Thanks for your honesty here Dax.
A few things I'd push back on though:
You can summarise it further in that Trump is transactional, any deal done is far more likely to be for his financial benefit as opposed to the benefit of the US, its allies, and the world as a whole.
Of what personal financial benefit was brokering the Middle Eastern Accords? Or trying to lower hostilities with N. Korea?
There is more money to be made in entering and prosecuting wars. So if personal financial benefits were his goal, he is certainly going about it the wrongeat of ways.
I think this is a case of superimposing ones feeling about Trump the man unto his actions.
Is it not the Republican party doing their best to subvert the vote of Americans? The party that also promoted conspiracy theories about voter fraud and unfounded claims that the Democrats would cheat?
I think left to their own devices both parties have enough unscrupulous actors who'd attempt to do corrupt things. We've always had evidence of this and there are even some in this cycle.
The prosecutions and reports in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Arizona or the Bucks county case of elections official "incorrectly" closing polling places early.
But that neither here nor there. I was referring to the attempts to remove a party's candidate from the ballot box entirely.
Something that officials in many States attempted against Trump, Jill Stein, and RFK in this election.
And other external attempts to cripple Trump, specifically because he was the opposition. I find these to be actual threats to democracy
Wasn't Trump if not outrightly saying it, then heavily implying that his political opponents are the enemy and they belong in jail/dead, or any media that criticise him should be cancelled/taken off air?
Again, this is just framing. I have harshed this out before many times and don't want to do so again. Granted probably not with you.
But here is the video
Watch it and whatever conclusion you draw, I am happy to accept and agree to disagree.
I know your feelings about Jan 6th, so I wont go over that. The first impeachment was not a 'trumped up' charge, he tried to extort a foreign government for his own political benefit and he was backed by a heavily partisan Senate.
I had this debate too many times in the past. Let's agree to disagree. I'm sure I won't convince you.
As for Stormy Daniels, he's charged with campaign finance law violations, falsifying business records, tax violations, and conspiracy to commit fraud, all are crimes.
Again, I disagree both on the outcome from a legal standpoint and the manner and purpose of bringing the case.
Are you of the opinion that the President should be immune to the law whilst in office, after office, or even running for office?
No. I'm of the opinion, that laws should not be used as tools to undermine an opponent you fair you can't defeat in an open free and fair election.
When you say 'they tried to kill him' who do you mean by they?
Think I answered this earlier. The 2 potential assassins. And whoever their handlers might have been
I'd caution never say never, but I truly hope you don't ever come to regret it.
Fair point. Let me downgrade. I strongly doubt that I will.