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

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”.

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.

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.

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.

I’m not too knowledgeable of Buchanan’s role specifically in the events leading up to the war, and I’m not asking this as some attempt to defend him, but so many times I’ve read something along the lines of “Buchanan consistently ranks at/near the bottom because of his failure to find a compromise to prevent the Civil War”.

Was there really a compromise to be had in regard to slavery? What would that have been? Let some states peacefully secede because the whole country couldn’t agree on slavery? Set up some legal guidelines/restrictions on slavery if they stay in the Union?

I can’t see how anyone in office at that time, Buchanan or not, would’ve avoided a war without allowing slavery to continue. I’m sure there are Constitutional experts out there that could explain how secession could work when there are significant differences amongst major segments of the population. But the conversation is different when you’re talking about inbred rednecks that are willing to die for their “right” to own other people.

So seriously, what compromise was this poor douche supposed to pull out of his ass?

So say we all.

And what the fuck does the holocaust have to do with anything?

Who cares who got RFK to run? Let the candidates debate, and let the citizens vote. Why are so many people scared of that concept that no one is talking about the fact that the DNC rigged three consecutive primaries?

I do believe that just about every major issue that this country/world is facing deserves a more nuanced discussion than just the ® and (D) party platforms. Life is rarely that simple. Wouldn’t you like to have had a better idea of where Harris stands on everything and maybe have been questioned and challenged a bit before the convention? Or are you just happy to have a not-Trump candidate that isn’t senile?

Then the Dems would have nothing to fear by letting him run in the primary, right? Oh wait…if he got even 1 delegate, they couldn’t have just handed the nomination to Harris. There might have been a debate or a vote? The party that’s “defending democracy” can’t have that, I guess.

And in some instances, both sides actually do the same shit. Can you really not see that since at least Perot, if not McGovern, they’ve both been doing whatever possible to exclude third parties when they’re a threat, or support them when it’s convenient?

I bet you think professional wrestling is real too…

And the Dems dicked with RFK to get him to run independent instead of possibly getting a Democratic delegate. Both parties will do whatever necessary to make sure the two-party system is maintained and outsiders don’t threaten their control. What else is new?