«12. . .7374757677787980»
Yeah, it is freakishly close. Baffling to me personally, but interesting on a meta level. It will be intriguing to see whether this was another case of pollsters systematically missing something in one direction or the other, or if the race just really has been this close the whole time.
In what respect are you baffled? Which way would you expect it to be?
I'm baffled that Trump isn't obviously getting trounced, but I'm resigned to the fact that material concerns are vastly more powerful as political choice motivators than procedural concerns. OTOH, the Democrats have done this to themselves in a big way, so if they fumble, I guess it won't surprise me that much. I do think of this as a sort of "past-the-sell-by sushi" candidate vs. "inverse (5 loaded 1 empty) Russian roulette" candidate kind of election.
That is, the Democratic presidential candidate being the former, the Republican presidential candidate being the latter.
It is surprising that he has rallied from the aftermath of the capitol assault and a lackluster showing in 2022. I think a big part is the lawsuits, I really saw a lot of people shift back into his camp out of sympathy and away from DeSantis and he's continued to pull people in gradually since then.
I don't care for either lead candidate but I know I don't one in Washington more than the other, so I appreciate your analogy. I'd probably instead describe Harris as rancid cheese wiz (definitely will cause food poisoning, but also mostly empty air) and Trump as really freezer burned meat that might be edible if it happens to be cooked thoroughly enough and at least has some nutritional value even if it kind of makes you gag. At this point I weigh either voting against Kamala for President and for Vance for Vice President or writing in a useless third party option. What can I say? I like a politician who quotes City of God when reflecting on America. He might be able to remain a hobbit of sorts in high places and not become a Saruman.
I just don't think you can even let someone like Trump back into office. I think it's straight up corrosive to the republic, after everything he was doing in the aftermath of the 2016 election, even before the Capitol riot. Far more than even the riot to me, which is arguably far more a product of his negligence than his active stoking, the "Alternate" Elector Slate scheme is so disqualifying that it's sickening that the Republicans let this guy run on their dime again. There ought to be no room in a democracy for someone who intentionally screws with the process upon which democracy depents and antagonizes the Constitution. It'd be like running Jefferson Davis in 1872 (trying to avoid the too-obvious European interwar comparisons :\ because I don't like being inflammatory if hyperbolic and it's too depressing if not hyerbolic at all).
Supposing that I liked Vance much at all, the prospects of which have been severely damaged by this damning choice of association, then I would at least expect he should run for President on a more mature and Trump-independent platform sometime down the road, and Trump should go spend his retirement in Mar-A-Lago and golf.
I think the mildest irony is, but for the post-election treachery, IMO Trump would have eventually been evaluated (by historians) as a middle-of-the-road "whatever" President.
Speaking of lawsuits, it has also been frustrating that, like, the least damning lawsuits were resolved first. That's just how the dockets, and Trump's team playing for time, and the judges granting timeouts because of the election, and so on, and so on, worked out.
If he wins, all the important Alternate Elector stuff is going to get swept aside, and we're going to just be left with the lame hush money and business fraud stuff, which is not nearly as important.
I'm resigned to have no influence on the election, still being a Californian after all these years. My vote is always a protest vote, so I just have to figure out HOW to protest vote best.
I hereby enact the following legislation:
1. “Maltreatment” shall be the species of crime of repeated acts or persistent behavior, which are unreasonable and unnecessary, and which have the effect of targeting a person or persons, privately or publicly, perpetrated either against their express desire or against their will, made evident by demonstrating obvious signs of intent to annoy, outrage, worry, frighten, provoke, or debase the target. Maltreatment shall be a species of Abusive Acts. Maltreatment shall be a Minor Crime.
2. It shall be a defense against charges of Maltreatment if it can be reasonably proved that all of the following criteria were met:
2.a. the acts or behavior were part of a broader, innocuous event, contract, or presumed mutual understanding of a definite nature, such as roleplay; and
2.b. the accused had notified the person or persons to promptly inform them of need for repair, or else reasonably expected to be promptly informed afterward without criminal accusation by the person or persons in need of repair.
3. It shall not be a defense against charges of Maltreatment that no harm came to the person or persons as a result of the alleged actions, nor that some benefit came to said person or persons as a result of the alleged actions.
4. “Instigation” shall be the species of crime of intentional acting to provoke highly probable military reprisal or declaration of hostilities by a neutral or allied power, or with a hostile power under truce or treaty at peace. Instigation shall be a species of Abusive Acts. Instigation shall be a Minor Crime.
5. It shall be a defense against charges of Instigation that the actions were protected or allowed by law or treaty and reasonably exercised in the light of granted latitude, presuming the accused to be utterly ignorant of what lawful actions would provoke a given power.
6. It shall be a defense against charges of Instigation if it can be reasonably proved that any of the following criteria were met:
6.a. the act in question was in service to a legitimate government function;
6.b. the act in question was ordered by a superior officer;
6.c. the act in question was ordered or requested by the crown sovereign, or was mistaken in good faith as an order or request of the crown sovereign.
7. “Antagonization” shall be the species of crime of acts or behavior which are intended to, or clearly have the effect of, fostering interpersonal hostility. Antagonization shall be a species of Abusive Acts. Antagonization shall be a Minor Crime.
8. It shall be a defense against charges of Antagonization that the acts or behavior are too general in purpose and innocuous in nature to be blamed for potential effects of fostered interpersonal hostility.
9. “Belligerency” shall be the species of crime of unreasonable and unnecessary acts or behavior, which manifestly tend to foster particular interregional hostility or invoke attacks by foreign powers. Belligerency shall be a species of Abusive Acts. Belligerency shall be a Minor Crime.
10. It shall be a defense against charges of Belligerency that the acts or behavior are too general in purpose and innocuous in nature to be blamed for potential effects of fostered interregional hostility.
11. It shall not be a defense against charges of Belligerency that no actual interregional hostility or foreign attacks resulted from the alleged acts or behavior.
12. “Public Forgery” shall be the species of crime of manufacturing false documents which purport to be official acts of the Republic, the Crown, or any office thereunder. Public Forgery shall be a species of Fraudulent Acts. Public Forgery shall be a Major Crime.
13. It shall not be a defense against charges of Public Forgery that the manufacturing in question was ordered by a superior officer, if that officer had no authority to officially act in such a capacity. It shall not be a defense that the manufacturing was part of a program of espionage, infiltration, misdirection, or disinformation on behalf of the Republic or the Crown, if that program was not expressly authorized by a lawfully empowered officer under the Crown. It shall not be a defense that the false documents were manufactured in such a way that the intention is clearly not for the documents to be taken as real.
14. “Private Forgery” shall be the species of crime of manufacturing false documents purported to be from a Free State, a resident, or a foreign dignitary. Private Forgery shall be a species of Fraudulent Acts. Private Forgery shall be a Low Crime.
15. It shall be a defense against charges of Private Forgery that the false documents were manufactured in such a way that the intention is clearly not for the documents to be taken as real. This intention must be demonstrated to the standard of any reasonably intelligent adult person viewing the document by a normal method, as it was most likely to be viewed.
16. It shall not be a defense against charges of Private Forgery that false documents were not actually believed by any person. It shall not be a defense that the contents were not insulting, not perverse, and/or not damaging to the reputation of the purported author.
17. “Phishing” shall be the species of crime of attempting to deceive, lure, threaten, bully, or otherwise coerce another person to unknowingly reveal personal or private information, or unknowingly grant account access. Phishing shall be a species of Fraudulent Acts. Phishing shall be a Minor Crime.
18. It shall not be a defense against charges of Phishing that the account or information of the target of the phishing attempt had not actually been accessed nor revealed, respectively.
19. “Fraudulent Claims” shall be the species of crime of knowingly providing false information in any public or private conversation regarding the acts of government for self-benefit. Fraudulent Claims shall be a species of Fraudulent Acts. Fraudulent Claims shall be a Minor Crime.
20. It shall not be a defense against charges of Fraudulent Claims that no actual self-benefit accrued as a result of the false information.
21. “False Testifying” shall be the species of crime of knowingly providing false testimony in any official government proceeding. False Testifying shall be a species of Fraudulent Acts. False Testifying shall be a Major Crime.
22. It shall be a defense against charges of False Testifying that the testimony in question was unlawfully compelled.
23. It shall not be a defense against charges of False Testifying that testimony provided, which was known to be false at the time given, then later became true or was found to be true previously.
24. “False Evidencing” shall be the species of crime of knowingly providing false evidence in any official government proceeding. False Evidencing shall be a species of Fraudulent Acts. False Evidencing shall be a Major Crime.
26. It shall not be a defense against charges of False Evidencing that evidence provided, which was known to be false at the time given, then later became true or was found to be true previously.
27. “Defrauding of Property” shall be the species of crime of obtaining illicit access, use, and/or ownership of regional or national property by illicit deception. Defrauding of Property shall be a species of Fraudulent Acts. Defrauding of Property shall be a Major Crime.
28. “Defrauding of Office” shall be the species of crime of obtaining illegitimate office, or preventing another from obtaining legitimate office, by illicit deception. Defrauding of Office shall be a species of Fraudulent Acts. Defrauding of Office shall be a Major Crime.
29. “Defrauding of Securities” shall be the species of crime of obtaining illicit access, use, and/or ownership of regulated financial properties by illicit deception. Defrauding of Securities shall be a species of Fraudulent Acts. Defrauding of Securities shall be a Major Crime.
30. “Racketeering” shall be the species of crime of attempting to obtain favors, commissions, awards, or other gifts of definite value by organizing crime, or by evading law enforcement, or by protecting against criminal prosecution, or by threatening to cease protecting against criminal prosecution. Racketeering shall be a species of Injurious Acts. Racketeering shall be a Major Crime.
31. It shall be a defense against charges of Racketeering that the alleged activities are protected political or civic acts.
32. It shall not be a defense against charges of Racketeering that favors, commissions, awards, or other gifts of definite value were never actually obtained by the alleged activities.
33. “Frivolous Accusation” shall be the species of crime of the pursuit of invoking criminal prosecution in ways or to extents that are excessive, frivolous, and/or malicious. Frivolous Accusation shall be a species of Injurious Acts. Frivolous Accusation shall be a Low Crime.
34. It shall be a defense against charges of Frivolous Accusation that the alleged invocations are protected political or civic acts. It shall be a defense that the alleged invocations were never investigated and/or never resulted in criminal prosecution, or else were not consistently investigated and/or did not consistently result in criminal prosecution.
35. It shall not be a defense against charges of Frivolous Accusation that the invoked criminal prosecution did not result in a conviction or did not result in consistent convictions. It shall not be a defense that the invocations were deserved, on the grounds that the person or persons subject to the invocation are bad, untrustworthy, or criminal in their character.
36. “Doxxing” shall be the species of crime of publishing identifying, personal information. Doxxing shall be a species of Injurious Acts. Doxxing shall be a Major Crime.
37. It shall not be a defense against charges of Doxxing that the information was insufficiently personal or identifying, so long as the person or persons subject to the publication disagree, or else so long as a reasonable person would likely find the publication disagreeable if they were the subject thereof. It shall not be a defense that the publication was deserved, on the grounds that the person or persons subject to the publication are bad, untrustworthy, or criminal in their character. It shall not be a defense that the publication was entirely accidental. It shall not be a defense that the publication was on another forum, or was in another region, or was a privately-circulated publication, which includes a Google Doc transmitted by private message.
38. “Blackmail” shall be the species of crime of attempting to obtain favors, commissions, awards, or other gifts of definite value by threats to otherwise publish personal information or scandalous information. Blackmail shall be a species of Injurious Acts. Blackmail shall be a Minor Crime.
39. It shall be a defense against charges of Blackmail that the alleged threats were not intended as such and would not tend to be interpreted as such in context by a reasonable person.
40. It shall not be a defense against charges of Blackmail that favors, commissions, awards, or other gifts of definite value were not actually obtained by the alleged threats.
41. “Extortion” shall be the species of crime of attempting to obtain favors, commissions, awards, or other gifts of definite value by threats of targeted militancy. Extortion shall be a species of Injurious Acts. Extortion shall be a Minor Crime.
42. It shall be a defense against charges of Extortion that the alleged threats were not intended as such and would not tend to be interpreted as such in context by a reasonable person.
43. It shall not be a defense against charges of Extortion that favors, commissions, awards, or other gifts of definite value were not actually obtained by the alleged threats.
44. “Enslavement” shall be the species of crime of attempting to coerce or actually coercing a subject nation into an unlawful contract or arrangement of obligatory service. Enslavement shall be a species of Injurious Acts. Enslavement shall be a Major Crime.
45. It shall be a defense against charges of Enslavement that the contract or arrangement was lawful at the time of the alleged coercion.
46. It shall not be a defense against charges of Enslavement that the subject nation accrued some benefit from the unlawful contract or arrangement.
47. “Slave-Trading” shall be the species of crime of attempting to sell, buy, or otherwise trade the access, use, and/or ownership of an enslaved subject nation or the access, use, and/or ownership of a subject nation for future enslavement. Slave-Trading shall be a species of Injurious Acts. Slave-Trading shall be a Major Crime.
48. It shall not be a defense against charges of Slave-Trading that the subject nation accrued or would have accrued some benefit from the sale or trade of ownership or future ownership.
50. It shall not be a defense against charges of Coercive Requisition of Property that access, use, or ownership of the regional or national property in question was not actually obtained by the alleged coercion.
51. “Deceptive Requisition of Property” shall be the species of crime of attempting to obtain licit access, use, and/or ownership of regional or national property by illicit deception. Deceptive Requisition of Property shall be a species of Injurious Acts. Deceptive Requisition of Property shall be a Minor Crime.
52. It shall not be a defense against charges of Deceptive Requisition of Property that access, use, or ownership of the regional or national property in question was not actually obtained by the alleged deception.
53. “Coercive Requisition of Securities” shall be the species of crime of attempting to obtain licit access, use, and/or ownership of regulated financial properties by illicit coercion. Coercive Requisition of Securities shall be a species of Injurious Acts. Coercive Requisition of Securities shall be a Minor Crime.
54. It shall not be a defense against charges of Coercive Requisition of Securities that access, use, or ownership of the regulated financial property in question was not actually obtained by the alleged coercion.
55. “Deceptive Requisition of Securities” shall be the species of crime of attempting to obtain licit access, use, and/or ownership of regulated financial properties by illicit deception. Deceptive Requisition of Securities shall be a species of Injurious Acts. Deceptive Requisition of Securities shall be a Minor Crime.
56. It shall not be a defense against charges of Deceptive Requisition of Securities that access, use, or ownership of the regulated financial property in question was not actually obtained by the alleged deception.
57. “Grand Larceny” shall be the species of crime of knowing, malicious retention of illicitly possessed national or regional property. Grand Larceny shall be a species of Injurious Acts. Grand Larceny shall be a Major Crime.
58. It shall not be a defense against charges of Grand Larceny that the national or regional property had previously been possessed illicitly and/or excessively retained by another person. It shall not be a defense that the national or regional property had been illicitly possessed and retained for some length of time without criminal invocation or prosecution.
59. “Petty Larceny” shall be the species of crime of excessive retention of illicitly possessed national or regional property. Petty Larceny shall be a species of Injurious Acts. Petty Larceny shall be a Minor Crime.
60. It shall not be a defense against charges of Petty Larceny that the national or regional property had previously been possessed illicitly and/or excessively retained by another person. It shall not be a defense that the national or regional property had been illicitly possessed and retained for some length of time without criminal invocation or prosecution.
61. “Griefing” shall be the species of crime of knowing non-speech acts or behavior with the intentional result of disrupting gameplay, roleplay, cultural events, or other normal NationStates proceedings. Griefing shall be a species of Vexatious Acts. Griefing shall be a Major Crime.
62. It shall be a defense against charges of Griefing that the behavior in question was a broadly innocuous civic act, if can be reasonably proved that any of the following criteria were met:
62.a. the behavior in question was part of consensual roleplay, or it was part of a permitted invitation to roleplay; or
62.b. the behavior in question was clearly an element of an otherwise innocent act, such as a joke, a play, a parody, a satire, a recital, or a speech.
63. It shall be a defense against charges of Griefing that the behavior in question was in service to a legitimate government function, or was ordered by a superior officer.
64. It shall not be a defense against charges of Griefing that the normal activities, events, or proceedings were of an illicit, unappealing, or detrimental character. It shall not be a defense that the proceedings or the involved persons were, at any time, subjected to apparent griefing by another. It shall not be a defense that the alleged griefing was actually enjoyed or was of an enjoyable character. It shall not be a defense that no one else apparently griefing, at that time or any other time, was charged with the same crime.
65. “Stalking” shall be the species of crime of following another nation from region to region, in close order, against their express wishes, for a minimally substantial period. Stalking shall be a species of Vexatious Acts. Stalking shall be a Minor Crime.
66. It shall be a defense against charges of Stalking if it can be reasonably proved that any of the following criteria were met:
66.a. the behavior in question was a broadly innocuous civic act and not reasonably known at the time to be vexing to the subject nation;
66.b. the behavior in question was in service to a legitimate government function;
66.c. the behavior in question was ordered by a superior officer;
66.d. the behavior in question was ordered or requested by the crown sovereign, or was mistaken in good faith as an order or request of the crown sovereign.
67. “Trolling” shall be the species of crime of non-speech acts or behavior with the obvious result of disrupting gameplay, roleplay, cultural events, or other normal NationStates proceedings. Trolling shall be a species of Vexatious Acts. Trolling shall be a Minor Crime.
68. “Criminal Annoyance” shall be the species of crime of intentional non-speech acts with no reasonable purpose other than to distract, perturb, frustrate, or otherwise vex a specific nation. Criminal Annoyance shall be a species of Vexatious Acts. Criminal Annoyance shall be a Low Crime.
69. It shall be a defense against charges of Criminal Annoyance that no specific nation can be shown to clearly be the intended subject of the alleged acts.
70. It shall not be a defense against charges of Criminal Annoyance that the alleged acts were in fact meant to distract, perturb, frustrate, or otherwise vex a specific nation or specific nations besides the subject or subjects alleged.
71. This Act shall not be held to apply to acts before its enaction. This Act shall not be held to apply to acts outside of the appropriate jurisdiction of the Crown and its Republic. This Act shall not be held to replace, override, contradict, or otherwise deny actions taken by site moderators. This Act shall not be held to criminalize behavior beyond what is explicitly defined herein and logically implied by such.
72. This Act shall take effect at midnight, Pacific Standard Time, after its approval by the Crown.
I agree that Trump is corrosive to the republic, but perhaps only slightly more so than Biden/Harris attacks on the judiciary and use of the administrative regulatory powers and abuse of statutes to ram through their agenda and attacks on federalism. They are very different problems, but I still have faith in our institutions to stop any serious abuse by Trump, not so much with Harris. At this point it’s largely a question of who occupies the bully pulpit. I certainly don’t view either as net positives. After reading “Democracy and Populism” by Lukas I was pretty set against Trump, and I still pretty much am. But Vance represents the New Right, which are my people, and whenever I hear him speak I see something different from all the politicians from the last few decades. He’s like a better version of Pat Buchanan. That’s not to say he’s perfect, of course.
I agree about the lawsuits, though. Part of the problem is that the first charges/cases were the least important and most obvious cases of politicized prosecution, allowing Trump to milk them, and all subsequent cases, as a witch hunt. I personally think the Attorney General of NYC handed him the nomination. As it is I don’t know enough about the fake elector scheme to make a judgment.
Trump did nothing wrong as far as the "riot" went. By the way, the first supporters that went in were rallied in by police. They thought they were taking a tour or something, tricking idiots (Who Trump did not ask to do anything) into going into the Capitol. Idk about his other lawsuits other than Democrats are desperate to make him lose, so they're probably false.
I'll definitely vote for Trump if I vote. I probably won't vote. The main reason I vote is to affect the election of our Representative. That's the only election my vote matters in
Chicago really is a bully for not allowing that one system 2 states use (1 elector per congressional district). Then again idk if Republicans in our legislature have proposed that
You guys need to stop watching CNN. Professors are usually libs.
I got in trouble and kicked out of one of my groups in a class. The professor told me "I have to do this." It's really odd. I still don't know exactly why. But a hot European girl held my hand after they left my table and went in the back. The professor was smiling at the dude in my group, sitting alone in the back. He said "Some of our friends in the back are having trouble hearing" and put on a microphone that is attached to your head. They had to go to the back because I made them "uncomfortable": once they say that, he won't allow them to sit with me even if they want, as he is worried he will get in trouble (What if they report me again for making them feel "uncomfortable": they'll ask him why didn't you keep them separated). I actually think they may be having trouble seeing which is worse. I think he is reminding them of how I was having trouble seeing and they left me because of it I am pretty sure (I asked if I could sit next to a girl who found me creepy so I could see behind the dudes computer. I am short). He actually may have been mad at those students. He didn't seem mad at me.
When I left class a few weeks ago I wondered why him and this girl were staying late. It was to tell on me apparently. I actually think it's because I asked the dude if he wanted a hug (obviously a joke) and I called one of the ladies hot. I actually don't think it was her who reported me. I think it was the dude who hated me because I just got pissed off and insulted him. So he used something that I technically shouldn't have said (but he knew was a joke) to get me in trouble. Thats the last time I text another student casually
GOR, is "Instructor" the lowest rank of professor?
He did in the sense that he (1) directed the crowd to march on the Capitol to protest the rightful certifying of the election (dumb and irresponsible, but not illegal per se), (2) had to be harrangued by members of the White House Office and the Cabinet into sending a few tweets like an hour into the proceedings to tell people to disperse and be peaceful (totally irresponsible for a sitting President when it comes to an apparently violent mob trying to get into the Capitol building), and (3) has ever since then consistently, insanely verbally defended the actions of the few who were NOT tricked, had implements of restraint (zip ties) in order to , chanted things like "hang Mike Pence", and broke onto the floor. He has said many times that he would absolutely pardon anyone convicted on January 6th.
A morally decent President would have long ago got off that train, let alone wait till promising pardons to rioters, traitors, insurrectionists, and suchlike; Trump's not a decent President. Nixon, Johnsons both, Wilson, any of these men would have had the slightest bit of reticence at the idea of putting Congress and the election certification, part of our constitutional order, in such mortal danger, without taking strong, positive, immediate steps against it once they had realized their error. Trump is unlike previous Presidents entirely, in that he has no concept of any meaning to life beyond the gratification and glorification of the self. He's not limited by "sucker" ideas, like "Oh, but what will future generations think of me after I'm gone?" and "Does this really befit the dignity of the office possessed by eminences like Washington and Lincoln?" and "Am I betraying my religious beliefs or other personal principles?" and "Does this testify to my loyalty and fulfillment of duty to the people in my care, even if I don't personally like them?" These are not questions which occur to the man. This is not some kind of tea-leaf reading on my part. He evinces this attitude in every single interview, at every single rally, on his TV shows, in public and private, and in his own books. It beggars belief to think this is a mere manufacturing of the media, when you can just *listen* to the man yourself, and see and hear that there's nothing there but an ascended carnival barker. I've never seen so many people taken in so thoroughly by a guy who ADMITS repeatedly that his modus operandi is to lie to people, invent his own narrative, refuse to accept responsibility, fight any attempt to impose responsibility on him, accuse everyone else of cheating at all times, while cheating them yourself, and nakedly sell people the self-satisfying fantasy that appeals to their worst selves.
Well, let's not conflate the "rioters" with the entire crowd of people who happened to be at the Capitol. Most of those people did nothing wrong, and what some of them did wrong, I'm sure they did accidentally. However, if you were let in innocently by a cop, then told forcefully to leave by the same cop (or another cop), your innocent reaction would not be to angrily protest, attack them, violently resist, break down doors, try to arrest election proceedings, make off with furniture, etc. That's not what you would do, unless you were (A) not innocent, or (B) innocent initially, but caught up in the raucus spirit of a mob that you start acting out with them, in which case you are still accountable for your actions. So that excuse will not hold water for most of the people charged with crimes from the events of that day.
It is true that the Capitol protest =/= the Capitol riot. They're not all the same people. And we know that several of the worst actors were coordinated and unified in very specific goals of government overthrow, so given that fact, it's important not to conflate the two. It's the rioters who are (to my limited knowledge) getting criminally prosecuted, not any civil, peaceful protestors who wandered in, did nothing, then wandered out.
This is one of the cases that I wish had been forced to resolve long since prior to the election. I think, if nothing else, the fact that it's taken 4+ years for this stuff to go through the courts shows that litigation is NOT a good way to resolve election disputes or election-related mischief. Under normal circumstances, it's barely a problem, but clearly when a fast and definitive solution is needed, the courts are an anemic remedy. Congress needs to be prodded (constitutionally forced, perhaps) to reassert its role as the dominant power over the judiciary and the executure.
The Democrats are definitely desperate to make him lose; unfortunately, that fact does not make it especially likely that they're false. OTOH, Trump is desperate to win, no? So does it make the accusations probably true because he denies them? Maybe, but then you're really just reasoning from the moral character of both Donald Trump and the Democrats, and judging who is more likely to be the liar. I think as much as I distrust the Democrats, it's far more likely that one (1) person is a liar, especially when he is known, proven, and self-admitted to be a liar, than a diverse, distributed group of many unconnected people is. That, and you have to consider the many Republicans and politically independent or apolitical people who will corroborate many aspects of these stories, in which case, you have to believe the incredible idea that literally everyone in the world wants to bring a guy down who is, himself, totally innocent. It's a lot easier to believe that everyone is telling falsehoods, than everyone else except Donald Trump--in which case, you cannot really draw the conclusion that the lawsuits are necessarily false, and I am not even sure they're probably false.
I will say another thing: the most frustrating thing about these lawsuits being helmed by Democrats is their dislike for Trump will blind them to obvious mistakes in their prosecution, which does actually make the whole thing look like a merely political charade to the layman. (Putting aside the fact that many truthful things are political, and many political things have some truth to them. The civil and criminal suits could be wholly political in motive, yet fully justified in their prosecution. These are not mutually exclusive.) This is a big reason why both of the impeachments were doomed to failure, along with GOP partisanship. He deserved removal, morally, but they had no real case. I think that is a weakness in our system, but given the fact that it "is what it is," the Democrats should have known that and taken it into account when building a case. They're as much to blame for Trump's presidency and subsequent behavior as the Republicans are, no doubt in my mind.
IN NS NEWS.
I'm getting the rest of the criminal code done more or less simultaneously. Military crimes, diplomatic crimes, and election/office/court crimes are what's left. Writing the comprehensive criminal code is exhausting, but I think it will be a thing of pride, if not beauty, when it's finished.
Instructor of Record is the lowest level of teaching faculty, they’re not professors technically.
Well you should vote. Even if Illinois has no chance of going for Trump your local race still matters, don’t just sit down and let the Democratic Party of Illinois reap the benefits of heavy gerrymandering, especially if you are in district 13. It’s also valuable for as many dissenting voices to vote as that’s a key way political winds can change, showing one party that it’s support it falling and they need to change and the other that it is worth trying harder next time.
Post self-deleted by The Confederacy of Beastland.
They may have just messed with my congressional district. I think they altered it. We had a Republican representing us. They just altered our Congressional district after the 2020 election and now we have a Democrat.
A Republican for 10 years straight I believe.
"Meanwhile, Chicago Carpetbagger Nikki Budzinski moved to Central Illinois to run in a hand-drawn Pritzker district design to elect her – it’s not going so well."
Apparently it is going well because she won 2022.
*I sort of just assumed the Republican won again......I did vote in the midterm. Then again I'm guessing more Republicans will show up to the presidential election
*They may have "had to" redraw it because I think we got another elector at the time CA lost some and TX gained some
Actually Illinois lost a district, the population is declining. Pelosi called Pritzker and convinced him to gerrymander the crap out of Illinois to help retain the Democratic majority in congress. The 13th district, which I believe you are referring to, had been Republican since 1892. So yeah, go and vote against Nikki.
I don't wanna say for sure what district (Unless we all state our districts) but she is a woman. I have always been used to a Republican Representative, thinking of a Senator or our electors voting Republican as a dream. I wonder if we are a "swing district" now or if Pritzker messed with it so much that Democrats have to win. I don't know what he did. Maybe shoved a Chicago suburb in here.
That actually makes me really sad. That is so mean JB Fatass did that. Fu*k him.
Post self-deleted by The Confederacy of Beastland.
«12. . .7374757677787980»
Advertisement
