There's one party who has a lot of people who want to address the problems you point out. There is another party that wants to remove all ability of the government to address any of those problems you mention because they think that will solve the problems.

The problem with the former party is that they can never get a large enough majority to do anything about it. The way our government is set up, you need more than slim majority in both houses to get anything meaningful done, unless you can get everyone of the people in the party to line up behind it, any you'll inevitably have hold outs.

Your post is just more of the "muh both sides!" nonsense. The problem isn't that neither party listens, it's that the one who wants to stop the government from being able to do anything about it keeps getting at least near 50% of the people to vote for them.

Removing a legal candidate illegally isn’t removing someone’s right to vote?

They challenged the constitutionality of his candidacy< they didn't remove the right to vote. So no, people can still vote after that. Pretty straightforward.

Also, if the theoretical Obama candidacy was upheld by the court, would you argue that they illegally tried to remove him?

Served two terms which is the legal maximum.

It's a constitutional restriction, just like someone who took place in an insurrection or rebellion can't run. Again, basic part of the case here.

Grow up dude. Just because you don’t agree with someone’s stance doesn’t make it trolling.

Take your own advice and realize that just because someone disagrees with you, that doesn't mean they were the one who reported you.

I think we're in an ai bubble because Nvidia is way over valued and I agree with you that often people flock to shiny new things and many people are taking risk with the hope of making it big...and many will get left holding the bag.

But how do you go from NFTs, which never had widespread market support, to the market pumping a trillion dollars into Nvidia alone? This makes no sense. And to down play this as "just a bullshitter" leads me to believe you have like zero real world experience with this. I use copilot for coding and it's been a boost to productivity for me, and I'm a seasoned vet. Even the ai search results, which many times have left me scratching my head, have been a net benefit to me in time savings.

And this is all still pretty new.

While I think there it is over hyped and people are being ridiculous with how much this will change things, at the very least this is going to be a huge new tool, and I think you're setting yourself up to be left behind if you aren't embracing this and learning how to leverage it.

How did that remove anyone's right to vote? If Obama again, would Republicans be right to challenge his eligibility? Or would you argue that that is denying the right to vote to people?

What I would like is for them to show him the evidence and then see what he says.

Lying requires intent to deceive. Honestly, at this point, I can't be sure trump has any grip on reality so might actually believe that he never said it.

Falsely claims accurately depicts what happened without assuming intent. It's a way to cover their butt.

These were crimes committed before becoming president, not acts during their presidential term. He defrauded the American people in order to promote himself for office.

While I certainly do not believe it is infinite, there is something to the Trump/Republican argument that the POTUS shouldn't have to weigh being prosecuted after they leave office in every decision they make. I would expect some kind of leniency if there is a strong belief people think they were acting in the best interest of the country. Which certainly would not have been true about Watergate, but as others have pointed out, he was pardoned before he could be charged.

Everyone notice how not a single thing is cited. This is by design, because they want to make it hard to challenge each and every point. There is obviously zero intent at an honest debate here. It's just something for the people struggling with the cognitive dissonance of believing they are "the party of law an order" while also supporting the only POTUS to ever be tried and convicted of a crime.

Even if we ignore the whole "suspended license" part of it, he still showed up to court breaking MI law by using a cell phone while driving. Thinking he is going to avoid ridicule for this is a pipe dream.

Why the fuck are you even responding to me at this point?

Because I'm wondering how far you'll go before you'll admit that you were just wrong and made a mistake. Apparently, you're ego is so fragile that you'll leave before doing that, and blame me on the way out.

Funny. You are displaying all the traits you claim to hate about me.

You also said they’re “uncomfortably close”

So, "uncomfortably close" now means I "fail to make out the distinctions"? This doesn't even make sense on it's own, but even less so when taken in context.

But nice cherry picking.

You picked only one phrase out of one of my comments, despite two others making it very clear I can tell the difference. And you have the nerve to then claim I'm cherry picking when I pointed to the parts of my statements that prove your accusation wrong? Holy shit, it never ceases to amaze me how blatantly dishonest people will be when they are wrong. lol

It's okay to be wrong. We all fuck up. The important thing is to just admit it and move on, rather than try to pretend you weren't wrong by projecting and lying.

I've been posting on message boards for decades. One common thing I've seen, which seems incredibly strange and I have no explanation for, is that every time I've come across an English poster using some form of vert in their username, they've been a huge idiot.

Granted, it's only been a handful of times, so kind of anecdotal, but it's amazing on consistent it is.

It’s funny that you think your stage damaged ears would be somehow “experienced” or whatever type of point you’re trying to make here.

I've spent my whole life training my ear by listening to and performing music with other people. . .and you can't see the value of that when it comes to listening to stuff? Impressively ignorant.

In my first post (which you responded to) "I was shocked how dissimilar it was"

in my second post (which you responded to) "I agree they are clearly different people"

You in this post "you fail to make out the distinctions between the voices ... you cannot hear the difference"

Man, you're reading comprehension is even worse than your ear. lol

I grew up playing classical piano and saxophone. Moved into jazz saxophone and then jazz bass, and eventually played with a (terrible) rock band for a couple of years on bass. Technically (although I torture the term here a bit) I was a professional musician.

Not knowing anything else about you, it's probably a safe bet to put my ear up against yours any day. And while I agree they are clearly different people, if you think they sound nothing alike the bet sounds even safer.

I wouldn't say nothing like her, it's uncomfortably close especially after being told no. But after the initial uproar, I was shocked how dissimilar it was when I actually heard it.

I don't get why people are so confident that this is a dumb move that won't work. We know games are buggy at launch, and people rush to buy them anyway. And then the forums are filled with people losing their shit that the game has bugs in it and isn't perfect. This idea that gamers are some patient group doesn't reflect the reality I've seen over the past 2 decades.

You didn’t bring up any points of the paper!

Wait, you think I need to reiterate all the points in the paper rather than just have you read the primary source? What sense does this make?

You clearly didn’t read it,

What, exactly, made this clear?

but you expect me to read and refute any hyperlink you share

No, I "expect" (I suspect you're too far into this now to ever admit you may have been wrong, so I don't actually expect it) you to read the link (or at least skim over it) and realize that the facts don't support your conclusion that the election was rigged against Sanders. The paper provides some pretty compelling evidence. The most damning that the DNC controls the caucuses, while the states run their individual primaries. . .and Sanders did better in the ones run by the DNC. It's funny that you put more effort "refuting" the paper by scouring the web to give you some kind of out, rather than actually addressing anything in the papers themselves.

You’re like the kid that didn’t read the assignment but is desperately trying to give his book report based on the synopsis on the back.

And if that's me, you're the kid who just read the title and concluded you know everything about the book, then when showed the synopsis you deny that's what it's about. You probably would say something genius like "If I search for 'synopsis of book' this synopsis is one of the first results!" lol literally anything to avoid the actual point.

You can go ahead and have the last word. I’m out.

Without addressing a single thing in the paper too. Well done. But sure, Harry Reid said he wasn't give a fair shake. That's it, it was obviously rigged against him. Damn, super convincing.

Regardless of whether this is true, it's a big difference:

One was committed during official acts as a POTUS in the name of the nation, the other was done to defraud the public as a private citizen in order to win the presidency.

We can argue until we're blue in the face as to whether these were actually crimes, but bringing them up here makes no sense. It's just an attempt to further the BS talking point that this is a partisan witch hunt.

What do you suggest as an alternative?

Lol I didn't attack you, I challenged you. You were the one who attacked my character over and over again.