I don't even know what his actual "policies" are (who actually knows, he just leans wherever the wind blows) but I'm hard-pressed to find a more ungenuine person (maybe because the ones beating him are actually not outright idiots).
My view has nothing to do with policy/politics. The guy is just a fucking disaster - whatever text-to-speech puppet making public announcements would sound smarter and more knowledgeable.
It's right there in the open.
Whatever your criticisms of Trump are, this isn’t a distinguishing one.
Why do you believe your thus uttered opinions would change someone's mind (at least in the direction you would agree with), or, at least lead to an interesting discussion? Honest question.
Having actually read some of those suits, I would say you could make a case that Giuliani should be disbarred. These suits are cases where the Trump campaign usually has no standing, the claims are often not even proper allegations, the remedies sought are literally unprecedented, and often even the timing is improper (basically, challenging election procedures after the election can only be done in exceptional circumstances). You may have a right to sue people, but you do not have a right to harass people through lawsuits, and the suits in question are closer to the latter.
(Side note: you don't have a constitutionally-granted right to sue people. You do have one to sue the government, though.)
It's sort of ironic that this article purports to be "anti establishment" and then parrots a the most establishment-friendly talking point imaginable.
This is at least how I see it on HN.
Edit: Downvoted, sigh.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25333255 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171