Should have just ran Bernie instead of forcing Hillary and propping up Trump
Now the world has Dr. Frankenstein’s political monster (with dementia)
So you think they should have ignored the will of the Democrat voters to prop up another candidate who probably would have lost even worse?
Well, somebody sure wasn’t paying attention to reality… but that’s none of my business 🐸 🍵 🫖
Clinton absolutely crushed sanders. I'm not sure what you believe reality looks like. But if it ain't that, then you should probably look elsewhere for that insult.
Hell, she also thought that "I don't think [Warren] meant the word 'rigged.'"
What Brazile did find was a memorandum of agreement between the DNC and the Clinton campaign, she said.
“The thing, the only thing, I found -- which I said, 'I found the cancer, but I'm not killing the patient' -- was this memorandum that prevented the DNC from running its own operation,” Brazile said on “This Week.”
Per your source. Brazile isn't willing to go as far as Warren, but she didn't invalidate shit. The DNC pulled some shady shit and no amount of whitewashing by disingenuous parties such as yourself will change those facts.
but she didn’t invalidate shit
She expressly and explicitly said it wasn't rigged. Saying it's "dishonest" to point to this when someone claims she would agree it's "rigged" doesn't make any sense. Additionally, I never said there was no right to be suspicious. I was suspicious when all this came out at first. But the facts have since made clear that the nomination was not rigged. So I dropped my suspicion. This is how it should work.
If the argument is that things should change with the process, and that it creates a huge conflict of interest that Clinton controlled the finances, I'm 100% on board. But then we should be having a rational discussion about what we objectively know to be true and what needs to change, rather than making up BS that it was rigged against Sanders and going from there. If we don't start from a place of facts, the outcome won't be any good. As they say: Garbage in, garbage out.
If the DNC had rigged the nomination process against Bernie Sanders, logic would suggest Hillary Clinton should have swept the caucuses and Sanders should have performed best in the primaries. After all, the state Democratic Party organizations administer the caucuses, whereas state and local election authorities administer primary elections. Instead, the reverse proved to be true. Clinton won twenty-nine out of the thirty-nine primaries, whereas Sanders won twelve out of the fourteen caucuses. Ironically, therefore, Sanders ran strongest in the election contests administered by the Democratic Party
anytime who is unsure which of us is right will look into it.
The fact that you haven't linked to your evidence is enough for everyone to see how little faith you have in your claim.
I am watching the sopranos. but I have faith in the users here.
but I have faith in the users here.
Some posted a paper below, with the intent that showing a belief in it being rigged is "reasonable," that pretty much clearly concluded the opposite and that the evidence suggests it wasn't rigged. Even going so far as to call it a "myth" that it was rigged.
And people upvoted it, because they were told it supports their claim that it was rigged against Sanders. And these are the people you have "faith" in getting to the right answer. lol
Looks like a lot of people don’t agree with your gaslighting.
Clinton did not “cRuSh sAnDerS”
The DNC (Debbie Wasserman Schultz), Barbara Boxer, Donna Brazile and others) did.
Also the nefarious “counting and reporting” on sUpeRdELeGaTes before their votes had even been cast— thus trying to manipulate the public. It really left a very foul taste and I remember it well.
Looks like a lot of people don’t agree with your gaslighting.
This is like going onto The_Donald and pointing out that he is a convicted rapist, and a fraud who tried to steal an election. . .and when inevitably when you get tons of downvotes someone saying "Looks like a lot of people don’t agree with your gaslighting." lol
Clinton did not “cRuSh sAnDerS”
She won by 12 percentage points in the popular vote. Removing super delegates, she won 57% of the delegates.
It was never in doubt. She was the overwhelming favorite, right from the start. This didn't stop me from holding out hope, BTW.
You might be upset with how it was run (or how it was reported? Which is funny because the media made it look like Sanders had a much better chance than he had. Remember, an actual race is more interesting than a blowout), but the simple fact is that Clinton was just a far more popular candidate than Sanders. Neither us thinks it should be the case, but that's the general democrat voter. It's time to move on and accept the facts, instead of posting in alternating caps as if that makes the facts go away.
I reject your gaslighting.
You are rejecting the facts. What you are doing is showing what people do when they are dealing with the cognitive dissonance of pretending that Republicans are dumb for ignoring the evidence and believing the election was fraudulent, while trying to simultaneously ignoring the evidence that the 2016 nomination was rigged and that Clinton didn't crush Sanders.
But, don't worry, just like Trump supporters, you're too far gone at this point and thus are impenetrable to facts. So I don't expect you to come around. I'm just posting this so any other person who comes along will realize that your position doesn't come from a place of rational thought.
>So I don’t expect you to come around. I’m just posting this so any other person who comes along will realize that your position doesn’t come from a place of rational thought.
any intellectually honest user who reads this thread can only conclude that the nomination was rigged.
“The election was rigged!”
Who do we all know that also says this when they lose?
Rachel maddow? Keith olberman? Hillary Clinton?
*your version
There is documentary video evidence of what Barbara Boxer did.
Stop gaslighting.
Because someone posts factual information you disagree with- it does not become gaslighting just because you want it to.
Look up what gaslighting means. Then stop using it incorrectly in debates. It makes you look foolish.
The person you’re arguing with is not wrong. And that’s not an opinion. It’s factual information that reality supports.
And yet, more than 40% of Hungarian voters want to vote for Orbán again. Under his corrupt electoral system, that will be again a 2/3 supermajority. From a Hungarian: The prevailing belief here is "Orbán lies and sucks, but never again for Gyurcsány" or "Everyone sucks, Fidesz is the least bad" or even "There's no better alternative". This fuck should be voted out in 2026, but we know he won't.
From the state's founding, Hungary is a Western country, which never wants to be part of the East on purpose. […] Eastern politics can't tolerate autonomy, can't tolerate independence, and can't tolerate freedom. It eliminates the defences defending a human's independence. […] It makes one vulnerable; if need be, it intimidates. […] Since the East stepped foot in Hungary, freedom-loving Hungarians like us always wanted the same: to liberate ourselves from their withering hugs, and to remove their domestic guards. […] Our wish always was this: we wanted a Western democracy which builds on Christian culture, and on the ideals of freedom, equality, and fraternity. We always fought against the faux-democracy […]
– Viktor Orbán, 2007, in a segment to the young people in Hungary.
illiberal democracy my ass.
Read all about it in this month’s riveting issue of Duh.
I miss Norm.
There’s SO many, but this was probably my favorite Weekend Update joke:
In a brilliant move during closing arguments, Simpson attorney Johnnie Cochran put on the knit cap prosecutors say O.J. wore the night he committed the murders. Although O.J. may have hurt his case when he suddenly blurted out 'Hey, hey, easy with that, that's my lucky stabbing hat!'
(You knew it had to be an OJ joke.)
Trump has the first half of "dictator" covered ....
Penis potato?
Yeah, no kidding.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Former White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham said that President Trump’s recent meeting with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán shows that he “wants to be a dictator.”
President Biden went after Trump for his meeting with the Eastern European leader at a campaign event in Pennsylvania.
“You know who he’s meeting with today down at Mar-a-Lago?” Biden said at a campaign event in Pennsylvania.
“Orbán of Hungary, who stated flatly he doesn’t think democracy works, he’s looking for dictatorship.”
Grisham also said that she has “sat in many bilateral meetings with world leaders” and that Trump “always looked forward to speaking” with figures like Chinese President Xi JInping and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, leaders who have been criticized for their authoritarian leanings like Orbán.
Orbán went to Trump’s home in Florida and also posted a picture of them together on Facebook.
The original article contains 285 words, the summary contains 142 words. Saved 50%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Oh wow, someone has an opinion that says trump is bad so it warrants a whole article...
Yeah God forbid they write too many articles about this guy who tried to overturn an election, and claiming he wants to be a dictator on day 1, cozying up to dictators.
A guy who just won the primary for one of the two major political parties in the country. With 91+ criminal indictments. Half a dozen losses in civil cases. A guy who's so broke he just had to leverage most of his liquid assets.
Somehow that guy is still in the news. Because he's insanely popular. Still. For some fucking reason.
But do you understand how they dont mean anything and are just used to get clicks and lead you in a paticular direction?
What do you mean "lead me in a particular direction"? Do you mean lead me to vote. Yeah, that's exactly why I think it's important. It's motivates people to vote.
Leads them in the direction of believing propaganda. And then like you say, it mostivates them to vote based on false or misleading information.
How on earth is this false or misleading?
It makes people think that trump wants to be dictator, which is a standard talking point to scare people that are not paying attention. "BUT HE SAID HE WAS GOING TO BE DICTATOR ON THE FIRST DAY!!!" It was joke.
Why are you so sure he doesn't? He demands completely loyalty, he commonly and regularly uses a lot of the same rhetoric, he praises a lot of dictators, and (most importantly) he literally tried to overturn an election he lost, and fired up his followers so much that they violently attempt to block peaceful transition of power. The fact that someone might look at this and have an opinion that he wants to be a dictator is reasonable, and there is absolutely zero false or misleading about reporting that someone said this.
I dont know for sure he doesnt, but dictators dont typically give up power once they have achieved it.
The problem with the article is that it gives air to a conspiracy theory and the only reason that do that is because it serves the purpose of trying to make trump lose.
but dictators dont typically give up power once they have achieved it.
Well, he tried to hold onto official power, but the system held up against it. Thankfully, I'm not so sure it will again now that he has learned some lessons. Also, he hasn't actually given up much of his power. He has used his political weight to influence republicans the past 4 years, even getting them to vote against a bill that would give them pretty much Republicans everything they wanted when it comes to immigration and border security, with only having to "give up" more funding to Ukraine. He still has a ton of power.
The problem with the article is that it gives air to a conspiracy theory and the only reason that do that is because it serves the purpose of trying to make trump lose.
Let's be honest here. You just don't want them reporting on people sharing their informed opinions about Trump because you are afraid the truth might hurt his chances of winning.
Thats not how dictatorships work, they dont have rules they are forced to follow. In the end all that is happening conspiracy theories that have zero evidence to back them up.
Yeah, we are discussing him wanting to be a dictator. He wants that to happen (hell, he's even arguing in court that he should be held criminally responsible for any crimes he committed while in office). That's what we're trying to stop. We're trying to stop his desires from coming true.
And there is plenty of evidence. We literally have him on tape trying to pressure a GA election official into "finding" enough votes for him to win. We have him still claiming, after being completely unable to produce any evidence that wasn't laughed out of court, that the election was stolen from him. We have him inciting his followers into attacking the capital, and him doing nothing about it for an hour and a half, in an attempt to stop the transfer of power. This idea that there is no evidence to support Trump trying to hold onto power despite losing and claiming he is above the law is laughable.
Uhhh, he said that NUMEROUS times before his whole "dictator on the first day", and even then he walked it back AFTER being reminded that "hey, people aren't quite ready for that". How about the fact that his world-leader idols are almost all, to a man, dictators or wannabe dictators? Erdogan, Orban, Kim Jong-Un, Putin - this is a dude who said he most idolizes Mussolini and Andrew Jackson. One of his commonly-voiced complaints when he took office was that he couldn't just unilaterally command that things be done, and according to aides, he had to constantly be reminded that things were illegal or beyond the scope of his office.
I dunno about you, but this sounds like the hallmarks of a man who would absolutely be a dictator, or close enough to it to not really matter.
Yeah you know what you're so smart there guy on the Internet that thinks voting for a dude with 91 fucking criminal indictments for president is a good idea.
So the government never is incorrect or goes after people for political reasons?
No other former president has even one criminal indictment.
There's a reason why politicians typically resign when faced with even a single criminal indictment: they are too distracted by their legal problems to devote the time necessary to do the work of the people.
But somehow this guy who can't even remember who the current president is will not be distracted by 91 criminal indictments? GTFOH
So the government never is incorrect or goes after people for political reasons?
If it were one state, or one federal case, sure. Here's the thing: he's being prosecuted in multiple states, and in multiple federal courts for multiple different things. Generally, if you were trying to make a "kangaroo court" argument like Navalny had, then why go through all this rigmarole? If the government is so out to get Trump, why let him walk free and campaign and host rallies? Why wait 3 years to get the ball rolling on most of these cases? Why even bother coming up with plausible arguments and presenting them before a jury?
Why cant it be more than one state and the federal government?
Why wait 3 years to get the ball rolling on most of these cases?
Yes, exactly! Why wait until the middle of the campaign for president? Because the point of the case is so that he is damaged in running. Many people from jan 6th have already literally being tried, gone to prison, and are already out for a year before they even got a mugshot of trump.
Trump bot everybody.
Leftist NPC everybody.
What game are you the main character in? Mama's basement wars?
Thanks DNC
Should have just ran Bernie instead of forcing Hillary and propping up Trump
Now the world has Dr. Frankenstein’s political monster (with dementia)
So you think they should have ignored the will of the Democrat voters to prop up another candidate who probably would have lost even worse?
Well, somebody sure wasn’t paying attention to reality… but that’s none of my business 🐸 🍵 🫖
Clinton absolutely crushed sanders. I'm not sure what you believe reality looks like. But if it ain't that, then you should probably look elsewhere for that insult.
they admitted they rigged that primary
No they didn't. No primary was rigged.
Elizabeth Warren and Donna brazile disagree
No they don't.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/sen-elizabeth-warren-says-2016-democratic-primary-was-rigged
https://youtu.be/XBYnJh45WS8?si=WG1P0TiHYLaheVpB
And Donna Brazille says there is "no evidence" the primaries were rigged. Making the statement clearly false.
Hell, she also thought that "I don't think [Warren] meant the word 'rigged.'"
Per your source. Brazile isn't willing to go as far as Warren, but she didn't invalidate shit. The DNC pulled some shady shit and no amount of whitewashing by disingenuous parties such as yourself will change those facts.
She expressly and explicitly said it wasn't rigged. Saying it's "dishonest" to point to this when someone claims she would agree it's "rigged" doesn't make any sense. Additionally, I never said there was no right to be suspicious. I was suspicious when all this came out at first. But the facts have since made clear that the nomination was not rigged. So I dropped my suspicion. This is how it should work.
If the argument is that things should change with the process, and that it creates a huge conflict of interest that Clinton controlled the finances, I'm 100% on board. But then we should be having a rational discussion about what we objectively know to be true and what needs to change, rather than making up BS that it was rigged against Sanders and going from there. If we don't start from a place of facts, the outcome won't be any good. As they say: Garbage in, garbage out.
As this paper points out:
anytime who is unsure which of us is right will look into it.
The fact that you haven't linked to your evidence is enough for everyone to see how little faith you have in your claim.
I am watching the sopranos. but I have faith in the users here.
Some posted a paper below, with the intent that showing a belief in it being rigged is "reasonable," that pretty much clearly concluded the opposite and that the evidence suggests it wasn't rigged. Even going so far as to call it a "myth" that it was rigged.
And people upvoted it, because they were told it supports their claim that it was rigged against Sanders. And these are the people you have "faith" in getting to the right answer. lol
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/sen-elizabeth-warren-says-2016-democratic-primary-was-rigged
https://youtu.be/XBYnJh45WS8?si=WG1P0TiHYLaheVpB
That should be enough, I also linked them to u/EatATaco
Enough to post, but not enough to back up your BS claims. Convenient. Lol
Looks like a lot of people don’t agree with your gaslighting.
Clinton did not “cRuSh sAnDerS”
The DNC (Debbie Wasserman Schultz), Barbara Boxer, Donna Brazile and others) did.
Also the nefarious “counting and reporting” on sUpeRdELeGaTes before their votes had even been cast— thus trying to manipulate the public. It really left a very foul taste and I remember it well.
This is like going onto The_Donald and pointing out that he is a convicted rapist, and a fraud who tried to steal an election. . .and when inevitably when you get tons of downvotes someone saying "Looks like a lot of people don’t agree with your gaslighting." lol
She won by 12 percentage points in the popular vote. Removing super delegates, she won 57% of the delegates.
It was never in doubt. She was the overwhelming favorite, right from the start. This didn't stop me from holding out hope, BTW.
You might be upset with how it was run (or how it was reported? Which is funny because the media made it look like Sanders had a much better chance than he had. Remember, an actual race is more interesting than a blowout), but the simple fact is that Clinton was just a far more popular candidate than Sanders. Neither us thinks it should be the case, but that's the general democrat voter. It's time to move on and accept the facts, instead of posting in alternating caps as if that makes the facts go away.
I reject your gaslighting.
You are rejecting the facts. What you are doing is showing what people do when they are dealing with the cognitive dissonance of pretending that Republicans are dumb for ignoring the evidence and believing the election was fraudulent, while trying to simultaneously ignoring the evidence that the 2016 nomination was rigged and that Clinton didn't crush Sanders.
But, don't worry, just like Trump supporters, you're too far gone at this point and thus are impenetrable to facts. So I don't expect you to come around. I'm just posting this so any other person who comes along will realize that your position doesn't come from a place of rational thought.
>So I don’t expect you to come around. I’m just posting this so any other person who comes along will realize that your position doesn’t come from a place of rational thought.
any intellectually honest user who reads this thread can only conclude that the nomination was rigged.
“The election was rigged!”
Who do we all know that also says this when they lose?
Rachel maddow? Keith olberman? Hillary Clinton?
*your version
There is documentary video evidence of what Barbara Boxer did.
Stop gaslighting.
Because someone posts factual information you disagree with- it does not become gaslighting just because you want it to.
Look up what gaslighting means. Then stop using it incorrectly in debates. It makes you look foolish.
The person you’re arguing with is not wrong. And that’s not an opinion. It’s factual information that reality supports.
Agreed. Forget the primary, which I do believe was tilted for Clinton, Sanders would have been smashed flat in the general election.
It is obvious to anyone with a functional brain.
I think there's probably a lot of elected representatives who want to be closer to the dictator end of the spectrum.
The difference with Trump is that half the country seems hell bent on allowing him to be a dictator.
Yeah… he said as much already. But do be sure to tell the kids that think both sides are equally as bad because of a single issue.
Especially when both are equally to blame on said single issue.
What?
Did they just both sides their bothsiderism?
Yeah that’s what it looks like but the sentence there doesn’t actually make sense when you read it tbh
I said-
Yeah… he said as much already. But do be sure to tell the kids that think both sides are equally as bad because of a single issue.
Especially when both are equally to blame on said single issue.
Missed opportunity to respond in all caps.
I really should have.
“MR. BUTTLICKER! OUR PRICES HAVE NEBER BEEN LOWER!”
Sorry I’m a little hard of hearing in my left ear 👂
Yeah, but also, besides being a genocidal monster, Biden is old, the "liberal media" tells me.
/s
And yet, more than 40% of Hungarian voters want to vote for Orbán again. Under his corrupt electoral system, that will be again a 2/3 supermajority. From a Hungarian: The prevailing belief here is "Orbán lies and sucks, but never again for Gyurcsány" or "Everyone sucks, Fidesz is the least bad" or even "There's no better alternative". This fuck should be voted out in 2026, but we know he won't.
– Viktor Orbán, 2007, in a segment to the young people in Hungary.
illiberal democracy my ass.
Read all about it in this month’s riveting issue of Duh.
I miss Norm.
There’s SO many, but this was probably my favorite Weekend Update joke:
(You knew it had to be an OJ joke.)
Trump has the first half of "dictator" covered ....
Penis potato?
Yeah, no kidding.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Former White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham said that President Trump’s recent meeting with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán shows that he “wants to be a dictator.”
President Biden went after Trump for his meeting with the Eastern European leader at a campaign event in Pennsylvania.
“You know who he’s meeting with today down at Mar-a-Lago?” Biden said at a campaign event in Pennsylvania.
“Orbán of Hungary, who stated flatly he doesn’t think democracy works, he’s looking for dictatorship.”
Grisham also said that she has “sat in many bilateral meetings with world leaders” and that Trump “always looked forward to speaking” with figures like Chinese President Xi JInping and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, leaders who have been criticized for their authoritarian leanings like Orbán.
Orbán went to Trump’s home in Florida and also posted a picture of them together on Facebook.
The original article contains 285 words, the summary contains 142 words. Saved 50%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Oh wow, someone has an opinion that says trump is bad so it warrants a whole article...
Yeah God forbid they write too many articles about this guy who tried to overturn an election, and claiming he wants to be a dictator on day 1, cozying up to dictators.
A guy who just won the primary for one of the two major political parties in the country. With 91+ criminal indictments. Half a dozen losses in civil cases. A guy who's so broke he just had to leverage most of his liquid assets.
Somehow that guy is still in the news. Because he's insanely popular. Still. For some fucking reason.
But do you understand how they dont mean anything and are just used to get clicks and lead you in a paticular direction?
What do you mean "lead me in a particular direction"? Do you mean lead me to vote. Yeah, that's exactly why I think it's important. It's motivates people to vote.
Leads them in the direction of believing propaganda. And then like you say, it mostivates them to vote based on false or misleading information.
How on earth is this false or misleading?
It makes people think that trump wants to be dictator, which is a standard talking point to scare people that are not paying attention. "BUT HE SAID HE WAS GOING TO BE DICTATOR ON THE FIRST DAY!!!" It was joke.
Why are you so sure he doesn't? He demands completely loyalty, he commonly and regularly uses a lot of the same rhetoric, he praises a lot of dictators, and (most importantly) he literally tried to overturn an election he lost, and fired up his followers so much that they violently attempt to block peaceful transition of power. The fact that someone might look at this and have an opinion that he wants to be a dictator is reasonable, and there is absolutely zero false or misleading about reporting that someone said this.
I dont know for sure he doesnt, but dictators dont typically give up power once they have achieved it.
The problem with the article is that it gives air to a conspiracy theory and the only reason that do that is because it serves the purpose of trying to make trump lose.
Well, he tried to hold onto official power, but the system held up against it. Thankfully, I'm not so sure it will again now that he has learned some lessons. Also, he hasn't actually given up much of his power. He has used his political weight to influence republicans the past 4 years, even getting them to vote against a bill that would give them pretty much Republicans everything they wanted when it comes to immigration and border security, with only having to "give up" more funding to Ukraine. He still has a ton of power.
Let's be honest here. You just don't want them reporting on people sharing their informed opinions about Trump because you are afraid the truth might hurt his chances of winning.
Thats not how dictatorships work, they dont have rules they are forced to follow. In the end all that is happening conspiracy theories that have zero evidence to back them up.
Yeah, we are discussing him wanting to be a dictator. He wants that to happen (hell, he's even arguing in court that he should be held criminally responsible for any crimes he committed while in office). That's what we're trying to stop. We're trying to stop his desires from coming true.
And there is plenty of evidence. We literally have him on tape trying to pressure a GA election official into "finding" enough votes for him to win. We have him still claiming, after being completely unable to produce any evidence that wasn't laughed out of court, that the election was stolen from him. We have him inciting his followers into attacking the capital, and him doing nothing about it for an hour and a half, in an attempt to stop the transfer of power. This idea that there is no evidence to support Trump trying to hold onto power despite losing and claiming he is above the law is laughable.
Uhhh, he said that NUMEROUS times before his whole "dictator on the first day", and even then he walked it back AFTER being reminded that "hey, people aren't quite ready for that". How about the fact that his world-leader idols are almost all, to a man, dictators or wannabe dictators? Erdogan, Orban, Kim Jong-Un, Putin - this is a dude who said he most idolizes Mussolini and Andrew Jackson. One of his commonly-voiced complaints when he took office was that he couldn't just unilaterally command that things be done, and according to aides, he had to constantly be reminded that things were illegal or beyond the scope of his office.
I dunno about you, but this sounds like the hallmarks of a man who would absolutely be a dictator, or close enough to it to not really matter.
Yeah you know what you're so smart there guy on the Internet that thinks voting for a dude with 91 fucking criminal indictments for president is a good idea.
So the government never is incorrect or goes after people for political reasons?
No other former president has even one criminal indictment.
There's a reason why politicians typically resign when faced with even a single criminal indictment: they are too distracted by their legal problems to devote the time necessary to do the work of the people.
But somehow this guy who can't even remember who the current president is will not be distracted by 91 criminal indictments? GTFOH
So the government never is incorrect or goes after people for political reasons?
If it were one state, or one federal case, sure. Here's the thing: he's being prosecuted in multiple states, and in multiple federal courts for multiple different things. Generally, if you were trying to make a "kangaroo court" argument like Navalny had, then why go through all this rigmarole? If the government is so out to get Trump, why let him walk free and campaign and host rallies? Why wait 3 years to get the ball rolling on most of these cases? Why even bother coming up with plausible arguments and presenting them before a jury?
Why cant it be more than one state and the federal government?
Yes, exactly! Why wait until the middle of the campaign for president? Because the point of the case is so that he is damaged in running. Many people from jan 6th have already literally being tried, gone to prison, and are already out for a year before they even got a mugshot of trump.
Trump bot everybody.
Leftist NPC everybody.
What game are you the main character in? Mama's basement wars?