Who has told you not to talk about electoral reform in an election year? I've never heard that.

On top of that, there are plenty of people who are working to change our election system the whole time. The problem is the "I hate the two party system!" People by and large just vote every few years. I work with some locally that are trying to change things from the ground up.

It's also bullshit, but you know that already.

Question for you: was this ruling incorrect? If so, how do you square that with the majority of justices ruling that way? Or do you as a fellow armchair ianal basement dweller get special privileges when it comes to your legal opinions vs that if scotus judges?

All I'm saying is that if I'm POTUS and I'm considering a questionable "official act" i know who I'm going to to clear it first.

Please cite where in the ruling it says charges would be brought against him.

First, let me apologize i thought it was another poster who had linked to that.

Second, i addressed it, i didn't ignore it. You ignored my rebuttal. But i will try again here:

Even what you quote here doesn't say the court ruled it was true.

You're just exposing your own ignorance, as often the court doesn't bother to determine if the plaintiffs claims are true, they just assume they're true and then rule they don't have a case because they aren't claiming someone broke the law.

This doesn't say it is true, only that it doesn't matter whether it's true because it has no bearing on their ruling.

I’m blocking you now. Good bye.

Intellectual coward.

I'm generally pretty generous when it comes to realizing I'm hearing one side of the story and that it's always much more complicated.

But, dear God man, if what he says is even remotely true and she was hovering over him while he was sleeping, and then when he awoke she asked if he would murder someone for her, and then what he plans to do with their cat after the murder, that's not just being "genuinely afraid" and acting irrationally when in the middle of being very afraid.

She might be suffering from some anxiety that she needs to address, but let's not play down how disturbing this is...especially because he called it "the usual."

Holy shit you gotta love the Internet with people, based on this one story, thinking it makes sense to warn that she might be planning a murder suicide. Lol wow.

You know, the usual.

I'm sure it's been said already, but there is nothing usual about what you described. She sounds unstable and you should reconsider this relationship.

But to be pedantic, nothing about what you described sounds even remotely like gaslighting.

While i agree with you, it's a huge grey area. Like Biden could have trump assassinated and then claim that his constitutional duties require him to protect the cotus from enemies both foreign and domestic.

Official act or not?

I literally pointed you to the court case where the court said the DNC was rigging the convention against Sanders

No you didn't. You made a claim about a court case that doesn't exist. You didn't link to anything or even name it.

Your eyes literally won’t allow you to see

You're right, my eyes won't allow me to see the fantasy you've created.

You’ve got to be a troll. We’re done here.

Don't blame me for your inability to support your claims.

Well it is.

Even in the outside chance that the third party wins, we still immediately revert to a two party system. It solves nothing as the nature of our voting system is to turn into a two-party system. It's a vanity vote, that's it.

This pattern cannot continue.

And voting third party in the presidential election does not stop it from continuing. At best it just switches what "two parties" we are voting for. If you want to stop this from continuing, you work locally to get how we get local candidates elected (like STAR or ranked) and then you work up from there. But you don't want to. You want to just do the simple thing of casting a vote and believing you've "done your part" which is why it's a vanity vote.

The presidential vote is a strategic one that you use understanding the rules of the game you are actually playing, not the one you (and I) wish you were playing.

So you ignore the facts you don’t like, and take the ones you do. And I’m projecting…

How can I ignore that which you did not provide? All you've done throughout this is give your opinion about what happened, no actual facts. I would be more than happy to address any fact you have, because having had this discussion so many times already, I'm pretty confident I'm on the right side of it, and if not, I would like to learn how so and change my position. As I already have.

Why the fuck do you think Wasserman Schultz stepped down?

You made a claim as to why, so why not back it up?

hat is your explanation if it’s not the scandal involving her bias as chair exposed in the emails?

You're claim was that she tried to rig the convention against Sanders, and you're already backtracking it. Amazing.

What possible benefit to you gain from this denial of established reality?

lol You really have no idea how out-classed you are in this. I clearly challenged you to actually provide some facts, and all you are doing is attacking me instead.

Don't worry, I've had this same type of discussion with hundreds of Trump/Sander reality-deniers before, and I know no way in hell you can admit to yourself at this point that you've been fooled for so long. But It's sill funny watching you squirm.

Again, let me be clear: provide your sources for your empty ass claims that I've already called out. Anything short of that is an admission that you realize the facts are not on your side.

I'm not one of those people who thinks Biden won't make it through the next presidency, but I think you're setting yourself up for disappointment hoping that he lives a long time.

People are getting this all wrong.

They haven't crowned the POTUS as king. They were very clear that non-official acts are not covered. They've crowned themselves, the ones who get to determine what is and what is not an "official act" the kings.

Ohh, a political “scientist” said it, must be a fact.

No, a political scientist didn't "say" it, they did a study with an attempt to objectively determine what actually happened, and the evidence led to a certain conclusion. You just don't like that the evidence contradicts how you feel so you're sarcastically trying to hand-wave it away. This isn't to say I know for a fact that what they say is the truth, but their evidence-based position is 1000x more reliable than your feelings.

I will now pretend that Wasserman Schultz didn’t actively admit to trying to rig the convention against Sanders and that the court literally said in plain english that’s what was happening.

Neither of these statements is true.

The way you people try to rewrite history is insane.

Projection. Notice how I've been providing facts and links, all you've done is provide how you feel about it. You are just like the Trump supporters that think they know the 2020 election was rigged against Trump. It turns out cultists are not all that different from other cultists.

I'm sure the facts don't matter to you, but I'll post it anyway just in case someone else comes in here and thinks your argument is rooted in reality:

"A 2018 book by political scientists John M. Sides, Michael Tesler and Lynn Vavreck found that the amount of news coverage Sanders received exceeded his share in the national polls in 2015. Throughout the campaign as a whole, their analysis showed that his "media coverage and polling numbers were strongly correlated."[1] They write that "Sanders's appeal, like Trump's, depended on extensive and often positive media coverage."[1] Furthermore, "media coverage brought Sanders to a wider audience and helped spur his long climb in the polls by conveying the familiar tale of the surprisingly successful underdog. Meanwhile, Clinton received more negative media coverage."[1]

I don't know what Obama could have done, but i absolutely agree that rbg should have stepped down in the middle of her term.

I said nothing about entitlement, only pointed out the facts. You can both sides it all you want, but the last 10 days has exposed how absolutely ridiculous that position is. Although it's long since been obvious.

And they are all thanks to the fact that trump, not Clinton, got to appoint 3 to justices.

And there are still people who think voting for a third party is a good idea.

For riz.

Am i doing it right?