The US supports Israel so that Israel can stop Iran from becoming a bigger threat.

The US supports Israel so that Israel can prevent Iran from growing in power and take control of the region.

I would too. But the majority of voters seem to think Trump was just joking when he said those things. And the voters get to decide what politicians get away with.

I don’t disagree but the court of public opinion would. And doing this would give grounds for the next president that comes along like Trump to just shoot their political opponents.

Early in the invasion of Ukraine Russia shared video of a functional hypersonic missle that could deliver nukes past all current air defenses. That was why he was hesitant to escalate by using long range missles.

If I remember right, since then we’ve found that Russias hypersonic missles cannot steer at hypersonic speeds and have had some misfires making them less of a threat. That plus the fact that Trump is months away from helping Russia, the strategy has changed.

The Court declared that a President is immune from prosecution when exercising the ‘core powers’ of the presidency. Not from anything they do.

If a president could force their political opponent to face trial with judges chosen by the president then that could be weaponized by future presidents like Trump or anyone like him.

Replaced Garland with someone who would actually do their job.

What should he do differently? Trump has claimed that the DOJ has been weaponized to keep him from becoming president. If the court of public opinion believes that (and a lot of people do) then Merrick Garland has to be absolutely sure he can win a case before prosecuting Trump otherwise more people will believe it’s just a ‘witch hunt’ and it will be harder to try again.

He could have also just shot Trump in the face, because the SC gave him a blank check to do whatever.

The SC ruling was that Presidents have immunity when exercising the “core powers” of the presidency. I doubt shooting Trump in the face would be considered that and it would only empower future presidents to do the same.

Immunity from what? How could he use that immunity to bring Trump to justice?

What inaction are you referring to? What do you feel he should’ve done that he didn’t do?

What do you feel he should have done that he didn’t do?

How could he bring Trump to justice as a president?

Why blame Biden for Trumps actions?

Still nothing

You still haven’t given an answer.

You’re still dancing around a simple question.

In 2020 the senate was a 50/50 split with the vice president giving the democrats 1 more vote than republicans. In 2022 it was a 51/49 split giving dems only 2 more votes than republicans. The “majority” was so slim that it was not enough for the supermajority vote required for the most important legislation. And it only took 1-2 senators to not vote along party lines to block Democratic legislation.

To ignore that and pretend that dems had the power to do whatever they wanted is disingenuous.

To blame the Democratic Party for the actions of 1-2 senators that chose to go against the party is disingenuous.

You’re claiming that all republican legislation that has ever been passed, only passed because of help from democrats? That’s verifiably false.

Still no response to the original question of ‘How do we win elections without/with less donors’?

I’ve played along with your avoidance of the question and all its led to is a discussion of semantics and nothing about the original topic. Seems like that is your intent.

Point 1: you argue semantics to steer the conversation away from the original question.

Point 2: you nitpicking semantics is not me building a straw man.

Ignore people all you want but they, and reality, are clearly telling you that optimising for donations/money doesn’t work.

Who is talking about ignoring people or optimizing for donations? Seems like you are refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion.

Democrats are too focused on the latter, because reasons explained to you, and thus lost due to the former.

How are you quantifying how focused they are? How do you know they lost due to the former? The likely answer is you are making assumptions based off your feelings.

It seems our impasse is that’s I’ve understood, and stated as such, your argument to be “more money, more better” which is counterfactual to this election.

Again I have to point out that I haven’t made an argument. I’ve just asked a question to someone other than you and you felt the need to insert yourself to argue semantics while avoiding the question you responded to.

I don’t think I can break through that level of double think.

You’re literally quoting something that was never said.

Pointing out that republicans try to block democrat legislation is reality not an excuse. But you probably believe they are all lizard people with your conspiracy minded thought process.