heybruce

Right, that's why Republican led states are cracking down hard on those that hire illegal immigrants. Oh wait, they're not. In fact DeSantis has gone quiet on the subject, probably because he knows a great many illegals are being employed in the necessary jobs of clean-up and rebuilding after Ian. The situation on the border needs to be improved, but it's not a crisis.

The Founding Fathers did not anticipate two party politics, or parties in general. They assumed the voters would be divided into factions and that compromise candidates would rise to the top. If the Founding Fathers had anticipated the rise of two party politics they would have come up with a different system.

Energy is great for entertainers. Knowledge, experience and rationality are more important for Presidents. Your fantasy illusion of election fraud is noted.

Worse, this newspaper belongs to Rupert Murdoch. If you can't trust a Rupert Murdoch news outlet to be unbiased, who can you trust? For the Fox News fans, that's sarcasm. I'm not sure you can recognize it. Rupert Murdoch takes the ratings obsessed infotainment called cable news and manipulates it to play king-maker in politics. He still does, but you only recognize it when you disagree with his choice of king.

I assure you they are not concerned and operated legally. Contrary to the lies Trump tells, the Justice Department is not politicized. Obviously Trump and you want to change that.

Obviously you think giving money to non-partisan organizations that help people legally vote is a bad thing. I assume that when Biden said voting for Republicans would hurt democracy your response was "Well duh...".

Funny, I hear that Trump is running again and all I can think is GAG!

And your posts verify that social media is a wonderful source of misinformation.

The Trump conspiracy theorists have arrived!

I don't recall a President Lee Harvey Oswald.

Do you really need to be reminded that he refused to put his businesses in a blind trust, had lobbyists and foreign dignitaries spending big bucks in his hotels, doubled the membership fee to Mar-a-Lago from $100,000 to $200,000 after the 2016 election, charged the Secret Service exorbitant rates to stay at his properties while they were protecting him, etc.? And of course there's his calling elections fixed before the vote, urging on a mob that attacked the Capitol while Congress was attempting the certify the legitimate election results (an attack he did nothing to stop), his continuing to deny the result of the 2020 election, and so on.

Since Fox News is a huge part of the US news media and has supported Trump since 2016, your 95% claim is obvious nonsense. Regarding other media being against him, what news organizations have done anything but report what Trump has said and done, and how others reacted to it? Please don't make the common mistake of confusing a pundit program for a news program.

When has "the left" not allowed an election to determine who governs?

Actually the last four Democratic Presidents; Johnson, Carter, Clinton and Obama, were born into modest circumstances and had to work there way up. The last Republican President who wasn't born rich was Reagan.

I won't make the same commitment but I agree with the sentiment.

That his way of stating he intends to politicize the justice system, FBI and DOJ in a manner that suits him.

Considering his profound ignorance on the subject, I hope he doesn't start talking about them.

Your post makes it scary that she almost won. Trump's party includes people with absurd beliefs and questionable stability. It's safe to assume many of them have guns. And, among their absurd beliefs, is that loyalty to Trump is patriotic. I advise against lowering our guard against Trumpism.

With the exception of prison reform, he inherited all that from Obama. You neglected to mention undermining NATO, undermining east Asia allies, undermining his own intelligence community, undermining his own CDC, buddying up to Putin, revealing highly classified information to Russia...

And all that got worse under Trump.

Do you want the Federal government telling states how to conduct elections? Not only would that require a change to the US Constitution, the Republican Party would fight it tooth and nail.

I don't know what historians you are referring to, or how the start of the war would have been different. Churchill's approach was to ensure Britain survived and resisted Hitler. It worked. Had England been successfully invaded or just beaten into "neutrality" the Normandy landings would not have happened and there's a good chance most of Europe would still be under Nazi control. Also, let's not overlook Britain's success, at great sacrifice, in defending Egypt and the Suez Canal, and preventing Japan from invading India through Burma.

"As much as I loathe Donald Trump, I cannot disagree with him when he says he was persecuted mercilessly throughout his Presidency, starting even before he took office. Except the majority of the things he was criticized for or accused of......... had almost no substantiated facts to back them up. " Could you identify those things he was accused of that "had almost not substantiated facts to back them up."? "How many times did we see Trump get blamed personally......... get accused of enriching himself personally......... because people stayed at his properties in Florida and Washington, New Jersey and Scotland? Except these "rewards" would have gone to THE BUSINESS, not to Trump personally. As an owner/stockholder, he would have actually seen very little of it, overall!" Had Trump put those businesses and properties in a blind trust, as all Presidents should be required to do, he wouldn't be criticized for their profitability. As it is, when lobbyists and foreign dignitaries make it obvious they are staying at overpriced Trump properties while lobbying for their respective companies and countries, it creates an obvious conflict of interest: Will the President do what's right for the country or for his businesses? Did you really not know this?

In states that allow early counting of early votes, and those that allow prepping of the mail-in votes (verifying signatures and voter registrations on the envelopes, removing the ballots and getting them ready to be counted) the early voting has little impact on the time required to count the votes. Some states refuse to do any counting or prepping before the close of voting on election day. Since much of the prepping is done manually, and since the number of election workers has not been increased to reflect the increase of mail-in and early voting ballots, this delays the vote count. The obvious solution is to do more of the work ahead of time. However election deniers don't really want quick results unless they come by not counting mail-in and early votes. A long vote count allows more time to invent conspiracy theories.

Thank you.