Thank you for posting this. I was just about to ask.

Absolutely.

Every time I hear someone question the safety of self-driving cars, I know they’ve never been to Philadelphia or NJ.

There was endless handwringing about Obama hitting that dude with a drone strike. But regardless… are you seriously going to pretend that is at all comparable to what is happening right now? A US citizen, in a foreign war zone, fighting for the enemy vs. kidnapping and trafficking US citizens from their homes in the US to a prison in El Salvador. A country they’ve never been to. C’mon bro.

You should proofread, bro. But I think I get your meaning.

It’s not for you or me to claim or “pretend” that any of these alleged crimes are comparable (unless we’re on the jury). It’s not the president’s job either, really. That’s why we have judges, juries, trials, and all that other boring “due process” shit.

Thank you for at least trying to answer the question. Even though I do secretly believe that assassination is more severe than deportation, I was genuinely asking about the difference in public response instead. I don’t recall nearly as much “handwringing” about Obama killing a kid, but that could just be because I was paying less attention to news during that time in my life.

I really don’t understand why people are upset about due proces now. The US established over 10 years ago that it’s OK to kill US citizens if they’re “terrorists”. But deportation is crossing the line?

Am I missing something on this subject? Or is it just typical political hypocrisy?

I switched to Libre as well a month or so ago. The only thing I miss from Firefox is eing able share passwords/tabs/etc between mobile and desktop, but it’s not enough to make me switch back.

No, they need a platform that people will vote for. They need to earn our votes with something more than “Trump is worse”.

2001?

What did they leak? How did the author and The Verge decide this article was ready for publication?

Exactly. How do “journalists” hear something like this and not immediately ask “so what else did he do just now that we should really be covering”?

On what grounds? The emoluments clause? And every member of Congress is supposed to risk being held to the same standard? Yeah, sure.

The only other specific thing mentioned in the article was the Jan 6 pardons, which wasn’t criminal. The president has that power. Maybe Congress could consider whether to revoke that power, but as it stands now, Trump did nothing wrong under the law when he issued those pardons.

I’m no defender or supporter of Trump The guy is a turd. He’s motivated only by what feeds his bank account and/or ego. But this article is bullshit. Impeaching Trump for either of those reasons is a joke. Particularly after all the talk of Trump politicizing the Justice Department to attack his rivals.

Constructive contribution, isn’t it?

Removed by mod

Isn’t is just from having been Speaker? Even though she no longer is, that gives her a distinction from the hundreds of other people in Congress.

It doesn’t bother me any more than any other over-played song.

I hope all those “vote blue no matter who” people are proud. It’s such a relief that Biden brought a stop to Trump and turned the country around.

Exactly.

Yes, there are plenty of problems with Trump, MAGA, and the Republican party, but it’s very obvious that Trump’s supporters are genuine and enthusiastic with their support. The only recent thing comparable on the (D) side was with Bernie, but the DNC made sure that didn’t happen. I have not met anyone with genuine enthusiasm for Clinton, Biden, or Harris (at least not without it being some form of “well, (s)he’s better than Trump”). The people leading the DNC would rather keep whatever power they can in the party, even if it means losing elections, than step back and listen to what voters truly want.

But isn’t Trump a Russian asset?

Harris, Biden, and Clinton are not progressives. The DNC shut out a popular progressive in 2016 and learned nothing then. D voters as a whole are too quick to dismiss anyone that might be a threat to their main candidate. Of course, Sanders running independent in 2016 would’ve secured an even more humiliating loss for Clinton. But it would’ve steered us toward a more productive conversation by now, and Trump likely wouldn’t have won a second term, or probably even another nomination. Instead, let’s move to the right and try to appeal to those “moderate”/“swing” voters.

I don’t think Biden would’ve won without Trump’s (mis)handling of the pandemic. There’s certainly misogynists out there that would never vote for a woman, but the pandemic was the other major differentiator. The DNC is fine with serving their donors with the most appealing not-Trump puppet, rather than getting a candidate that the citizens genuinely want to vote for.

Are you listening to yourself? Trump is crazy/senile. Many of the people that support him know this, but will continue to support him because he appoints the ® judges they want. He could be the craziest person on the planet, but his supporters just won’t care as long he can be relied upon to deliver the courts.

A month ago, I though Harris had a good chance at winning. But as we got closer to election day, ads, headlines, and commentators focused more and more on how bad Trump is, rather than what she stands for or promises. That’s why she lost. No one was going to change the minds of any Trump voters. She needed to get undecided/swing/unmotivated voters to vote FOR her, rather than vote against Trump. “We’re not going back”? Fine, I don’t want that either, but instead of repeating that over and over, how about you remind people what it means for a Harris administration to move us forward? You can’t do that because you’re keeping us in bed with Israel and people are concerned about the implications from that? Yeah, she was going to lose to the “pet-eating” douche.

Say whatever you want about Trump and his supporters, and sure, there’s plenty to disagree with. But, they had someone they were voting FOR, and that means more than being scared of the alternative.

Compromise only “worked” to avoid war, though. It didn’t work too well for the slaves. I guess my question really should’ve been…was slavery so firmly established as a “right” by this point that war was inevitable if slavery in the US was to end? If Buchanan had worked out some new compromise, it wouldn’t have been a permanent solution. My guess is that it would’ve meant a delayed, but bloodier war because of an even stronger sense of entitlement from the South.