tai4de2

You say that like it’s a bad thing… but more money and easier lifestyle is what the vast majority of rational human beings on the planet aspire to. Are we supposed to instead aspire to misery?

President Trump has not cheated anyone in his role as president.

In general, one really doesn't wonder that. I suppose race-obsessed progressives eager to assign blame to anything except the actual causes of her loss might wonder that though. PS "coloured" is a pretty offensive term, in the US at least... if you're going to try to advocate a key point in progressive world view, I recommend staying away from that term in order to fit into your chosen crowd...

If you are referring to January 6, 2021, you may be confused. The government elected in Nov 2020 had not yet taken office, and so couldn't have been "overthrow[n]".

Being "decent" (even if true) does not refute accusations of incompetence.

Evident to who? I could imagine maybe the guy is simply a little tired. Whether you like him or not, wouldn't you agree that he's had quite a punishing schedule for months on end? It feels like you are trying to smear President Trump by creating a false equivalence between the fake malady you invented for him and Biden's clear diminished capacity.

I suspect he will be more "curious footnote in history" and less "legacy of greatness". And even the "curious" part is mostly because of novel irregularities such as being tossed out of his own re-election bid, being visibly senile during a large part of his tenure, truly living up to "Creepy Uncle Joe" with the hair sniffing, etc. Those things will be of historical interest; worthy of study, but not indicators of greatness.

Just wanted to say: great post.

Au contraire... we know trumped-up charges and prosecution when we see them. (See what I did there?) Go Trump go!

Bummer for you, then. (But still awesome for us right-thinking Americans who elected him. #winning)

I am (R), and pro-choice within "common sense" European-style limits (generally banned, or at least harder to get, after a period such as 12 or 24 weeks). I cheered Roe v. Wade falling because this issue is not something the Constitution designates as a in-scope at the federal level. My position is that this is rightly a state-level issue. Consistent with that position, I strongly oppose a national ban. There are a *lot* of moderate (R) people who feel like me -- probably a sizable majority of what we can now see as the 2024-era big-tent (R) base. We don't want religious orthodoxy to dictate national policy. Extreme abortion prohibition is a losing issue for us in most places, and especially at a national level. I can't see a national ban actually gaining credence. Given the more localized nature of abortion rights, I really struggle to understand what all the fuss is actually about. Only states that the abortion pushers snidely deride as backwards Dumb<deleted>istan will have abortion restrictions. And by said people's thinking, who wants to live in those places anyway? And this should, over time, tend to cause people to move out of said states into more "enlightened" places like west coast and north eastern states. So those places will gain more political power vs. Dumb<deleted>istan as a result -- and thus have a greater say about things like abortion. In other words, backwards, inbred Kentucky will lose and progressive awesome California will win, because Abortion! Right? Right?

Patience, grasshopper.

Hmm... well, "President Vance" sounds pretty good too. I'd prefer that if this happens, it wasn't in fulfillment of the left's irrational and violent anti-Trump fantasies though.

I should have stopped reading after this: But out of morbid curiosity, I continued on. I actually stopped reading after this: I honestly don't know how some among us are able to cope with the real world.

That's kinda the way elections work?

I'm quite sure they'll be rolling out that tired trope regularly, regardless of who controls the house. When toxic ideology instead of good jurisprudence pervades an organization like in the modern Democrat party, what's meant to be a truly exceptional process becomes an ordinary tool for lashing out (like a child throwing a tantrum).

If that happens, good, to some extent at least. I'm tired of funding intervention in the entire world in a vain attempt to police it.

Today let's talk about elections and what winning and losing mean. There's just something about those overlapping circles and lines that makes losing something to consider deeply... it's like you just fell out of coconut trees, and winning or losing amplifies that, and the campaign was something to keep trying, it's not about winning or losing, it's about us, to keep fighting the good fight. Thank you for your support, as you can see in the overlapping circles and lines, and see you soon!

The left has a specific delusion, wherein they typically conclude that the only reason for the failure of some decision or policy is that they didn't commit to it enough. Or put another way, "we need more of that thing (which failed)". Conclusion? Despite being a terrible candidate, installed as such under dubious circumstances (not voted on), and a humiliating loss from which there should be numerous obvious conclusions and introspection, I'm not convinced we've seen the last of Harris.

There are several US states that have one-party (D) government, the largest being California but also Washington, Oregon, Hawaii, and others. No checks and balances there either, but I don't see Democrats complaining about it.

That people actually believe this is astonishing. In any case, the hyperbole -- whether actually believed or just being wielded as a weapon -- didn't work. The Democrats failed to convince the majority of the American electorate that Trump is a threat. I'm glad we saw through that. And this time "majority of the American electorate" really does mean exactly what it says. There are no asterisks about the popular vote to use for obfuscation purposes (however irrelevant they are to right-minded people who actually understand the American constitutional system).

Why, was Bill Clinton re-elected today?

...and Fox hasn't called Alaska, which has 3 electoral votes -- and probably a shoe-in for Trump. Stick a fork in it...

Immigrants: you left out the key, game-changing word: ILLEGAL. Most Americans -- including Trump -- love immigrants (literally, in his case, and mine). Invading armies of migrants are not "immigrants". Haitians: Trump actually said something like "the country of Haiti is a <deleted>hole". (Do you disagree?) That's quite different from "demonizing Haitians". LGBT: don't confuse "hatred" and "not being at the top of the national agenda". They're emphatically not the same thing. I'm sure there are people who hate people in the LGBT community but Trump isn't one of them and neither are any of the MAGA people I know. The tired Hitler trope is offensive. The only president that's ever thrown Americans in concentration camps was a racist Democrat. And today, it's the left that believes Republicans supporters need "re-education" (marxist dog-whistle for concentration camps). Moral of the story: don't believe everything you read on MSNBC, NY Times, or Mother Jones.

To be fair, had Biden stayed in it, he'd quite possibly be faring worse than Harris... you know, being legitimately and certifiably senile and all.