I've known of him longer than that; however you write uncritically, very much like a fan of his. In what way, exactly, are you not?
That's a confusing sentence - it reads that you know better than most presidents who he is. But never mind.
<snip>
Instantly? That is simply contrary to fact. First, "the Courts" don't act on their own; there would have to be a legal basis for "the Courts" to even consider hearing it - someone with standing would have to sue. Then there would probably be appeals from the Executive side. It would be months if now years to overturn. A divided Congress is unlikely to "instantly" do anything.
Huh? That's a bit vague...
Of course those "peace accords" were instituted by the previous president and the one before him (then ratified by Congress), but saying that the other nations did nothing is, again, contrary to fact. Which nation are you saying was preparing for war? It was not Iran is that is what you're implying - it had complied with the terms of the deal; Donald unilaterally violated it.
That's a half truth at best. Democrats, contrary to all the claims that they support "open borders" have usually called for a secure border, with fencing as appropriate which is not the same as a "big, beautiful wall" going coast to coast. I find it hard to believe that you are unaware of this.
Clinton and Obama both wanted to modify our agreement with China because both seen that it was being abused by China...but they did nothing. Bush certainly didn't do anything with it.
That is, again, not true unless you are talking about career civil service people who aren't on anyone's team - they work for the government. Donald is forbidden by law from dismissing such employees on a partisan basis. That has not stopped him from trying by putting ill-qualified people in charge of them and sidelining those who don't pass the loyalty test.
Unfortunately, to disagree with Donald is to cross him. Remember poor Jeff Sessions who rightfully recused himself from involvement with the Russian investigation because that would mean investigating himself? Donald never forgave him for upholding the law.
Which leads to the question: why are you okay with this appointee with a
conflict of interest (millions of dollars investment in a Post Office competitor) dismantling and crippling the Post Office in the run up to the election?
Why? Simply because you are against our form of government?
He is playing the role of a corrupt, tinpot dictator; sadly, he is doing it well.
