Right.

I'm opposed to the government taxing earnings from labor and using the money to subsidize people who inherited or stole assets, or to bail out corporations as you said!

I heavily favor the Democrat party over the Republican party. The Democrats are more likely to regulate the corporations that they bail out. And they should regulate them. The Democrats are more likely, than the Republicans, to respect laborers, as they should.

One thing the Democrats and Republicans, both, are slow in learning is that earnings from labor shouldn't be taxed. Taxation should be based on something else (the using up of natural resources). But Democrats are the more likely to learn it earlier. Republicans are the more likely to side with robber barons, sharing their philosophy that "what's good for me must be good for everybody" (a.k.a. "trickle-down") and "I'm naturally good (because I'm me)".

Democrats are more likely to look for a way that the greatest number of people can get a fair shake and a good life -- whereas Republicans are more likely to not care a whit about those other people, instead just looking out for themselves -- like Trump going to the United Nations and saying it should be each nation just looking out for its own interest. Republicans haven't bought into the idea of cooperation yet! I have a hunch this is why "listen to the scientists", when spoken by some Republicans, is meant as a slur; scientific progress tends to happen in cooperative environments with a broad mix of people -- which is not Republicans' cup of tea. And not only cooperative and a broad mix of people -- it's a broad mix of _educated_ people. Not educated in finding loopholes in the law or manipulating politics, but educated in appreciating diverse kinds of people and educated in looking for t***h. _Those_ people mostly v**e Democratic.

Republicans are prone to call that kind of educated people "elitists"; but Republicans don't call a billionaire by inheritance who thinks he's above the law an elitist.

Fri, Jan 22, by Leland Shenfield

I am an American.

Trump had already stated he would not concede due to e******n f***d.

So let’s talk, honestly and fairly, as these are very strong claims:

Trump supporters allege that there is e******n f***d, and that this e******n f***d cost Trump the Presidency. They say they have proof that this fraud was widespread and coordinated.

The result of their fervent application of the United States Justice system is the following:

All the courts have thrown out, with prejudice, their claims.

All State Legislatures have thrown out their claims, or just refused to hear them.

The head of security for the e******ns, appointed by Trump, said that the e******n was secure and fair. He was fired.

The Attorney General of the United States, probably one of the most ardent Trump supporters that isn’t part of the general population, said there is no evidence of fraud.

IF there was e******n f***d, it would have had to be massive, coordinated, and multi-state.

As e******n officials are from all political stripes, Republicans would have to have been complicit in this massive e******n f***d.

There is not a single e******n board, Lt. Governor, or e******n official that says there was any evidence of fraud AT ALL. Not a single one.

The Supreme Court of the United States gave this response to the complaint that came before them: “The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied.” That is SCOTUS-speak for “talk to the hand”.

So, we as Americans have a simple, binary choice:

Trump is arguing with the officials and fans after the game is over, and at the same time setting up a Lost Cause grievance, and his supporters have deluded themselves into believing that there was fraud because they simply cannot accept that they lost. The result of this is that Donald Trump would waive every citizen’s Constitutional rights, effectively destroying the very fabric of this nation in order to support their need for power, OR he lost the e******n fair and square and our nation continues on. Because in the end, one man or even one party is not important. The strength of our nation is important.

Seriously, it is that simple.

Anyone who would consider such a drastic course of action should consider the following items:

In a democracy, should any one party be able to question the integrity of an e******n without more than anecdotal evidence?

Once the judicial system has ruled, should any political party that is truly dedicated to the rule of law and the fabric of our republic and its continuation continue to contest the e******n?

Should any state political party call for a civil war to contest an e******n?

And finally, and this is important: if a sitting President refuses to accept publicly the outcome of an e******n that is determined by e******n officials and the judiciary to be free and fair, whether that president leaves or not, should that ex-president be re-nominated by his political party?

I believe, as a proud American and a republican who has lost his party to nationalistic, jingoistic hooligans, that what the Republican Party did was s*******s, unpatriotic, and toxic to our nation.

Save smart, sensible, fiscal conservatism with a heart for the people, an ear for our challenges, and respect for our republic.