heybruce

So all of the posters who use the term "radical left" have just lost the argument?

You mean the rule of law game?

Johnson is an election denier. That means he prefers autocracy to democracy. That's right-wing extremism.

If he were a liberal justice the conservative not-news media would be going nuts.

You're all-in on this legal system conspiracy theory nonsense. There is strong, in some cases overwhelming, evidence that Trump committed a lot of crimes. He's not above the law. Get over it. Also: No; other politicians have not done the same and gotten away with it. I'm not claiming that politicians are saints, but most are smart enough to not advertise and brag about their crimes.

The Republicans chose an election denier as Speaker of the House. Let that sink in.

Do you think the people killing Latinos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_El_Paso_shooting or African Americans https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/28/us/jacksonville-florida-shooting-what-we-know/index.html were progressives?

You can mitigate the risks of all the activities listed with simple acts: wear a helmet, fasten your seat belt, avoid certain areas in certain cities, and look both ways before crossing the street. I do all these things. Do you? You can also take actions to mitigate exposure to dengue, specifically to reduce exposure to mosquitoes. I do that also. Do you? A friend of mine recently spent about days in hospital with hemorrhagic dengue. If that happens to you you will probably start giving the subject some thought.

So only two of them are committed to democracy and rule of law.

"The settlement voids non-disclosure and non-disparagement agreements included in employment contracts for Trump 2016 staffers, barring the Trump campaign and any third parties from taking any action to enforce the agreements. The settlement—which also involved the Trump campaign paying $450,000 to resolve the claims—was initially reached in January and preliminarily approved in June, but Wednesday’s order finalizes the agreement, and gives ex-staffers more legal protections after the campaign informed them last year they were no longer bound by the agreements." The Trump team would not have agreed to the settlement and to the $450,000 payment if they had not known that the NDA's and non-disparagement clauses were illegal and had no chance of holding up in court. The people who signed these contracts assumed they would not be enforced in an illegal manner. When extreme enforcement was attempted they sought legal remedies and won.

My guess is that you have never been young, ambitious, in debt, and eager to land a promising job with the possibility of a good future. I suspect a lot of these staffers needed the job and assumed that such a broad disclosure would only be enforced in exceptional circumstances. When they learned that it would be enforced as broadly as possible they had every right to see if it was legal, which the subject ruling says it isn't.

"House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, has lost a secret vote to remain his party's nominee for House speaker, several Republican lawmakers told reporters." "Jordan lost the ballot by 86-112, Rep. Kat Cammack, R-Fla., said." That's useful information. It's a little bit encouraging, but disturbing that so many Republicans will vote against an election denier when it's a secret ballot, but are such career obsessed wimps, or so terrified by the threats opponents of Jordan have received, they will vote for an election denier when it is public. The number who will always voter for an election denier is also troubling, but not surprising.

I don't know how many are really that stupid and how many know it's BS but see denying reality as an opportunity to further their careers. Either way they are a serious threat to democracy.

Have you ever been required to sign an employment agreement in order to work? Were you given the option of taking it home for a few days to study it and get a lawyer to review it? People routinely agree to User Agreements and Privacy Policies containing pages of densely written legalese without understanding them. That's the world we live in. When we think we have been abused we go to the courts to see if it was legal. In the case of these NDA's they weren't.

It's still strong enough to keep any Republican who voted to certify the 2020 election (meaning a sane, non-seditious Republican) from getting elected without a deal with the Democrats.

It looks like a combination of seat-belts and airbags would have allowed everyone to walk away from the crash.

You like having a clueless clown in charge of a nuclear arsenal?

You're clearly not a fan of reputable news sources. What sources do you follow?

We are in serious WTF territory here. How can anyone see Trump as a man of faith?

Once again we must remind the Trump supporters not to post links that undermine their argument. The first two paragraphs from your source: "Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), chairman of the House Oversight and Accountability Committee, agreed that it could be politically unsustainable to investigate Jared Kushner — former President Trump’s son-in-law who served as a senior adviser in the White House — in a new profile by The New York Times." "The Times, which interviewed Comer for six hours, said the Kentucky Republican did not rule out probing Kushner’s business dealings but agreed with a reporter who suggested it might be politically unsustainable for him to investigate Kushner." A Republican, in the Republican majority House, said investigating Kushner would be "politically unsustainable". Neither Democrats nor justice had anything to do with the decision.

Probably just exchanging tips on undermining democracy.

Anyone who thinks this is what the Thai people voted for in the last election has not been paying attention.

Do you mean the question of how Jews can vote for Democrats? As I already posted, Jewish people in America tend to be better educated, and better educated people are less likely to vote for Trump. Since Trump now dominates the Republican party, they can either vote Democrat or be irresponsible and throw their vote away on a third party. If you want to know why the vote against Trump, I assume they recognize him as a conman who can't be trusted with pocket change, much less the Presidency.

Other than being a raging airhole, Trump is as establishment as anyone can be.

In the Republican Party the tail (or an anatomical feature near the base of the tail) is wagging the dog. I wonder how long House Republicans will allow that to continue.