Double_R

So why even have a faux conversation if you already decided beforehand what his position was

I didn't decide what his position was genius, he laid it out explicitly.

or he thinks dehumanizing dysphoric people is a better idea....

He literally called trans people mentally ill. That's called dehumanization.

That was your binary framing

Yes, two people with two different views on an issue normally creates a binary frame. That's not my creation, that's called math.

I suggest next time you ask

Yeah, that's literally what I did. This entire rant of yours is over a question.

I can read Kamala's 107 Days book, but your interesting posts really put a lot of the questions as to how she got so far with so little effort in a clarifying light.

By making sense, apparently.

Except you didn't do that. You asked for his position on your extreme end of a deliberate binary framing. Propaganda 101 is more accurate.

You're apparently to slow to understand how conversation works, so let's go back to the actual exchange you are talking about:

--> It doesn’t change the fact that transgenderism is a mental illness and normalizing it is a bad idea.

Do you think demonizing and ridiculing the people experiencing gender dysphoria is better?

Here, he is excusing the way trans people are being treated on the basis of his allegation that it's a mental illness, so I asked him whether he believes the demonizing and ridiculing of trans people (something that is happening in a wide spread fashion - that's a fact, not debatable) is better than the direction his side of the aisle has chosen. What makes that "binary" is that here we have his views and his "solution" vs mine. That's not propaganda, that's called conversation between two people.

thank you for allowing everything else I challenged about your debate style to go completely uncontested for all to see

What you see depends on whether you can read

Any straight man that believes that TWAW should be consistent and have no problem dating one and having consensual sex with them. If they're women, then you should have no issue with doing that.

We've already been through what 99% of people who say TWAW are actually saying and you continue to pretend otherwise. You are beyond obsessed with this imaginary bogeyman. Get help.

That is a binary choice. what you just did was reduce a nuanced point into two extremes. That’s your framing, and it's not a mistake on your part.

Asking for one's position on an alternative doesn't make it a binary choice. English 101.

The fact that you regularly use dehumanizing language to paint a caricature of people and their positions whom you don't agree with, along with oversimplifications about just about everything discussed...it's close enough. That binary framing is just exhibit A of hundreds.

Ah, so now it's binary "framing", a very different thing.

I framed it as a binary because what I offered is exactly what is happening on the political right right now. So there's his view and then there's mine.

That's not a strawman. Do yourself a favor and learn what words mean before calling out other people for using them improperly.

Kamala Harris freely admits to her own campaign mistakes, so an intellectually honest approach is to take her at her word rather than to defend an idealized version of her candidacy she herself says never existed.

The fact that Kamala Harris's campaign wasn't perfect and the fact that she can admit to her mistakes does not in any way mean she was a bad candidate and certainly doesn't mean she would not have been a fine president. 

Every candidate makes mistakes, what any reasonable person should look for is whether that candidate is capable of admitting them and can learn from those mistakes. This is a massively crucial quality to have in any leadership role, especially the biggest leadership role in the world. A quality only one of the two candidates possessed.

The undecided voters fully believed her though, judged her performance on the merits, and chose accordingly.

You can argue that Kamala had flaws, and you can argue that the voters did judge her properly on her merits, you cannot argue that they did so with a set of standards that they applied equally to both candidates.

Anyone why says Kamala Harris's plans were incoherent has apparently never heard Donald Trump speak. When he was asked what his plan was for childcare he started rambling about tariffs. When asked what he would do to bring prices down started rambling about the voter rolls in Virginia. And let's not forget that he had concepts of a healthcare plan.

The difference between these two is that Kamala presents herself as a serious person, so voters took her seriously. Trump presented himself as a buffoon and a troll, so he got away with everything. Kamala had to impress us with her economic plans, all Trump had to do was pound the table. Kamala had to tie all of her points together in a thoughtful and insightful way, Trump just needed to come off as "tough". Kamala had to take accountability for her past, Trump just attacked everyone who asked him about his.

Voters did not "chose accordingly", they rejected Kamala because she wasn't impressive enough and then handed Trump the presidency by default.

2024 was a national IQ test, and we failed it miserably.

you would be willing to fight for the controversial rights of those that you would disassociate with? I couldn't do that.

Then you're just an empty vessel. You have no principals nor do you believe in anything. There's right and there's wrong, you either fight for what's right, or you're just fighting for your tribe. The latter is just warfare, a thirst for power. I find that a contemptible way to operate.

I believe in what I believe in because I care about what's right, but if you need a selfish reason, once rights no longer exist for one group there's nothing to garantee your rights either. Hence the saying, an injustice anywhere is an injustice everywhere.

A perfect example of this would be the debate on due process. Why do we care if illegal immigrants are deported without a hearing? Get them out, right? Well, if there's no hearing then how do we even know they're undocumented in the first place? What's to stop the government from rounding you up and sending you to a foreign torture prison and justifying it by claiming you were an illegal? Answer: nothing.

If there is an individual black person (Jammal) that happens to view Transwomen as degenerate men pretending to be women so they can rape little girls in bathrooms to fulfill their pedophilia urges (and this black person believes the majority of transgenders are pedophiles that should be burned and/or lynched), then would you act with your principles and advocate for their rights even if you know they won't reciprocate or go blue MAGA with it and not necessarily join the KKK, but just be indifferent to if that hypothetical transphobic black suffers?

If this hypothetical Jammal exists then he's a delusional disgusting individual with regards to how he views the trans community. That is completely irrelevant to whether I would advocate for his rights.

Rights are not something we pick and choose whom to grant them, they are by definition granted to everyone and only removed if warranted. The test of whether you actually believe in the principals behind any given right isn't whether you are ok with them being used when you agree with them, but whether you'd fight to protect the rights of those you disagree with. If you only believe in my right to free speech when I'm advocating for your political causes then you're just a political hack trying to impose your will on everyone else.

So yes, if Jammal's rights are being violated I would fight to protect them, because a violation of one person's rights is a violation against all of us. That's how it works.

He said even if those things did NOT make him feel happy, they would still be good

Translation: These things DO make him happy, so I don't know what point you think you're making.

"Good" is entirely subjective, and he already gave us enough to deduce why he feels that way.

On your other points, knocking down your strawmans is super easy and barely an inconvenience.

Oh yeah, this will be good *yawn*

1) Gas prices are always seasonal, so low prices in the fall compared to summer doesn't mean a recession is happening like your strawman suggests.

I'm just going to turn this over to Google AI:

are tariffs resulting in low gas prices

AI Overview

+5

Yes, recent tariffs have contributed to lower gas prices through a combination of reduced demand and lower crude oil costs, although the relationship is complex and not the sole factor. The tariffs can decrease consumer spending power on other goods, leading to less driving and lower demand for gasoline. Additionally, tariffs and the resulting economic uncertainty have pushed down the global price of crude oil, the main ingredient in gasoline, which has a significant impact on pump prices. 

2) Your president literally outlawed racial quotas and declared an end to the special considerations for fringe lifestyles.

No, he didn't.

First of all, this isn't how American governance works, the president cannot "outlaw" anything.

Second, all he did was attack "DEI" which is just his latest paranoid delusion he managed to turn into a political boogeyman. DEI is nothing more than set of ideas aimed at improving awareness of what different people experience in the workplace. The point is to ensure we all understand the challenges people face in an effort to ensure equal treatment and opportunity. Nothing about that requires a "racial quota", that's affirmative action, which is an entirely different thing.

The right wing obsession with DEI is just the latest example of how these people love to be overtly racist without just admitting it.

3) Your strawman saying ripping people out of courts and deporting them ignores the fact that deportation itself is an act of due process.

First of all, you clearly do not even know what a strawman is.

Second, no one said anything about due process.

If you're going to claim that you love what Trump is doing by deporting all these people, and justify that by claiming these people are not following the law, then you need to address the fact that Trump is literally deporting people for following the law. That's what it means to target people for the crime of showing up to their own immigration hearings.

4) Your strawman about fighting "the border bill" ignores the fact that the bill itself was full of things that would make your existing laws harder to enforce and very costly to your American citizens.

Firstly, again, you don't know what a strawman is.

Second, nothing in the border bill made existing laws harder to enforce, that's just an egregiously stupid lie the right keeps peddling because they're a cult who cannot offend the dear leader.

The thing they love to pretend was the biggest issue is that the bill says the border can be shut down if the illegal crossings hit something like 5k a day. They frame it as if this is "allowing" 5k a day which is a lie. The bill sets a cap which grants the president the authority to shut down the border at that point, something that does not exist within current law.

5) Your strawman insisting the dysphoria problem your country has is a binary problem purposely ignores the obvious take of providing proper mental help instead of affirming or castigating them.

Still do not know what a strawman is.

I said nothing about a "binary problem", that my friend is what a strawman actually looks like.

"Proper help" is the very thing being debated so you haven't made a single point here.

That would make sense if it was LGBT vs Canadians (because Canadians are pro LGBT and LGBT are pro Canada). This is LGBT vs blacks (when LGBT people are very pro BLM but Blacks usually don't reciprocate). The majority of blacks believe that TW are men (and it's higher than any other racial group).

Not one word of this response addresses my point.

It doesn't matter if a majority of people within a group believe something, that doesn't have anything to do with the principals/values that guide ones belief system.

I believe in fair treatment for all. Black people are treated unfairly, so I oppose it. LGBT people are treated unfairly, so I oppose it. The only time one has to choose is when there is a conflict, there isn't one here.

The game you're playing is to start with generalizations (black people do not like gays) and then pretend the generalization = the whole, as if "black people" are the Borg, all speaking with one voice as one unit. And then you take it a step further by pretending this is about the individuals at hand and not the principals at work. That's not how reality works. You have black people that oppose LGBT and you have black people who advocate on behalf of LGBT, as well as black people who are LGBT. The only choice is whether to abandon my principals. Sorry, that's not something I am willing to do.

It's insane that I have to explain this, this is kindergarten level stuff.

I do notice gas has gotten cheaper where I live; groceries, not really.

That's because the economy is slowing down due to Trump's ridiculous tariff wars.

Not having as much woke shit crammed down my throat is nice.

It's not the government cramming it down your throat, it's businesses, entertainment, and academia. So by voting for Trump because of this and by celebrating his infiltration of all of these institutions to "kill wokeness", you are saying that you are very happy with government so big it infiltrates every part of your life. That doesn't make it wrong, but it is interesting as it is a complete 180 from everything we heard from republicans for decades.

it doesn’t change the fact that we shouldn’t have people who refuse to follow our laws in our country.

Then with are you ok with ICE deporting people right out of their immigration hearings? You do know those hearings are part of the legal process, which means the people showing up for them are following the law, right?

It doesn’t change the fact that allowing for endless migrants to enter the country is a bad idea.

Then why did Trump stop the bipartisan border deal last year?

It doesn’t change the fact that transgenderism is a mental illness and normalizing it is a bad idea.

Do you think demonizing and ridiculing the people experiencing gender dysphoria is better?

So, when you get down to it, even if these things didn’t make me feel any happier, they would still be good.

So to summarize, your life is better because of things that are almost entirely imaginary and/or have no tangible impact on your life, but make you feel better despite (or perhaps because of) the suffering of the people you are effectively scapegoating.

If I am misunderstanding you I am happy to be corrected. I would be pleased to learn that there is more to MAGA than a grievance and hate filled movement hell bent on who cares about nothing but purifying the country to their (mostly white nationalist) utopia. I just find it unlikely

-->That isn't an answer.

It is. Unconditional existence means things can exist without conditions. So that answers "how".

"How does X occur" is a question regarding the inner workings of the mechanism by which something comes to be. Responding with "X can occur", does not address any of that.

Seriously dude, this is basic English.

-->Hence why I began with "theists often invoke...".

So you concede to arguing with people who arent here. Okay.

No genius, I began with "theists often invoke..." to lay out the context of this topic as a set up to how I got to my end point, which was about unnecessary assumptions.

You claim that this doesn't address your point, but that's just disingenuous BS. You're trying now to pretend your point was only that "if things can pop into existence then God can pop into existence", but this isn't an argument at all, it's a tautology. So long as God qualifies as a something, it's definitionally true.

That's why I started off as I did, to point out there's context to this debate, to pretend like you weren't arguing within that context is just dishonest. Your argument now to avoid admitting that is to claim you weren't really making an argument at all, which we both know is nonsense.

No, if you hold position that things pop into existence, then God pops into existence.

No one said "things pop into existence", the claim which originated in this thread from a Steven Hawking quote was that the universe "could simply have popped into existence".

Do you understand the difference between "X happens" vs "X could have happened"?

But even setting that aside, yet again, you have yet to prove that there exists a God in the first place. So even if one asserts that "things pop into existence", that still does not lead to "Gods pop into existence" cause you would have to demonstrate that one is actually here first.

-->No one is claiming God couldn't have popped into existence. 

No, you are claiming he didn't pop into existence. So go ahead and prove that.

You can't be this stupid.

So you concede that God popped into existence and thus exists. Concession accepted.

You really can't be this stupid.

So no counter argument.

"A counterargument involves acknowledging standpoints that go against your argument and then re-affirming your argument. This is typically done by stating the opposing side’s argument, and then ultimately presenting your argument as the most logical solution."

https://www.unr.edu/writing-speaking-center/writing-speaking-resources/counterarguments#:~:text=A%20counterargument%20involves%20acknowledging%20standpoints,as%20the%20most%20logical%20solution.

It is a counter argument by definition.

I already answered that many times. Existence can either be conditional or unconditional.

Question: How did everything get here?

Answer: Everything is either conditional or unconditional.

That isn't an answer.

It wasnt my argument, so you are arguing with imaginary people.

Hence why I began with "theists often invoke...". Maybe you should slow down and read.

And God, already being here, requires no further assumptions either.

That is the assumption genius.

What you clearly fail to understand is that when you bring a theory about how things pop into existence, you cannot then contradict and say God didnt just pop in existence.

No one is claiming God couldn't have popped into existence. Here, let's try this again. Slowly.

Either something can just pop into existence, or nothing can just pop into existence.

If nothing can just pop into existence, then God's existence is just as inexplicable as the universe's existence.

If something can just pop into existence, then we have no reason why this rule can be applied to God but not the universe.

So either way, God and the universe remain on equal footing with regards to whether their existence can be explained. And given that, God becomes unnecessary because invoking him does not solve any problem, it just pushes it back a further step.

The addition of assumptions that are not necessary are inherently illogical.

In other words, when you do that, you're just making shit up.

The more educated you are, the more likely you are to recognize the absurdity and danger this president represents. Not sure why you find that puzzling, that's what follows when you have a downright moron running the country.

If you've never seen the movie Idiocracy take 2 or so hours and you'll see what this country looks like right now to those who know better.

Claim was "things can pop into existence".

My response was "God can pop into existence too".

Your response: "we know universe is here".

How does your response make my response incorrect?

It doesn't make it "incorrect", it makes it less reasonable. The fundamental question at hand is how did all this get here? Theists often invoke God as the explanation, arguing the universe couldn't have just popped into existence. So in other words, the existence of the universe demands an explanation, but the existence of a God doesn't.

Not only is this special pleading, but the issue I am raising here is that saying "God could have popped into existence" in response to the suggestion that the universe did the same is not equal because the universe, already being here, requires no further assumptions. If things can pop into existence then we don't have to go any further than the universe itself, which negates the necessity of a God.

You have to select one over the alternative because Black people are the most LGBTphobic race in the US, and expanding LGBT rights into Africa from Europe is neocolonialism

Unless this is intended to be just some silly hypothetical game, like "would you rather eat shit or take it up the butt?", the premise of your question is just wrong. Sticking up for people's rights is about looking at various situations and being able to tell the difference between right and wrong. No part of that necessitates that one segregate people into different teams and pick a side.

It is a counter if you understand how logic and reason works. When you decide that you’d like to learn I’ll be happy to help.

How does an atheist disprove necessity for independent thing which creates dependent things?

The burden isn’t on atheists to disprove it, it’s on those asserting it to demonstrate that this is true. Anyone can make anything up and define it as “necessary”, that doesn’t give it rational support.

By that logic, God too could have just popped into existence as infinitely small and make himself infinitely big.

Except that we know the universe is here, so God becomes an unnecessary assumption.

Atheism is a position which by itself has no any values.

It’s not supposed to have any values. Atheism is a single position on a single proposition; “a god exists”. Theism accepts this proposition, atheism does not. Everything else is something else.

If all moral opinions or actions are equal, then no logical choice can be made to prefer one over another, thus the choice of action can only be random.

Logic can only be applied to morality once a moral standard is accepted. Once a standard is accepted, the morality of any action follows from it, that’s what logic does - form a conclusion from the premises (the standard). The standard, will always be subjectively chosen, including if your standard is God. That’s why morality will always be subjective.

I can't believe you are cheating on me with Double R, you are a fascist slut.

I’m a homewrecker.

America deserves Trump

A sentiment I’ve expressed many times before. During the campaign Kamala showed us the best of who she was, America didn’t believe her and assumed the worst. Meanwhile Trump showed us the worst of who he was, America didn’t believe him and assumed the best.

A country this dumb deserves what it gets. It’s just unfortunate that so many who didn’t vote for this have to live with it.

Oh, and devoting your entire life around one man

No genius, I don’t care about the man, I care about the fact that this one man is controlling our nuclear codes, our justice department, our military, and Congress, and because of cultists like yourself, has managed to get all of them to put his personal grievances ahead of the well being of the country.

And I care about the fact that this one man has managed to lower our national IQ so low that we are now debating things like whether half the country is responsible for the actions of one deranged kid, whether the US military should be unleashed against US cities, whether tariffs raise prices, whether the BLS was conspiring against him by releasing job numbers, or hell, whether the UN purposefully sabotaged him by stopping his escalator.

This one man has managed to turn what was once the greatest nation on earth into a global laughing stock. That’s what I care about.

I see very little difference between political terrorists on both sides and your mindset.

Because reality doesn’t matter to you. You see whatever narrative is politically convenient.

I seriously doubt a multimillionaire singer really gives a crap about the lives of the peasants beneath her.

But a billionaire real estate tycoon does?

I suppose your voters will decide if being richer is a pressing issue or staying alive and violence free is a priority, assuming you can't have both.

If US voters want to calm down the dangerous escalation of political violence, the first thing we would do is impeach and remove the moron in the Oval Office. We won’t though, because that’s not what the right wants. What they want is an excuse to escalate the violence because that’s all they have. MAGA is nothing more than a hate filled grievance driven movement, so they chose the guy they believed would impose retribution on the rest of the country. They’re the ones choosing this, and people like you are why it works.

You guys kinda forced what you have today by shooting a part of his ear off.

This is so incredibly stupid.

”You guys” is a deranged kid who, fun fact, was also a registered republican. That has nothing to do with me nor anyone in the Democratic Party, neither does any deranged lunatic who does something stupid like this.

This whole retort is nothing more than an excuse for stupid people to justify imposing the fascist control people like you salivate over.

And as I pointed out in my prior post, the hypocrisy here is astounding. When Trump summoned the mob to the capitol and unleashed them, Trump it was said couldn’t be responsible for the actions of grown adults. They had minds of their own and made their own decisions. But now every time some lunatic does something stupid the democrats are responsible cause those people were just mindless drones doing what they think they were told.

You are a fundamentally unserious person.

He ran on a promise to indict Hillary Clinton, and then decided to not go through with it despite severe pushback from his base because it would be 'bad for the country'.

No, he didn’t. Trump didn’t prosecute Hillary Clinton because the adults in the room Trump had in his first term told him there was nothing there, because there wasn’t and even when he tried to order them to go after her they wouldn’t. This is everything we told you all about in 2024, Trump in his first term surrounded himself with people who understood how government and democracy works and valued their loyalty to the constitution over Trump. He didn’t make that mistake this time around. That’s the difference.

Democrats across the country took every opportunity to go after him doing precisely that, with the most farcical case that I can remember being the real estate value case.

See my last response to linate. Not just on the real estate part, but overall.

Once they made that choice the right had to take the gloves off or basically commit political suicide.

Nonsense. First of all, the right didn’t need to pledge allegiance to the cult leader, they could have moved on to another candidate instead of basing their decision for who to nominate In protecting Donald Trump. So even if your premise were correct that the left engaged in warfare against Trump your claim still fails because no one else was “targeted”.

Moreover, if the political right actually cared about this as an issue they would be working to fix it now that they have all three branches of government. If they decided to pass new laws or even a constitutional amendment codifying the DOJ’s independence into law the democrats would be 100% behind it. That’s what it looks like when you care about an issue. What you don’t do is pretend that “they did it too us” is a good reason to chuck all the rules out the window and go full authoritarian fascist.

Third, this is just nonsense. You talk about state cases, which is irrelevant to the DOJ. The DOJ under Biden bent over backwards to not prosecute Trump. Merrick Garland sat on the J6 case for two years until the J6 committee forced him to do something about it, and they tried over and over again for years to work with Trump on the documents until he made clear he wasn’t going to cooperate any other way.

The Biden DOJ wasnt weaponized, the fact that they prosecuted Biden’s own son and went after Biden himself with the Hurr report that republicans pounced on politically proves that full stop, and that’s before we get to all the other democrats they prosecuted.

You need to get your facts straight.

but he is the executive branch personified, so i'd say just let it go and pick better battles.

In other words, you clearly do not care about classified documents nor the rule of law.

It is certainly the case that prosecutors have to exercise discretion, they can’t prosecute every crime. But in this case the former president stole the documents which included top secret SC-I documents containing nuclear secrets (the most serious secrets the government holds), lied repeatedly claiming to not have them, ordered them moved to evade detection, then upon learning his video footage was about to be subpoenaed which would have given away their whereabouts - ordered his staff to delete the footage. 

There is no greater battle to pick, you can’t get any more serious or blatant than that. To not prosecute here is to declare Trump above the law, full stop.

it's plausible that he can simply deem in his own head whether something is declassified

When a president declassifies something, he’s not just declassifying a piece of paper. He’s declassifying the information contained on that paper, which is almost certainly copied in multiple locations within the federal government. If the president were able to classify and declassify information within his own mind, all classification functions within the federal government would cease because there would no longer be any mechanism to determine what is or is not classified.

Drop this claim.

the incitement case i see you debating on here all the time, and it's just not the slam dunk you think it is. it's actually very debateable at best whether he incited a riot, and half of people dont think he did, myself included.

If you’re speaking legally I don’t disagree with you, the bar there is extremely high and there’s no telling how a jury would see it. But I’m not talking legally, I’m talking politically - where the bar is common sense.

If you’ve seen me debate this topic before, then what do you take issue with? What is the argument that he didn’t incite them? Let me guess, ‘he said be peaceful’?

That aside, I don’t know your position but the right wing hypocrisy on this issue is astounding. Over the past few weeks since the Kirk assassination all we’ve heard is that the left is to blame for this because they called Kirk mean names, so they clearly incited this deranged individual into doing this. But when it comes to January 6th the president telling the supporters he summoned onto the capitol to “fight like hell or you’re not going to have a country anymore”… well those people were individuals who acted on their own volition. That’s ridiculous.

the case where he was getting attacked for appriasing his property high for one purpose and low for another purpose, as if that's fraud, is another example of witch hunt. that's what anyone might do, within reason.

Correct - within reason. I’ve had properties appraised as well, the game is always to go low when it’s for tax purposes and high when it’s for business. Trump went well beyond that, going as far as lying about how big his penthouse was by tripling its size. That’s not playing the game, that’s fraud.

And yes, that was a state case, not the DOJ.

taken together, all these things just give the public the impression trump's political enemies are doing a witch hunt for political purposes.

Agreed. It’s called propaganda.

if trump is as unlawful as you say he is, you'd find slam dunks of crimes

The documents case was a slam dunk. The fraud case was as blatant as it comes as well. That aside, just because Trump is breaking the law doesn’t mean he’s prosecutable, and that’s setting the immunity ruling aside. What Trump does is play the mob boss game where he communicates to others what he wants them to do in vague terms where they understand what he wants even though he doesn’t tell them explicitly. It’s all about plausible deniability, and he learned that very well from Roy Cohn.

This is why Trump values loyalty over anything else. You can’t possibly think people like Pete Hegseth or Kash Patel are actually qualified for their jobs. He picks people like this because they would have had no shot at anything like this without Trump, so now they will do whatever he wants. You can’t prosecute Trump for the actions of his team unless there’s evidence of direct involvement, which Trump understands very well how to stay out of. The man literally does not even have an email account. Why do you think that is?

that doesn't mean there's not a witch hunt for most things against him.

They sure are finding a lot of witches.

Of course, it will fail spectacularly. But that's the point.

The point is for Trump to assert his dominance over anyone who criticizes him.

The alternative to the president calling the shots is that you have a branch of government with zero accountability to the democratic process. So, if the president says 'prosecute this case' and the person in charge refuses, of course they would be fired. If the case has no merits, that's what the actual judicial process is supposed to determine.

Yeah, this is what we all thought as well until we learned better after the watergate scandal. No one is saying the president shouldn’t be “allowed” to step in if necessary but he has absolutely no place getting involved in individual charging decisions because he is not a prosecutor, his motivations are purely political which is the opposite of the foundational principal of justice.

And the idea that the cases having no merits and ultimately failing means the DOJ isn’t capable of serious harm is wrong. DOJ investigations and charges are intrusive, expensive, and can eat up a great deal of one’s time and energy for years. The chilling effect that has on people to get them to comply with whatever the administration wants is not something that can be shrugged off. Ask anyone who has ever lived in a country that lost their democracy.

Every word? Including those detailing my experience at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles in 1968, as personal witness to Bobby 

Kennedy's assassination? What the hell was I doing at a Democrat presidential primary celebration if, according to your pitiful opinion, I*'m MAGA?

You do not know me. You think you do, but you are wrong. Get it. Yet?

Looks like I struck a nerve.

I never claimed to know you, I characterized your arguments here on this site. If every argument you make aligns with MAGA then that is how I would categorize you. If you really think you’re so different then show us.

BTW, plenty of democrats voted for Trump. In case you haven’t noticed, he has successfully realigned American politics. Russia is a perfect example. Remember when republicans used to champion themselves as the Anti-Russia party? Now they back a man who blames the country Russia invaded for the invasion. Regan is rolling over in his grave. It’s absurd, but this is how low Trump has sunk the Republican Party, and now even people like Liz Cheney are campaigning with democrats. It’s a different world.

Taking individually you might have a point here but time after time after time after time

It’s not. It only feels like time after time after time because Trump is such a narcissistic man baby that every single time something happens to him it’s automatically a conspiracy by evil leftists for which we all have to sit here debating what is real life. This thread being the latest example.

If this happened to any other grown adult they would have just walked up the escalator and moved on with their business, just like every grown adult I saw this happen to in my old job, and that would have been the end of it.

This is how Trump warps our collective brains, it’s exhausting.

Shoresy said the following. Which is it. Are libtard led organizations dysfunctional or evil?

Why is the UN a “libtard lead” organization? Is that because you define every educated person who actually understands how the world works a libtard? Cause at that point you’re telling on yourself.

Here’s an alternative as it’s already been pointed out in this thread and of course you ignore it… perhaps the escalator stopped because one if Trump’s own staffers accidentally triggered the break function (the most common reason escalators stop) as the UN investigation concluded?

Yeah I know, that’s too simple for you.

Are you sure you quoted that correctly? Because there is a record of conflicting statements under oath

It wasn’t a quote genius, it was the stated reason the prosecutor refused to bring charges. Read my words before responding.

The case against him is pure nonsense. it will fail spectacularly in front of a jury, that is, if it even gets to trial being that Trump has made this such a blatantly obvious case of political prosecution the judge will probably throw it out.

Half the charges they threw at trump were trumped up charges.

That is just not true. The DOJ charged him in two cases, the Maralago documents case and the Jan 6th case. In both cases Trump's actions were flagrantly illegal and/or egregious, and both very serious. It would have been a dereliction of duty to not bring those charges.

And yet still, in both cases the DOJ did everything they could to avoid it until it became untenable. In the Jan 6th case Merrick Garland sat on it for two years until the Jan 6th committee laid out the case publicly forcing his hand, the documents case they did everything they could to quietly get them back until Trump’s refusal to do so effectively became a middle finger.

Anyone claiming the DOJ was weaponized against him has no idea what they’re talking about.

All the other cases were brought by local and state prosecutors in NY.

NY =/= DOJ.

I dont know if comey was involved in the witch hunt

He wasn’t. If you’re referring to “Russiagate” (aka the Mueller Report), it was Trump’s firing of Comey that created the firestorm which is what lead the DOJ appointing Bob Mueller in the first place.

If you’re referring to what the DOJ was investigating before that, that’s probably the dumbest conspiracy theory ever. The idea is that the FBI opened the investigation into Trump to try and hurt him politically. Meanwhile, they were also investigating Hillary Clinton’s email server which was shared publicly and’s reopened 11 days before the election all while maintaining with no leaks, that Trump was also being investigated. The FBI’s disclosure of one investigation and not the other quite possibly and I would argue probably is the reason Trump became president. Dumbest. Conspiracy. Ever.

For example. Its a campaign finance violation to not disclose financial contributions to one's campaign, and the idiotic libs actually said that getting dirt on joe Biden from Ukraine counted as a "financial contribution".

Yes, many did say it, because in all likelihood that is probably true. Campaign finance laws are ambiguous in many cases, it’s very difficult to distinguish between what is a “thing of value” vs what is not. But what those “libs” never tried to do was hold Trump accountable legally for it. They tried to hold him politically accountable, which is exactly what they should have done.