I can say that its clear what she means, and fact checking a claim she isnt making and calling her a liar doesnt make you smart.

Please explain how the two videos are irrelevant to each other. She's claiming Trump was never given a peaceful transition. Trump is then talking about how wonderful the transition was.

People have been pretending trump is a fascist russian nazi since second 1, hes had people constantly leaking and undermining him from inside his administration. Even his campaign was spied on by the previous admin based on documents created by his opponent.

Nobody has been pretending anything. Trump is a fascist. He was asked many times through the campaign if he would honor the results of the election and facilitate a peaceful transition of power. Not once did he say he would. He never intended to. He pushed a narrative about mail in ballots being insecure while voting by mail himself. His VP also voted by mail. He planned from the beginning to undermine the legitimacy of the election, of our democracy. He is extremely nationalistic. If you disagree, you just don't know what the word means. He is very militaristic, wanting to use the military against protesting Americans. He has glorified the use of violence against both immigrants and American citizens. He attempts to portray himself as some magnificent, glorious leader who is the leading expert on any subject that could possibly come up. He preaches about a lost golden age ruined by his enemies (MAGA, drain the swamp). He's a fascist. By definition, he is a fascist. There's really nothing to debate here.

We had 3 years of conspiracy theory about Russian collusion pushed by the press some of whom got pulitzers for lying, and lying democrats like Adam Schiff who claimed to have seen documents that dont exist.

Lots of claims of lying here with no source. The intelligence agencies of basically every ally, and our own intelligence agencies, made it very clear that Trump has ties to Russia. He literally stood on national television and asked a foreign enemy to interfere in the election. Again, no debate to be had here. Saying this is a conspiracy theory is like saying there's a conspiracy to convince us all the Earth is round.

When those failed we impeached him for a phone call attempting to look into obvious impropriety from Joe Biden, evidence of which has only grown since the impeachment.

That's a funny way to spell "solicited foreign interference in an American election."

Even his own military lied to him about troop deployments so he wouldnt pull as many troops out as he wanted.

This is a gray area I suppose, I'll give you that. However, if all of our nations intelligence agencies (and those of our allies) question the loyalty of our commander-in-chief, should our military ignore all Intel briefings and give this compromised person information critical to our national security? The military cannot toss out a traitorous elected official. It isn't their place. Being cautious with the information given to said individual is just good OPSEC.

You can disagree with how ive characterized some of these things, you may even think they are good, but they are all factual and in a real sense there was not a complete peaceful transfer of power.

Regardless of everything you or I have said above, this is still the usual nonsensical rationale we've grown to expect from the Trump administration. "But they did it first!!!" is a pathetic, childish excuse that anyone above the age of 6 knows is not a good reason for bad behavior.

I hope everyone maintains their hatred of the executive over the nexrt four years. Whoever ends up being in charge.

What?