myata

"Complaining" equals to calling its results illegitimate and trying to overturn them with conspiracy and coercion? Can one really be that naive to not understand the difference? What you're reading is having an effect on your brain. You were informed.

Of course, as was already observed by someone, if not the irony this may well go in the history as the pinnacle of stupidity. Joe could have bowed out and let in new wind and a new direction and new hope. But no. Obstinance and rut mentality. Never, ever works in that other party. Always has to be step in boring step in the old boring footsteps. One failure, two, three: nope. In a row too. No hope. No feedback and nothing gained. It's too far away: in itself. Don't hear and doesn't want to get anything. Works just fine as it is. The future is guaranteed and assured. OK. That would be one to watch. Clearly unfit versus bored to death. Good one Joe. Just don't try to spread the blame around if it: that stupid, senile and obstinate bet goes wrong way. That much, we know.

OK now you're talking. There are all kinds of checks in the system like Grand Jury, and this was a jury trial just one citizen finding a ground for reasonable doubt would have been enough to hang it. But no. You just want to cry and shout. You want to have the system "rigged" when it doesn't live up to your wishes, and jump right in when it goes your way. This is of course a fantasy. Democracy does not work like that and cannot, period. You don't have a clue how it works and you have no desire to look into and understand. The forefathers thought how to make it work; many generations tried hard, very best to make it work. You want to cheer and clap and have it fulfill your desires like a magic wand. Dumb. Irresponsible. But of course only a choice. Like you're the first of these. Romans traded their democracy for bread and circuses millennia back. Like you can surprise anyone and anything in this universe with dumb choices.

What Democrat has claimed an election stolen and called to undermine or have it overturned? Can we stay on the side of the reality that means, facts? That's first.

Of course. And for them this marks a decision point. Only a choice: nobody made them.

But the liar used the same word for it! Reagan is "shady" and Trump so the buffoon is just like Reagan or Roosevelt no difference, all are "shady". I don't think we can afford to live with that any longer because it's very clear where, which direction it's taking us in. So the lie has to be called. All politicians "shady": prove it. Or shut up and be known as a stinky liar no better than the buffoon idol, just less talented at the sh*tty profession.

That's what Trump said, and his stooges are echoing. A responsible citizen can admit the necessity and validity of the democratic legal system without agreeing to every of its decision. It does not mean that the system is rigged. It means that the verdict stands, and is accepted unless or until it is overturned on appeal. This is not what Trump's mob is hollering, not at all. They insist on their right to dictate which is the correct decision and what is "rigged", nothing less. If they didn't agree with any decision, it has to be "rigged". And that, should it come to pass would mean the end of independent justice as democratic institute, not so? We do not have justice anymore: the mob decides. How could one with working mind and conscience not see it?

This is clearly stretching words to the point where they couldn't mean anything. If justice system is "rigged" that is, undermining one of the key democratic institutions: then what's the point of appealing to the rigged system, that itself can be claimed "rigged" if it wouldn't go the desired way? Is it an instrument that is necessary and works for all citizens, or a toy that has to work always for me? Really, they haven't a clue. No it's worth than undemocratic: it's not even having a clue what democracy is about: the laws applied to all citizens equally, if it doesn't or wouldn't work in my favor (not equally). And the main point is missed of course: whatever another citizens said, can be a matter for a discussion; it cannot be the cause for persecution. In a democracy that is; totalitarianism is a different story. And this is how we know the difference.

Lincoln "shady"? Roosevelt shady, Reagan? Kennedy "shady", and Luther King? Should we just let blatant boldface lies slip, and see what happens? Can we? Isn't that what's gotten us here?

I don't see anything unusual here. Condemning separatism within existing and recognized borders is very different from the situation where one country clearly has been transgressing beyond its internationally recognized ones. Just two different situations. No contradiction.

One needs to recognize that this is happening in a difficult social background. The political system is in a partisan deadlock. Both parties contributed to it, the increasing then extreme polarization leading to a system that is very much closed on itself and running for itself. Then, a part of the population, and relatively soon we will find out the measure of it, prefers to forget that a working democracy is an instrument of active and responsible citizens that needs to be checked and maintained at all times. They now want to see it as a magical want that has to satisfy all tantrums and caprices and is guaranteed to work no matter what one throws at it. This is a dangerous social and political environment. It is reminiscent of Rome's before the fall of democracy, and Germany before the fall to totalitarianism. This the political system in a partisan deadlock the path out of this conundrum is not at all clear. Still the Republicans have a choice to make here. Giving in and falling into insanity is not an obligation and not at all certainty for any individual who has the integrity, principles and can think for themselves. If you would not resist it openly, you don't have to contribute and participate in it. Participating in madness is a choice and it will have consequences. Everyone who contributed will be held to account: if not by the courts and justice, then by the history itself. Totalitarianism is already here. This is another sign of rising totalitarianism: "Attack Trump verdict or be exiled - a new test for Republicans". "Larry Hogan, a moderate Republican who is running for an open Senate seat in liberal-leaning Maryland, took to social media to urge all Americans to “respect the verdict and the legal process”. Within minutes, Chris LaCivita, a top official on Trump’s campaign, posted a crystal-clear reply to Mr Hogan: “You just ended your campaign.” The implication: if you’re not with us on this, you’re politically dead." (BBC) It is ugly. It is disgusting. It has no explanations or excuses. At first, it was about some lying buffoon. It could have ended there, in a community of thinking, active and responsible citizens of principle and integrity. Now the mob wants to take with it the party; and then, the country into its place of insanity. No: no one who can think and speak for themselves, their mind and conscience has to participate in this. History shows and tells us that very clearly. There are no explanations. There may not be path back. The future of a great democracy will be decided by thinking and responsible citizens; or by a mindless mob worshiping a lying Idol. The outcomes cannot be the same. You knew it: now find the will and courage to admit it and take it to act.

Standing up to fascist thugs of our time means "get worse". Just hear them out - they will spill it all and for free.

And that's exactly what the partisan system does. If you're not crazy enough it means that you may be sympathizing with the other side that is hell and anathema so cannot be trusted. Nothing special: only a logical and predictable process. And the outcome, of course.

"Can't have peace with the animals". But Can't but can? How does it work? Amazing.

With that one, I have to disagree. The vertigo is only due to the partisan political system that has worked itself right to the end, the only one possible. More heated partisanship will not help in fixing this conundrum one bit. The political system runs itself, it's talking to itself it's doing weird things nobody could understand, it lost all connection to the reality of the country and it will produce hiccups and vertigos now with predictable certainty now unless, one of the two: the society finds the will and the power to update it to; or it collapses. I honestly don't see any other options down this path.

An exxpert in law with just under 10% or working brain 😞 has just discovered that judge can give the jury instructions to convict. Just have to lie their way out.. but what other options?

"You can't have peace with animals." Both sides of the brain. Talking at the same time. Just wow. Never stop amazing.

Looks like we have another affected: its the jurors, fellow citizens gave the verdict in this case not some "democrats". Ohoh. Not enough brain power to resist the epidemic. Only just missed the 10%. So sad 😞

Just not fit. Period. Those things, the eyes and the brain they exist for a reason.

That sums it up pretty well, isn't it? Not about our world, but the folks like you, of course.

Only it isn't the irony but the logical end product of the partisan, binary system. It worked itself to the end and now can only produce the same broken tape, like a worn out gramophone. It couldn't see and understand what's happening around it, it makes no difference whatsoever bzzz bzzz bzzz.

Putin and Orban voice support for Trump. Our poor world's forefront champions of justice and law, like, who else right? Anyone surprised? Un, are you in too? Nope: no mistakes. Only need about 10% eyesight and a tiny bit of a working brain.

Is it some kind of an epidemic? Jurors deliberated and decided - or "trial"? Jurors are "a sham"? Justice is "a sham" if doesn't go the way I like? Do they know still what this is about? It takes a piece of a working brain; maybe a small one, but still working. Nothing would work without that small part.

Just in case, yes the correct solution was there: ensure the safety and security of the population that was already there with some temporary security mandate and mission; prevent massive influx of new population until the matters of the border and security are resolved, hardly terribly long wait after all the havoc of the war; and negotiate a stable solution that could last with all parties accepting and supporting it. Once the two states have mutually agreed borders and all security issues have been resolved, both are recognized at the same time and all restrictions and reservations lifted. Colonial mentality and smugness contributed to the problem today along with all other real ones that you mentioned. But I don't see any valid reason or cause to rush the solution that wasn't stable on the ground; maybe self-serving smugness was indeed the main one.

The fact is, as someone noted, just one Republican on the jury who could have thought that the case is politically motivated could have hung it. You see, it just wouldnt' connect. You would see it right away, the only two things needed are the eyes that see at least some of the reality honestly and objectively and a bit of the brain that still works.