A lot more than you expect or will like!

All the major polls show Trump beating Biden in the swing states so if he holds onto the states he got last time plus the swing states...


Oh, I don't like a lot of things he pops off at the mouth about, but I understand it since I often do the same thing.
But his policies worked:
a. Smashed ISIS
b. Started no new wars
c. Putin & friends stayed pretty tame, mouthed off but didn't do much action
d. The Middle East and other hot spots were a lot quiter
e. The economy kept growing and as one Biden v**er from 2020 said in a "Man on the Street" thing I saw on TV "I'm v****g for Trump this time. I
had more money in my pocket."
f. The border was better controlled than it had been for a long time and illegal crossings were going down

All in all I would rather have someone mouthy and irritating at times who gets things done for the country than a nice Old Grampa who needs three Secret Service agents to find his ice cream cone while most of his policies flop and make things worse.

Over and Out - I am not in the mood to engage in a flame war. I have coffee to drink and books to read while I spoil the dogs and go through my "Honey Do List".

We've all heard it...the NRA rhetoric. It takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun. Well, what happened in KC yesterday then? There were 800 good guys (police; highly trained, all armed, wearing vests, dedicated to protecting the citizens of their good city) who couldn't stop a few bag guys from k*****g and injuring 20 people. Video shows very courageous unarmed bystanders take down a suspect. It kinda shoots that rhetoric full of holes, doesn't it? The availabity of guns is a problem. That point can't be argued.

Can't be removed until he holds office is just an off ramp from the chaos that would ensue. It's back to my original argument that just because there is language allowing the actions doesn't make it a wise, practical or pragmatic thing to do. The originalists will v**e for procedural pragmatism by taking the language into the current political context.

Note what is NOT being argued forcefully:

1) the definition of "i**********nist"
2) he didn't have "due process"
3) that there must be a conviction
4) whether an "officer" or not
5) that impeachment has to happen first


The crux of the decision is when to apply the disqualification -- while "running" or while "holding" the office. Any off ramp to get a unified v**e and avoid ensuing civil unrest is their goal.