But isn't it obvious that if a presidential candidate promises some legislation, that it is contingent on the legislative branch?

Didn’t pursue codification into law in his first hundred days j

As (again) a non-american, doesn't that require both chambers to support the legislation?

I'm not even american, so I'm not sure what you arw on about right now. All I asked was how Roe v. Wade being repealed was Biden's fault, and the answer apparently is that he did not pack the court.

How genocide fits into Roe v. Wade, or how callling me names somehow helps I'm still unsure of.

Never let it be forgotten that Roe v. Wade was struck down during a Democrat administration

Ok, but what does that have to do with said denocrat administration? What say did they have in the matter? What could they have done to change the outcome?

Being in the government often leads to reduced popularity.

Consider the options:

1. No early election. RN popularity continues to rise, and they take the presidency and parliament in 2027. Result: Complete power for 5 years.
2. Early election. RN wins, and forms a new government. While being the ruling party, they lose in popularity and lose the elections in 2027. Result: limited power for 3 years.

To me it seems quite clear that option 2 is preferable to 1 for Macron.

Why should I provide more sources when you yourself haven’t provided any?

Firstly, if you go back to the beginning of this thread I exactly provide a source that contradicts the original article. So clearly I have provided sources.

Secondly, to paraphrase my mother, "Just because the person you are discussing with is being unproductive, does not mean you have to be". I am trying to understand you, so of course I will try to be productive about it and reach my goal, instead of just being difficult because you are.

You've tried explaining, but without providing any sources at all, except for "look it up yourself".

I'm truly not sure why you think I have memorized some talking points? Is it maybe because I don't want to move on to the next point until after we have properly dealt with the previous one, including e.g. figuring out what sources your claims sre based on (except just "source: The Internet" which is not even acceptible in grade school).

You provide information, but absolutely refuse to tell what source that information is based on.

Could you please provide sn example of where I have moved goal posts?

You are right, it's not your job to educate me. I would, however, hsve thought the purpose of discussing things is to try to convince others you are correct. Generally that is done by e.g. providing facts supported by sources. If all you csn say is "do your own research", then what is the purpose of saying anything at all? If you have no interest in convincing me that I am wrong, why engage at all? I'm genuinly curious. At lest my purpose has been from the start to challenge your viewpoint by trying to understand your arguments by asking clarifying questions, and providing rebuttals bssed on facts (e.g. citing specific articles, referring to specific referendums etc.).

I truly want to understsnd why you think the people of e.g. Donbas would have supported an invssion pre-2014, but when I ask for e.g. what sources you base something on you switch argument.

I believe what facts show me, not what I want.

Yes, you were indeed quite clear. By absolutely refusing to say how elections legitimized the invasion, it is clear elections indeed did not legitimize it. That is why you pivoted to apparently saying that because Ukraine was once part of Russia, the population clearly must want it, even though it was thoroughly rejected already in the 1991 referendum (see how easy it is to mention a specific referenfum).

That in no way answers the question.

You yourself mentioned the elections and thst they legitimize the intervention. I want to know in which way? Is it because the intervention was "requested by an elected government" and thus by definition represents the will of the people, or is it because the result of the election reflects the population's desire for an intervention?

But you mow seem to claim there is some third form how the intervention was legitimized that has nothing at all to do with the elections?

So let's take a step back: is the intervention legitimized by an election, and if so, which one, or is it legitimized by the historical composition of the Soviet Union as you now seem to claim?

Ok, what is the third option then?