If you don't think there's trump stans out there who believe trump will do just that you need to touch grass.

What is the lie there? That they actually picking a candidate who they want to make the country worse? The blunt truth is that to them the policies you don't like are good ones.

Insisting otherwise simply fuels polarization which furthers radicalization.

You've ironically demonstrated the need for a bias checking bot. People will cite biased sources without contextualizing things like that Chomsky has a notable left leaning.

The jury came to that same conclusion. It definitely isn't a fringe belief.

Democracy isn't when appointed officials always side with other appointed officials.

They interpret the law. And when existing law has bad policy outcomes people get made that 9 unelected lawyers in robes aren't legislating for us. When the out comes are good people don't hear about them or forget them.

One well know example was the flag burning case with Scalia.

This can be circumnavigated by crafting legislation that leaves little for interpretation or judical review. Legislative definitions and unambiguous language have and will always act as handcuffs on the judiciary.

Before any new administration can come in, appoint their hacks, and throw off long term climate plans. This also puts power into the legislature (and by that the people) allowing for the enactment of environmental laws that have firm regulations that won't disappear in 4 years. Enabling us to meet long term goals and commitments.

This isn't just about the EPA, this applies to other agencies as well. Including ones that charge individuals for offenses that were lawful prior to a reinterpretation made by unelected officials.

A fair trial is a myth when the court has to agree to the other party's understanding of the law, and that party has limitless resources.

SCOTUS wouldn't rule that. The whole idea of a corrupt judiciary is just a back lash at originalism gaining favor over living constitutionalism. They aren't 'evil' they just don't have a judicial philosophy from the 1960s.

Maybe that massive standing army isn't a good thing to have. A lot of the original criticisms match our current army pretty well.

There's a catch 22 here. Symbols get adopted by groups who recontextualize them. Then people only view them in the context of those groups. Effectively ceding symbols to them.