The answers in that stack exchange thread are pretty good but it seems like there's one key point missing. The asker ended his question with this: Democrats can't make a deal because congressional...
The answers in that stack exchange thread are pretty good but it seems like there's one key point missing. The asker ended his question with this:
They could make a deal and get something that would make a real material difference to the electorate, and I don't see why they're going to the mat for this.
Democrats can't make a deal because congressional Republicans don't want the wall either. The Wall isn't an actual bargaining chip. If congressional Republicans give up something the Democrats want for The Wall that's a net loss for congressional Republicans because it means they gave the Democrats something Democrats want in exchange for something Republicans don't want.
Compromise is impossible when neither party at the table actually wants the thing being argued over. Democrats have considerably more leverage here because they can be open about the fact that they don't want The Wall. It's trickier for Republicans because most of them have to pretend to want it. That's why McConnell won't even hold a vote: any bill which includes wall funding is a losing proposition for the GOP.
There's also the consideration that making a deal at this point is legitimising government shutdowns as a negotiating tactic. The notion that the senate majority leader and the president alone can...
There's also the consideration that making a deal at this point is legitimising government shutdowns as a negotiating tactic. The notion that the senate majority leader and the president alone can take the livelihoods of a million people hostage whenever they need leverage is a dangerous one to say the least.
Honestly the way I see this going, is with Trump gradually granting pay to more and more sectors of the government until all that's left is the parts of the government his administration doesn't...
Honestly the way I see this going, is with Trump gradually granting pay to more and more sectors of the government until all that's left is the parts of the government his administration doesn't want to fund anyways.
The only way this ends quickly is if he forgets to pay people who fulfill jobs like air traffic control. Those people could effectively ground air travel throughout the US if they did a strike.
Unless Trump's approval rating really nosedives as a result of the shutdown. If he breaks through the 35% floor and plunges into the 20s, there are more options. McConnell could relent. 20 GOP...
Unless Trump's approval rating really nosedives as a result of the shutdown.
If he breaks through the 35% floor and plunges into the 20s, there are more options. McConnell could relent. 20 GOP senators could defect, pass a budget, and override the inevitable veto.
Of course if that happens, things could get real dicey. Who knows.
In any case I suspect this is one of those "gradually, then quickly" situations. Trump's support will slowly erode, and then something will happen and it will quickly collapse. Various Republicans will be falling over themselves to put as much distance between themselves and Trump as fast as they can. Ultimately, all it takes is for Fox News to turn on him.
It's been linked in some of the other threads on the subject, but if you haven't already checked it out, I highly suggest looking at the Washington Post interactive flyover of the whole border:...
Multiple cities along the border have built walls. And those walls directly accounted for at least a 50% drop in attempts to illegally cross the border. So a wall DOES make sense on that fact...
Exemplary
Multiple cities along the border have built walls. And those walls directly accounted for at least a 50% drop in attempts to illegally cross the border.
So a wall DOES make sense on that fact alone.
$5 billion dollars of the National budge is equivalent to a person with a $40,000 yearly income spending $50.
FIFTY dollars.
FEDERAL money is not the real issue in this debate.
Politicians against the wall know that. They are against the wall because they expect the people who cross the border this way will eventually vote for their party. And they have invested in businesses who cater to those people. So they will increase their personal wealth.
"but do you mean it makes sense because it is factually effective as a barrier, or because illegal immigration should be stopped?" My on-topic point is that they make effective barriers. However,...
"but do you mean it makes sense because it is factually effective as a barrier, or because illegal immigration should be stopped?"
My on-topic point is that they make effective barriers. However, you asked about the second part (not on topic), but I do agree with that too. Illegal immigration needs stopped. I just can't fathom why anyone would think otherwise. I'm all for legal immigration. I'm not for someone making their first act into the United States, that of breaking a major Federal Law. I will never be for breaking the law. It's cool people may not agree with a law. Fine. Work to get the law revoked or changed. That's part of laws. Just blatantly disregarding a law because you disagree with it and getting upset because you suffer the consequences is crap.
"They vote against the wall"... Hmm, I'm pretty sure I stated Democrats in the preceding sentences.
I don't have time or inclination to pull a bunch of references for you. The info is out there. You're more likely to believe this by finding it on your own. Yea, Yea "That's not how this works"... LOL. We're on the net, not in a college class or professional office. Go learn it for yourself or not. If you don't want to, me giving you links won't matter.
Keep in mind that, for some people, this is a feature, not a bug. If the restrictive immigration laws are keeping people out of the country, some people believe that is a good thing. The laws are...
Sure, you could ask "But if it's illegal, then why don't they just leave?" or "Well why don't they just come legally?" and the answer to both questions is because they can no longer enter the United States.
Keep in mind that, for some people, this is a feature, not a bug. If the restrictive immigration laws are keeping people out of the country, some people believe that is a good thing. The laws are there to keep people out, so if potential immigrants find it hard to move to the USA, the laws are achieving their purpose according to the people who don't want immigration.
What you see as a negative, they see as a positive. You complaining that the laws make it harder for people to immigrate to the USA is not a problem for them. That argument won't sway them.
And, if people are bypassing the laws and entering the country illegally... that's all the more reason to find another way to keep them out.
You're making the other side's argument for them!
Remember that, while your goal might be to let more people in to the USA, the folks you're debating with do not share that same goal.
I am reading a story about a guy who obeyed the law for law it was. He faced capital punisment in Jerusalem 15 years later. I am not an American, but I feel shame for what I read happening at the...
I will never be for breaking the law. It's cool people may not agree with a law. Fine. Work to get the law revoked or changed. That's part of laws. Just blatantly disregarding a law because you disagree with it and getting upset because you suffer the consequences is crap.
I am reading a story about a guy who obeyed the law for law it was. He faced capital punisment in Jerusalem 15 years later.
I am not an American, but I feel shame for what I read happening at the southern border. Recently I heard about a girl dying out of thirst b/c inattendance (at best...). Surely the tables will turn. America's cultural influence is stagnating, the world is trying to overcome her economical dominance. She is not seen as the brutish but just older sister anymore. Inhumanity at the border does not help.
Others have pondered upon the volatility of laws, so I won't.
I mean who is, right? But that line always rang hollow to me as it is so often said with a "holier-than-thou" air that is so reminiscent of church ladies decrying the wearing of white after labor...
I'm not for someone making their first act into the United States, that of breaking a major Federal Law.
I mean who is, right? But that line always rang hollow to me as it is so often said with a "holier-than-thou" air that is so reminiscent of church ladies decrying the wearing of white after labor day. "A law was broken, I do declare!"
I'll remind you dear citizen that this country was built by men (and women) who defied their King and decried his Kingdom. Thank god their first act of creating this country was to break a law.
Know thy netiquette. Maybe we need a page dedicated to this in docs? Nevertheless, all caps is not emphasis, it's shouting and generally offensive, so avoiding it unless very strong emphasis is...
Know thy netiquette. Maybe we need a page dedicated to this in docs? Nevertheless, all caps is not emphasis, it's shouting and generally offensive, so avoiding it unless very strong emphasis is needed. The comment box has a link above it called "formatting help", where you can find out about how to use italics and boldface.
Apart from that, this is usual xenofobe rhetoric that I'm familiar from hearing it be used against Syrian refugees here in Turkey. The same bunch who wants them to fight in Syria against fundamentalist terrorists and MAD powers flee the country when they're threatened of arrest and often cannot be brave enough to post with their real names.
Yea... I'm old enough that caps was used on computer type specifically for emphasis. It's a hard habit to break. RE: (BTW, that's not yelling, that's actually how you type it, same with "by the...
Yea... I'm old enough that caps was used on computer type specifically for emphasis. It's a hard habit to break.
RE: (BTW, that's not yelling, that's actually how you type it, same with "by the way"...) " this is usual xenofobe rhetoric".
Please explain where my statement even implies xenophobic rhetoric. I stated facts. Which are backed up by evidence.
Sure: Problems: No citations to back these claims anywhere in this sub-thread No citations or explanations as to why should the acceptance of immigrants, illegal or legal, should depend on who...
Please explain where my statement even implies xenophobic rhetoric. I stated facts. Which are backed up by evidence.
Sure:
Politicians against the wall know that. They are against the wall because they expect the people who cross the border this way will eventually vote for their party. And they have invested in businesses who cater to those people. So they will increase their personal wealth.
Problems:
No citations to back these claims anywhere in this sub-thread
No citations or explanations as to why should the acceptance of immigrants, illegal or legal, should depend on who they'll tend to vote should they obtain the right to
No explanations for why it is surprising or unacceptable or even worth pointing out that an incoming group to a country will be more fond of those who welcome them
As for the xenophobia,
Declaring a group of people in search of immigration (and possibly also refuge from humane troubles like crime, hunger, poverty etc.) outright as "illegal"
Talking about them as a monolithic entity and as an object of some other entity (in your case, the Democrats)
Similarly, treating them as an object of an almost purely economical discussion
I want to note that I did not call you xenofobic, nor implied that your comment was so. But your comment is made up of claims usually utilised by xenophobes. But it does not contain anything that demonstrates you holding xenophobic views yourself. I don't know if you are or aren't so, but the words and "facts" you use are theirs.
I'll have to dig for it. I read it about two months ago. Not just on right-wing or conspiracy sites. Did you know that there's already about a thousand miles of barriers (walls and fences) along...
I'll have to dig for it. I read it about two months ago. Not just on right-wing or conspiracy sites.
Did you know that there's already about a thousand miles of barriers (walls and fences) along the border? Yep, from the coast by San Diego, to a few hundred miles past El Paso.
"Spending five BILLION dollars is a lot of money no matter how you slice it ". I'll disagree. For the Government, it's a tiny drop in the bucket. For you and I, sure, we can't imaging even making that much money. But hey, I can't imagine making one million dollars a year either. Which is why I a $100,000 car is way out of my budget. It's also why me spending $11,000 on LEGO over the past 5 years is unthinkable to someone working two minimum wage jobs. It's also why I find it crazy that someone working two minimum wage jobs is outright buying a $700 iPhone (I paid $1.00 for my SE over two years ago and can't imagine spending $700 for a phone even though I make a lot more than minimum wage).
It has been proven that the Democratic party is actively courting not just legal, but also illegal immigrants. How you have not learned this is beyond me. Just go look at their party websites and it is obvious. Also, members of the democratic party have been recorded at large gatherings of illegal immigrants telling them that they will support them (BTW: That's in violation of their oath of office...). Open your eyes and look for yourself. You won't believe me otherwise.
Persobally, I dislike the "super upvote" that is that tag. Yes it is time limited, but then bad contributors will seldom bother to even upvote, so no trouble for them. Exemplary should be what it...
Edit: on a sidenote, I am honestly embarrassed that the OP of this thread has been tagged as "exemplary". Spouting some unsourced lartisan nonsense should not be encouraged here.
Persobally, I dislike the "super upvote" that is that tag. Yes it is time limited, but then bad contributors will seldom bother to even upvote, so no trouble for them. Exemplary should be what it is: an anonymous thank you for a comment and a public reward to a good commenter. It should not affect sorting, IMHO.
Disclaimer: I think the wall is just a big symbolic gesture whose practical value isn't worth its economic value. There are bigger problems than immigration in the USA, period. The whole debacle...
Disclaimer: I think the wall is just a big symbolic gesture whose practical value isn't worth its economic value. There are bigger problems than immigration in the USA, period.
The whole debacle is fascinating quite honestly. The thing I've found the most interesting is that (seemingly) most GOP congressmen are hardly weighing in on this besides those who are staunch Trump supporters. It seems that the GOP is in a really tough spot - they either have to continue the shutdown (as I don't think the DNC will budge without a significant win) or go against Trump.
I really hope for the latter. I will be shocked if 4 years of this senile buffoon's governance pass without "his" party turning on him, but they haven't so far. I don't think the Democrats will concede, and many polls (sorry for no source) are showing that Trump is taking the PR hit for the shutdown. I mean, the guy did explicitly accept responsibility for it on camera after all. At this point, I think the most likely outcome may be the GOP congress compromising with Democrats to pass funding for the rest of the government with a 2/3rds majority vote. However, this means a big middle-finger to the president, effectively making EVERYTHING difficult to pass for the rest of his term. We may really be in for a long shutdown if Trump doesn't decide to accept a small sum for his "Steel Slats".
And if this is a long shutdown, then I really have no idea what to expect. This hasn't happened before, but it seems that the signs are beginning to show. For example, a large increase in absences among TSA workers is probably the most-reported on. Many Americans live paycheck-to-paycheck; I think we'll start to see some combination of an exodus from federal jobs in the affected sectors or noteworthy protests.
And all of this for that fucking Wall. The fact that news reporters effectively sparked this whole thing is extremely upsetting, that the president would care SO MUCH about his public image (which ironically is now much worse than it was) that he would let what are basically taunts throw the nation into a month+ long partial shutdown. Trump also campaigned on updating our infrastructure - can we argue over that instead?
Every idiocracy has a "wall". For Turkey, it's evolution these days. For Italy, it's vaccines. For the Third Reich it was the Jews. These are "idiocratic baits", controversial stuff that has...
Every idiocracy has a "wall". For Turkey, it's evolution these days. For Italy, it's vaccines. For the Third Reich it was the Jews.
These are "idiocratic baits", controversial stuff that has indeed some value for the sides of the controversy, but their main effect is to form people into blocks of idiocy and be a wall between them and the reality which is the exploits of the idiocrats.
At least, that's what I find to be the commonality of various idiocracies, actual or historical.
The wall's effect was used up, but the masses need be satisfied now. We'll see if the guy will insist, or be smart and give up and go complain to the electorate that the evil Others did not let him materialise the Will of the People.
Simple. Mueller. A graduate of Princeton University and New York University, Mueller served as a Marine Corps officer during the Vietnam War, receiving a Bronze Star for heroism and Purple Heart....
Simple. Mueller.
A graduate of Princeton University and New York University, Mueller served as a Marine Corps officer during the Vietnam War, receiving a Bronze Star for heroism and Purple Heart. He subsequently attended the University of Virginia School of Law.
Mueller is a Republican, and was appointed or reappointed to Senate-confirmed positions by Presidents George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama.[3][4] He has spent the bulk of his career in government service, serving at times as an Assistant United States Attorney, a United States Attorney, United States Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division, a homicide prosecutor in Washington, D.C., Acting United States Deputy Attorney General, and Director of the FBI.
In May 2017, Mueller was appointed by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein as special counsel overseeing an ongoing investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and related matters.[5]
The answers in that stack exchange thread are pretty good but it seems like there's one key point missing. The asker ended his question with this:
Democrats can't make a deal because congressional Republicans don't want the wall either. The Wall isn't an actual bargaining chip. If congressional Republicans give up something the Democrats want for The Wall that's a net loss for congressional Republicans because it means they gave the Democrats something Democrats want in exchange for something Republicans don't want.
Compromise is impossible when neither party at the table actually wants the thing being argued over. Democrats have considerably more leverage here because they can be open about the fact that they don't want The Wall. It's trickier for Republicans because most of them have to pretend to want it. That's why McConnell won't even hold a vote: any bill which includes wall funding is a losing proposition for the GOP.
There's also the consideration that making a deal at this point is legitimising government shutdowns as a negotiating tactic. The notion that the senate majority leader and the president alone can take the livelihoods of a million people hostage whenever they need leverage is a dangerous one to say the least.
Honestly the way I see this going, is with Trump gradually granting pay to more and more sectors of the government until all that's left is the parts of the government his administration doesn't want to fund anyways.
The only way this ends quickly is if he forgets to pay people who fulfill jobs like air traffic control. Those people could effectively ground air travel throughout the US if they did a strike.
Unless Trump's approval rating really nosedives as a result of the shutdown.
If he breaks through the 35% floor and plunges into the 20s, there are more options. McConnell could relent. 20 GOP senators could defect, pass a budget, and override the inevitable veto.
Of course if that happens, things could get real dicey. Who knows.
In any case I suspect this is one of those "gradually, then quickly" situations. Trump's support will slowly erode, and then something will happen and it will quickly collapse. Various Republicans will be falling over themselves to put as much distance between themselves and Trump as fast as they can. Ultimately, all it takes is for Fox News to turn on him.
It's been linked in some of the other threads on the subject, but if you haven't already checked it out, I highly suggest looking at the Washington Post interactive flyover of the whole border: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/national/us-mexico-border-flyover/
It's behind a pay wall for me, could anyone share Screenshots?
You can get past the Washington Post paywall by opening it in an incognito window (or equivalent for your browser}.
Multiple cities along the border have built walls. And those walls directly accounted for at least a 50% drop in attempts to illegally cross the border.
So a wall DOES make sense on that fact alone.
$5 billion dollars of the National budge is equivalent to a person with a $40,000 yearly income spending $50.
FIFTY dollars.
FEDERAL money is not the real issue in this debate.
Politicians against the wall know that. They are against the wall because they expect the people who cross the border this way will eventually vote for their party. And they have invested in businesses who cater to those people. So they will increase their personal wealth.
"but do you mean it makes sense because it is factually effective as a barrier, or because illegal immigration should be stopped?"
My on-topic point is that they make effective barriers. However, you asked about the second part (not on topic), but I do agree with that too. Illegal immigration needs stopped. I just can't fathom why anyone would think otherwise. I'm all for legal immigration. I'm not for someone making their first act into the United States, that of breaking a major Federal Law. I will never be for breaking the law. It's cool people may not agree with a law. Fine. Work to get the law revoked or changed. That's part of laws. Just blatantly disregarding a law because you disagree with it and getting upset because you suffer the consequences is crap.
"They vote against the wall"... Hmm, I'm pretty sure I stated Democrats in the preceding sentences.
I don't have time or inclination to pull a bunch of references for you. The info is out there. You're more likely to believe this by finding it on your own. Yea, Yea "That's not how this works"... LOL. We're on the net, not in a college class or professional office. Go learn it for yourself or not. If you don't want to, me giving you links won't matter.
Keep in mind that, for some people, this is a feature, not a bug. If the restrictive immigration laws are keeping people out of the country, some people believe that is a good thing. The laws are there to keep people out, so if potential immigrants find it hard to move to the USA, the laws are achieving their purpose according to the people who don't want immigration.
What you see as a negative, they see as a positive. You complaining that the laws make it harder for people to immigrate to the USA is not a problem for them. That argument won't sway them.
And, if people are bypassing the laws and entering the country illegally... that's all the more reason to find another way to keep them out.
You're making the other side's argument for them!
Remember that, while your goal might be to let more people in to the USA, the folks you're debating with do not share that same goal.
I am reading a story about a guy who obeyed the law for law it was. He faced capital punisment in Jerusalem 15 years later.
I am not an American, but I feel shame for what I read happening at the southern border. Recently I heard about a girl dying out of thirst b/c inattendance (at best...). Surely the tables will turn. America's cultural influence is stagnating, the world is trying to overcome her economical dominance. She is not seen as the brutish but just older sister anymore. Inhumanity at the border does not help.
Others have pondered upon the volatility of laws, so I won't.
I mean who is, right? But that line always rang hollow to me as it is so often said with a "holier-than-thou" air that is so reminiscent of church ladies decrying the wearing of white after labor day. "A law was broken, I do declare!"
I'll remind you dear citizen that this country was built by men (and women) who defied their King and decried his Kingdom. Thank god their first act of creating this country was to break a law.
Know thy netiquette. Maybe we need a page dedicated to this in docs? Nevertheless, all caps is not emphasis, it's shouting and generally offensive, so avoiding it unless very strong emphasis is needed. The comment box has a link above it called "formatting help", where you can find out about how to use italics and boldface.
Apart from that, this is usual xenofobe rhetoric that I'm familiar from hearing it be used against Syrian refugees here in Turkey. The same bunch who wants them to fight in Syria against fundamentalist terrorists and MAD powers flee the country when they're threatened of arrest and often cannot be brave enough to post with their real names.
Fuck all borders.
Yea... I'm old enough that caps was used on computer type specifically for emphasis. It's a hard habit to break.
RE: (BTW, that's not yelling, that's actually how you type it, same with "by the way"...) " this is usual xenofobe rhetoric".
Please explain where my statement even implies xenophobic rhetoric. I stated facts. Which are backed up by evidence.
Sure:
Problems:
No citations to back these claims anywhere in this sub-thread
No citations or explanations as to why should the acceptance of immigrants, illegal or legal, should depend on who they'll tend to vote should they obtain the right to
No explanations for why it is surprising or unacceptable or even worth pointing out that an incoming group to a country will be more fond of those who welcome them
As for the xenophobia,
Declaring a group of people in search of immigration (and possibly also refuge from humane troubles like crime, hunger, poverty etc.) outright as "illegal"
Talking about them as a monolithic entity and as an object of some other entity (in your case, the Democrats)
Similarly, treating them as an object of an almost purely economical discussion
I want to note that I did not call you xenofobic, nor implied that your comment was so. But your comment is made up of claims usually utilised by xenophobes. But it does not contain anything that demonstrates you holding xenophobic views yourself. I don't know if you are or aren't so, but the words and "facts" you use are theirs.
I'll have to dig for it. I read it about two months ago. Not just on right-wing or conspiracy sites.
Did you know that there's already about a thousand miles of barriers (walls and fences) along the border? Yep, from the coast by San Diego, to a few hundred miles past El Paso.
Here's an interesting map... https://www.usatoday.com/border-wall/us-mexico-interactive-border-map/
"Spending five BILLION dollars is a lot of money no matter how you slice it ". I'll disagree. For the Government, it's a tiny drop in the bucket. For you and I, sure, we can't imaging even making that much money. But hey, I can't imagine making one million dollars a year either. Which is why I a $100,000 car is way out of my budget. It's also why me spending $11,000 on LEGO over the past 5 years is unthinkable to someone working two minimum wage jobs. It's also why I find it crazy that someone working two minimum wage jobs is outright buying a $700 iPhone (I paid $1.00 for my SE over two years ago and can't imagine spending $700 for a phone even though I make a lot more than minimum wage).
It has been proven that the Democratic party is actively courting not just legal, but also illegal immigrants. How you have not learned this is beyond me. Just go look at their party websites and it is obvious. Also, members of the democratic party have been recorded at large gatherings of illegal immigrants telling them that they will support them (BTW: That's in violation of their oath of office...). Open your eyes and look for yourself. You won't believe me otherwise.
Persobally, I dislike the "super upvote" that is that tag. Yes it is time limited, but then bad contributors will seldom bother to even upvote, so no trouble for them. Exemplary should be what it is: an anonymous thank you for a comment and a public reward to a good commenter. It should not affect sorting, IMHO.
Disclaimer: I think the wall is just a big symbolic gesture whose practical value isn't worth its economic value. There are bigger problems than immigration in the USA, period.
The whole debacle is fascinating quite honestly. The thing I've found the most interesting is that (seemingly) most GOP congressmen are hardly weighing in on this besides those who are staunch Trump supporters. It seems that the GOP is in a really tough spot - they either have to continue the shutdown (as I don't think the DNC will budge without a significant win) or go against Trump.
I really hope for the latter. I will be shocked if 4 years of this senile buffoon's governance pass without "his" party turning on him, but they haven't so far. I don't think the Democrats will concede, and many polls (sorry for no source) are showing that Trump is taking the PR hit for the shutdown. I mean, the guy did explicitly accept responsibility for it on camera after all. At this point, I think the most likely outcome may be the GOP congress compromising with Democrats to pass funding for the rest of the government with a 2/3rds majority vote. However, this means a big middle-finger to the president, effectively making EVERYTHING difficult to pass for the rest of his term. We may really be in for a long shutdown if Trump doesn't decide to accept a small sum for his "Steel Slats".
And if this is a long shutdown, then I really have no idea what to expect. This hasn't happened before, but it seems that the signs are beginning to show. For example, a large increase in absences among TSA workers is probably the most-reported on. Many Americans live paycheck-to-paycheck; I think we'll start to see some combination of an exodus from federal jobs in the affected sectors or noteworthy protests.
And all of this for that fucking Wall. The fact that news reporters effectively sparked this whole thing is extremely upsetting, that the president would care SO MUCH about his public image (which ironically is now much worse than it was) that he would let what are basically taunts throw the nation into a month+ long partial shutdown. Trump also campaigned on updating our infrastructure - can we argue over that instead?
Every idiocracy has a "wall". For Turkey, it's evolution these days. For Italy, it's vaccines. For the Third Reich it was the Jews.
These are "idiocratic baits", controversial stuff that has indeed some value for the sides of the controversy, but their main effect is to form people into blocks of idiocy and be a wall between them and the reality which is the exploits of the idiocrats.
At least, that's what I find to be the commonality of various idiocracies, actual or historical.
The wall's effect was used up, but the masses need be satisfied now. We'll see if the guy will insist, or be smart and give up and go complain to the electorate that the evil Others did not let him materialise the Will of the People.
Simple. Mueller.
A graduate of Princeton University and New York University, Mueller served as a Marine Corps officer during the Vietnam War, receiving a Bronze Star for heroism and Purple Heart. He subsequently attended the University of Virginia School of Law.
Mueller is a Republican, and was appointed or reappointed to Senate-confirmed positions by Presidents George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama.[3][4] He has spent the bulk of his career in government service, serving at times as an Assistant United States Attorney, a United States Attorney, United States Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division, a homicide prosecutor in Washington, D.C., Acting United States Deputy Attorney General, and Director of the FBI.
In May 2017, Mueller was appointed by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein as special counsel overseeing an ongoing investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and related matters.[5]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mueller
The most American of American's.
Did you mean to post this somewhere else? I'm legitimately confused about how this comment relates to the post.
Looks like, but I can't remember where.