He simply chooses not to because of the established norms of the office, which are arbitrary and mainly for decorum purposes.
Trump and now SCOTUS actively prove they aren't real and breaking them has no legal consequences.
Making the office of the President's violence and illegality a matter of personal moral conviction rather than say enforceable legal constraint is a recipe for unbridled dictatorship of the first insane person to win office. Meaning Trump.
Personally, if I'd written "A Liberal Case for Trump" in 2016, I would absolutely be shutting the fuck up right now. *Especially* if that column explicitly handwaves SCOTUS picks.
Yes, very bad column. Agreed.
But right now, I’m not wrong.
And as someone who warned that Biden was a risk bc of his age-related decline but then supported Biden in 2020 against Trump anyway—and will do so again if he’s ultimately the nominee—I think it’s a fine critique to make.
Sorry, but you don't get to be that catastrophically wrong, then spend *years* defending defending it--even as everything you were warned about at the time comes to pass--and pretend that you have valuable insight. We told you in 2016 that Trump would be a disaster. You shrugged.
And you backed Clinton in the primary even though the left was warning it was a mistake. And she lost.
I think we can call it a wash and look forward. Because that’s 8 years history. Now, we have to beat Trump. And we have save democracy. Because what Trump plans is the culmination of a 50 years
Again, you literally argued that Trump was better than Clinton. Fuck all the way off until you find a sign that says "No fucking off beyond this point." Then continue to fuck off forever.
