunyan on a caffeine bender?

 

well it wasn't Trump. A "juggernaut of rage" Hyperbole Much?

 

How about you set the example for following that last paragraph. You seem to deflect and bloviate frequently when confronted by data and facts counter to your position. Or just arbitrarily dismiss the point because you have no answer.

 

I think you are correct on the point that, over the years, via several pieces of legislation, Congress has indeed ceded authority to the president.

However, Biden, Bush, etc., had just as much as any other president. It's just Trump, who has decided to exploit every weakness in the system for tyranny's advantage.

No, the only crowd that is responsible for the rise of Trump are his enablers and those who voted for him.

There was the era of Bill Buckley, who did a magnificent job of curbing the John Bircher's, the 60s/70s equivalent of the MAGA crowd, and it was sad to see the Buckley era pass. Now, there is nothing keeping a bad actor from exploiting that crowd, and exploit them he does, better than any president in History. George Wallace tried, but he didn't have the charisma and star power of Trump.

 

All I see from you is non substantive talk, and that's is the essence of 'bloviating'.

And what the hell are you talking about? The OP is abound in substantiation, but I see nothing of it in your comments.

So, where is this 'data' you speak of?

Feel free to offer it.

 

There you go again, 'Joebotomy' and such childish bullshit.

Hitler and Trump do, indeed, have rhetorical similarities. This is easily confirmed so, Not bullshit.

Yes, the laptop is bullshit, nothing in it implicates joe Biden, nor anything in it proves money laundering, or influence peddling.

Lawfare is a myth. I haven't seen one shred of evidence that proves Biden engaged in anything like that.

However, I've seen lots of evidence Trump/Barr are guilty of it.

TDS is a thought-terminating cliche invented by the right to kill dissent and curb critical thought. It carries no weight as a legit 'syndrome' in any medical book. '

Joe is competent to fulfill his term, but not in good enough shape to last another four years, that's why we supported him and asked him to step down. I can't blame Joe for not conceding earlier, it would have made him a lame duck early on, and thus less likely to get major legislation passed, which he succeeded in doing where Trump failed, and he failed with both houses under his thumb.

And, in terms of 'shape' it doesn't appear Trump is in good enough shape to last four years, yet you voted for him.

Your concern over lies is rich considering the grandest liar of all time is Trump.

Fail.

 

No. In rally after rally, over and over and over again, he said:
"The only way Democrats can win is if they rig the election"
Over and over and over and over and over again. Before the first ballot was ever cast. He created the bomb and lit the fuse on 1/6.
"Stop the steal' was THEIR MANTRA. REMEMBER?
So, who incited that juggernaut of rage, Captain Kangaroo? Give me a break.
If this isn't a juggernaut of rage, then tell me what is?

 

Done that many times, with the result I discussed above. Your definition is "substantiation" generally means from a LW propaganda site. And as I said above any data you couldn't rebut brought on puffery and misdirection.

 

all bs law fare.

 

"Substantiation" from slanted sites is not substantiation.

 

@Patricio Da Silva
Thanks for the photo of the Capitol Police inciting a riot by gassing the peaceful crowd...







https://x.com/investigatej6/status/1628444285317132288




https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1421942908954062853

https://twitter.com/ElijahSchaffer/...d-jan-6-crowd-by-firing-flash-bangs-tear-gas/

https://www.worldtribune.com/report...d-jan-6-crowd-by-firing-flash-bangs-tear-gas/

https://rumble.com/vj4p3j-capitol-police-throw-flashbangs-on-peaceful-crowd-january-6-2021.html

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...rats-media-dc-police-refuse-release-evidence/

 

Those people in the crowd egging them on. Especially after rubber bullets and flash bangs were hurled into the crowd that had been peaceful until that time. Please note the riot began well before anyone who was listening to Trump's speech could possibly have gotten there.