cosmicgadget

It's not that. Maybe some voted based on entertainment value but it was an ad hoc alliance of:

People who only ever vote GOP

Pro lifers

People who thought he was somehow being unfairly prosecuted for Jan 6 and having crates of classified documents in his pool house

Podcast listeners (people who are heavily influenced by Joe Rogan, Tim Poole, and the like)

People who are ideologically aligned with Stephen Miller

And, drumroll...

Centrists who believed the GOP talking point that Biden was the sole or primary cause of inflation. To their discredit, the dems seemed to have no interest in refuting it.

I think we are primed for the doublethink with six months of Iran being totally defeated and the Strait of Hormuz being open.

But yeah, as we saw with covid, cutting rates and qe now means markets surge now and $15 burritos in three years.

Replacing Lisa Cook or Jerome Powell and cutting rates to 0.

No one should be subjected to a Thomas dissent. Especially that one.

> The method and intent by which a policy is enacted, does not change the effects of that policy.

Lmao imagine not being familiar with the concept of discretion.

> I'm not making my case "for Trump"

You seem awfully concerned he is being treated unfairly. Maybe you are just a firm supporter of ideological consistency.

> I'm making my case that restricting or banning voting by mail is neither disenfranchisement nor undemocratic.

Then you should pipe down in this situation because he's stated that this is his intention. I agree that restricting voting by mail is not inherently undemocratic although restricting ballot access is almost always going carry disenfranchisement. Regardless, you cannot claim that restricting voting by mail cannot possibly be a means of disenfranchisment, with plenty of very obvious examples. Since we already know that is the goal here, you're using the dumbest possible opportunity to make a pedantic argument. It's like making a case for communism by talking about how great Kim Jong Un is.

> I think it's very material that no or minimal criticism about voter disenfranchisement was levied at those other countries on this basis

If you're making a definitional argument then the status quo is immaterial. If you are worried about poor Trump getting unfair treatment, it's a worthwhile thing to point out. But you aren't doing that! Just make sure you note which countries restrict vote by mail using partisan chicanery with the goal of keeping power.

> If you want to argue Trump is breaking the US constitution in enacting these changes, be my guest. But something is not democratic or not based on whether it abides by the US constitution.

I never claimed the US Constitution determines whether or not something is democratic outside its borders. In any venue, for something to be democratic it ought to follow the rule of law.

Quite simply because that is both the intent and the effect. What other countries do is completely immaterial.

> I don't care about the correct procedure

You mean constitutional procedure. Which is something you out to pretend to care about while you're making your case for Trump.

Zing.

"My symptoms were like a flu, this invalidates the mortality rate (which are fake anyway!) and hospital census (also fake!). Joe Rogan said we just needed to boof livestock dewormer and look at him, still alive. QED."

A conversation as old as time.

Nuh uh is a fact, it doesn't require a conversation.

This DOJ would definitely be prosecuting him, that isn't saying very much.

The beginning of the article says it doesn't have mainstream traction. Not sure about the "China bad" thing, we seem to have the Han nationalists vs the mainstream who wants ethnic unity and 5000 years of unbroken history vs the internet memers and people who "did their own research".

> It was at worst a "bad flu,"

Incorrect.

> The dude wanted to be famous

Hilarious on the heels of "I just won this trial I made up".

> legally binding mandates that supersede sovereignty.

What jurisdiction and enforcement mechanism?

I don't think he is advocating for this but rather juxtaposing it with common right wing talking points.

CFPB

Yeah but Harris embarrassed him so badly he backed out of the third debate.

Lol, "are you going to issue a correction!?!"

It's absolutely an attempt at disenfranchisement, the administration has been pretty clear about this. I asked you to also consider the other angle, it doesn't somehow invalidate the president's objective.

> the correct procedures for how the change is made are not being followed?

Tell me, what is the correct procedure for this, under the US Constitution?

Step back from the voter disenfranchisement angle and consider how it's being done.

It's kind of genius - use the one federally-controlled element of voting to disenfranchise your opponents, doing it so late that the courts can't rule in time.

UPS, Fedex, DHL, and Amazon have the chance to do the funniest, most patriotic thing.

Dropboxes won't help if you don't receive the ballot in the first place.

Just read the headline?

Well, the last president to steer the car away from the cliff came from one party, the other is currently mashing the accelerator toward it.

And that is without considering things like invading Iraq and Afghanistan, creating the global financial crisis, or turning on the money printer at the start of covid.

If you look at this information and say, "no difference" I don't think anyone here can help you.

You seem to be implying something, care to elaborate?

> He was indicted in April for allegedly trying to hide email exchanges about that research by using his personal email instead of his government email.

I am so glad this administration is going after everyone who does work comms using personal accounts.

Why is it ironic that Clinton balanced the budget?

Second term Bush not so great? Can you think of anything in his first term that maybe impacted the deficit for, say, two decades?

Expressions subjected to enhanced interrogation.

The fault report was leaked. The hydraulic systems recovered and the plane landed safely. Also the pilot tested positive for cannabis and was not in his seat at the time of the incident. There apparently is a maintenance switch to bleed hydraulics located behind the copilot seat.

Let's not focus on principle over scale, particularly because scotus declared the rules are completely different for the executive.

Others engaged in similar practices do get named. They don't need to be named here.

This is what happens when you give nearly complete immunity to a politician (de facto complete due to his age and the 2/3 requirement for the senate to convict).

leroy_jenkins.wav queued up on the Discord soundboard.

I choose to believe the unhinged rants about Iran are genuine and that he expected Venezuela and got Vietnam.