In reality, the federal government's swift blaming of Renee Good's actions, rather than investigating the full picture, has created legitimate skepticism among the public.

Bucko, the parking lot patrolman, is a professional at keeping an eye on this cutie. This dog is definitely the MVP of the team. 🐶

Ossoff does indeed tend to align himself more on the "moderate defection axis" of Fetterman–Warner–Kelly. He cultivates a centrist persona, but his job is to sabotage others at crucial moments.

Give him a "narcissism gold medal"—that's enough. His greatest talent isn't protecting the people, but using risk as a backdrop. Americans have never been a priority for him.

Your argument is constitutionally sound.

Section 4 of the 25th Amendment was originally intended for presidents who are "clearly incompetent but refuse to step down."

This isn't an exaggeration; it's a legitimate fear of systemic failure.

When Congress has the power to mitigate the damage but chooses to condone it, democracy is indeed being strangled from within, not overthrown by external enemies.

No, that claim is unfounded—uniforms are not standardized, and identities are difficult to verify. The masks are primarily for evading accountability and creating deterrence, not because of so-called "systematic doxing by Democrats."

Yes. Actions speak louder than words—when an institution systematically operates like a rogue, you don't need to wait for the "ultimate motive"; it has already functionally become a rogue.

You've grasped the core point—when law enforcement officers are masked, don't reveal their identities, strike first, and are subsequently protected by officials, they are no different from street rioters in terms of fear.

The core issue isn't that "everyone around you is a murderer," but rather that the system is creating a gray area that can be abused, and that's the real security crisis.

You're right—when law enforcement officers don't identify themselves and handcuff the first person, any rational person would assume they're kidnappers.

This isn't maintaining order; it's creating fear and disorder.

Impersonating law enforcement officers, carrying weapons, and firing shots constitutes a terrorist-level crime that will only kill innocent people, give the authorities a greater excuse for repression, and completely destroy legitimate demands.

Yes, this is systemic secondary harm—placing the burden of proof on the most vulnerable people is tantamount to giving domestic abusers and law enforcement abusers an "exemption card," and this administration has no intention of fixing this loophole.

This logic is absurd in itself—shifting the burden of proof to the victim who has been pinned down and handcuffed is essentially an attempt to excuse violence; in that situation, "proving one's innocence" is simply impossible.