Dem Post Mortem

[Derec]

You're really comparing Debs crimes to Trump???

As far as any crimes of which either man was convicted, I would rank sedition above misclassifying a hush money payment.

 

[ZiprHead]

Because you are blaming us for Trump's win because we are being meanies to Trump voters.

When trying to convince people to vote for your candidate it usually helps not to call people racist or sexist or generally part of the "basket of deplorables".

So it's okay when the righties do it but lefties shouldn't?

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

It is easy to comprehend why Trump won. Because Americans are stupid (not all of them, but enough to produce a dumb outcome that astounded the world). But the real question is why are those Americans so stupid? Can you explain why you voted for Trump TSwizzle (without the use of propagandistic words)?

To single out Americans for stupidity is quite bigoted.
Other countries have plenty of stupid people too.

Sure, but they don't have the numbers or the power to elect a supremely unsuitable man to a position of great power. Also, simply stating a fact is not bigoted. If I said Americans have the most powerful military in the world is that bigoted?

You're really comparing Debs crimes to Trump???

As far as any crimes of which either man was convicted, I would rank sedition above misclassifying a hush money payment.

That is a nice evasion. What about crimes where there has been no conviction, though there should have been? For instance, many people have been convicted or even executed for stealing classified government documents, and Trump stole more than everyone else combined. Or what if a serial killer is never convicted (say they were shot dead by police) - are they then not guilty (other than on a legal technicality)?

 

[Derec]

I have to respectfully disagree because I personally know a lot of people, both men and women who were very enthusiastic about Harris, although most of them were women, both young and old.

Personally, I don't know anybody who was particularly enthusiastic about Harris herself. I do not doubt that your circle of acquaintances might be different though.
Let's look at the data, shall we. Let's start in 2019. Despite starting out with strong fundraising, she failed to catch fire with primary voters.

Source: Wikipedia
Kamala is in salmon (?) She had a bump in late June through July due Bussinggate with Biden, but that did not last. She would hemorrhage support and money through the rest of the year, and drop out in December.
Then Biden chose her as his running mate because he first pledged to only consider candidates with <1 penis, and then the George Floyd insurrection started and he felt obligated to not choose anybody white.
She was never too popular as a vice president, although before September 2021 her approval was above disapproval. She did enjoy a bump when Biden decided not to seek reelection and she was de facto handed the nomination. But that was more out of relief that Biden will no longer run and obligation to fall behind the Party choice than any real enthusiasm for Harris herself.

Source: fivethirtyeight.com
As you can see, her approval did increase after Biden's announcement on July 21st, but it never managed to get above water. And right before the election, it started trending the wrong way. Her high water mark was 46.0% on October 14th.

I thought she was very upbeat and did a good job of pointing out the dangers of a 2nd term for Trump.

For my taste, she was too focused on vibes. Too much "brat summer", too little substance.

I also have heard many people say they wouldn't support a female for president.

Some, no doubt. Many? Not so sure.
I too know people who said that, but they were also for Trump in 2016 and 2020, so I do not think they would have voted D in any case.

Did you watch any of the propaganda about how voting for a woman would make you lose your manhood that was put out by the MAGA campaign?

I did not see it. I did see the "men for Harris" ad.

She is very experienced and did her best to reach out to both sides, imo, but of course, we all perceive things and people differently.

I think she is experienced, but lacks good judgment. Attacking Biden over forced bussing was a misstep even though it gave her a temporary bump. So was shifting so far left in Senate and the primary campaign that she lost many people, while not really gaining those who still saw her as Copmala (and who do not understand that "in the criminal justice system, the people are represented by two separate yet equally important groups: the police who investigate crime and the district attorneys who prosecute the offenders [dun dun]").
So was advocating for banning all fracking and offshore drilling. So was choosing the Knucklehead as her running mate.

The thing that amazed me was how many Democrats simply didn't bother to vote. I've always voted even when I lacked enthusiasm for the person I voted for because I always felt the other option was much worse.

I am the same way. I did not feel much enthusiasm for Harris and Walz, and I still voted for them. But this outcome shows that most Democrats and independents, your circle of acquaintances notwithstanding, were not excited about Kamala Harris.

I also know there was a lot of disinformation put out about Harris by Trump. Musk, who basically bought him the election did a good job of misrepresenting her as well.

I wonder if Musk would have gone over to the far side if not for all the rhetoric about how billionaires should not exist or plans to tax unrealized capital gains.
That said, what specifically was Musk misrepresenting? I am genuinely curious.

I wanted a female president who was willing to compromise and who would do her best to treat all Americans, regardless of who they voted for, as her constituents. I felt that Harris would be good in that role. And, even if I didn't feel that way about her capabilities, I would have still voted for her.

Why specifically a "female president"? And I am not so sure she would be good in that role, for the reason I mentioned before - her lack of judgment. That said, I still voted for her, as it was effectively a binary choice.

I'll tell you what's weird. There are still Trump signs up in parts of my neighborhood, despite the fact that the election has been over for over 2 months. I've never seen anything like that in my lifetime. If that's not a sign of a cult, I don't know what else it could be called.

Yes, his fans follow him like a cult.

It stuns me that my country has elected Trump, not just once, but twice.

I was disappointed, but not terribly shocked. Dems are experts at clutching defeat out of jaws of victory.

 

[thebeave]

Very different thing--she's talking about startup costs. And if I understand it correctly it's something I have long supported: small businesses should in most cases not need to worry about depreciation and related matters of distributing costs to the "right" year. If you're doing a lot of accounting already the compliance cost is minimal, but for the little guy it's a lot of stuff they wouldn't otherwise be doing. I'd be fine with any business with less than $50k of stuff that would normally depreciate simply allowed to write it off in the year it was incurred.

I know what she's referring to. I don't disagree myself, in general, about Kamala's proposal, though going from $5,000 to $50,000 (a 10 fold increase!), seems a little sudden and steep. Five thousand isn't much of writeoff for a lot of businesses. I question whether that might be too drastic of a change to tax revenue. That said, I'm not sure I see the logic in being strongly in favor of tax breaks during small business startup, but being against any sort of tax breaks after the first year, like Ziprhead is. Its tough to keep a small business thriving, especially these days, with high commodity prices, interest rates, rent, gasoline, utilities, etc.

Sorta reminds me of what the Dems say about Republicans regarding abortion and childcare. That is, the Republicans insist on getting the fetus born, but lose interest in nurturing that life when it comes to supplemental aid, childcare subsidies, parental leave, etc.

Everything you need to know what is wrong with how some conservatives think summed up in one post. There isn't anything particularly wrong, however, the emphases are the issue.

You've lost me on this. What "emphases" are you referring to, and what is the "conservative wrong think" in my post?

 

[thebeave]

but being against any sort of tax breaks after the first year, like Ziprhead is.

Wrong. I'm all for allowing the government to aid business to keep employees employed and the economy humming. I'm against giving companies money for doing nothing but existing.

This is your response from post 1183 of this thread. Your displeasure with a tax deduction is quite clear. The thing to keep in mind is that taxes is an expense for a business, just like insurance, LOC loan interest, etc. Having lower taxes means you can use those extra dollars you've retained to invest in your employees (higher wages, etc), add capital equipment, add to your "rainy day fund", or whatever makes sense in your particular situation. Lower taxes is one way the government can "aid business to keep employess employed".

Besides, for your own taxes, you are allowed a standard deduction. Isn't that essentially, in your words "giving you money for doing nothing but existing"?

 

[Swammerdami]

Harris went along with this shift, and she became one of the most left-wing Senators.
View attachment 49054

Striking how the red/blue division is so crisp. (Very few reds mingling in the blue or vice versa) It would be interesting to find a similar graph circa 1960-1975 before hyper-polarization.

The Ds were too woke?

Definitely too woke. The whole "defund/abolish police/ICE/prisons" harmed the Dem Party brand.

I think you're right. I was posting this idea frequently right here at IIDB, and was constantly booed down.

Put a felon in charge of the White House?

Having such a poor case result in a felony conviction helped him more than it hurt him.

He was charged in other jurisdictions with more serious crimes, but those trials were postponed. Was that bad luck? Or are Red and/or fascist lawyers just more clever than the Blues?

Biden's economy was booming but Trump's magic bean-stalk fantasy was sweeter?

The economy was good on paper, but many people did not feel it due to things like inflation and the housing market. Not that it will not get worse if Trump implements policies like across the board tarrifs.

There was sharp Covid-related inflation during the first two Biden years, but inflation was only 3.3% by Election Day. Ignoring the 2008-2010 crisis, 3.3% has not been atypical since the 1960's.

The problem is that people were comparing today's prices with those four years ago, while it is the rate of change in prices that is important.

Once prices have risen it is difficult (and usually WRONG) to bring them back down; this has been true throughout history. For one thing, economic decisions are about expectations; and borrowers do not expect they will need to repay their loan with a deflated (more expensive) currency.

Facebook and even ChatGPT didn't know what to "think." Did the morons out-stampede the imbeciles? Or vice versa? Some say that a 49-47 split and a 47-49 are very close arithmetically: -- The election depended on the whims of just 2% of Americans, the 2% most apathetic, confused, and perhaps mentally ill. What happened? Why? Why? Why?

It should not have been this close. You have a close election, you open yourself up to small shifts being decisive.

Yes. Especially given today's hyper-partisanship. The outcome would be hard left or hard right, while most Americans want the middle.
I think America's Two-Party system worked very well when both were "Big Tent" parties.

As I wrote to southernhybrid, the "Dem Post Mortem" is a messy autopsy. Many stab wounds by many different hands. I think Biden's obstinacy in not leaving the stage in 2023 was the most serious one.

Insiders (Pelosi, Schumer, Doctor Jill) presumably had a good idea how alert, capable, and able to debate Biden was. If they KNEW he was "over the hill" they should have acted swiftly and sternly, insisting that he step aside. It was a real shame to put Biden's feelings ahead of, literally, the future of America and Humanity.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

he's the biggest criminal who's ever run for office.

Technically, Eugene Debbs ran for President from a federal prison cell.

No you didn't!

You're really comparing Debs crimes to Trump???

As far as any crimes of which either man was convicted, I would rank sedition above misclassifying a hush money payment.

Are you really going to go there? Do you know what Debs did? He protested against US involvement in The Great War. I would have been as guilty of "sedition" in 2003. To hear people whine about speech and free speech to say that Eugene Debs crime of protesting against the Great War was a crime at all is telling to how little you apparently know about America history.

Granted, Eugene Debs isn't really even an asterisk in US history, so I can appreciate you not knowing all too much about him. You'll see his name in the elections between 1900 and 1920, sans 1916, but otherwise his contributions have gone largely unnoted, as the AFL-CIO get more credit under Gompers than the Socialists and the Wobblies of the IWW. He contributed a lot to workers rights. He was also against the idea of sending people to Europe to die what he considered needlessly. He saw people being thrown as soldiers of no value like workers on the rails or the mines. And he was convicted of sedition for saying so.

And finally, the hush money payment was one of the least consequential crimes Trump committed, but it was also the "easiest" to convict on. Trump was caught red handed trying to obstruct access to classified documents, and the system couldn't even get that to a trial. He was caught on the phone trying to rig an election, no trial. Trump violated his oath to the office, there is no doubt to that. Uttering the violations of Debs and Trump in the same sentence is a vile. Debs gave everything he had to the nation to make it better.

 

[bigfield]

Small business employers are a conservative voting group. This isn't going to change while their success depends on exploiting labour.

The Dems need to get workers to show up and vote for them. Not just workers who voted for Trump, but also the voters who turned up for Biden but not Harris, and the people who haven't been voting at all.

That means the Dems need to offer substantive improvements for workers. This will scare all the small business tyrants, but workers tend to outnumber capitalists.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Very different thing--she's talking about startup costs. And if I understand it correctly it's something I have long supported: small businesses should in most cases not need to worry about depreciation and related matters of distributing costs to the "right" year. If you're doing a lot of accounting already the compliance cost is minimal, but for the little guy it's a lot of stuff they wouldn't otherwise be doing. I'd be fine with any business with less than $50k of stuff that would normally depreciate simply allowed to write it off in the year it was incurred.

I know what she's referring to. I don't disagree myself, in general, about Kamala's proposal, though going from $5,000 to $50,000 (a 10 fold increase!), seems a little sudden and steep. Five thousand isn't much of writeoff for a lot of businesses. I question whether that might be too drastic of a change to tax revenue. That said, I'm not sure I see the logic in being strongly in favor of tax breaks during small business startup, but being against any sort of tax breaks after the first year, like Ziprhead is. Its tough to keep a small business thriving, especially these days, with high commodity prices, interest rates, rent, gasoline, utilities, etc.

Sorta reminds me of what the Dems say about Republicans regarding abortion and childcare. That is, the Republicans insist on getting the fetus born, but lose interest in nurturing that life when it comes to supplemental aid, childcare subsidies, parental leave, etc.

Everything you need to know what is wrong with how some conservatives think summed up in one post. There isn't anything particularly wrong, however, the emphases are the issue.

You've lost me on this. What "emphases" are you referring to, and what is the "conservative wrong think" in my post?

You equated human survival interests with running a business. It is an anti-septic view of the world, at best.

 

[thebeave]

Very different thing--she's talking about startup costs. And if I understand it correctly it's something I have long supported: small businesses should in most cases not need to worry about depreciation and related matters of distributing costs to the "right" year. If you're doing a lot of accounting already the compliance cost is minimal, but for the little guy it's a lot of stuff they wouldn't otherwise be doing. I'd be fine with any business with less than $50k of stuff that would normally depreciate simply allowed to write it off in the year it was incurred.

I know what she's referring to. I don't disagree myself, in general, about Kamala's proposal, though going from $5,000 to $50,000 (a 10 fold increase!), seems a little sudden and steep. Five thousand isn't much of writeoff for a lot of businesses. I question whether that might be too drastic of a change to tax revenue. That said, I'm not sure I see the logic in being strongly in favor of tax breaks during small business startup, but being against any sort of tax breaks after the first year, like Ziprhead is. Its tough to keep a small business thriving, especially these days, with high commodity prices, interest rates, rent, gasoline, utilities, etc.

Sorta reminds me of what the Dems say about Republicans regarding abortion and childcare. That is, the Republicans insist on getting the fetus born, but lose interest in nurturing that life when it comes to supplemental aid, childcare subsidies, parental leave, etc.

Everything you need to know what is wrong with how some conservatives think summed up in one post. There isn't anything particularly wrong, however, the emphases are the issue.

You've lost me on this. What "emphases" are you referring to, and what is the "conservative wrong think" in my post?

You equated human survival interests with running a business. It is an anti-septic view of the world, at best.

I am not equating survival of an infant with the survival of a business. That would be ridiculous. Its just a simple analogy. You (and others) read wayyyyy to much into my posts sometimes.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I know what she's referring to. I don't disagree myself, in general, about Kamala's proposal, though going from $5,000 to $50,000 (a 10 fold increase!), seems a little sudden and steep. Five thousand isn't much of writeoff for a lot of businesses. I question whether that might be too drastic of a change to tax revenue. That said, I'm not sure I see the logic in being strongly in favor of tax breaks during small business startup, but being against any sort of tax breaks after the first year, like Ziprhead is. Its tough to keep a small business thriving, especially these days, with high commodity prices, interest rates, rent, gasoline, utilities, etc.

Sorta reminds me of what the Dems say about Republicans regarding abortion and childcare. That is, the Republicans insist on getting the fetus born, but lose interest in nurturing that life when it comes to supplemental aid, childcare subsidies, parental leave, etc.

Everything you need to know what is wrong with how some conservatives think summed up in one post. There isn't anything particularly wrong, however, the emphases are the issue.

You've lost me on this. What "emphases" are you referring to, and what is the "conservative wrong think" in my post?

You equated human survival interests with running a business. It is an anti-septic view of the world, at best.

I am not equating survival of an infant with the survival of a business. That would be ridiculous. Its just a simple analogy. You (and others) read wayyyyy to much into my posts sometimes.

You should reflect more on what you say and how you say it.

 

[Harry Bosch]

but being against any sort of tax breaks after the first year, like Ziprhead is.

Wrong. I'm all for allowing the government to aid business to keep employees employed and the economy humming. I'm against giving companies money for doing nothing but existing.

This is your response from post 1183 of this thread. Your displeasure with a tax deduction is quite clear. The thing to keep in mind is that taxes is an expense for a business, just like insurance, LOC loan interest, etc. Having lower taxes means you can use those extra dollars you've retained to invest in your employees (higher wages, etc), add capital equipment, add to your "rainy day fund", or whatever makes sense in your particular situation. Lower taxes is one way the government can "aid business to keep employess employed".

Besides, for your own taxes, you are allowed a standard deduction. Isn't that essentially, in your words "giving you money for doing nothing but existing"?

I agree with your post. Even a company only “existing” is employing people, paying them market wages; it’s also paying local taxes; buying local products, using local services and etc. Our society would collapse without jobs.

 

[Shadowy Man]

The Dems need to get workers to show up and vote for them. Not just workers who voted for Trump, but also the voters who turned up for Biden but not Harris, and the people who haven't been voting at all.

it’s very likely that had the voters who turned up for Biden had also turned up for Harris she would have won, even without getting those who voted for Trump.

I haven’t examined these in detail in the swing states but it is clear that in many, many counties (even in so-called “blue states”) there was a significant drop in Democratic votes.

 

[Harry Bosch]

The Dems need to get workers to show up and vote for them. Not just workers who voted for Trump, but also the voters who turned up for Biden but not Harris, and the people who haven't been voting at all.

it’s very likely that had the voters who turned up for Biden had also turned up for Harris she would have won, even without getting those who voted for Trump.

I haven’t examined these in detail in the swing states but it is clear that in many, many counties (even in so-called “blue states”) there was a significant drop in Democratic votes.

Yep. It appears to me that she was perceived as to the left of Biden, hence lost some moderates. She lost some of the white women vote, Latinos, and younger voters.

 

[thebeave]

I know what she's referring to. I don't disagree myself, in general, about Kamala's proposal, though going from $5,000 to $50,000 (a 10 fold increase!), seems a little sudden and steep. Five thousand isn't much of writeoff for a lot of businesses. I question whether that might be too drastic of a change to tax revenue. That said, I'm not sure I see the logic in being strongly in favor of tax breaks during small business startup, but being against any sort of tax breaks after the first year, like Ziprhead is. Its tough to keep a small business thriving, especially these days, with high commodity prices, interest rates, rent, gasoline, utilities, etc.

Sorta reminds me of what the Dems say about Republicans regarding abortion and childcare. That is, the Republicans insist on getting the fetus born, but lose interest in nurturing that life when it comes to supplemental aid, childcare subsidies, parental leave, etc.

Everything you need to know what is wrong with how some conservatives think summed up in one post. There isn't anything particularly wrong, however, the emphases are the issue.

You've lost me on this. What "emphases" are you referring to, and what is the "conservative wrong think" in my post?

You equated human survival interests with running a business. It is an anti-septic view of the world, at best.

I am not equating survival of an infant with the survival of a business. That would be ridiculous. Its just a simple analogy. You (and others) read wayyyyy to much into my posts sometimes.

You should reflect more on what you say and how you say it.

OK, mom.

 

[Bomb#20]

WTF is wrong with you???

You're asking exactly the right question, assuming you want to keep losing.

You act as if Trump was just another Republican candidate for president and we're just being mean.

He's ...a fascist dictator wannabe, he tried to steal national secrets, and he's the biggest criminal who's ever run for office.

It's the people that support him who have something wrong with them.

What are you yelling at me for? I didn't vote for him.

Because you are blaming us for Trump's win

Yes, that's exactly why you're yelling at me. What most Democrats want from a Post Mortem is for it to identify a problem that makes you feel good about yourselves, not a problem you could actually do something about. How is it possible to lose elections with an attitude like that?

because we are being meanies to Trump voters.

Oh is that what you were doing, Mr. "Yes, the working class wants dumb and simple. That is quite clear. They want to be directed and told what to do, just like at their jobs. Little thought needed. Then after work kick back at the bar and toss back a few PBRs and complain about how the big bad guvmint is out to get them because the high taxes on their employers keeps them from getting bigger wages. Sorry. I don't kowtow to the ignorant."?

I had no idea who you voted for. You could have voted for a third party candidate or just not voted at all. They are both still votes for trump.

That's a meme circulating widely in your echosphere because it makes its believers feel superior, not because there's any logic behind it. No, those are not votes for Trump. Here's a math question for you, at a difficulty level that should be within the capacity even of leftists. How many more California votes did Harris need in order to win the election?

I find it quite interesting that you snipped out this:

He's a <expletive deleted> traitor, he lead a <expletive deleted> rebellion against the country

When people do this sort of thing it creates doubts about a person's sincerity in their stated dislike for Trump.

Dude, you and I have known each other for twenty years. In all that time, have you ever seen me include other posters' F-bombs when I quote them? If you want what you write repeated verbatim without editorial discretion, buy a Xerox machine.

 

[Bomb#20]

And in the second place, it seems you've forgotten the topic we're now discussing.

An ironic comment, considering that the topic of the thread is analyzing the American election, and you're wasting time writing paragraphs of unsubstantiated insults and meaningless research into my posting history. You need to get over me, man, I'm just not that important.

Nothing I said to you was an insult; I was simply correcting the record. If there's something I said to you you're claiming wasn't factual, point it out and I will substantiate it with quotations. And if you feel this is a derail, the derail is on you for trumping up your false accusation against Emily.

 

[Derec]

Striking how the red/blue division is so crisp. (Very few reds mingling in the blue or vice versa) It would be interesting to find a similar graph circa 1960-1975 before hyper-polarization.

Indeed it would.

I think you're right. I was posting this idea frequently right here at IIDB, and was constantly booed down.

Interesting how we find ourselves agreeing a lot here.

He was charged in other jurisdictions with more serious crimes, but those trials were postponed. Was that bad luck? Or are Red and/or fascist lawyers just more clever than the Blues?

Timing played a big role. Why the federal indictments in mid-2023 when everybody knew the cases would happen during the campaign? Why not indict him a year earlier?

There was sharp Covid-related inflation during the first two Biden years, but inflation was only 3.3% by Election Day. Ignoring the 2008-2010 crisis, 3.3% has not been atypical since the 1960's.

We will disagree here, I am sure, but COVID inflation did not need to be as bad as it turned out to be. The Biden administration was too slow to stop COVID-related largess which pumped more money into the economy heating up the inflation. Blame is also Jerome Powell who held way too long on the notion that inflation was transitory and did not require changes in the monetary policy to handle.

The problem is that people were comparing today's prices with those four years ago, while it is the rate of change in prices that is important.

People feel the cumulative effects of recent inflation. And there are also knock on effects such as higher interest rates. And people sitting on <3% mortgages not selling (even if it otherwise would make sense for them to sell) restrict supply of real estate. That is not the only reason for the housing crisis - restrictive zoning and general population increase (see also the saying "buy land, they're not making it anymore") play a role as well - but it does contribute. All this means that people feel less confident about the economy than most economic indicators would suggest.

Once prices have risen it is difficult (and usually WRONG) to bring them back down; this has been true throughout history.

True. I am not advocating deflation. Sometimes the damage is done and you have to live with it.

Yes. Especially given today's hyper-partisanship. The outcome would be hard left or hard right, while most Americans want the middle.
I think America's Two-Party system worked very well when both were "Big Tent" parties.

Indeed.

Insiders (Pelosi, Schumer, Doctor Jill) presumably had a good idea how alert, capable, and able to debate Biden was. If they KNEW he was "over the hill" they should have acted swiftly and sternly, insisting that he step aside. It was a real shame to put Biden's feelings ahead of, literally, the future of America and Humanity.

I think it is pretty clear that the inner circle knew how much he declined. Not sure if say Pelosi was part of that inner circle or not, but at the same time, she is part of the gerontocracy.
Is there a better visual of that than this?

Btw, Dems did a similarly tragic thing with Dianne Feinstein. You'd think they'd have learned from that farce.

 

[Derec]

No you didn't!

I did.

Are you really going to go there? Do you know what Debs did? He protested against US involvement in The Great War. I would have been as guilty of "sedition" in 2003. To hear people whine about speech and free speech to say that Eugene Debs crime of protesting against the Great War was a crime at all is telling to how little you apparently know about America history.

I thought he incited people to interfere with the draft. That is at least what the courts found.

And finally, the hush money payment was one of the least consequential crimes Trump committed, but it was also the "easiest" to convict on.

It was the only conviction, which is why I compared it to the Debs conviction.
And you say, "easiest to convict on" but what it required was to take the actual crime, a misdemeanor, which expired due to the statute of limitations and combine it with a felony. The felony in question is federal, not under NY law, and Trump was not convicted of it, and yet it somehow effected the transubstantiation of an expired misdemeanor into 34 felonies. Almost as if Banach and Tarsky were lawyers and not mathematicians (Bragg should not have taken the axiom of choice). No wonder the case left a bad taste with the electorate!

Trump was caught red handed trying to obstruct access to classified documents, and the system couldn't even get that to a trial.

Why did "the system" wait until mid-2023 to indict him on that?

Debs gave everything he had to the nation to make it better.

Did he?