Could he? Wizards are apparently able to handle significantly more physical trauma than Muggles and have access to considerably more advanced medicine.

Like, they teach 11 year olds to play sports on flying brooms several stories in the air in which they hit heavy balls at each other very fast. They teach 16 year olds to teleport with the explicit risk that they might mess up and leave part of themself behind (and we don't even ask the question of what happens if there's something physically blocking their target location, such as another person). Somehow, the school doing these things doesn't have multiple fatalities every year which means that getting hit then falling 60 feet to the ground is generally not a death sentence, or even a particularly serious injury.

You shoot Voldemort pre-horcruxes and he's likely going to apparate away, drink a healing concoction of some variety, and try again in a few hours or days unless it's a headshot. You shoot him post-horcrux, and even if it is a headshot that's just a somewhat longer delay. And that presumes a lack of some kind of magical defense that would block a small projectile coming at you very fast.

I mean I’m somewhat interested in how the Wizarding world manages to keep hidden despite all the kids from the muggleworld supposedly having friends and connections and things before Hogwarts.

I imagine the kindest answer to that involves magical law enforcement obliviating and confounding any witnesses, akin to how Gilderoy Lockhart had a career but perpetrated at scale on a large populous of second-class citizens (aka Muggles). Which is horrifying, but any other answer I can think of is somehow worse than wizard cops mind raping anyone who saw anything.

a country built upon colonization, Genocide and slavery

Which country wasn't?

Probably the two most unusual things about the US are that instead of either absorbing and assimilating, killing off, or enslaving the natives we mostly relocated them and that we imported most of our slaves from overseas instead of primarily enslaving the conquered people(s). I mean those, and we're one of the later examples of all of it in history.

I used to argue that whoever was ultimately responsible for safety at a chemical plant should be required to have them and their family live close enough that if shot goes wrong, they'll definitely be among the worst effected.

But then I live within the greater Charleston, WV area, and there's a plant in a town called Institute here that makes and handles MIC, most notoriously known for being made less poisonous for use as pesticide and being the stuff that leaked and caused the Bhopal incident back when.

And this has convinced me I am officially an old. I'm not sure what language about half of that is in and can't even guess at what some of it means from context.

That probably wouldn't be an official act. Instead, he should order Kamala to do it (communicating with the VP is a core duty) and then pardon her when she does (pardons are a core duty). There, everyone is immune and the entire scheme cannot be questioned or referenced for evidence except for impeachment.

and letting children marry.

Most still do so long as the line being drawn is "is there any hypothetical situation in which a 17 year old can legally marry?" Most of those specifically allow older teens (16 or 17 depending on the state) to marry under narrow circumstances, usually requiring any minor have parental consent and/or court approval before allowing it. All states allowed under-18 marriage in some conditions until 2018, and only about a dozen have set a hard 18 limit with no exceptions since then.

With CA being one of the worst offenders in that it has no hard legal minimum age of marriage at all and relies on parents and courts to prevent serious abuse (no minimum but requires approval from one parent or guardian and the court). MA was very similar with no hard minimum at all until recently passing a hard 18 minimum.

Which means if you have the right people in your pocket (a parent or guardian and a judge) you could hypothetically marry someone very underage in CA then cart them off to a state where marriage is an explicit exception to age of consent (such as NM) and engage in legal CSA.

I don't understand what you mean. Even if he believed he had the right to retain the documents, he wasn't willfully improperly keeping the documents or obstructing their retrieval until after he was out of office - you'd basically just have to not charge him regarding any documents he handed over the first time, because after the first time handing over documents he definitely knew better and definitely wasn't in office.

Shooting political rivals probably isn't an official act, but presumably he could ask, she could shoot and he could pardon and I think it would be untouchable?

Good to know.

I do find it amusing that SCOTUS made a ruling that legalizes having them assassinated as an "official act" though. After all, being in contact with intelligence agencies is definitely an official act as is writing pardons, so he can always pardon the assassin(s) afterward.

Cannon may use this to throw out the documents case.

How? The documents case is about stuff he did after he left office. Things he does after he is no longer President definitionally cannot be official acts of his Presidency.

If being in contact with the DOJ and VP is "official duties" and thus immune to prosecution regardless of the content of the contact, then being in contact with the CIA and asking them to "retire" some justices should be as well under more or less exactly the same line of reasoning.

You don't get a choice where you get a progressive instead of Manchin. You get Manchin or a far right Republican. I voted for Manchin, for the same reason I voted for Clinton and Biden - they might suck, but holy shit is the alternative WORSE.

Gore probably would have been a top 10 president. But he couldn’t sell himself to voters just a little more. And if memory recalls, he technically didn’t even have to concede. Like, if he had waited I believe the recounts were actively happening. He didn’t even let it run down to the final vote.

He pushed right up to the deadline. Like, Bush v Gore was decided literally hours before the state deadline to certify the vote.

Imagine having a candidate that got more popular after speaking in public…

We literally haven’t even passed that low of a bar in over a decade. I don’t understand what’s happened to people.

I'd be happy if we just had an administration where no one in the DOJ, State Department or Cabinet quits in disgust. The last time that happened was what, Bush Sr.?

If the President can communicate with the DoJ or VP, even about doing something illegal or as part of some illegal scheme and be immune to prosecution because being in contact with the VP and DoJ are part of his duties, why would talking to the CIA to ask them to "retire" SCOTUS justices not be an official act that's immune to prosecution?

I used to joke back in 2014 that if Milo Yian-whatever, Ben Shapiro and Gavin McInnes just had a biweekly meeting and decided on a hand sign, an image and a word to use heavily in social media for the following month that everything could be made into a dogwhistle within a year.

We really don't do that here, because we skip the rehab part almost entirely because it's bad for the profit margins of private prisons.

You misunderstand the dynamic. Most GOP voters are going to vote and are going to vote for the Republican, regardless of how awful that Republican is. Voting is a civic duty and party above all are kinda core ideas for them.

Dem voters are a lot more flighty in general. Any barrier to voting no matter how small (even having to rise from the couch) impacts Dem voters more than GOP ones.

There are more Dem voters than GOP ones except maybe in very red states. It's about turnout - US voter turnout is God awful and it's worse among Dems than GOP.

That's why the debate was so bad for the Dems, because it's not about whether or not it pulls voters to Trump but about what it does to Dem turnout.