Hodad

By all appearances, she looked around and realized what she'd been doing and for whom--and how hollow and unworthy the man is.

You're a Trump Dick Sucker? Explains a lot.

Why is this conversation even happening? A. Bernstein is exactly and incisively correct about Trump. B. Woodward also thinks trump is a pathologically lying piece of shit. So what even is the point of your argument? Either one or two legendary journalists both agree that Trump is a liar. Let's bicker about whether one deserves more credit than the other for a group project?

That's tragic in every regard. American sold its soul to sociopathic billionaires and this is the gruesome outcome. People without empathy should never be in leadership.

Well, shoot. If some rando on the internet says it, that definitely negates 250 years of jurisprudence and legal scholarship. Solid argument. I must concede. 🙄

Not even remotely close. And no, I do not feel better. I derive no joy or comfort from contemplating advancing decay of our crumbling democracy. Our first president refused a kingship and retired to keep democracy healthy. That ideal is so, so far away at this point that it might as well be another country entirely. We just re-elected a the first president in history who fomented insurrection, who literally tried to overthrow democracy with a slate of fake electors. A man who wasn't just ambivalent to the will of the people, but who would disenfranchise the entire country to retain power. And you voted for it. Incomprehensible.

No, nobody in the history of politics has been anything like Trump. Ever. All politicians have a set of constituents who disagree on perspective and policy. All politicians have been wrong sometimes, some frequently. Most of them have told lies occasionally, and a few frequently. But we have never had a pathological liar in office. Constantly, incessantly, as reflexively as breathing. From day one. About policy. About politics. About people. About big things. About small things. About everything. And we've never had that kind of politician before because people used to have the self respect not to trust--and certainly not to follow--a person of such low character. But whatever generational shift has happened, modern "conservatives" will stand there in the rain, and Trump will look them in the eye and tell them it's not raining, and they'll just swallow what's left of their dignity and nod along. No self respect. Apparently that's the price of "owning the libs." Well, that and American democracy. Hope it was worth it.

Two posts in a row and still the patience of a saint? Nah, even a saint would be shouting expletives at this point. These are clearly people who would build an air compressor without a tank and a water system without a reservoir. Some things you can't fix. 🤦‍♂️

Thanks for sharing these "valuable insights" from the Crazy Old Man email chain letter.

Trump was shot at by a Republican kid and targeted by a disaffected Trump supporter who turned against him over Ukraine. Try again. That's not "the left." I didn't give a second thought to Charlie Kirk while he was alive and that's unlikely to change now. But the worst part of your post is you pretending that protests against police violence and social injustice, which have long history in this country, are even*remotely* comparable to the unprecedented idea that a violent mob would storm the Capitol to attack our legislators in an effort to seize power for a president voted out of office. The end of democracy. It's ridiculous that you still try to defend and normalize that. Yet another indicator of how disconnected you are from reality.

I didn't excuse anything, jackhole. I said, and quite rightly, that a private fantasy pales in comparison to actually, literal, sanctioned political violence at scale. If private fantasy were the equivalent of action your mail order bride should be dumping your ass for all the filthy ways you fantasize about Trump dominating you. And that three-way with Putin, whooo boy.

I addressed exactly what you said. This is your thesis: "After the election of Jay Jones, I am completely disheartened by the left." This is your conclusion: "Give me hope for them. Because all I see right now is a violent mob attempting to take over government by any means necessary." And this is your beloved shitbag president: pardoning HIS mob that LITERALLY helped him try to take over the government by any means necessary. Your woeful lamentations about political violence and attempts to "take over the government" (by being elected, I guess) will never, ever have even a smidgen of credibility until you denounce and renounce Donald J. Trump for for his literal support of avowed insurrectionists and his literal attempted coup. Save your crocodile tears. It's impossible to take you seriously on these subjects while you're supporting the worst of the worst. Full stop.

This is some dumb farking crybaby bullshit right here. You are whining about a metaphorical violent mob trying to take over the government while constantly glazing a man who created --then pardoned --a LITERAL violent mob trying to take over the government. And why? You're clutching your perks because some dude most people have never heard of texted a dark fantasy to someone a then won a downballot election a few years later? Some guy fantasizing privately hurts your feelings and is unfit for state office, but guy with a literal mob should run the country again? You are not a serious adult. You have no credibility and no backbone. GTFO.

There's 'overwhelming evidence' tariffs have raised consumer prices, says Bank of America Analysts at the Bank of America said tariffs have raised prices for consumers. They wrote in a note that consumers have covered about 50% to 70% of the cost of levies to date. This suggests tariffs will continue to put "upward pressure" on inflation, they said. Whaaaaaaaaaaat?!? 🙄

Lol. You quoting lines you don't understand and can't parse for meaning is NOT evidence of anything--except the fact that you're way out of your depth. And now you're just spewing random words with no meaning. You just called CATO a "lwnj." CATO. Think about that. And a quick sampling of prominent legal journals. Which is just ridiculous. Here's Hillsdale College (you know that one, dontcha😉 - not a reputable school but a well known echo chamber for MAGA) "In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court handed down a decision that for the first time held unambiguously that the Second Amendment guaranteed an individual the right to keep and bear arms for purposes of self-defense." How about the Heritage Foundation? "It was another 217 years before the United States Supreme Court definitively and clearly stated that the 'right to keep and bear arms' protects an individual right rather than a collective right. The tardy but vital recognition of this right was set forth in the High Court's 2008 opinion in Heller." Are you gonna call these left wing sources too? 🙄 This is really easy. As a well known fact, there are quotable sources everywhere. Should we do some more, or are you done making a fool of yourself?

WTF? I don't recall you citing anything except your own half-assed opinion. Meanwhile, I've given you authoritative source after authoritative source, including literally quoting CATO, which, again, is the farking organization that manufactured the Heller case to get this holding. Quoting directly from the horse's mouth--and both ends of the gun rights debate Also quoting about any legal review or journal you can find. You know, the people who actually know the law and legal history. Everyone manages to agree. While you've got, well... you. Watching you become the poster child for Dunning-Kruger is hilarious and all, but maybe give it a rest at some point? Jeebus.

🥱 You're welcome to your ill-informed and unsupported opinions. Meanwhile, 200+ years of jurisprudence and recorded legal history think that you're full of shit. Here is what actual legal resources say. “But on June 26, 2008, … the Supreme Court … held for the first time that ‘law-abiding, responsible Americans’ have the right to possess guns in the home – even if they have nothing to do with armies or militias …” — Brady United: District of Columbia v. Heller “The Court held for the first time that the Second Amendment guarantees a personal right to keep and bear firearms for purposes unrelated to an organized militia.” — Bolch Judicial Institute (Duke University) article Stevens, J., Dissenting – The Legacy of Heller (Judicature) “In District of Columbia v. Heller the Supreme Court recognized for the first time that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to keep firearms for self-defense.” — University of Illinois Law Review article Raising Heller (illinoislawreview.org) “District of Columbia v. Heller conclusively established that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms.” — Yale Law Journal Note Open Carry for All: Heller and Our Nineteenth-Century Second Amendment (Yale Law Journal) “Heller, the Supreme Court announced for the first time that self-defense, not militia service, is the ‘core’ of the right to keep and bear arms.” (California Law Review) As a bonus, here's one from the organization that manufactured the lawsuit specifically to chase this outcome. Establishing the 2nd as an individual right was the whole point and purpose of constructing the case as it was constructed. “On June 26, 2008, … the Supreme Court unambiguously held, for the first time in history, that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.” (Cato Institute) But you keep on thinking your thoughts and ignoring the facts if that's what you're into. First amendment, and all.👍

Even the man who embraced "the dark side" came to realize that they'd gone too far. If there's a soul to save, he tried to save it.

You are wildly misreading this. The second amendment says the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose enabling a well regulated militia. That was never in question. Miller rejected the idea of an individual right to bear arms outside of the context of a militia. You can read the significance of that anywhere. And you can find a dozen sites to explain why that individual right wasn't established until Heller. That's why it's a landmark case. From the NRA, celebrating their decades-long effort to effect that change: "State by state, issue by issue, NRA-ILA changed the face of American firearms law and made political fortunes rise and fall on candidates’ Second Amendment records. Its grades and iconic orange postcards became synonymous with grassroots political activism. The shift peaked in 2008 with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which invalidated D.C.’s handgun ban. It became black-letter law that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense, independent of service in an organized militia." Miller was in stark contrast to the conception of the 2A as an individual right. And it left wide open state and city options for regulating gun ownership. You want a gun for home protection? Not protected. You want a gun to conceal carry? Not protected You want a gun for sport shooting? Not protected. You want a gun just because? Not protected. Heller is when that changed, and the 2nd amendment shifted to an individual right, independent of militia.

You didn't show anything. You waved your hands and made a claim--about the 2nd amendment and the Miller case. You provided neither evidence nor argument. And you're claim itself is false. The truth is basically the opposite of what you claimed--that's why a Heller was a big deal. Miller continued the expectation that gun ownership was fully in the context of a well regulated militia, not a distinct individual right, and self defense was an insufficient justification. Justicia Primary holding "Only weapons that have a reasonable relationship to the effectiveness of a well-regulated militia under the Second Amendment are free from government regulation." And that's not just what weapons can be owned, but it also clearly makes when and how a person is armed subject to regulation--not as an individual right, but in the context of a well regulated militia. Individuals can keep and bear arms, but the right is constitutionally protected only in the furtherance of that goal. Federal and State law were able to regulate everything in that context. Again, you can learn the history or not. But it should be obvious that there wasn't a decades long legal strategy and battle to achieve something that you claim was settled in 1939. 🙄

Quite simple? Like a bot, you are bizarrely confident in your ignorance. It's farking weird. First, the man is an internationally acclaimed and influential scholar. Your default position should simply be that he knows vastly more than you in most things, but particularly in his field. Second, this is relatively common knowledge, not the exclusive domain of elite scholars. Hitler literally cited the US treatment of "redskins" as a model in Mein Kampf. It's well known that German legal scholars researched US laws to craft their own cleansing. The link isn't tenuous, isn't just supported, it's explicit. So, I ask again, what is the problem with Mamdani knowing history? I'm not a Mamdani believer, but surely you can find a better criticism than the fact that he may have learned history, no? Then again, being educated is offensive to the MAGA cult. Which is a shame. If some of you had learned history, maybe you wouldn't be so excited about watching Trump execute the fascist playbook to a T. Then again, maybe you would...

You're just ignorantly begging the question. Of course there were previous interpretations--one, precisely. Either learn the history or don't. I can't read it for you.

And? That's exactly what happened with the colonization of the "new world." Colonialism wasn't great morally, but there's no denying that if profited the colonists immensely, wars and all.

Why? The Spanish, Italians, French and the English didn't have a unified continent--or even domestic political alignment--when they set out to conquer and colonize new continents. They were certainly successful, and they benefitted massively. Becoming spacefaring species is still pretty impractical, and we certainly have crippling dysfunction in terms of our political environment, but if tomorrow there were ships and lands to conquer we'd be on them greedily dreaming of resource acquisition.

So first you say it's just a theory. Then you acknowledge that it happened, but no one was charged. Next you acknowledge that yes, charges were brought, but the lack of conviction is the government's fault for not charging faster. Your recovery from amnesia is stunning. One can only imagine what you'll remember and be an expert on next. But you should consider that the pace of the investigation is the evidence that it was NOT a "weaponized" justice system. If the justice system were being abused charges would have come quickly, rather than after a thorough investigation. If the justice system had been abused, there would not be guilty pleas and convictions. If you'd like to know what a "weaponized" justice system looks like you'll have to look at what Trump is doing now. Established, experienced prosecutors--his own appointees--are refusing to bring the charges that the orange fascist wants, so he's firing his own people to replace them with unqualified warm bodies who will do whatever he asks, bringing cases with no chance of success.