Each rally is a Nuremburg-inspired spectacle crafted to dull the intellect and build a feeling of bonhomie among the attendees that accentuates the "us against everyone else" mood. Entertainment and other messages help attendees feel especially "patriotic" but with a corrupt definition of the concept. Not a concept that encourages First Amendment rights, and national unity, but one that emphasizes messages of exclusion, replacement theory, Christian nationalism, gun mania, and xenophobia. Trump's fascist role models would be pleased.

If letting Trump rant on for more than the allotted 2 minutes they were supposed to speak for was biased, then the moderators were on Trump's side.

If letting Trump get to rebut what Harris said in her 2 minutes before responding to the next question asked was biased, then the moderators were very lenient to Trump way too often.

If having Trump's mic on before Harris finished speaking but having Harris's mic off when Trump was ranting was unfair, was that unfair to Trump? It seemed that Trump was the beneficiary of being allowed to interrupt Harris as she was wrapping up her response at least half a dozen times.

Trump got more than twice the time to speak at this non-debate event than Harris. If he used this advantage to spew lies and rants and nonsense rather than directly and calmly and factually responding to the questions he was asked, that was Trump's choice. If nothing else, when weird Uncle Donnie continued ranting to the TV cameras long beyond the allotted time to answer questions, the moderators attempted to rein Trump in rather than let his rants go off the rails.

The moderators were generally solicitous to Trump and allowed him to digress endlessly with criticisms of America's conditions, of fictional pet eating immigrants wga, of Democrats, Harris, Biden, China, the military and his administration's national security staffers who resigned or were fired, then what Trump did and how he behaved during those rants was all Trump being Trump.

Ukraine and NATO are frightened at the concept that the USA could see a 2nd Trump term. Their confidence in America's stability as a force for democracy has already been shaken by Trump's previous term and by the fact that after 2 impeachments and numerous indictments of his malfeasance, the Republican Party (once staunchly pro-West & pro-democracy) picked Trump as its party leader and that USA might pick Trump as its leader again.

Having been on the alert for years for foreign agents from the USSR & its satellites, I see so many signs from Tchump of his being compromised. From his uncalled for public pronouncements of his admiration for Putin's authoritarianism, to private one-on-one meetings with Putin, to publicly dismissing US intel sources in favor of Putin as a personal source of intel, Trump is more than suspect.

Harris's claim that "Putin would have you for lunch!", was spot on. Biden and Harris have learned to not trust Putin for a second, and they are well-aware of how Putin played every US president since GHW Bush until Biden. None more so than how he mabaged Trump " an easy narcissist to play by appealing to Trump's self-adulation and materialism.

Luring Trump in by promising him rights to someday let him build landmark skyscrapers in Russia's largest cities, is like training a pet dog to follow its master with a pocketful of doggie treats.

What a dope! Who taught Vance 2nd Amendment Law at law school?

The "well-regulated" clause of the amendment sets the case for regulating who gets the right to bear arms snd under what conditions.

Amen!!

If there is a traditional Republican conservative who understands how government works, it's Dick Cheney. This is a sure sign that some long time traditional Republicans see Trump as a true danger. Rather than waste their vote in a write-in name or 3rd party candidate, they are voting for Trump's leading opponent.

What makes Dick Cheney and Adam Kinzinger so dramatic is their public announcement of their distrust if the new Republican cult's candidate. It may cause a schism in the GOP between Constitutionalists and Trumpets. If Democrats win and want to prevent a Trumpet from winning in 2028, they will have to ensure that defecting GOP Constitutionalists have good reason to keep the faith with the Democrats.

Oh, one other word of advice: if the old, orange-headed groper-in-chief begins wandering around from his podium, or stalking Kamala, she should immediately rebuke the infantile behavior and swiftly tell him to go back to his corner and stay there and behave himself. When Trump acts like a 3-year old his behavior should never be tolerated.

If Hilary publicly put Trump in his place when he stalked her on stage when he stalked her in 2016, she'd probably would have won the Electoral College by dozens of votes.

VP Harris seemed used to following courtroom rules when being interviewed. It could make her answers seem a bit stiff. But in contrast, Trump thinks he's the circus ringmaster and he often comes across as an angry, crass, boorish clown. Scary sometimes. Let Kamala be herself and let Trump be his own scary self during their debate in 2 weeks.

The contrast in demeanors should prove decisive.

Trump and Pompeo who drafted a capitulation treaty with the Taliban committing to remove US troops from Afghanistan are largely to blame. So many military experts in service during GWOT & Afghanistan advised maintaining a presence there to deny the Taliban power. Trump only wanted advice from people who agreed with him. Or who had $ to give him.

What a weird moron Trump is. He has the impulses of a 3-year old, the sense of entitlement that only the narcissistic child of a narcissistic multimillionaire would have, and the informed inquisitiveness of an amoeba.

When I began my USN career, a career that would continue for 30+ years, I took an oath to support and defend the US Constitution. Within a few years, I enrolled in a top tier university's Constitutional Law course, which opened my eyes to the fact that what is written in the Constitution has been interpreted and reinterpreted variously over the years by courts, with the Federal Courts and Supreme Court making finer and finer interpretations over time.

Not too remarkably, with fellow patriots in service from all over the US and its territories and even from other parts of the globe, even military members have differing opinions on what the Constitution means. One of the perpetual debates is over the 2nd Amendment.

Massachusetts's Lexington & Concord National Historic Sites are a stark lesson on what, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ... " meant to our Constitution's authors and their fellow citizens. Had machine guns been part of colonies's militia arsenals, the only citizens who would be allowed to touch such a weapon would be a member of their colony's (later, state's) official militia, and only in compliance with orders and regulations.

Personally, I would like to have a small stock off hunting and defensive weapons safely locked up in my domicile, primarily to retain my marksmanship skills. But I know with 100% certainty that not everyone is capable of safely possessing ANY deadly weapon, let alone combat weapons or, God forbid, machine guns! I also think that in civil society, when the nation is not under attack by a hostile military opponent, the idea of "open carry" by droves of random, unregulated, gun-crazy civilians is very disturbing.

Unfortunately, over many decades various iterations of the SCOTUS has all but invalidated the "well regulated Militia" part of the Constitution, and a crazy sympathy has evolved with radical "shall not be infringed" advocates. God help America if we follow trend down the rabbit hole to calamity.