Well, it happened. I know there's another topic up at the moment about his proposal to declare a national emergency, but I feel like this is enough of an event to warrant another topic....
Exemplary
Well, it happened.
I know there's another topic up at the moment about his proposal to declare a national emergency, but I feel like this is enough of an event to warrant another topic. Additionally, it is another news source, which I find gives a good rundown of what's to happen under this emergency, specifically where the funds come from:
The balance of the funds include:
$600 million from the Treasury drug forfeiture fund.
Some $2.5 billion from counter drug activities with the Department of Defense, and some reprogramming from other Pentagon accounts.
Some $3.6 billion in military construction funds.
No disaster money will be used as part of this plan.
I will say that I'm incredibly glad we aren't dipping into any sort of disaster funds for this. Of course, this is an incredibly inappropriate action which is completely undermining Congress, and with it, the Constitution and this should never be encouraged.
I find it incredibly interesting that the president said this:
"I didn't need to do this," Trump said in response to a reporter's question about the emergency declaration. "I just want to get it done faster, that's all."
He's completely lost in his own overinflated ego at this point-- he believes that he'll win all the court challenges that will be thrown in his way. Notice that I'm saying 'he' here–it appears that most of the GOP is opposed to this.
Yes, Koan, this is the plan. After "a rather articulate gentleman" got two terms in the White House, got all the gays married, blew all our Paychecks on doctor visits, and invited Hillary Clinton,...
What does he really expect to come from this? Is it just a ploy? When it's denied, will he be able to concoct some ruse to his blind followers that the "Democrats did this" or "Derp State is shutting me down?"
Yes, Koan, this is the plan. After "a rather articulate gentleman" got two terms in the White House, got all the gays married, blew all our Paychecks on doctor visits, and invited Hillary Clinton, literal Satan, to return to the office once again and put another two terms under her belt, the Republicans will put up with anybody who can fill out the Supreme Court and promise that the future of indignities will not come to pass, and if that means chasing down wall projects, and a couple of bad apples in the cabinet, no big. They saved the future and can rationalize anything else that comes of it.
Unfortunately, this seems to be another classic case of "perception is reality" as @koan previously mentioned. While you or I see Trump's actions as clearly insane and morally reprehensible,...
Unfortunately, this seems to be another classic case of "perception is reality" as @koan previously mentioned.
While you or I see Trump's actions as clearly insane and morally reprehensible, that's ultimately the lens through which Trump's base saw the 8 years of Obama's presidency. That, to them was just as nightmarish as we see the current situation.
The question is, how can a country who's citizens are divided almost evenly in two totally opposing realities ever come together and cooperate?
I'm an outsider looking in, but the great difficulty I have here is that by basically all of the objective measures I can find, the modern Republican party does not appear to act in the interests...
While you or I see Trump's actions as clearly insane and morally reprehensible, that's ultimately the lens through which Trump's base saw the 8 years of Obama's presidency. That, to them was just as nightmarish as we see the current situation.
I'm an outsider looking in, but the great difficulty I have here is that by basically all of the objective measures I can find, the modern Republican party does not appear to act in the interests of the vast majority of Americans.
Although I don't directly support either US political party, it would be fair to say I lean more left than right, and so I worry that I am also guilty of being blinded by bias. But then I look at the professed goals and morals of conservatism (which I understand but disagree with) and see very little reflection of them in the Republican party's actions. I hope I'm being rational in that observation, but I don't know how much I can trust myself.
I guess what I'm really saying is I don't want to be a contributor to that division, but my attempts to be objective and read up on the subject all suggest that one party is, for want of a better word, worse than the other. That's not conducive to bridging any gaps - either I'm just wrong, in which case my earnest attempt to inform myself has failed, or I'm right, in which case I don't have the faintest idea what to do about it.
I think all we can really do is be very conscious of what we personally choose to signal boost towards our differently politically aligned peers. We saw the failure to do this a lot in the 2016...
Exemplary
I think all we can really do is be very conscious of what we personally choose to signal boost towards our differently politically aligned peers.
We saw the failure to do this a lot in the 2016 election, the majority of the messages related to the "grab em by the pussy" tape were talking about sexual assault, consent and rape. Which in an undivided world where everyone's on the side of improving inter-gender social norms would be great.
Sadly we're not in an undivided world and whilst I agree Trump has probably sexually assaulted people that tape was not unarguable evidence that he's a rapist. Trying to inflate evidence of wrong doing into a more serious claim makes you very easy to dismiss. It also makes it easy to suggest that you're just a partisan lobbying for an increase in your in-groups power.
I think a much better message would've been how terrible that tape showed Trumps moral character to be. At the time he had a pregnant wife at home! And he's off boasting about hitting on some woman and how he regularly does this and "gets away with it" because he's rich and famous?! What an absolute asshole, if he treats his wife like this how will he treat his constituents?
Similarly with the "Mexico's sending its rapists" quote. I agree it's an awful thing for a candidate to say, but your slightly racist uncle probably doesn't. The left making such a vast deal about this quote and making out it's proof Trump is irredeemable can only be divisive when the gist of the argument is probably believed by a great number of Americans.
It's not like there aren't plenty of genuinely awful policy moves which Trump and Republicans could be hung with, tax breaks for the rich, attacks on Obama care, the government shutdowns... But since we all know that Republicans are going to do these things it generates far less outrage, fewer facebook arguments and thus fewer clicks.
I'm sorry to say, Greg, that you're right. And I don't have the faintest idea what to do about it either. I don't think anyone does. And that's what terrifies me.
I'm sorry to say, Greg, that you're right. And I don't have the faintest idea what to do about it either. I don't think anyone does.
It is similar to the issue the UK is facing at the moment with brexit. Things are so divided and I can't see any way of the country coming together. At least we mostly only screw ourselves, where...
It is similar to the issue the UK is facing at the moment with brexit. Things are so divided and I can't see any way of the country coming together.
At least we mostly only screw ourselves, where as what goes on in America genuinely matters to the world...
Things look promising in 10 years or so though with the new wave of young democratic congresswomen coming through. Hopefully progressive changes are on the way.
Don't minimize your country's problems. Believe it or not, a lot of Americans like me are worried about you guys too, and can sympathize, because we also know how it feels to be powerless to steer...
Don't minimize your country's problems. Believe it or not, a lot of Americans like me are worried about you guys too, and can sympathize, because we also know how it feels to be powerless to steer your country in a better direction. I really hope you guys can recover from the Brexit mess just like I hope we can recover from the Trumpocalypse.
For what it's worth, no matter how hard things are right now, know that the UK will always be an ally in the hearts of true Americans.
While I'm clearly a very left-leaning person politically, I really do not consider myself a Democract, or anything really. That's just what my voter registration card says because if I were to...
While I'm clearly a very left-leaning person politically, I really do not consider myself a Democract, or anything really. That's just what my voter registration card says because if I were to vote outside of the Democratic party for an independent that actually lines up with all my personal views.
It's nauseating that if I were to make an honest, informed choice, I'd effectively be throwing away my vote and giving the "opposition" a better chance to make my life harder. And I still don't even like a lot of what the Democratic party does, but they are the only ones who work remotely in the interest of the common good for the average American citizen.
I want to see the two party system die... but I shudder to think what that would like like in a country so blindly divided.
I actually think this is a workable strategy in a number of situations. I've been advocating the UK government announce, with much fanfare, "we have left the EU" while not actually doing so for...
He'd probably be better off just telling his true believers that "yep, it's already happening--it's almost done, actually!"
I actually think this is a workable strategy in a number of situations. I've been advocating the UK government announce, with much fanfare, "we have left the EU" while not actually doing so for some time now.
Fake news got us into this mess, fake news can get us out.
I don't know if he believes this. He surely hopes it, but if the courts smack him down, it will just present him the opportunity to turn around and claim that due process and the rule of law -...
he believes that he'll win all the court challenges that will be thrown in his way.
I don't know if he believes this. He surely hopes it, but if the courts smack him down, it will just present him the opportunity to turn around and claim that due process and the rule of law - once again - are standing in his path to victory. He will deride the "corrupt, liberal, so-called judges" and use it to justify taking unilateral actions which consolidate even more power into the executive branch.
That is, if he doesn't cut straight to pulling an Andrew Jackson.
Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten quoted him as having said "We will have a defeat and another defeat and finally it will end up in the Supreme Court. There we will hopefully win, like we did with...
Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten quoted him as having said "We will have a defeat and another defeat and finally it will end up in the Supreme Court. There we will hopefully win, like we did with the travel ban." (I couldn't find the original quote, so that's translated by them to Norwegian and by me back to English.)
That is, if he doesn't cut straight to pulling an Andrew Jackson.
In response to the Supreme Court's decision to uphold native american tribal sovereignty in Worcester v. Georgia, Jackson infamously stated: He basically created a constitutional crisis by...
In response to the Supreme Court's decision to uphold native american tribal sovereignty in Worcester v. Georgia, Jackson infamously stated:
John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!
He basically created a constitutional crisis by ignoring the verdict and daring the judicial branch to stop him. Jackson ultimately continued to remove the Cherokee nation from their lands in what is now called the Trail of Tears.
That means ignoring the court's decision and carrying on with what you were doing anyway. Comes from when the Cherokee sued the government to halt the ethnic cleansing in the southeast, the SCOTUS...
That means ignoring the court's decision and carrying on with what you were doing anyway. Comes from when the Cherokee sued the government to halt the ethnic cleansing in the southeast, the SCOTUS ruled in their favor, and Jackson ignored the decision and he and his supporters carried out the trail of tears.
How popular was that decision? Were average citizens, at the time, OK with removing the Cherokee? I ask because the wall isn't popular. Even if Trump decided to ignore a possible slap-down by the...
How popular was that decision? Were average citizens, at the time, OK with removing the Cherokee?
I ask because the wall isn't popular. Even if Trump decided to ignore a possible slap-down by the courts, he'd still have to contend with an angry populace that's probably willing to take action. Toss in eminent domain fights (perhaps literal), and there's no way it's getting built.
It’s a bold strategy, Cotton, let’s see if it pays off for ‘em What interested me the most about this is how Pelosi and others have immediately gone on record as saying it creates a precedent that...
It’s a bold strategy, Cotton, let’s see if it pays off for ‘em
What interested me the most about this is how Pelosi and others have immediately gone on record as saying it creates a precedent that a Democratic President could use to get something done they wanted like better gun control.
The GOP even acknowledging this makes it clear it’s not something any of them want.
Trump is simply too sunk into his own ego and fantasies to realize how poor of a play this is.
Save ego play for 500 alec. I'm guessing he really didn't think it through once he got the idea from that one reporter. This sets a precedent that the repubs won't be able to deny if it doesn't...
Save ego play for 500 alec.
I'm guessing he really didn't think it through once he got the idea from that one reporter. This sets a precedent that the repubs won't be able to deny if it doesn't get struck down in the house/senate or courts. It is probably going to be in legal limbo for years until a dem president is in office and just eliminates it.
The precedent though implies any president can do anything without congress.
i dunno, the courts have been pretty quick to sort out most of the policy positions of this administration that have been challenged in court so far. i'd bet on it being sorted out in a year or...
It is probably going to be in legal limbo for years until a dem president is in office and just eliminates it.
i dunno, the courts have been pretty quick to sort out most of the policy positions of this administration that have been challenged in court so far. i'd bet on it being sorted out in a year or less, given how straightforward of an issue it seems to be and how the president has completely blown up any sort of reasonable defense for the policy.
Honestly, the biggest thing that gets me is about how the President declares that we are being victimized by all of these drugs coming in to our nations. Which I find hilarious because the only...
Honestly, the biggest thing that gets me is about how the President declares that we are being victimized by all of these drugs coming in to our nations. Which I find hilarious because the only reason why drugs would be entering this country is because people are willing and able to pay for them, which is simple economics. This isn't the Mexican drug problem, this is the American drug problem. Making it harder and more expensive for people to do the thing they were already going to do does nothing but make things worse for those people and the ones around them. Violence and crime are tied to it as desperate drug users will do anything to get more of the drugs, or the people who sell these drugs will fight other people for a greater share of the market. In my eyes, why don't we try to attack the root causes of why people do drugs in the first place or give more resources to try to help those who are addicted then to go through this wall debacle.
I think the most incredible part of this story is how this isn't being considered treason. The president is sworn to protect the interests of the United States. If this move isn't against those...
I think the most incredible part of this story is how this isn't being considered treason. The president is sworn to protect the interests of the United States. If this move isn't against those interests, I don't know what could be.
If there was any doubt that Trump is a fascist, this should have cleared that up.
presumably to call them and tell them to support a joint resolution from congress to end the national emergency, since that's something congress can do.
presumably to call them and tell them to support a joint resolution from congress to end the national emergency, since that's something congress can do.
Basically @alyaza got it right...I called them and encouraged them to support whatever measures are taken to stop the emergency declaration from taking effect.
Basically @alyaza got it right...I called them and encouraged them to support whatever measures are taken to stop the emergency declaration from taking effect.
God this is such bullshit and I can't wait to see it challenged in court. Trump declares a national emergency 2 years after he pledged to build a wall, congress denied his request for wall...
God this is such bullshit and I can't wait to see it challenged in court. Trump declares a national emergency 2 years after he pledged to build a wall, congress denied his request for wall funding, and all the other shit that Trump tried to do and got shot down for, but suddenly NOW there's a national emergency worthy of redirecting billions in military spending for? Gimme a fuckin break.
How long will it take to build this fence of his? Less than two years? It better had if he wants it finished because the likelihood of him getting in for a second term is unlikely, and I know...
How long will it take to build this fence of his? Less than two years? It better had if he wants it finished because the likelihood of him getting in for a second term is unlikely, and I know people said that about him getting in for the first term, but really he won't get in again based on popularity statistics. So who's going to finish off his wall? It'll be a year before they put the first section up. He won't complete a fence across the (almost) entire width of the USA in 12 months.
It really is astounding how much he can seemingly get away with and how little some groups care. I'm really hoping for society to move away from the polarizing extremes and move back into the...
It really is astounding how much he can seemingly get away with and how little some groups care. I'm really hoping for society to move away from the polarizing extremes and move back into the middle, but I'm not sure if it is going to happen fast enough. if at all.
People on the extreme polar ends of the political spectrum cannot be swayed by facts. They are driven by their feelings. The anger they get when they hear about politics is comforting to them. You...
People on the extreme polar ends of the political spectrum cannot be swayed by facts. They are driven by their feelings. The anger they get when they hear about politics is comforting to them. You can tell them about one fact and it may seem to get it for a time, but if they ever hear a talking point counter to that fact they will instantly choose to believe the talking point.
Case in point, I have a co-worker who believes that everyone on the left wants completely open borders. There is absolutely nothing I can tell him to make him believe otherwise. He has purposely blocked himself away from anyone with oppinions counter to his specifically so he can keep believing in his world view. It may make him angry all the time, but that anger is comforting to him.
there was yesterday, it's just been knocked off by the news cycle since there's really only so many stories you can run about the same thing, and this idea was telegraphed well in advance even if...
there was yesterday, it's just been knocked off by the news cycle since there's really only so many stories you can run about the same thing, and this idea was telegraphed well in advance even if the actual way the declaration played out was not.
Well, it happened.
I know there's another topic up at the moment about his proposal to declare a national emergency, but I feel like this is enough of an event to warrant another topic. Additionally, it is another news source, which I find gives a good rundown of what's to happen under this emergency, specifically where the funds come from:
I will say that I'm incredibly glad we aren't dipping into any sort of disaster funds for this. Of course, this is an incredibly inappropriate action which is completely undermining Congress, and with it, the Constitution and this should never be encouraged.
I find it incredibly interesting that the president said this:
He's completely lost in his own overinflated ego at this point-- he believes that he'll win all the court challenges that will be thrown in his way. Notice that I'm saying 'he' here–it appears that most of the GOP is opposed to this.
I'm interested to see how this plays out.
Yes, Koan, this is the plan. After "a rather articulate gentleman" got two terms in the White House, got all the gays married, blew all our Paychecks on doctor visits, and invited Hillary Clinton, literal Satan, to return to the office once again and put another two terms under her belt, the Republicans will put up with anybody who can fill out the Supreme Court and promise that the future of indignities will not come to pass, and if that means chasing down wall projects, and a couple of bad apples in the cabinet, no big. They saved the future and can rationalize anything else that comes of it.
Unfortunately, this seems to be another classic case of "perception is reality" as @koan previously mentioned.
While you or I see Trump's actions as clearly insane and morally reprehensible, that's ultimately the lens through which Trump's base saw the 8 years of Obama's presidency. That, to them was just as nightmarish as we see the current situation.
The question is, how can a country who's citizens are divided almost evenly in two totally opposing realities ever come together and cooperate?
I'm an outsider looking in, but the great difficulty I have here is that by basically all of the objective measures I can find, the modern Republican party does not appear to act in the interests of the vast majority of Americans.
Although I don't directly support either US political party, it would be fair to say I lean more left than right, and so I worry that I am also guilty of being blinded by bias. But then I look at the professed goals and morals of conservatism (which I understand but disagree with) and see very little reflection of them in the Republican party's actions. I hope I'm being rational in that observation, but I don't know how much I can trust myself.
I guess what I'm really saying is I don't want to be a contributor to that division, but my attempts to be objective and read up on the subject all suggest that one party is, for want of a better word, worse than the other. That's not conducive to bridging any gaps - either I'm just wrong, in which case my earnest attempt to inform myself has failed, or I'm right, in which case I don't have the faintest idea what to do about it.
I think all we can really do is be very conscious of what we personally choose to signal boost towards our differently politically aligned peers.
We saw the failure to do this a lot in the 2016 election, the majority of the messages related to the "grab em by the pussy" tape were talking about sexual assault, consent and rape. Which in an undivided world where everyone's on the side of improving inter-gender social norms would be great.
Sadly we're not in an undivided world and whilst I agree Trump has probably sexually assaulted people that tape was not unarguable evidence that he's a rapist. Trying to inflate evidence of wrong doing into a more serious claim makes you very easy to dismiss. It also makes it easy to suggest that you're just a partisan lobbying for an increase in your in-groups power.
I think a much better message would've been how terrible that tape showed Trumps moral character to be. At the time he had a pregnant wife at home! And he's off boasting about hitting on some woman and how he regularly does this and "gets away with it" because he's rich and famous?! What an absolute asshole, if he treats his wife like this how will he treat his constituents?
Similarly with the "Mexico's sending its rapists" quote. I agree it's an awful thing for a candidate to say, but your slightly racist uncle probably doesn't. The left making such a vast deal about this quote and making out it's proof Trump is irredeemable can only be divisive when the gist of the argument is probably believed by a great number of Americans.
It's not like there aren't plenty of genuinely awful policy moves which Trump and Republicans could be hung with, tax breaks for the rich, attacks on Obama care, the government shutdowns... But since we all know that Republicans are going to do these things it generates far less outrage, fewer facebook arguments and thus fewer clicks.
I'm sorry to say, Greg, that you're right. And I don't have the faintest idea what to do about it either. I don't think anyone does.
And that's what terrifies me.
It is similar to the issue the UK is facing at the moment with brexit. Things are so divided and I can't see any way of the country coming together.
At least we mostly only screw ourselves, where as what goes on in America genuinely matters to the world...
Things look promising in 10 years or so though with the new wave of young democratic congresswomen coming through. Hopefully progressive changes are on the way.
Don't minimize your country's problems. Believe it or not, a lot of Americans like me are worried about you guys too, and can sympathize, because we also know how it feels to be powerless to steer your country in a better direction. I really hope you guys can recover from the Brexit mess just like I hope we can recover from the Trumpocalypse.
For what it's worth, no matter how hard things are right now, know that the UK will always be an ally in the hearts of true Americans.
While I'm clearly a very left-leaning person politically, I really do not consider myself a Democract, or anything really. That's just what my voter registration card says because if I were to vote outside of the Democratic party for an independent that actually lines up with all my personal views.
It's nauseating that if I were to make an honest, informed choice, I'd effectively be throwing away my vote and giving the "opposition" a better chance to make my life harder. And I still don't even like a lot of what the Democratic party does, but they are the only ones who work remotely in the interest of the common good for the average American citizen.
I want to see the two party system die... but I shudder to think what that would like like in a country so blindly divided.
I actually think this is a workable strategy in a number of situations. I've been advocating the UK government announce, with much fanfare, "we have left the EU" while not actually doing so for some time now.
Fake news got us into this mess, fake news can get us out.
Fight ignorance with ignorance. I love it.
I don't know if he believes this. He surely hopes it, but if the courts smack him down, it will just present him the opportunity to turn around and claim that due process and the rule of law - once again - are standing in his path to victory. He will deride the "corrupt, liberal, so-called judges" and use it to justify taking unilateral actions which consolidate even more power into the executive branch.
That is, if he doesn't cut straight to pulling an Andrew Jackson.
Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten quoted him as having said "We will have a defeat and another defeat and finally it will end up in the Supreme Court. There we will hopefully win, like we did with the travel ban." (I couldn't find the original quote, so that's translated by them to Norwegian and by me back to English.)
What does that mean?
In response to the Supreme Court's decision to uphold native american tribal sovereignty in Worcester v. Georgia, Jackson infamously stated:
He basically created a constitutional crisis by ignoring the verdict and daring the judicial branch to stop him. Jackson ultimately continued to remove the Cherokee nation from their lands in what is now called the Trail of Tears.
That means ignoring the court's decision and carrying on with what you were doing anyway. Comes from when the Cherokee sued the government to halt the ethnic cleansing in the southeast, the SCOTUS ruled in their favor, and Jackson ignored the decision and he and his supporters carried out the trail of tears.
How popular was that decision? Were average citizens, at the time, OK with removing the Cherokee?
I ask because the wall isn't popular. Even if Trump decided to ignore a possible slap-down by the courts, he'd still have to contend with an angry populace that's probably willing to take action. Toss in eminent domain fights (perhaps literal), and there's no way it's getting built.
It’s a bold strategy, Cotton, let’s see if it pays off for ‘em
What interested me the most about this is how Pelosi and others have immediately gone on record as saying it creates a precedent that a Democratic President could use to get something done they wanted like better gun control.
The GOP even acknowledging this makes it clear it’s not something any of them want.
Trump is simply too sunk into his own ego and fantasies to realize how poor of a play this is.
Save ego play for 500 alec.
I'm guessing he really didn't think it through once he got the idea from that one reporter. This sets a precedent that the repubs won't be able to deny if it doesn't get struck down in the house/senate or courts. It is probably going to be in legal limbo for years until a dem president is in office and just eliminates it.
The precedent though implies any president can do anything without congress.
i dunno, the courts have been pretty quick to sort out most of the policy positions of this administration that have been challenged in court so far. i'd bet on it being sorted out in a year or less, given how straightforward of an issue it seems to be and how the president has completely blown up any sort of reasonable defense for the policy.
Honestly, the biggest thing that gets me is about how the President declares that we are being victimized by all of these drugs coming in to our nations. Which I find hilarious because the only reason why drugs would be entering this country is because people are willing and able to pay for them, which is simple economics. This isn't the Mexican drug problem, this is the American drug problem. Making it harder and more expensive for people to do the thing they were already going to do does nothing but make things worse for those people and the ones around them. Violence and crime are tied to it as desperate drug users will do anything to get more of the drugs, or the people who sell these drugs will fight other people for a greater share of the market. In my eyes, why don't we try to attack the root causes of why people do drugs in the first place or give more resources to try to help those who are addicted then to go through this wall debacle.
I think the most incredible part of this story is how this isn't being considered treason. The president is sworn to protect the interests of the United States. If this move isn't against those interests, I don't know what could be.
If there was any doubt that Trump is a fascist, this should have cleared that up.
You know, I was going to call my representatives yesterday, but now I definitely need to. I just can't believe the gall of this guy.
Call them and say what?
presumably to call them and tell them to support a joint resolution from congress to end the national emergency, since that's something congress can do.
Okay! I didn't know if there was anything they could actually do
Basically @alyaza got it right...I called them and encouraged them to support whatever measures are taken to stop the emergency declaration from taking effect.
God this is such bullshit and I can't wait to see it challenged in court. Trump declares a national emergency 2 years after he pledged to build a wall, congress denied his request for wall funding, and all the other shit that Trump tried to do and got shot down for, but suddenly NOW there's a national emergency worthy of redirecting billions in military spending for? Gimme a fuckin break.
How long will it take to build this fence of his? Less than two years? It better had if he wants it finished because the likelihood of him getting in for a second term is unlikely, and I know people said that about him getting in for the first term, but really he won't get in again based on popularity statistics. So who's going to finish off his wall? It'll be a year before they put the first section up. He won't complete a fence across the (almost) entire width of the USA in 12 months.
Estimates I read in December said as long as ten years, as many as 10,000 workers, and as much as $50 billion.
It really is astounding how much he can seemingly get away with and how little some groups care. I'm really hoping for society to move away from the polarizing extremes and move back into the middle, but I'm not sure if it is going to happen fast enough. if at all.
People on the extreme polar ends of the political spectrum cannot be swayed by facts. They are driven by their feelings. The anger they get when they hear about politics is comforting to them. You can tell them about one fact and it may seem to get it for a time, but if they ever hear a talking point counter to that fact they will instantly choose to believe the talking point.
Case in point, I have a co-worker who believes that everyone on the left wants completely open borders. There is absolutely nothing I can tell him to make him believe otherwise. He has purposely blocked himself away from anyone with oppinions counter to his specifically so he can keep believing in his world view. It may make him angry all the time, but that anger is comforting to him.
I really hope our checks and balances are upheld, if not this could set a really bad precedent for the future.
there was yesterday, it's just been knocked off by the news cycle since there's really only so many stories you can run about the same thing, and this idea was telegraphed well in advance even if the actual way the declaration played out was not.
Imagine Fox news if Obama did anything like this.