placeholder

If that's the case, it seems likely that he doesn't care about the greater losses incurred by Tesla shareholders, either.

Typical unproveable trolling attack on motives and character. You've got nothing.

And the rain and wind are getting their heat from where, exactly?

Sure. Biden is the President who has imposed the harshest restrictions by far on trade with China. He has also explicitly said that the US would come to the aid of Taiwan in case of an attack by China.

Justs trying without much hope to show to you what actual violations of the laws look like.

You're the one who introduced the opinion of someone who is unqualified to judge the issue. Why should she be given any special credence? This is also the person who suggested that Rothschild controlled space lasers were responsble for the fires in California. And supported claims that unspeakable deeds were being done to children in the basement of a Washington, D.C. basement. And there's plenty where that came from.

The law governing Biden's possession of the documents is what's relevant. Not the definition of theft.

No. The law governing this case that the possessor of the documents had to be shown to willfully defy the law. It also specifies that when the return of the documents is requested by the appropriate authorities, it is a crime to refuse to return them. So under the law that makes Trump guilty twice already. Then there is the further additional crime of obstruction of justice. Trump lied about being in possession of documents he had no right to be holding.

In other words, you told a falsehood. The money did not go to the Biden Foundation but to the University of Pennsylvania.

Marjorie Taylor Green? And her field of expertise is...?

Running away? They're called refugees. They're fleeing violence that's being inflicted upon them, That's a lot different from Russia where those fleeing are mostly men avoiding being drafted.

Not the whole Ukrainian territory? It at least extends to Kiev. Not much further west to go than that.

He is representative of what. for the Russians, would be an ideal audience.

You think that Ukrainian citizens are being forced? They're battling against a country that denies there is even such a thing as Ukrainian culture. That claims Ukrainians and Russians are one people. That claims the government of Ukraine is composed of Nazis who will be severely punished once they are defeated.

We're not a court of law here. And the evidence is overwhelming that Trump took those documents after having been advised by legal counsel not to. Then after he returned some (after protracted negotiations) he denied having any more. When Justice Dept reps showed up at Mar a Lago his attorneys denied them access to boxes said to contain these documents. When eventually they served a warrant, not only did they find documents in in those boxes they even found some of these documents in his bedroom. I think that's a very strong prima facie case for saying he stole them.

The mere fact of possession is not enough to qualify as a violation of the law. To qualify as a criminal violation the law says that the possession of the documents has to be in willful violation of the law. Given that Trump lied about being in possession of them makes for a very strong case in that regard. It is also a violation of the law to refuse to turn over the documents after being requested to do so. That would be another violation.

Exactly why did you use scare quotes around the word new in relation to the flu. Do you believe that the prevalent flu viruses are the same each year?

You mean the wild speculation that Trump denied possessing documents that he clearly was not legally entitled to have? That he committed obstruction of justice by said denial? That he violated the law by being willfully in possession of these documents and failed to turn them over to authorized agents of the government when requested to do so? This is your idea of wild accusations and imaginary scenarios?

Once again, even if Trump did declassify the documents just by "thinking", which is dubious, it's still not a defense against the criminal charges he could be liable for.

And using seawater to make actual poached eggs.

Not nearly so delicious as the ignorance in conflating the two.

Well, "a lot" is one of those terms that can mean pretty much whatever you want it to mean. People who use it are generally trying to avoid facing the hard evidence of actual figures.

What don't you understand about the fact that the new Republican party was specifically abolitionist. The South understood the threat it posed as the newspapers show in their pre civil war reporting.

Even if your comment about legality of the withdrawal from the Union is valid, that doesn't change the fact that 7 Southern states had already withdrawn before Lincoln took office.

The Southern States knew it was about abolition. Not only did they specifically and repeatedly say so, but they vociferously opposed Lincoln on the grounds that he was an abolitionist at the head of an abolitionist political party. It was only after the war that Southerners came up with a different narrative.