Does anyone know how much the plane's weight decreases during the drop, and how that changes its handling?

(I'm trying to work out how much harder this is than, say, coming in for a landing run.)

The problem is, it's complicated.

First off, is the legacy of historical damage still scarring aboriginal communities in Canada.

Even disregarding that complexity though, current structure of governance in Canada makes the problem harder to identify and resolve.

Singh's return question is what would you do if Toronto faced the same problem? The answer is the federal government would by and large do nothing, because water supply is a municipal responsibility and the Mayor and city council of Toronto are responsible for fixing it, and thus federal funds don't go in and instead municipal tax money is used to keep the water supply going. Across Canada that model is working pretty decently, by and large.

The real question then is why are reserves having a harder time? Well, afore mentioned historical trauma aside, reserves represent small communities directly comparable in size and make up as municipal communities. However, the reserves are NOT managed like municipalities. Instead Canada still has a two tiered system of governance, one for reserves and another for municipalities.

In term so governance municipalities report to the provinces and the provinces report to the federal government. Reserves report directly to the federal government.

The affects everything related to governance and is responsible for a host of confusion and difficulty.

Services: Education and Health are provincially funded, and so the federal government transfer money to the provinces and tells them to figure out education and health services. Municipalities then just get those services. Reserves however sit outside that, and get entirely different intermediaries.

Taxation and funding: municipal, provincial and federal governments all gather taxes and distribute funds up and down. Reserves only deal with funding though directly to the feds, again cutting out the provincial intermediary.

Both of the above mean making an apples to apples comparison of communities to try and ensure both are treated 'equally' is impossible. It also means that solutions that work on one side don't in the other.

It's a big mess, and just throwing money at the system and saying that will fix it is just wrong. Not only that, it's been TRIED and failed. The above mentioned differences also apply to rules surrounding transparency, accountability and fraud prevention. Meaning there are a great many more loopholes available on the reserve funding side for anyone involved or attached to providing services(be that council members on reserve, or any number of external entities hired in good faith to perform services). That in turn means the amount of money lost to direct and indirect corruption is harder to find/stop.

So fix all that is the next obvious response. The problem is still complex though because when does 'fixing' becoming simply white folks making aboriginals do things the 'right(white) way that was already the source of lingering historical damage I didn't even consider yet...

It's a hard problem to solve and Singh's just trying to score cheap political points peddling easy and false answers to a complex problem.

@StukaFox, funnily enough today I was thinking of a joke I used to tell back in the day. I couldn't find just now in a 2 minute search making it less likely you've heard it before, so I'll write out a quick version. It's not the funniest or the dirtiest, but it's fun to tell.

So a guy's looking to kill himself and fortuitously comes across a sign saying 'for an interesting death enquire within.' This being a joke he decides he has to give it a go.

Inside is an absolutely huuuuge naked woman. She first instructs him to put his belt on her. He struggles, but eventually manages. "Now," she says "pull it tighter until I'm thin." With every ounce of strength and leverage he can muster he gets the belt to the last notch. Struggling for breath she says "Now eat my pussy". He's starting to suspect a scam, but he goes for it anyway. "Harder!" she gasps, grinding against him. He pushes back against her as hard as he can. "harder! HARDER!" He's pushing so hard he's struggling to breathe. He suspects she's just trying to smother him with her pussy when he feels her starting to orgasm. He pushes harder still. Her muscles tense and pulse until suddenly the belt can't take it any more - POP! Ssccchhhhlllup! And he was never seen again.

----

Bonus clean joke I saw when I searched for the one above: Don't challenge Death to a pillow fight unless you're prepared to face the reaper cushions.

Neither supports racial supremacy like your ilk, so the leading question is a red herring non sequitur.
I am not an anarchist, not since I turned 16, so I don't support Antifa, but I enjoy watching them make your head spin immensely.
I have always supported equality under the law, so yes, I absolutely support BLM....I would if they murdered a cop every time an unarmed black person was killed by police.

You are delusional.
Do, at some time, most cops act appropriately? Yes. Are you so brain damaged you take much accusations and hear "all cops are all bad all the time"? I've never said that. Pablo Escobar, by all reports, was a quite generous man who helped the poor on many occasions....he was not a good person.
Same for cops.
If you murder one person but do your job well otherwise, you are a murderous thug. If you allow fellow officers to get away with murder but don't participate, you are a murderous thug. If you spend every waking hour tending to the invalid and elderly on your own dime and you only kidnap and rape one child, you are a disgusting child rapist. If you cover for another motherfucker who's a kiddie fucker, you're no fucking better than the motherfucking rapist. That's the norm for American police, cover for the bad ones under any circumstances.

Cops can do good at times, usually when they know they're on multiple cameras, it doesn't ever erase their crimes.

Most, I would say statistically all cops are at best accomplices if not the bad actors. Good policing includes stopping other cops from committing crimes....until BLM pushed the issue, that was absolutely not the case...It might have happen once a decade nation wide, always ending with the whistleblower fired and under threat from police. Now, thanks 100% to BLM, that's slowly changing. Maybe up to .01% of the time...and that's an improvement.

Trump said to hit them harder and more often, cops listened and cheered.

Cops wear cameras. If they followed the law, they could put out ten thousand videos of themselves doing the right thing every day, not one a month, deescalation, not shooting until threatened, stopping other cops from beating handcuffed suspects to death and arresting them, defending the accused shoplifters from the racist store owner's false accusations instead of what we do see, smashing their window and pulling them through it because a racist said they think they stole something, they just don't know what or when. Have you EVER seen one of those? No, but you can see 10 disgusting abuses recorded daily with never another cop intervening, always the entire department forming a blue wall, destroying evidence, publicly pushing lies, testifying to lies, etc. They're a gang, they only protect and serve themselves when the chips are down. This is not a media perception, it's cold hard fact buddy.

Cops went to the supreme court to guarantee their right to lie. They are all professional liars. Liars cannot be trusted. I know, you can't grasp that concept because it would mean questioning daddy Trump, but it's true. When you give people authority, the power of life and death, and the legal right to lie at all times you set up a disastrous situation....it's what we have. Racist liars who kill. No good deed erases that.

Yes, Bob. Cops admit they shoot three citizens to death daily on average, already an abject failure, but hide likely > 95% of the deaths they cause by blaming the victim, claiming suicide by somehow beating themselves to death or claiming they died in a minor wreck that caused no injury after beating them to death. Claiming a cell phone clearly visible that they are talking to 911 on looks like a gun and shooting 47 times, running them over intentionally then stopping 10 ft away but claiming they had to because they feared for their lives, kneeling on their neck for 9 minutes and later saying the people telling them they just killed the man distracted them from knowing they killed the man. Strangling boys for 17 minutes straight while beating their heads with a giant maglight.......Daily. Multiple times daily.

You are such a delusional idiot.

Where you start greatly impacts where you end up.

One party wants to offer 4 more years of public education, and your party is dead set against it.

Yes, there are plenty of poor white people, but far more poor blacks per capita by race.

The fix is multi fold with many unknowns, but an equal justice system where black defendants aren't 10 times more likely to go to prison based on the same evidence and circumstances would be a great start. Many fathers are MIA because they're in prison for minor drug offences while white defendants of similar charges usually get probation.

Pay better attention, the issue now is people don't want those low paying jobs and companies can't fill them, not a lack of them.

Lack of roads and bridges and electricity and an educated work force kill jobs and GDP. There are more than enough infrastructure jobs to do to jot only keep the entire construction industry busy for decades, there are constantly more as infrastructure ages. They may be part time projects, they are full time permanent jobs.

Look at GDP last year, fool. Under those tax cuts we had the largest drop in GDP ever. Holy fuck! The total rise in GDP under Trump is barely 1% in 4 years, disastrous, not flourishing.

Your dad didn't go to prison for fitting the description.

Just like not all those white kids had all those head starts, not all black kids have none. They needed to work harder and overcome more in almost all cases to be successful, and had to defend their right to success repeatedly, just ask one. Sports superstars are under what, 2000 people, not all of which make millions. Exceptions often prove the rule.....Remember his question about going to school on a non athletic scholarship? Relegating people to one or two professions they are allowed to be successful in based on race is definitely racist.

Edit: Studies show professional whites make about 1/3 more than blacks and even more compared to Hispanics even as lawyers, and whites make up over 85% of lawyers and 60% of the population while blacks are about 5% of lawyers and over 18% of population.
https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/a_law_degree_provides_a_larger_earnings_boost_to_whites_than_minorities_res
https://www.mycase.com/blog/aba-2019-report-lawyer-demographics-earnings-tech-choices-and-more/
The head starts never end.

The people working minimum wage hated it enough that they aren't going back and businesses can't find low wage employees....so.....

Wow, we agree on your last point. Your party, and definitely Trump absolutely disagree 100%. Their agenda is to ensure that is never the case but instead (successfully) argue that affluenza should excuse even murder and should definitely shield them from any lesser charge.

Try it. If she takes the kid and bolts, it's legal. Even if you manage to get a court order before she leaves state, chances are you won't get equal custody unless she's a documented certifiable nutjob. I say this because you live in a fault state which are invariably the same states backwards enough to automatically give women custody and force fathers to prove the mother is unstable and dangerous, and even then you'll share with her as primary without documented abuse.

So you've been together 20 years and share nothing. What a way to live.

Shared assets when not married aren't divided by the courts. If you want their help, gotta be married or sign an ownership contract with every purchase.

I can find no instance where I said my brother "won". He got custody, that's different from "winning". Be real. If you're going to quote me, please don't make up the quotes. Spending over $100000 on a two week marriage isn't winning by my definition.

That link is off topic. Find a study of similar jobs with similar hours worked and compare salaries, not a study that says average women work X ammount less so overall earning should be X amount less but instead it's X-1 less, so women are overpaid. That's not what their study showed, they're extrapolating there, and ignoring that the lower hours are usually not their choice, but their superiors orders to avoid paying overtime and full benefits to women. Also, they said Married men managers without kids also earn more for each hour at work: they earn $38.40 per hour while married women without kids earn only $28.70. That means that for each hour spent at their jobs, male married managers without kids earn about 34% more than women. 34% more for each hour. Did you read it? Mic drop.

See, more insulting dismissiveness...those women couldn't possibly be more competent or harder workers, they must be succeeding because of preferential treatment. In case you missed it, that's incredibly misogynistic.

What?! Prove it.....with data not an anecdote.

So....You wouldn't marry a crazy person only because of what divorce would cost. Yeah....right.

" I wouldn't even consider marrying anyone that has any adverse indicators" sounds like personal issues to me, they aren't good enough to marry....because of divorce....Again ignoring the prenup that dictates divorce splits.

Lol. Such utter bullshit. Maybe if they have an impairment and no lawyer, and can prove it in court, not because they say so.

Ashley Maddison.

Wedding rings are aphrodisiacs. It's why I don't wear one, hit on repeatedly wearing it, never once without it. My experience differs from your assumptions and statistics, same with my friends. I'm 5'9", so not tall cute and photogenic....but two out of three ain't bad.

Bob said it, you agreed with him and more.

An uncodified partnership is one of convenience or even imaginary. Nothing to stop either of you walking tomorrow if you meet your new soul mate. That's not a stable partnership. It may be exactly what you want. It seems you made up your mind that marriage=bad for men long ago, in which case you should not partake. I hope your path leads to at least half the happiness mine has.

Newt

"What on earth are you talking about?"
-newt

The rules for property and income when one or both parties decide they no longer want to be in the relationship.




"not having a marriage means you almost certainly will pay for them for 18+ years but won't have many rights to be in their lives"
-newt

Incorrect. If you are on birth certificate, you have the same rights and obligations.
The only pitfalls are that :
- Child support is calculated from the income of the parent with less custody (rather than from the true cost of raising a child).
- Women almost always get custody if the choice is between two parents (like when they live far apart and child can only be at one or the other).



"and may lose your rights to any assets if she grabs first"
-newt

Negative. Co-parenting does not conflate property.

Shared assets when not married are divided either by percentage of purchase price contribution, or by percentage stated in a contract.




"My brother paid well over a hundred thousand dollars for his divorce in Texas"
-newt

"My brother won."
-newt

Won by your own definition. Hence I congratulate.




"You assume women take off time to raise the kids"
-newt

No assumptions. Although afaik they still do it more often.




"You start from a false position that men work both harder and better, but you have no data to back that up. "
-newt

Top result from a zero effort google of "men working hours vs women working hours"

https://towardsdatascience.com/is-the-difference-in-work-hours-the-real-reason-for-the-gender-wage-gap-interactive-infographic-6051dff3a041




"Um...so since you admit many women outearn men and the trend reinforces that"
-newt

I admit that women [as a group] under 35 out earn men under 35 because of preferential admittance (such as to higher education) and preferential hiring (such as to managerial positions).

I did not say that women earn more in the same position for the same hours worked. Young men are simply getting shut out of opportunities, so their incomes are lower. As by design.

It does however highlight how affirmative action is being poorly controlled.
The target statistic is based on overall population at all ages.
The adjustment is skewed to younger ages (school admission is typically for younger people).
So the system is trying to balance out incomes of older men by trimming up incomes of younger women, with no accounting for the effects on younger men or consequences of older men retiring.
The situation is doomed to overshoot with time.

A natural result is the popularity of people like Jordan Peterson, with messages like : "Young men, nobody will help you, stop waiting for someone to help you, stop lamenting your situation, you gotta pull yourself up by your boot straps. Start by cleaning your room, then go make something of yourself".






"Bullshit. You said you would immediately dismiss any woman who has...
"Long dating history? Too much risk[etc]" -scheherazade "
-newt

Straw man argument.

You know I stated that those marriageability criteria exist specifically due to risk of consequences of divorce.

I never stated that I have personal issues with those attributes.
I have dated women on that list. I didn't /marry/ them.

My only criteria for a relationship that I am happy being in is :
- We are mutually attracted
- We like each other
- We are nice to each other
I don't care what your religion is, your politics, your family status, whatever. It's all just noise to me.





" And again, prenuptial. Do you not know what they are?"
-newt

Prenups can be negated by these simple words :

"I did not understand what I was signing"
or
"My lawyer was not present".

Poof. Prenup thrown out.




"their husbands are more likely to break their vows first"
-newt

A woman to cheat needs a willing man (easy)
A man to cheat needs a willing woman (hard)

Times have changed. Online dating made chatting someone up in person and make an impression uncommon, and even considered creepy/unusual. Now people are picked on their online profile based on looks/height/social-media-game.

Dating apps and sites publish their statistics. Nowadays, around 20% of men match with around 80% of women.
Most men aren't having sex. Most men can't find a match to cheat with if they wanted to.

The tall cute photogenic guys are cleaning up.
The 20% of men that match the bulk of women are going through women like a mill. They will smash whatever bored housewife crosses their path.

A 2 second google result :
https://usustatesman.com/economics-of-dating-2-the-brutal-reality-of-dating-apps/




"Women don't like men that believe wholeheartedly that all women are just lessers, leeches"
-newt

Agreed.

Fortunately, I never say that about women.






" you can't grasp that a codified, delineated, agreed to partnership is almost always better, more fulfilling, and has many benefits cohabitation lacks"
-newt

False equivalence.

Cohabitation and Partnership are mutually independent.
Meaning both can exist at the same time.


-scheherazade

What on earth are you talking about?
Do you believe the government dictates your vows? What "rules"? You just cannot grasp the concept of no fault divorce or prenuptial, can you?

I guess you never planned on kids or shared assets. If you do, not having a marriage means you almost certainly will pay for them for 18+ years but won't have many rights to be in their lives, and may lose your rights to any assets if she grabs first. Uncle Sam is in your relationship, married or not....without a marriage contract, he makes ALL the rules and you have no say.

My brother paid well over a hundred thousand dollars for his divorce in Texas that in my state would have cost under $10K and you congratulate him? You are one strange person.

Again, your perception, not based in fact since the 60's. You assume women take off time to raise the kids and take care of parents and assume fathers don't take paternity leave or have obligations outside work. How 50's. You start from a false position that men work both harder and better, but you have no data to back that up. It certainly hasn't been my experience, I've seen women in the workplace working harder and longer for less pay, sacrificing just like their male counterparts if not more, putting off having families until it's too late while men can have kids long after normal retirement age, putting themselves in dangerous situations where those with power over them have opportunities to abuse that power and abuse those women in ways that rarely happen to men. These aren't exceptions, they're the norm.

Um...so since you admit many women outearn men and the trend reinforces that, meaning soon women in most catagories will out earn men and have more to lose, you admit you're wrong in your position now, right? Of course not, I expect you will still start from a point that hasn't been correct since the era and sexual revolution, early 70's at latest.

No, many of the studies I've seen compared people in the same exact positions in the same industries, even same companies, and women consistently get paid less for the exact same job and hours, and women rarely work less today, and just as often out work their male counterparts knowing they are often token hires not valued by the bosses so have less job security. If I recall correctly, 80% of job losses due to Covid were women, and the men are getting rehired faster. I think you are thinking of some studies from the 80's that made those assumptions and accusations. Comparing apples to apples, women still get shortchanged and as often as not overworked.

Bullshit. You said you would immediately dismiss any woman who has...
"Long dating history? Too much risk
Tends to have short relationships? Too much risk
Likes attention? Too much risk
Single mother (non-widow)? Too much risk
Any mental issues (depression, bipolar, narcissist, anxiety, etc)? Too much risk
Older (why you still single...)? Too much risk
Likes to party? Too much risk
Drinks? Too much risk"

And again, prenuptial. Do you not know what they are? Specify what you expect and agree, and you walk with exactly what you agreed to, no government rules or split involved. Geez. You speak as if you had never heard of them.

Most divorces may be initiated by the woman (if that's true, I expect it's just another assumption) because their husbands are more likely to break their vows first, but are not willing to pay to end the marriage, including penalties for breaking the marriage contract, and we're too dumb to get a prenuptial (or got one that spells out harsh penalties for cheating). Yes, I am assuming men cheat on their spouses more often than the reverse, because men are wired that way.

You are not more likely than not to face a divorce, because it's unlikely any woman meeting your criteria would give you a second thought, and you need to get married to get divorced.

I bet if you show your significant other this thread your 20 year relationship will be in big trouble, or at best enter a long dry dark spell. Women don't like men that believe wholeheartedly that all women are just lessers, leeches that take more than they deserve or even could give back and destroy you whenever they think it serves them. It's probably a good thing you aren't married.

Laws and family court aren't as you describe. Maybe when you enter the 21st century you'll recognize that. The rules of your marriage can be whatever you agree to, including the specifics of the split if it ends.

It's a sad thing you can't grasp that a codified, delineated, agreed to partnership is almost always better, more fulfilling, and has many benefits cohabitation lacks.....almost always unless one or both of you are total douchebags.

You are projecting.

Marriage takes the honesty away from a relationship.
It's no longer me and you.
It's me and you and uncle sam.
I want *consensual* relations where me and my partner set our rules, not some 3rd party, and not when the rules are stacked against me.

Congratulations to your brother. Lucky him.

I never said women don't work.

I said that men make more personal sacrifices for their work - a true statement about men as a group. Exceptions don't alter the rule.

Yes, women under 35 out earn men now. And as legacy earners retire, we will be facing a situation where women out earn men at any age. Preferential admittance and hiring tend to have that effect. It's by design.

And women don't get paid less for the same work - the studies saying that don't account for hours worked and don't provide any breakdown of job title. E.g. Women doctors get paid less - because the type of doctor they choose to be is more likely to be a pediatrician than a heart surgeon or anesthesiologist. But within each category of doctor, per hour worked, and per year experience, their income is essentially identical.

And you don't need to be a home maker to get paid in a divorce. Just make less than your partner.
Historically the divorce rewards scale higher for women given mirror situations.

Why would I want to deal with a 50/50 split when I brought 90% of the assets into the marriage? A 50/50 split would set me back decades. I just want to keep my stuff, I did pay for it after all, which cost me money, which cost me time, which cost me life.

And why should /anyone/ have their life supported by anyone else?
(*context=spouses. Not interested in some bad faith out of context argument bringing up children or retirees supported by taxes, etc)
Are you able bodied? Then get working.
Is it tough? Too bad.
It's harder for both people supporting themselves alone, you aren't special. You were in this situation before you got married, you can go back to it.

In any case, the homemaker job argument is senseless. There are benefits (time with kids), and there are pitfalls (hole in your resume). You make your choice, and you deal with the consequences.
You are paid by the home over your head and the money you're given while you are a home maker. What other job do you get to leave and still be paid. People act as if the working partner was just chilling this whole time. Where are the working partner's continuing post divorce benefits?


I have no mindset about women. More projection.
I couldn't care less if I marry a stripper with 2 kids - so long as in the event of a divorce we go our separate ways with ZERO obligations to one another.

I have a mindset about the dangers of divorce, and the fact that most marriages end in divorce, and most divorces are initiated by the female partner.
I am on average more likely than not to face a divorce.
Hence the risk reduction by being more 'picky'.


I am in a nearly 20 year happy relationship - unmarried.
She's the boss of the relationship. And I'm fine with that because I *consent* to it. I can always walk away if I decide otherwise.

So long as laws and family court are how they are, I won't even consider marriage.

-scheherazade

I mean what I said. Trump (and his subordinates at his direction) made up new regulations, New laws, New restrictions, New limits, new procedures, and new rules that combined made it not just harder but often impossible for people who, before Trump under any administration would have been quickly granted asylum in accordance with the law. He also slowed the process for legally applying, limited the number allowed to apply in a way never done before, and created new systems where instead of waiting in the country they had to wait in another country with no services in crime ridden refugee camps if they're lucky, sometimes sent south of Mexico, many instructed to go home and wait, homes they fled under direct and credible threats of death or worse....many after having their children taken.

Trump did not simply "enforce current laws". He changed them, misinterpreted them, ignored them repeatedly and flagrantly, then enforced those he liked. Consistently the intent was to minimize any immigration as much as possible from countries that aren't predominantly white. Not once was the intent to streamline the system so it would improve, every step was designed to slow the process and deny entry to as many people as possible, even those with legitimate life or death reasons for asylum. He even changed those rules to exclude narco terrorism death threats to be a reason for asylum, not because they aren't valid but because there are too many.

When you personally create the "law" you're enforcing by (often illegally) changing the rules and established interpretation of long standing law and policy to make following the law near impossible and often deadly, you don't get credit as if that's being a humanitarian just enforcing the law. Duh.

Edit: BTW Mr law and order, Trump never followed the law in his business dealings nor with his taxes or his loans (hyperexagerated his property values on loan documents, while minimizing their value on tax forms). His best excuse? His claim that he's not a real businessman and didn't even bother to read the loan and tax documents he swore were correct because he had no idea if they were.....His claim that everyone does that, everyone is a tax cheater and bank fraud perpetrator, is asinine.....but exposes him as the criminal fraud we all know he is, not a man who respects the law.

If the cultist’s brains are shit, they will aquit. Look at the monkey.

Edit: Hilarious you choose an exemplar that is widely accepted as a miscarriage of justice based on a bullshit claim like “if it doesn’t fit, you must aquit.”....especially since the glove DID fit...just like the charges fit Trump. OJ stretched his hand so it wouldn’t fit, giving his jury an excuse to aquit when they knew he was guilty. Trumptards stretched their little brains to create out of thin air a trial disqualification where there clearly was none, then used that lie to excuse excusing treason, treason they admit publicly Trump committed. Since McConnel caused the trial delay then claimed the delay invalidated the trial, he’s next. Obstruction of justice is rarely that straight forward.

There were more votes to convict by his own party than in every impeachment trial combined, 7 times as many votes, even in his hyper partisan, excuse anything party. You probably think that indicates he’s the best at being impeached or something just as ridiculous.

More than enough admitted he was guilty, but they ignored the law, actually made up a law, voted on that law and lost, and excused Trump based on it anyway, voted by party to avoid being physically attacked by crazy trumptards because they’re all cowards.

Who’s your president, laughing boy? Who runs the house? Who runs the Senate? HAW HAW.

Trump has dozens of other cases to handle without council now, some criminal with no presidential protections. His troubles are just starting. Send him money, he needs it.

HA HA....dozens of civil AND CRIMINAL cases chump boy. No more protection from cultist senators. No money for lawyers. Being forced to sell his failing properties at huge discounts to pay his bills before he defaults on everything. He’s going to be the biggest loser again in 2021, his third year at least being the nation’s biggest loser. Banned from other allied countries, the first time that’s ever happened. Under criminal investigation in multiple other countries, again, a first. Trump is not “winning”, in case you’re confused. His empire of cards is crumbling just like his political clout.

Go make up more excuses and bat shit crazy paranoid fantasies. He needs them as much as he needs your money.

Edit : prepare for more Democratic victories, people are fleeing the Republican party largely because they acquitted Trump based on pure party politics...it's going to be incredibly hard to win an election when 10% leave the party and the rest split into two parties...harder than the election you just lost in a massive landslide of blue.

Oh....and I was wrong, McConnell and other Republicans did instigate the coup to hurt Trump....forget all those facts and logic I handed you and go get em boy.

OMFG...can you even fucking read?
From your article I found on my own.....

...the forces of labor came together with the forces of capital to keep the peace and oppose Trump’s assault on democracy.

The handshake between business and labor was just one component of a vast, cross-partisan campaign to protect the election–an extraordinary shadow effort dedicated not to winning the vote but to ensuring it would be free and fair, credible and uncorrupted. For more than a year, a loosely organized coalition of operatives scrambled to shore up America’s institutions as they came under simultaneous attack from a remorseless pandemic and an autocratically inclined President. Though much of this activity took place on the left, it was separate from the Biden campaign and crossed ideological lines, with crucial contributions by nonpartisan and conservative actors. The scenario the shadow campaigners were desperate to stop was not a Trump victory. It was an election so calamitous that no result could be discerned at all, a failure of the central act of democratic self-governance that has been a hallmark of America since its founding.

Their work touched every aspect of the election. They got states to change voting systems and laws and helped secure hundreds of millions in public and private funding. They fended off voter-suppression lawsuits, recruited armies of poll workers and got millions of people to vote by mail for the first time. They successfully pressured social media companies to take a harder line against disinformation and used data-driven strategies to fight viral smears. They executed national public-awareness campaigns that helped Americans understand how the vote count would unfold over days or weeks, preventing Trump’s conspiracy theories and false claims of victory from getting more traction. After Election Day, they monitored every pressure point to ensure that Trump could not overturn the result. “The untold story of the election is the thousands of people of both parties who accomplished the triumph of American democracy at its very foundation,” says Norm Eisen, a prominent lawyer and former Obama Administration official who recruited Republicans and Democrats to the board of the Voter Protection Program.

For Trump and his allies were running their own campaign to spoil the election. The President spent months insisting that mail ballots were a Democratic plot and the election would be “rigged.” His henchmen at the state level sought to block their use, while his lawyers brought dozens of spurious suits to make it more difficult to vote–an intensification of the GOP’s legacy of suppressive tactics. Before the election, Trump plotted to block a legitimate vote count. And he spent the months following Nov. 3 trying to steal the election he’d lost–with lawsuits and conspiracy theories, pressure on state and local officials, and finally summoning his army of supporters to the Jan. 6 rally that ended in deadly violence at the Capitol.

You call that defrauding America? You are absolutely totally bat shit crazy, it describes a bipartisan effort defending democracy from Trump's baseless partisan attacks on it, on voting, and on truth....claiming if he doesn't win, it's rigged, if he wins, it's perfect. No where did anyone even imply voting machines defrauded anyone, it clearly states the obvious opposite, that they not only didn't have any serious issues, but also a physical paper backup that, in multiple recounts, still matched the results the machines gave.

You are such a non stop and just dumb liar. No doubt it effects your family life horribly.

I hear an excuse for his lawlessness....an excuse I’m absolutely certain he would not accept from people far more desperate than himself, a business owner with a very expensive new truck, if they interfered with his business or travels, but that he would use to excuse any law breaking he wants to do himself.
Everybody’s got it hard these days, he’s trying to make it harder on those responsible for keeping us safe(er).

I find it the height of irony that the same person who, when innocent unarmed people are killed says they should have complied with the law, here supports this guy breaking multiple laws and arguing with police, not complying, because he was going to be stopped from breaking the law.

work smarter, not harder

Yes. You get shorter in your old age and sometimes you have to work a little harder to get things done.