It’s not ableist to disqualify someone from being President if they smell really, really bad because that means that they are unable to accomplish an action themselves or with the help of their advisors.

Here in America, calling the cops very often gets you more Nazis.

You know there’s words you can use besides “normal.” A common one is neurotypical. Also, everything you said is generalizations with no basis in reality and incredibly ableist, so, again, you have proven me right.

That is a very ableist attitude to potebtially exclude learning disabilities, so maybe my comprehension skills were pretty good after all.

I’ll take “Things you don’t believe” for $200.

I would prefer someone who didn’t try to overthrow an election be in charge of our country, and sadly Trump absolutely fails that very simple litmus test.

medical leave is quite the concept, you choose to get a surgery, so the company then needs to cover your responsibilities by assigning your duties and tasks to other workers, increasing their work load, so you can stay home and recover, and at the end of that leave, you, the worker whose been forced to increase your workload, gets no additional compensation or paid leave, but should simply enjoy having been a small unpaid part of others medical care, while the company still makes as much profit, and pays as many bonuses to their management as they always have. sure, sounds fair.

This is really just a summary that will pertain to most cases. https://electioncases.osu.edu/case-tracker/?sortby=filing_date_desc&keywords=&status=all&state=all&topic=25 is a collection of all the cases, so you can see them all!

Considering that Trump got fact checked only a couple of times and that Trump himself got an unfair treatment where he was given the chance to rebuttal every single time he wanted, I will say that you have given a biased answer. I am still going to say that Trump did, indeed, lie about the election being fraudulent. Given that, let’s see how each of those court cases were ruled!

Trump v. Biden (Wis. Dec. 14, 2020). 3 out of 4 claims dismissed under doctrine of laches. This is actually funny because that means the plaintiff does have standing. Last claim ruled against Trump.

Trump v. Wis. Elecs. Comm’n. (E.D. Wis. Dec. 12, 2020). Ruled against. No violation of the Elections Clause.

King v. Whitmer (E.D. Mich. Dec. 7, 2020). Could’ve been dismissed for lack of standing because the plaintiffs were Republican presidential electors and not state electors. But INSTEAD analyzed the merits and ruled against them regardless.

Ward v. Jackson (Ariz. Sup. Ct., Maricopa Cnty. Dec. 4, 2020) Plaintiff denied relief because they failed to meet evidentiary standards for their election fraud claims. Evidence showed election was 99.45% accurate and the errors were human errors.

Law v. Whitmer (Nev. Dist. Ct., Carson City Dec. 4, 2020). Dismissed because plaintiffs failed to prove that any voting device malfunctioned, that the election board was guilty of malfeasance, or that there was election fraud.

Donald J. Trump for President v. Bockvar (M.D. Pa. Nov 21, 2020). Dismissed because lacked standing BUT ALSO reviewed the case and rejected the plaintiff’s claim that upholding the Equal Protection Clause requires complete equality because that would be impossible.

Wood v. Raffensperger (N.D. Ga. Nov. 20, 2020). Could’ve been dismissed for lack of standing OR doctrine of laches, BUT INSTEAD court rules on merits regardless! Dismissed plaintiff’s claims of violation of Equal Protection clause (same as above), Elections and Electors Clause claims because Raffensperger didn’t didn’t override or rewrite any state laws, AND a claim that individuals have a constitutional right to observe the electoral process.

Bower v. Ducey (D. Ariz. Dec 9, 2020). Dismissed for lack of standing BUT ALSO reviewed the case and found that plaintiff’s claims were largely based on hearsay and irrelevant analysis of unrelated elections and no claims of fraud were credible.

Constantino v. City of Detroit (3d Jud. Ct. Wayne Cnty. Nov. 13, 2020). Plaintiff preliminary injunction denied due to failure to meet evidentiary standards, including locations, frequency, and names of those involved of alleged misconduct. Additionally, defendants provided sufficient evidence to convince court that they acted within the law.

Arizona Republican Party v. Fontes (Ariz. Sup. Ct., Maricopa Cty.) Case dismissed due to numerous procedural defects on part of the plaintiffs.

Idk man, it really looks like that EVEN THE CASES THAT WERE DISMISSED TO LACK OF STANDING were reviewed and found not credible for so, so, so many reasons.

Which of the fact checks do you think were unfair?

Don’t Republicans support doing something now and then fixing things later? They treated fixing healthcare like that by trying to repeal the ACA without a future plan, so it seems odd that they would treat this situation different, no?

Actually, I think it’s also grammatically correct. You can use an interjection (which “weird” would count as here since it’s a show of emotion) followed by a comma.

I don’t really see how he would be better on national security, given that most, if not all, of our national security agencies regard Trump as a threat. He frequently gives out secrets to foreign powers (whether this is accidental or purposeful is debatable), has a distinct disregard for the military, (including doing nothing about Russia putting bounties on US soldiers, instituting a trans ban in the military against the advice of the military, calling captured soldiers losers, etc.), and he also tried to overturn an election he consistently called fraudulent in spite of no evidence found to support that conclusion and loads of evidence to conclude that the election was fair through a number of methods (fake slates of electors, organizing a mod and several senators and representatives to delay certification of the election, getting Pence to not certify).

If you meant border security, then why did he help kill a bill that would have fixed many of the things he’s complaining about?

History proves you wrong. The fucking Three-Fifths Compromise proves you wrong! Imagine pretending we would somehow be more racist if we removed the Electoral College, I can’t even.

Remember when claiming immigrants were stealing and eating pets was enough to disqualify someone from being a president?

… No?

Ah, my bad, this insane new low seems to have never happened before.

You post a lot of defense for Trump for someone that doesn’t like Trump. You also post a lot of attacks against Harris and Walz.

Trump is at best a misinformed bumbling dumbfuck who thinks immigrants eat pets and children get surgeries in school, whereas Harris’ lies are at worst the typical politician lies about supporting things she doesn’t really support.

It is insane if you think these are on the same level.

Anyway, vote Harris because Trump will try to January 6th us again.

You could also pronounce it like Exitter and it still works.

Which part of asking for an end of an Apartheid state is antisemitic?

Isn’t that twink a Goblin, tho?

…No, it’s too easy…

You are making a silly argument that is flawed. The Witcher includes sexual themes because the book it is based on also includes these themes.

BG3 includes optional romantic themes because the game it is based on can include optional romantic themes. The game is about your involvement in the story, about how you navigate the world and its people because it attempts to mimic DnD. You can do a lot of “I seduce the dragon” and BG3 was designed to be fairly accomodating to a variety of tables.

To suggest the game would be better if it contained no romance when you haven’t played it is… bizarre? Especially with it being optional. But, that is perhaps the epitome of my argument. A lot of content in BG3 is optional. To remove any of it would be to make a game about options lesser.

I think romance is included in a lot of stories because it is a very common component in life. We have so many experiences around love, and exploring that in a fictional environment at the same time we do battle against demons is fun for many people.

TTRPGs cater to you choosing your own story. To remove the romance from this story is to say that some choices in this story cannot be made.

Also, there’s mods to remove the romance. It would be a loss to have them gone at the onset.