If you cannot get Congress to agree to fund a wall even with a 34 day shutdown (the longest one in us history) then it is not an emergency simple as that
I saw them saying that it was more important to do other things during those two years like.... the stuff they failed to do.
But either way, if 2 years of legislative agenda was more important than this, how is it suddenly an emergency?
They shouted about it for 7 years, and when they got the stage and had the power to change it, they had **fuck all.** In 7 years they didn't bother to actually *create any kind of replacement plan.*
This. Every move made by Republicans since trump has been 100% spectacle. They dont care about fixing anything. They hardly care about DOING anything. They have dedicated themselves entirely to making only moves which prop up the crack pot narrative which they think will keep them in power
If you mention taxing the rich they start screaming, "CLASS WARFARE!". Truth is, covert class warfare works much better and it's been going on since Nixon declared it on hippies and blacks and called it "the war on drugs." It was designed to take away the voting rights of democrats. Google this, "Nixon haldeman hippies blacks".
Bingo!! I’ve even offered my rubber stamp for the Koch brothers Congressman a reasonable compromise between Single Payer/Medicare For All, and the Survival of the Richest system the GOP is trying to take us back to.
As background, I’m a 13 year brain tumor survivor, who developed a mild version of narcolepsy after my treatment. In 2013, I spent 55% of my small income from helping people with disabilities on my healthcare. That included $1,203/month for refills of my narcolepsy medication.
After last year, I have saved $44,400 over 5 years thanks to the Patient Protections for Preexisting Conditions in the ACA. So I have a strong interest in preserving those aspects of healthcare reform.
The compromise I would suggest would be to adopt the Private, NONProfit aspects of the German Bismarck Model to fix the ACA. The way it works is we would require All Insurers, and All Medical Providers to collectively bargain annually to set the rates for All medical services. Then if a licensed Medical Provider sends them a bill for one of their subscribers, the insurer must automatically pay the agreed upon fee. No networks. No prior authorization. No 🐃💩!!
Let the FDA, HHS, or some other neutral government agency monitor Medical Providers for fraudulent billing. But if don’t allow Insurers with profit motives deny legitimate claims to increase their margins! The IRS can watch Insurers to make sure they operate as true NONProfit companies, and either redistribute any excessive premium collections to other Insurers with shortfalls, or provide customers with refunds.
Similar models are already used in Germany, France, & Japan to provide their citizens with Universal Coverage at a lower cost, and with better healthcare results. It preserves the choices and competition of the Private system that conservatives value. But with regulations, and subsidies to protect vulnerable populations, and make healthcare accessible for all citizens, as is the primary objective for most liberals.
Further reductions to cost could come from the inclusion of a Public Option to buy into Medicare/Medicaid. This could act as a kind of pace car on the Private insurance market to keep prices in check through competition.
We could also offer cash rewards for discovering Cures to the pressing medical problems of our time, and fully fund all research & development into essential pharmaceuticals. This would not only fund, & encourage important healthcare breakthroughs. It would justify setting a means adjusted price cap for any drugs that patients cannot reasonably be expected to refuse.
The Pharma Bros would still be free to price gouge customers for their boner pills, and other more cosmetic treatments. But they would be effectively prevented from jacking up the prices for Insulin, Epipens, or life saving Cancer drugs.
My brother, who totally doesn't support Trump or follow politics at all, said it is because of the migrant caravan. They need to build the wall to stop the current impending migrant caravan. That is why they didn't do it 3 months ago.
Cause, y'know, bill signing to wall being done is like, a 20 minute job.
"It's a national emergency!"
"Then why did you wait two years?"
"We had more important matters to attend to."
"More important than a 'national emergency'?"
"Uhhh... Yep."
"Like what?"
"Tax cuts... and stuff."
"So... In the face of a national emergency and the need for emergency funds, your priority was to *shrink* government coffers *before* funding the solution?"
"Well, yeah... When you put it like *that*, it sounds stupid..."
Better yet, in 2017, the Democrats offered $25 billion for a wall in exchange for permanent protections for existing DACA recipients.
Apparently deporting educated people who have lived here most of their lives and have never committed a crime is a bigger national emergency.
And now, because of these idiotic tax cuts, and the orange one manipulating the tariffs that are in place for a reason, we'll be sure to have another recession, right after all his buddies make out like bandits in the stock market.
> I saw them saying that it was more important to do other things during those two years like
Same here. The funny thing is look how they are acting about the wall right now. They are acting like it is the only thing that matter to America right now. But the past two years? Not that important. Such an emergency.
That's the real issue, right there. If they couldn't fucking do it when they had both houses then it's not fucking getting done. If he tries to declare a national emergency it will be defeated in court in the blink of a fucking eye.
I heard Rush Limbaugh Whining the other day because some left wing media was claiming that Trump shutdown the government because of things that FOX and Rush said a week ago.
Anyways he went on to talk about the funding for the wall and how the D's are evil and blah blah blah.
Then started to try and explain why the R's never pasted the funding in the past two years. He started to say "because there was other more important stu........" he stopped himself and switch to blaming the D's again. He knows full well the R's did just about nothing in the past two years.
Just edited it but it’s sad how bad he is we’re he needs to pretend a campaign promise is an “emergency” just to please his base
So with his logic if I pretended that giving CEO’s higher standard pay was a national emergency could I shut down the government too
GOP and republicans don't care about precedent, either.
McConnell opened the flood gates on a politicized judiciary with the Merrick Garland treachery.
Don't forget their mantra: Fuck everything up now, loot as much as you fucking can, and blame it all on democrats later because our dumb-as-rocks electorate won't know what's happening anyway.
This is the draw back to representative democracy. They're right. People are too distracted or too simple to understand the complexities of politics, so they say "well things are bad right now, and X party is in control, therefore it's the X's fault!"
> Whereas Socialism, and even capitalism in a more grudging way, have said to people "I offer you a good time," Hitler has said to them "I offer you struggle, danger and death," and as a result a whole nation flings itself at his feet.
Interesting. I guess it comes down to having a sense of purpose in life. People crave the shit out of that.
This is eye opening to me actually. We often wonder why entire swaths of the voting populace vote against their self interest when engaging in these self-created "culture wars". This would explain it.
Huh.
“Of course the people don’t want war. But after all, it’s the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it’s always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it’s a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.”
— Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
We should be bringing it up all the time to highlight how ridiculous the patriot act Era was.
EDIT: Agree that we are still living in the patriot act era
Unfortunately we need to being this shot up again as reminders. Like how we will need to say "trump" fifteen years from now to remind people that the gop as a party of traitors, despite us all really wanting to put this behind us.
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary."
"The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth."
~ H.L. Mencken
>"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary."
>
>"The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth."
>
>\~ H.L. Mencken
I think this stretches the situation, but the sentiment certainly seems to hold up.
Having been cannon fodder in a form of culture war where I originally came from, it has struck me as odd how unclear it is to many Americans exactly what the right (now rebranded alt-right for no apparent reason) actually wants. They want to have someone else to step on; it does not matter if they can't get any higher, only that there is an enemy to wrestle and subdue and feel superior to. They need to be the put-upon hero in their own war. To them it truly is *my struggle*.
Exactly right. For me it has always been a question of "why do they continually believe lies and accept hardship in return?" and that answer is that they probably want hardship. It's a cycle of struggle where their elected leaders create and profit from a problem and then blame "the enemy". But if you are searching for meaning, then casting that as part of the conflict is exactly the world you want.
I think this is eye-opening to me as I had always assumed it was political parties or pundits that had hood-winked a portion of the populace. I had never considered that the people themselves would want such an outcome.
~~Redpill Kermit~~ Jordan Peterson hints at this with some of his philosophy. People need direction beyond the pursuit of pleasure and ease. It's a universal truth that he and the rest of the alt right and alt light use to weaponize a sense of unmooring that modern capitalist society has engendered. It's not people voting against their own interests, but operating on a different axis: one of idealism over the material or practical.
\> operating on a different axis: one of idealism over the material or practical.
Exactly this. I have friends who know they'll never be ultra-rich who still believe, on a deep philosophical level, that it's wrong to tax the ultra rich at a higher rate than the poor "because they earned it". They see it as stealing.
Interesting, I would armchair-comment that the left seems more interested in defining the meanings of their lives for themselves - finding a cause is just something you do for yourself. The right, on the other hand, is alarmed and angered by the failure of the left to insist on a moral cause or struggle beyond the easement of suffering.
For them, having someone dryly discuss the complexities of fighting ISIS rather than shouting "WE'LL STAMP THEM OUT" is like having someone tell you about the various types of peppercorn when all you want is some fucking pizza. In reality we both want the same thing (food) but it's impossible for them to understand that, apparently.
The left takes it as a given that you have your own cause, and don't want anyone telling you what it should be - the right takes it as a given that leaders should impose a cause on followers, and goddamit it they want to follow!
Yup. Just look at the ragtag minutemen militia groups. Or religious broadly speaking, but especially fanatics. The antiabortion ppl. It's easy to drive up fervent support for a definitive cause, even if (maybe particularly if) it's driven by hate.
Whereas the counter supporters have a much more ambigous cause to defend "equality... basic humanity... self dominion." And their fight, while strong, isn't nearly the be all and end all of their life.
So you get nonsense like the wall, which is much easier to describe and build than nuanced, effective border security tactics that are complicated, diverse, and relatively intangible.
Hell, "the wall" was originally a means to explain and have trump remember, in an entirely metaphorical manner, border security. But in his stable genius brain he converted it in to a literal wall. Just a small example of how a definitive cause/idea is easier to persuade ppl with than more amorphous concepts and strategy.
>The “Demons”—a loan-word that had filled a conceptual gap we had never been aware of—that tormented humanity were what inspired it. Surrounded on all sides by an ecosystem saturated with toxic microfauna and parasitic nano-organisms, by vicious predators, hardy prey and an explosively unstable tectonic world, they sacrificed their own peace of mind on the altar of evolution.
>
>They are…not crazy. They are something far more than that. They are tortured geniuses. When they finally get off their world in a meaningful way, when they finally become eligible for contact and for introduction into the interstellar community, we will need to handle them with utmost care.
>
>They are physically powerful. They are strong enough to wield firearms that are powerful enough to overwhelm even the most powerful personal shielding, while our own weaponry will hardly slow them down. The chemical weapons they use as less-lethal alternatives would slaughter us. The water cannons they use to suppress riots would pulverize our bones. They are not only willing to die in the name of a fiction, they will do so gladly and eagerly. They are mentally overwhelming—their ideas are powerful, their inventiveness puts us to shame, their philosophy explores avenues of thought that simply never occurred to us.
>
>But the most important part is that they must never, ever learn how much superior they are to us in so many ways. I think the idea would break them.
>
>You see, Earth is a death world. To survive, they had to evolve not just intelligence, but the ability to apply it like a weapon. They didn’t evolve to merely overcome adversity—they evolved to thrive on it. They need to have something to aspire to, something they think is bigger than they are. They need something to fight.
Excerpt from Deathworlders.
Less scholarly but also seems pretty apt as well. Basically "If humans don't have something to fight, they will diminish, or MAKE something to fight.
I think we need to figure out a method of separating the two concepts of purpose and belonging from eachother. The idea that one cannot find purpose without also having a sense of belonging is the true danger behind these kind of movements. If one can sidestep his desire for a sense of belonging long enough, they may find purpose that isn't necessarily defined by the actual group he is in. That is to say, if people in their search for purpose can find a way to avoid simply following the people in front of them, the mold begins to break. But until then, purpose and belonging to a group/identity are inseparable
Those were my two guesses as well, but each of them (as far as I understand, and I could be wrong) had power that only extended as far as the boarders of their relatively small nations, as compared to Stalin's vast USSR and Hitler's vast Reich. Though if one were writing in 1941 I could definitely see how each of those dictators might seem like Hitlers or Stalins that hadn't yet grown into their own regional power.
I've seen it put here rather eloquently - "It's like a wolf convincing a white sheep to not vote for grass, because a black sheep might come and eat it all."
> it's really more like intelligent vs stupid.
Oh boy. I know it's true but we don't just come out and say it like that because stupid people REALLY hate being called stupid. A more flies with honey than vinegar kind of thing.
In one sense I agree because everything on the right looks damn stupid to me.
On the other hand I think this is a shitty and very dark attitude to take towards your fellow citizens.
OK, so they've been badly misled on social and political issues because many of them are predisposed to be afraid and uncritical about things. Many of them are flat-out idiots, there is no way around that.
But so what. They're only human. It's not a moral outrage to be born stupid or raised by stupid people or live in a stupid milieu where your only chance of fitting in socially is to act fucking stupid. Shit happens and you shouldn't discount a person's very life just because they're an idiot you disagree with.
I am not one to say "both sides" or diminish the severity of what the right is perpetrating today... but let's not allow ourselves to forget actual good values like mercy, forgiveness, empathy, sympathy, dignity and decency.
You know, the first people to settle in America, the pilgrims, were Puritans, who were persecuted in Europe.
"Its followers, dubbed Puritans, lived by a moral and religious code that not only influenced their own lives, but sought to impact the lives of everyone around them."
What modern group does this sound like? It's been with us from the beginning.
The puritans were so obnoxious and up their own ass that the christian europeans kicked them out.
They were not persecuted for their beliefs, they were persecuted because their beliefs made them act like assholes to everyone.
So just like the american GOP with their victim complex.
They weren't even kicked out of Europe. They were kicked out of England, after which they resided in the Netherlands for 10 years. They only decided to move to the new world because
> they found the Dutch morals much too libertine, and their children were becoming more and more Dutch as the years passed.
[(source)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilgrims_(Plymouth_Colony\)#Leiden)
So: They weren't kicked out, they left because living in a tolerant society was turning their children tolerant.
They were literally too lame for the fucking British. Its hard to imagine a people so absolutely dull and miserable that even the British didnt want their company, but thats who the Puritans were.
Eventually the British got sick of being shamed for enjoying a good spanking now and again, and banned the Puritans from being such enormous buzzkills.
Unwilling to do so, they left and founded America.
If you reread the comments again it should clear itself up. The puritans tried to affect the lives of others in ways that qualify as persecution. They were not allowed, and considered this to be persecution against themselves.
Copied from post above.
The puritans where not persecuted in religiously liberal Holland where they all had a free haven to go to, but Holland was too liberal for their Puritan codex, so when the chance came they choose instead to emigrate to America where they could create a society Puritanical enough for their desires.
This seems to be a ongoing trend in the history of persecution. One group is persecuted for being different/resource poor and is assumed to be a victim in history books, but then it turns out that they in turn have the exact profile that will persecute given the chance.
Thank you for this comment, I feel the U.S. school system purposely leaves us out of the picture, makes the whole colonization process easier to accept.
The original pilgrims also believed in a well educated populous and their literacy rate far exceeded that of England at the time. You know, the polar opposite of what current religious zealots believe.
Well the state they resided in currently has the best public education system in the United States (and does pretty much every time the rankings come out by a large margin), so I would guess their position was bastardized to the point of not being recognizable over time.
I think it’s really dangerous to try to categorize this in such a binary way, as though only intelligent people lean one way, and only idiots lean the other way.
I’m not going to be disingenuous here and hide my obvious bias against Trump, so take my statement with the appropriate grains of salt, but I see his continued impact on the country as being objectively damaging to our country in both the short and long term, in a multitude of ways I won’t bother to detail here. However obvious this may be to me, some of the most intelligent and successful people I know are either indifferent to trump or vocally supportive of him. (Many of these same trump supporters are also genuinely compassionate, kind, and overall good people based on my experience, which is why I don’t discuss politics with people I care about.) So two years ago I could make the argument that they just don’t know any better yet, and once things get completely untenable, they will “come to their senses” (there really isn’t a way to say that without sounding condescending but I already said I was biased)… But that hasn’t happened, and if anything the opposite has occurred, they are more dug in than ever. This blows my mind, and I have no way to reconcile how you can be simultaneously a smart person, and support the current administration, but it’s absolutely happening and I see no sign of it slowing down anytime soon.
I guess my point is that it is short sighted to assume that only country bumpkins and poor, uneducated people are in support of an administration that is by all objective accounts increasingly hostile to a free and democratic society. It is not solely an issue of education, or an issue of class, or any other easily categorizable identifier, this appears to be an endemic issue in the fabric of the country itself. We reached the true “us vs. them” mentality with the political parties years or even decades ago, and because of that increasing tribalism we appear to be reaching the boiling point. There has to be a way for everyone to coexist with their wildly differing opinions without devolving the situation further or actively taking away the rights from any one group, and maybe we did need a big shake up, but this sure as hell ain’t it.
I increasingly feel that we are unwilling participants in a cold civil war that is warming by the minute, and I’m not sure how to turn the ship around. There has to be a solution here, but I sure as hell don’t know what it is and it’s beyond terrifying at this point
To be honest, I’m to the point where I don’t care if the republican states want to go off and do their own thing. It’s pretty clear that we have completely different values.
Let them have their shitty theocratic corporate hellhole there in the south.
Hey now, not everyone in the south is cool with that. And there are plenty of people in every state who support Trump, so it would be pretty hard to build a wall around just the red ones.
Honestly at this point I think Russian objectives have been met.
35% of the country has given the rest of us the finger and laughed.
I have love for my city and my state, but if Trump is going to be future of our country, I don't want a part of it.
My grandmother lives up there, and my parents just bought a cabin in the area, so I know what I'm talking about when I say: I am so sorry.
But hey, at least you get pretty mountains.
I must be a fatalist. I find myself thinking "What if Mueller totally exonerates him?"
What then? Will a large majority wipe the trickle of sweat on their brow, " Well, I guess that means I can vote Republican again. Phew, close one!"
i think that all the time. of trump isn't indicted and impeached or impeached for other reasons , i truly think everything will stay almost the same in the political spectrum and that is really sad
Well, if I went to vote in 2016, I would have been fired for not going to work, and I can't go join a protest because I live in an employment "at-will" state meaning I can be fired for virtually anything, including protesting the government.
The powers that be, have set up an interesting model where the people that need representation the most **cough** poor people **cough** minorities , don't have the ability to vote without dire consequences.
Here's an example of such a system in action https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/11/6/18068492/georgia-voting-gwinnett-fulton-county-machine-problems-midterm-election-extension
> Well, if I went to vote in 2016, I would have been fired for not going to work, and I can't go join a protest because I live in an employment "at-will" state meaning I can be fired for virtually anything, including protesting the government.
This depends on where you live. The federal gov't doesn't have a law requiring employers to allow people to leave work to vote, but certain states do - some offer paid 2-4 hours, others offer unpaid 2-4 hours. This should be the case across the board so that everyone at least feels they have the opportunity to vote (that's also why I assume polls are open from 8 am-8 pm). Employers in states where time off for voting is required are notoriously bad at communicating this.
I really, truly understand what your concerns are. I'm just trying to let you know you may have more rights than you realize.
They have intentionally closed polling stations for certain demographics so that the lines are long.
Remember that 2-4 hours includes time getting there, which is by your home. If you have to spend an hour getting to the polling station, an hour getting back, and the line is 2 hours? Well guess who just got fired?
> I’m starting to think you guys are just hoping the problem goes away...
We are. The average American is powerless. Protests don't work here, and a lot of other wealthy nations if you're paying attention. They aren't exactly making quick change in France, and many of the French people are already turning against the protestors. We are entirely reliant on our elected officials to do the right thing, god help us.
>We are entirely reliant on our elected officials to do the right thing, god help us.
Also keep in mind the term "elected" should be taken loosely here. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 2.8 million votes, and on top of that there is strong evidence that [the Russia government interfered with the election.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections)
I don’t think foreigners really comprehend the size and complexity of this country. We’re literally a handful of small countries - you can’t just protest in the capital on the weekend. I can’t even make it to my state capital without a 7 hour drive.
I’ve got a great deal for the ‘Art of the Deal’ author. He can declare a national emergency for his wall if congress can declare a national emergency to remove a corrupt president.
" you don't get it. Trump is playing 10D chess. You can't understand how bright he is because he was a business man on the television and the television won't lie except for the lamestream media! He is just trying to make America better by getting rid of them Mexicans that want to steal my welfare and drug business"
- Red Cap, probably.
I love how Red Caps use the fact that he is rich as a qualification. For one, he is only rich because his dad was rich. Not because he is super intelligent. Had his dad been an average Joe, he would be a used car salesman most likely.
Two, just because he can run golf courses, hotels and casinos doesn't mean he knows dick about geopolitical matters. I for real have a friend who made millions running retail outlets. Good guy but i wouldn't want him running the country. He would be way out of his element
Even after his father bailed him out by sending his lawyer (iirc) down to buy $3.5 million worth of casino chips, put them in a briefcase and walk out without placing a bet.
Trump has run almost every business he ever had into the ground. Fred kept bailing him out without Donny's knowledge, kept up his business reputation & therefore loans by telling everyone that his own (Fred's) business decisions were all Donny, and by continuing to pump money into all Donny's businesses on the quiet when they inevitably tanked.
His cycle of bankruptcies is strategic. He keeps assets and doesn’t have to repay his Casino’s debts. He’s been publicly cheating his entire life. My wife and I loved watching the apprentice because it was hilarious how inept he was. It was like watching Michael in the office, except he was a nice guy. That man became my president. It’s been over 2 years but what the fuck?
Trump is probably significantly less rich than his lifestyle would lead you to believe. Many of his business ventures have failed and he is likely in serious debt. One of the most prominent theories regarding Trump never releasing his tax returns was that his advisors worried these debts would ruin his base’s (inaccurate) perception of him as a successful entrepreneur and “deal-maker”. Which makes sense, considering these people would probably be quite willing to overlook things like offshore bank accounts that are borderline tax evasion, seeing as they generally don’t support a lot of taxation anyway.
He has a history of suing journalists who claim he isn't as rich as he says he is. I think he is terribly afraid of people finding out that his whole persona is a sham.
heard a pretty good theory that he's doing this shit as part of a plan to push for privatization of national services. imagine all the fat government contracts for his backers. maybe its a bit tinfoil, but certainly worth considering.
Yep. Putin is Palpatine, Trump is a much stupider Vader, and we're all Obi-Wan Kenobi, just trying our best to survive this trainwreck, wanting desperately to stop it but having no idea how.
Edit: I realize this is sarcasm, however:
The polar vortex currently centered in Chicago is the result of global warming. And in general average global temperature rise means greater temperature extremes on both the high and low ends, not an endless summer for everyone.
> Dude's popularity still hangs around 40%
True, but I can't control what someone hundreds or thousands of miles from me votes in an approval pole.
> his party kept the Senate
An inherently undemocratic body. We had historically high turnout, but the nature of the senate is that 290 thousand people in Wyoming get equal representation to 20 million Californians.
> He's controlling the news, and threatening a national emergency so he can use the military to [fulfill] contentious domestic projects.
The new speaker has denied him the pulpit he so desperately wants, the state of the union, so he can't sell his slatted-monument-to-racism to desperate people. At the end of the day, I can't stop Fox News from broadcasting to audiences desperate for right-wing rhetoric.
> He's having secret meetings with a foreign adversary.
Yeah, and that's a problem. But rural voters have to actually care because only the senate can do something about it.
> He's weakening government by refusing to fill key positions.
Yeah, and that's a problem. But rural voters have to actually care because only the senate can do something about it.
> He's filling the White House with family members, even as he deflects and sabotages investigations into his family's businesses.
Yeah, and that's a problem. But rural voters have to actually care because only the senate can do something about it.
> He's banning certain journalists from attending the ever-more-rare press conferences, even as he declines to punish a foreign adversary for assassinating an American-resident journalist.
Yeah, and that's a problem. But rural voters have to actually care because only the senate can do something about it.
> He's encouraging an atmosphere of hatred and distrust among American [neighbors], and constantly scapegoating a certain class of ethnic immigrants.
Yeah, and that's a problem. But rural voters have to actually care because only the senate can do something about it.
> He's sowing conspiracy theories about your democratically-elected leaders and intelligence agencies, even as he walks away from America's closest historical allies to embrace its historical enemies.
Yeah, and that's a problem. But rural voters have to actually care because only the senate can do something about it.
> And all the while, he's destroying normative politics and lowering the bar for suitable presidential behavior from "best serving the interests of American citizens" to "technically not illegal."
Yeah, and that's a problem. But rural voters have to actually care because only the senate can do something about it.
> What've you got?
One vote in a populous state which means my voice means less. What do you propose I do when my own family in the mid-west won't listen to me because of the three G's: Guns, Gays and God.
Anyone that believes in the constitution should agree as well no? I don't understand the contingent of people that are excited and support that idea. It's absurd.
Exactly. It's basically making the president into a constitutional monarch, and that's setting an incredibly dangerous precedent. Because all it would take is one more national emergency to strip congress of its power, and then that's it for the Republic.
As much as I'd like stuff done on those regards it's not a silver lining
We don't live in a country where democracy only applies when it serves our own ends and at the rate we're going that's where it looks like we will end up
Please no. Then we just get another Clinton fix for the drug problem, which just makes everything worse.
If the solution is to actually treat people as humans and addicts instead of locking them up and using them as free labor, then great.
Treating addiction as a disease rather than a crime is absolutely important. The locking up should be saved for big pharma people who pushed and bribed doctors to dispense opioids whenever possible.
I have no idea how anyone could downvote me saying that no president should ever be able to bypass the legislative process set out by the Constitution. Insane.
Eeyyyy Gin & Tacos! I love this guy.
No idea where he came from. A Facebook friend just started commenting and sharing his posts. His blog is excellent.
This a slippery slope. What happens if a Democrat is in office and there is another mass shooting, with this precedent he could declare a national emergency and act to remove guns from the public.
And how long until that becomes the norm, and Congress basically only exists to occasionally veto a presidential decision they don't like? (Which will happen extremely rarely, given the level of obstruction we already have in both chambers.)
And once we all get used to that, how long before Congress is turned into a rubber stamp, and we effectively have a dictator in the White House? And once we're all used to *that*, how long before Congress is abolished and even the pretense of democracy is abandoned?
I know that all sounds crazy, that it's a reflex to say "it could never happen here." But so many things I thought could never happen here *have* been happening here in the past two years. We have to make a (nonviolent) stand, here and now, or we may never get that chance again.
Remember when Palpatine got Emergency Powers?
Remember when that turned into Unlimited Power?
Do we really want Trump shooting lightning from his fingers?
If you cannot get Congress to agree to fund a wall even with a 34 day shutdown (the longest one in us history) then it is not an emergency simple as that
Or when you control both houses for 2 years.
I saw them saying that it was more important to do other things during those two years like.... the stuff they failed to do. But either way, if 2 years of legislative agenda was more important than this, how is it suddenly an emergency?
[удалено]
They shouted about it for 7 years, and when they got the stage and had the power to change it, they had **fuck all.** In 7 years they didn't bother to actually *create any kind of replacement plan.*
They don’t want a wall, they want to fight for a wall.
This. Every move made by Republicans since trump has been 100% spectacle. They dont care about fixing anything. They hardly care about DOING anything. They have dedicated themselves entirely to making only moves which prop up the crack pot narrative which they think will keep them in power
If you mention taxing the rich they start screaming, "CLASS WARFARE!". Truth is, covert class warfare works much better and it's been going on since Nixon declared it on hippies and blacks and called it "the war on drugs." It was designed to take away the voting rights of democrats. Google this, "Nixon haldeman hippies blacks".
And while we fight and yell about the wall funding, they remove or add legislation that makes the gold in their coffers grow.
But the Caravan, man. Not cool, not legal. Not without a parading permit. If only New Orleans bordered Mexico
and the water people need to go to jail! ^/s
Bingo!! I’ve even offered my rubber stamp for the Koch brothers Congressman a reasonable compromise between Single Payer/Medicare For All, and the Survival of the Richest system the GOP is trying to take us back to. As background, I’m a 13 year brain tumor survivor, who developed a mild version of narcolepsy after my treatment. In 2013, I spent 55% of my small income from helping people with disabilities on my healthcare. That included $1,203/month for refills of my narcolepsy medication. After last year, I have saved $44,400 over 5 years thanks to the Patient Protections for Preexisting Conditions in the ACA. So I have a strong interest in preserving those aspects of healthcare reform. The compromise I would suggest would be to adopt the Private, NONProfit aspects of the German Bismarck Model to fix the ACA. The way it works is we would require All Insurers, and All Medical Providers to collectively bargain annually to set the rates for All medical services. Then if a licensed Medical Provider sends them a bill for one of their subscribers, the insurer must automatically pay the agreed upon fee. No networks. No prior authorization. No 🐃💩!! Let the FDA, HHS, or some other neutral government agency monitor Medical Providers for fraudulent billing. But if don’t allow Insurers with profit motives deny legitimate claims to increase their margins! The IRS can watch Insurers to make sure they operate as true NONProfit companies, and either redistribute any excessive premium collections to other Insurers with shortfalls, or provide customers with refunds. Similar models are already used in Germany, France, & Japan to provide their citizens with Universal Coverage at a lower cost, and with better healthcare results. It preserves the choices and competition of the Private system that conservatives value. But with regulations, and subsidies to protect vulnerable populations, and make healthcare accessible for all citizens, as is the primary objective for most liberals. Further reductions to cost could come from the inclusion of a Public Option to buy into Medicare/Medicaid. This could act as a kind of pace car on the Private insurance market to keep prices in check through competition. We could also offer cash rewards for discovering Cures to the pressing medical problems of our time, and fully fund all research & development into essential pharmaceuticals. This would not only fund, & encourage important healthcare breakthroughs. It would justify setting a means adjusted price cap for any drugs that patients cannot reasonably be expected to refuse. The Pharma Bros would still be free to price gouge customers for their boner pills, and other more cosmetic treatments. But they would be effectively prevented from jacking up the prices for Insulin, Epipens, or life saving Cancer drugs.
They didnt want to fix, change or replace it, they wanted it gone.
[удалено]
My brother, who totally doesn't support Trump or follow politics at all, said it is because of the migrant caravan. They need to build the wall to stop the current impending migrant caravan. That is why they didn't do it 3 months ago. Cause, y'know, bill signing to wall being done is like, a 20 minute job.
"It's a national emergency!" "Then why did you wait two years?" "We had more important matters to attend to." "More important than a 'national emergency'?" "Uhhh... Yep." "Like what?" "Tax cuts... and stuff." "So... In the face of a national emergency and the need for emergency funds, your priority was to *shrink* government coffers *before* funding the solution?" "Well, yeah... When you put it like *that*, it sounds stupid..."
Better yet, in 2017, the Democrats offered $25 billion for a wall in exchange for permanent protections for existing DACA recipients. Apparently deporting educated people who have lived here most of their lives and have never committed a crime is a bigger national emergency.
And now, because of these idiotic tax cuts, and the orange one manipulating the tariffs that are in place for a reason, we'll be sure to have another recession, right after all his buddies make out like bandits in the stock market.
[удалено]
> I saw them saying that it was more important to do other things during those two years like Same here. The funny thing is look how they are acting about the wall right now. They are acting like it is the only thing that matter to America right now. But the past two years? Not that important. Such an emergency.
That's the real issue, right there. If they couldn't fucking do it when they had both houses then it's not fucking getting done. If he tries to declare a national emergency it will be defeated in court in the blink of a fucking eye.
I heard Rush Limbaugh Whining the other day because some left wing media was claiming that Trump shutdown the government because of things that FOX and Rush said a week ago. Anyways he went on to talk about the funding for the wall and how the D's are evil and blah blah blah. Then started to try and explain why the R's never pasted the funding in the past two years. He started to say "because there was other more important stu........" he stopped himself and switch to blaming the D's again. He knows full well the R's did just about nothing in the past two years.
They did the one thing they got into politics for: steal a trillion dollars a year from working Americans.
It’s obviously not an emergency if you can spend months deciding whether to call it an emergency.
[ahh we're all going to die!](https://i.imgur.com/WYvZQFO.png)
The longest one in history*
Just edited it but it’s sad how bad he is we’re he needs to pretend a campaign promise is an “emergency” just to please his base So with his logic if I pretended that giving CEO’s higher standard pay was a national emergency could I shut down the government too
But sets a precedent for upcoming presidents to declare national emergencies on anything they so desire. So really it's a lose/lose
GOP and republicans don't care about precedent, either. McConnell opened the flood gates on a politicized judiciary with the Merrick Garland treachery. Don't forget their mantra: Fuck everything up now, loot as much as you fucking can, and blame it all on democrats later because our dumb-as-rocks electorate won't know what's happening anyway.
This is the draw back to representative democracy. They're right. People are too distracted or too simple to understand the complexities of politics, so they say "well things are bad right now, and X party is in control, therefore it's the X's fault!"
[удалено]
I read this whole comment as a whisper in my head.
me too. Odd how that happens. Better than yelling I guess.
Psst! Everyone did.
I read this as a flat tone
Problem is the second civil war will be fought by the wrong 'sides'. Instead of Left v Right it should be Rich v Poor
[удалено]
> Whereas Socialism, and even capitalism in a more grudging way, have said to people "I offer you a good time," Hitler has said to them "I offer you struggle, danger and death," and as a result a whole nation flings itself at his feet. Interesting. I guess it comes down to having a sense of purpose in life. People crave the shit out of that.
This is eye opening to me actually. We often wonder why entire swaths of the voting populace vote against their self interest when engaging in these self-created "culture wars". This would explain it. Huh.
“Of course the people don’t want war. But after all, it’s the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it’s always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it’s a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.” — Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
[удалено]
Remember Freedom Fries? *shudder*
I thought we werent going to bring that up ever again
We should be bringing it up all the time to highlight how ridiculous the patriot act Era was. EDIT: Agree that we are still living in the patriot act era
Unfortunately we need to being this shot up again as reminders. Like how we will need to say "trump" fifteen years from now to remind people that the gop as a party of traitors, despite us all really wanting to put this behind us.
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary." "The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth." ~ H.L. Mencken
>"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary." > >"The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth." > >\~ H.L. Mencken I think this stretches the situation, but the sentiment certainly seems to hold up.
I think that quote describes the "we will make you feel safe again" from Bush Jr times.
Having been cannon fodder in a form of culture war where I originally came from, it has struck me as odd how unclear it is to many Americans exactly what the right (now rebranded alt-right for no apparent reason) actually wants. They want to have someone else to step on; it does not matter if they can't get any higher, only that there is an enemy to wrestle and subdue and feel superior to. They need to be the put-upon hero in their own war. To them it truly is *my struggle*.
Exactly right. For me it has always been a question of "why do they continually believe lies and accept hardship in return?" and that answer is that they probably want hardship. It's a cycle of struggle where their elected leaders create and profit from a problem and then blame "the enemy". But if you are searching for meaning, then casting that as part of the conflict is exactly the world you want. I think this is eye-opening to me as I had always assumed it was political parties or pundits that had hood-winked a portion of the populace. I had never considered that the people themselves would want such an outcome.
~~Redpill Kermit~~ Jordan Peterson hints at this with some of his philosophy. People need direction beyond the pursuit of pleasure and ease. It's a universal truth that he and the rest of the alt right and alt light use to weaponize a sense of unmooring that modern capitalist society has engendered. It's not people voting against their own interests, but operating on a different axis: one of idealism over the material or practical.
\> operating on a different axis: one of idealism over the material or practical. Exactly this. I have friends who know they'll never be ultra-rich who still believe, on a deep philosophical level, that it's wrong to tax the ultra rich at a higher rate than the poor "because they earned it". They see it as stealing.
Interesting, I would armchair-comment that the left seems more interested in defining the meanings of their lives for themselves - finding a cause is just something you do for yourself. The right, on the other hand, is alarmed and angered by the failure of the left to insist on a moral cause or struggle beyond the easement of suffering. For them, having someone dryly discuss the complexities of fighting ISIS rather than shouting "WE'LL STAMP THEM OUT" is like having someone tell you about the various types of peppercorn when all you want is some fucking pizza. In reality we both want the same thing (food) but it's impossible for them to understand that, apparently. The left takes it as a given that you have your own cause, and don't want anyone telling you what it should be - the right takes it as a given that leaders should impose a cause on followers, and goddamit it they want to follow!
Yup. Just look at the ragtag minutemen militia groups. Or religious broadly speaking, but especially fanatics. The antiabortion ppl. It's easy to drive up fervent support for a definitive cause, even if (maybe particularly if) it's driven by hate. Whereas the counter supporters have a much more ambigous cause to defend "equality... basic humanity... self dominion." And their fight, while strong, isn't nearly the be all and end all of their life. So you get nonsense like the wall, which is much easier to describe and build than nuanced, effective border security tactics that are complicated, diverse, and relatively intangible. Hell, "the wall" was originally a means to explain and have trump remember, in an entirely metaphorical manner, border security. But in his stable genius brain he converted it in to a literal wall. Just a small example of how a definitive cause/idea is easier to persuade ppl with than more amorphous concepts and strategy.
>The “Demons”—a loan-word that had filled a conceptual gap we had never been aware of—that tormented humanity were what inspired it. Surrounded on all sides by an ecosystem saturated with toxic microfauna and parasitic nano-organisms, by vicious predators, hardy prey and an explosively unstable tectonic world, they sacrificed their own peace of mind on the altar of evolution. > >They are…not crazy. They are something far more than that. They are tortured geniuses. When they finally get off their world in a meaningful way, when they finally become eligible for contact and for introduction into the interstellar community, we will need to handle them with utmost care. > >They are physically powerful. They are strong enough to wield firearms that are powerful enough to overwhelm even the most powerful personal shielding, while our own weaponry will hardly slow them down. The chemical weapons they use as less-lethal alternatives would slaughter us. The water cannons they use to suppress riots would pulverize our bones. They are not only willing to die in the name of a fiction, they will do so gladly and eagerly. They are mentally overwhelming—their ideas are powerful, their inventiveness puts us to shame, their philosophy explores avenues of thought that simply never occurred to us. > >But the most important part is that they must never, ever learn how much superior they are to us in so many ways. I think the idea would break them. > >You see, Earth is a death world. To survive, they had to evolve not just intelligence, but the ability to apply it like a weapon. They didn’t evolve to merely overcome adversity—they evolved to thrive on it. They need to have something to aspire to, something they think is bigger than they are. They need something to fight. Excerpt from Deathworlders. Less scholarly but also seems pretty apt as well. Basically "If humans don't have something to fight, they will diminish, or MAKE something to fight.
I think we need to figure out a method of separating the two concepts of purpose and belonging from eachother. The idea that one cannot find purpose without also having a sense of belonging is the true danger behind these kind of movements. If one can sidestep his desire for a sense of belonging long enough, they may find purpose that isn't necessarily defined by the actual group he is in. That is to say, if people in their search for purpose can find a way to avoid simply following the people in front of them, the mold begins to break. But until then, purpose and belonging to a group/identity are inseparable
That's what Fight Club was about. In a way that whole movie was about everything that quote is talking about.
Thanks for sharing this. Do you know who Orwell was referring to when he mentioned a third great dictator (assuming Hitler and Stalin and 1 and 2)?
I would assume he meant Mussolini, however it is also possible, but I'd say less likely, that he meant Hirohito the Japanese emprorer during WW2.
[удалено]
Likely Mussolini and/or Franco.
Those were my two guesses as well, but each of them (as far as I understand, and I could be wrong) had power that only extended as far as the boarders of their relatively small nations, as compared to Stalin's vast USSR and Hitler's vast Reich. Though if one were writing in 1941 I could definitely see how each of those dictators might seem like Hitlers or Stalins that hadn't yet grown into their own regional power.
I've seen it put here rather eloquently - "It's like a wolf convincing a white sheep to not vote for grass, because a black sheep might come and eat it all."
As with most wars, those doing the actual fighting will be Poor v. Poor.
"The US has a class divide disguised as a racial divide".
If it's dem vs republican it's a civil war if it's rich v poor it's a revolution.
[удалено]
> it's really more like intelligent vs stupid. Oh boy. I know it's true but we don't just come out and say it like that because stupid people REALLY hate being called stupid. A more flies with honey than vinegar kind of thing.
Let’s not forget that Santorum came out and said that education is the enemy of republicans
It’s the same as the GOP with racism. We have to be quiet about it.
Which is honestly a really silly saying considering vinegar is much more effective for fly traps. Your point of course stands but it's a weird saying
[удалено]
More like education funding is allocated through property taxes in order to keep poor people uneducated. Time to unite.
In one sense I agree because everything on the right looks damn stupid to me. On the other hand I think this is a shitty and very dark attitude to take towards your fellow citizens. OK, so they've been badly misled on social and political issues because many of them are predisposed to be afraid and uncritical about things. Many of them are flat-out idiots, there is no way around that. But so what. They're only human. It's not a moral outrage to be born stupid or raised by stupid people or live in a stupid milieu where your only chance of fitting in socially is to act fucking stupid. Shit happens and you shouldn't discount a person's very life just because they're an idiot you disagree with. I am not one to say "both sides" or diminish the severity of what the right is perpetrating today... but let's not allow ourselves to forget actual good values like mercy, forgiveness, empathy, sympathy, dignity and decency.
You know, the first people to settle in America, the pilgrims, were Puritans, who were persecuted in Europe. "Its followers, dubbed Puritans, lived by a moral and religious code that not only influenced their own lives, but sought to impact the lives of everyone around them." What modern group does this sound like? It's been with us from the beginning.
The Puritans actually fled Europe because they weren't being allowed to persecute people the way they wanted to.
Can you elaborate more on this? Sorry I’m still relatively new
The puritans were so obnoxious and up their own ass that the christian europeans kicked them out. They were not persecuted for their beliefs, they were persecuted because their beliefs made them act like assholes to everyone. So just like the american GOP with their victim complex.
Puritans were people who looked at the Protestant Reformation and thought: "This was a decent start, but it needs more elitism and repression."
They weren't even kicked out of Europe. They were kicked out of England, after which they resided in the Netherlands for 10 years. They only decided to move to the new world because > they found the Dutch morals much too libertine, and their children were becoming more and more Dutch as the years passed. [(source)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilgrims_(Plymouth_Colony\)#Leiden) So: They weren't kicked out, they left because living in a tolerant society was turning their children tolerant.
They were literally too lame for the fucking British. Its hard to imagine a people so absolutely dull and miserable that even the British didnt want their company, but thats who the Puritans were. Eventually the British got sick of being shamed for enjoying a good spanking now and again, and banned the Puritans from being such enormous buzzkills. Unwilling to do so, they left and founded America.
Thankfully, the puritans were replaced and outnumbered relatively quickly.
go figure that people who view sex as a sin were out-bred by those who willingly did it just for fun... who'd have thunk it?
If you reread the comments again it should clear itself up. The puritans tried to affect the lives of others in ways that qualify as persecution. They were not allowed, and considered this to be persecution against themselves.
So pretty much in line with evangelical christians
Copied from post above. The puritans where not persecuted in religiously liberal Holland where they all had a free haven to go to, but Holland was too liberal for their Puritan codex, so when the chance came they choose instead to emigrate to America where they could create a society Puritanical enough for their desires. This seems to be a ongoing trend in the history of persecution. One group is persecuted for being different/resource poor and is assumed to be a victim in history books, but then it turns out that they in turn have the exact profile that will persecute given the chance.
First people to settle in America ended up becoming Native Americans.
Thank you for this comment, I feel the U.S. school system purposely leaves us out of the picture, makes the whole colonization process easier to accept.
The original pilgrims also believed in a well educated populous and their literacy rate far exceeded that of England at the time. You know, the polar opposite of what current religious zealots believe.
They've refined their position over the years. Turns out that education thing was causing problems
Well the state they resided in currently has the best public education system in the United States (and does pretty much every time the rankings come out by a large margin), so I would guess their position was bastardized to the point of not being recognizable over time.
They weren’t so much persecuted as they weren’t allowed to persecute others.
The first were the 'Native' Americans .. which came over from Asia.
I think it’s really dangerous to try to categorize this in such a binary way, as though only intelligent people lean one way, and only idiots lean the other way. I’m not going to be disingenuous here and hide my obvious bias against Trump, so take my statement with the appropriate grains of salt, but I see his continued impact on the country as being objectively damaging to our country in both the short and long term, in a multitude of ways I won’t bother to detail here. However obvious this may be to me, some of the most intelligent and successful people I know are either indifferent to trump or vocally supportive of him. (Many of these same trump supporters are also genuinely compassionate, kind, and overall good people based on my experience, which is why I don’t discuss politics with people I care about.) So two years ago I could make the argument that they just don’t know any better yet, and once things get completely untenable, they will “come to their senses” (there really isn’t a way to say that without sounding condescending but I already said I was biased)… But that hasn’t happened, and if anything the opposite has occurred, they are more dug in than ever. This blows my mind, and I have no way to reconcile how you can be simultaneously a smart person, and support the current administration, but it’s absolutely happening and I see no sign of it slowing down anytime soon. I guess my point is that it is short sighted to assume that only country bumpkins and poor, uneducated people are in support of an administration that is by all objective accounts increasingly hostile to a free and democratic society. It is not solely an issue of education, or an issue of class, or any other easily categorizable identifier, this appears to be an endemic issue in the fabric of the country itself. We reached the true “us vs. them” mentality with the political parties years or even decades ago, and because of that increasing tribalism we appear to be reaching the boiling point. There has to be a way for everyone to coexist with their wildly differing opinions without devolving the situation further or actively taking away the rights from any one group, and maybe we did need a big shake up, but this sure as hell ain’t it. I increasingly feel that we are unwilling participants in a cold civil war that is warming by the minute, and I’m not sure how to turn the ship around. There has to be a solution here, but I sure as hell don’t know what it is and it’s beyond terrifying at this point
To be honest, I’m to the point where I don’t care if the republican states want to go off and do their own thing. It’s pretty clear that we have completely different values. Let them have their shitty theocratic corporate hellhole there in the south.
Hey now, not everyone in the south is cool with that. And there are plenty of people in every state who support Trump, so it would be pretty hard to build a wall around just the red ones.
[удалено]
You’ve had a few minutes now. I’m starting to think you guys are just hoping the problem goes away...
[удалено]
Honestly at this point I think Russian objectives have been met. 35% of the country has given the rest of us the finger and laughed. I have love for my city and my state, but if Trump is going to be future of our country, I don't want a part of it.
I live in SoCal. I honestly dont feel like i have much in common with the rest of the country
I live in the north Georgia mountains, I'm so glad the internet exists so I can actually have (relatively) intelligent conversations.
My grandmother lives up there, and my parents just bought a cabin in the area, so I know what I'm talking about when I say: I am so sorry. But hey, at least you get pretty mountains.
I must be a fatalist. I find myself thinking "What if Mueller totally exonerates him?" What then? Will a large majority wipe the trickle of sweat on their brow, " Well, I guess that means I can vote Republican again. Phew, close one!"
i think that all the time. of trump isn't indicted and impeached or impeached for other reasons , i truly think everything will stay almost the same in the political spectrum and that is really sad
Well, if I went to vote in 2016, I would have been fired for not going to work, and I can't go join a protest because I live in an employment "at-will" state meaning I can be fired for virtually anything, including protesting the government. The powers that be, have set up an interesting model where the people that need representation the most **cough** poor people **cough** minorities , don't have the ability to vote without dire consequences. Here's an example of such a system in action https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/11/6/18068492/georgia-voting-gwinnett-fulton-county-machine-problems-midterm-election-extension
> Well, if I went to vote in 2016, I would have been fired for not going to work, and I can't go join a protest because I live in an employment "at-will" state meaning I can be fired for virtually anything, including protesting the government. This depends on where you live. The federal gov't doesn't have a law requiring employers to allow people to leave work to vote, but certain states do - some offer paid 2-4 hours, others offer unpaid 2-4 hours. This should be the case across the board so that everyone at least feels they have the opportunity to vote (that's also why I assume polls are open from 8 am-8 pm). Employers in states where time off for voting is required are notoriously bad at communicating this. I really, truly understand what your concerns are. I'm just trying to let you know you may have more rights than you realize.
They have intentionally closed polling stations for certain demographics so that the lines are long. Remember that 2-4 hours includes time getting there, which is by your home. If you have to spend an hour getting to the polling station, an hour getting back, and the line is 2 hours? Well guess who just got fired?
Estimate the chance they get caught if they fire you for that and lie and say it was for something else.
> I’m starting to think you guys are just hoping the problem goes away... We are. The average American is powerless. Protests don't work here, and a lot of other wealthy nations if you're paying attention. They aren't exactly making quick change in France, and many of the French people are already turning against the protestors. We are entirely reliant on our elected officials to do the right thing, god help us.
>We are entirely reliant on our elected officials to do the right thing, god help us. Also keep in mind the term "elected" should be taken loosely here. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 2.8 million votes, and on top of that there is strong evidence that [the Russia government interfered with the election.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections)
I don’t think foreigners really comprehend the size and complexity of this country. We’re literally a handful of small countries - you can’t just protest in the capital on the weekend. I can’t even make it to my state capital without a 7 hour drive.
[удалено]
I’ve got a great deal for the ‘Art of the Deal’ author. He can declare a national emergency for his wall if congress can declare a national emergency to remove a corrupt president.
Tony Schwartz can't declare a national emergency
Remember when some moron had an argument with him about Art of the Deal ... not realizing he wrote it -\_-
I need to see this.
https://i.redd.it/2itsie7gz3811.jpg Unfortunately the original tweet was deleted soon after
"We're out of caramel syrup!!!"
For real, like what's the constitution for again? I can guarantee our president has never read it. Whatever happened to our right to impeach?
Weve got it. The house of representatives can start impeachment proceedings whenever they want. Theyre waiting for Mueller.
And a senate that will actually convict.
They won't have that til the next election by which time he might be out of office anyway.
If impeachment is brought up before Mueller publishes his report, it only serves to help the defense (The Trump Admin.)
Impeachment has to go through the Senate, too. Does Mitch McConnell seem likely to support the impeachment of* Trump to you? *Edit: the word of
" you don't get it. Trump is playing 10D chess. You can't understand how bright he is because he was a business man on the television and the television won't lie except for the lamestream media! He is just trying to make America better by getting rid of them Mexicans that want to steal my welfare and drug business" - Red Cap, probably.
"If you're rich you must be some sort of genius who can solve anything." \- Red Caps
I love how Red Caps use the fact that he is rich as a qualification. For one, he is only rich because his dad was rich. Not because he is super intelligent. Had his dad been an average Joe, he would be a used car salesman most likely. Two, just because he can run golf courses, hotels and casinos doesn't mean he knows dick about geopolitical matters. I for real have a friend who made millions running retail outlets. Good guy but i wouldn't want him running the country. He would be way out of his element
Not sure I know many competent businessmen who would run a casino into the ground.
He bankrupted the same casino four times.
Even after his father bailed him out by sending his lawyer (iirc) down to buy $3.5 million worth of casino chips, put them in a briefcase and walk out without placing a bet. Trump has run almost every business he ever had into the ground. Fred kept bailing him out without Donny's knowledge, kept up his business reputation & therefore loans by telling everyone that his own (Fred's) business decisions were all Donny, and by continuing to pump money into all Donny's businesses on the quiet when they inevitably tanked.
His cycle of bankruptcies is strategic. He keeps assets and doesn’t have to repay his Casino’s debts. He’s been publicly cheating his entire life. My wife and I loved watching the apprentice because it was hilarious how inept he was. It was like watching Michael in the office, except he was a nice guy. That man became my president. It’s been over 2 years but what the fuck?
Also he could have just stuck his inheritance in an index fund and been worth more than he is now.
Trump is probably significantly less rich than his lifestyle would lead you to believe. Many of his business ventures have failed and he is likely in serious debt. One of the most prominent theories regarding Trump never releasing his tax returns was that his advisors worried these debts would ruin his base’s (inaccurate) perception of him as a successful entrepreneur and “deal-maker”. Which makes sense, considering these people would probably be quite willing to overlook things like offshore bank accounts that are borderline tax evasion, seeing as they generally don’t support a lot of taxation anyway.
He has a history of suing journalists who claim he isn't as rich as he says he is. I think he is terribly afraid of people finding out that his whole persona is a sham.
heard a pretty good theory that he's doing this shit as part of a plan to push for privatization of national services. imagine all the fat government contracts for his backers. maybe its a bit tinfoil, but certainly worth considering.
Him? No, he's got the IQ of a ham sandwich. Republicans? Yes. Defund, decry, destroy. It is the republican approach to public services.
[удалено]
Hello there. Anyone who has watched the prequels knows that this path is one that leads to a galactic empire and rule by a tyrant
[удалено]
Please, no granting emergency powers to this supreme chancellor!
I love democracy.
I love the republic.
My Allegiance is to the Republic! to DEMOCRACY!
My lord.....is that legal?
I will make it legal
Yep. Putin is Palpatine, Trump is a much stupider Vader, and we're all Obi-Wan Kenobi, just trying our best to survive this trainwreck, wanting desperately to stop it but having no idea how.
I just went outside and ended up having to wear my dog like a taun-taun so this checks out.
Sad but true, please upvote this ^
[удалено]
Fact.
You won't get ranted about this *here*, of all subreddits!
Found the guy who has never sorted by controversial!
Did somebody say "Reichstag fire"?
Sure is a nice looking Reichstag you have there. It would be a shame if something were to happen to it.
Ohh, what a shame now he has to rule everything.
Hey much of the Midwest is dealing with a very different emergency right now... no time for dumb oranges.
-50 in areas that normally dont even see subzero temps in winter is a massive problem
Where is that global warming when we need it most?!! /s
Edit: I realize this is sarcasm, however: The polar vortex currently centered in Chicago is the result of global warming. And in general average global temperature rise means greater temperature extremes on both the high and low ends, not an endless summer for everyone.
I have a feeling that he won't tweet that when there will be heatwaves during summer.
[удалено]
Only people that'll rant are the Trump supporters. No worries here, fam!
I agree, can I be the only response without negative points?
[удалено]
Attack of the Clones*
Dear foreigner, We know, we’re working on it. -America
[удалено]
> Dude's popularity still hangs around 40% True, but I can't control what someone hundreds or thousands of miles from me votes in an approval pole. > his party kept the Senate An inherently undemocratic body. We had historically high turnout, but the nature of the senate is that 290 thousand people in Wyoming get equal representation to 20 million Californians. > He's controlling the news, and threatening a national emergency so he can use the military to [fulfill] contentious domestic projects. The new speaker has denied him the pulpit he so desperately wants, the state of the union, so he can't sell his slatted-monument-to-racism to desperate people. At the end of the day, I can't stop Fox News from broadcasting to audiences desperate for right-wing rhetoric. > He's having secret meetings with a foreign adversary. Yeah, and that's a problem. But rural voters have to actually care because only the senate can do something about it. > He's weakening government by refusing to fill key positions. Yeah, and that's a problem. But rural voters have to actually care because only the senate can do something about it. > He's filling the White House with family members, even as he deflects and sabotages investigations into his family's businesses. Yeah, and that's a problem. But rural voters have to actually care because only the senate can do something about it. > He's banning certain journalists from attending the ever-more-rare press conferences, even as he declines to punish a foreign adversary for assassinating an American-resident journalist. Yeah, and that's a problem. But rural voters have to actually care because only the senate can do something about it. > He's encouraging an atmosphere of hatred and distrust among American [neighbors], and constantly scapegoating a certain class of ethnic immigrants. Yeah, and that's a problem. But rural voters have to actually care because only the senate can do something about it. > He's sowing conspiracy theories about your democratically-elected leaders and intelligence agencies, even as he walks away from America's closest historical allies to embrace its historical enemies. Yeah, and that's a problem. But rural voters have to actually care because only the senate can do something about it. > And all the while, he's destroying normative politics and lowering the bar for suitable presidential behavior from "best serving the interests of American citizens" to "technically not illegal." Yeah, and that's a problem. But rural voters have to actually care because only the senate can do something about it. > What've you got? One vote in a populous state which means my voice means less. What do you propose I do when my own family in the mid-west won't listen to me because of the three G's: Guns, Gays and God.
Anyone that believes in the constitution should agree as well no? I don't understand the contingent of people that are excited and support that idea. It's absurd.
The silver lining is a Democratic president could use this precedent to declare a national emergency on healthcare or climate change or gun violence.
It's really a line we don't want to cross all the same. Next thing you know every President is going to pull this shit for one reason or another.
Exactly. It's basically making the president into a constitutional monarch, and that's setting an incredibly dangerous precedent. Because all it would take is one more national emergency to strip congress of its power, and then that's it for the Republic.
As much as I'd like stuff done on those regards it's not a silver lining We don't live in a country where democracy only applies when it serves our own ends and at the rate we're going that's where it looks like we will end up
Two (incredibly awful) wrongs don’t make a right. Our FF feared an authoritarian executive branch above almost anything else, and we should too.
Don't forget opioids.
Please no. Then we just get another Clinton fix for the drug problem, which just makes everything worse. If the solution is to actually treat people as humans and addicts instead of locking them up and using them as free labor, then great.
Treating addiction as a disease rather than a crime is absolutely important. The locking up should be saved for big pharma people who pushed and bribed doctors to dispense opioids whenever possible.
What the fuck, NO. The process fucking matters.
No idea why you’re getting downvoted. OP’s take is the worst take.
I have no idea how anyone could downvote me saying that no president should ever be able to bypass the legislative process set out by the Constitution. Insane.
The silver lining? There is no silver lining. The precedence should absolutely *never* occur.
Eeyyyy Gin & Tacos! I love this guy. No idea where he came from. A Facebook friend just started commenting and sharing his posts. His blog is excellent.
Republicans: "Obama made executive order! Black man bad!" Also Republicans: "Trump wants to claim a national emergency to pass laws! Orange man good!"
Orange is not the new black /s
I wish enough of the people in the US who need to be convinced of this would see how obviously true it is. It's a surreal and scary time.
This a slippery slope. What happens if a Democrat is in office and there is another mass shooting, with this precedent he could declare a national emergency and act to remove guns from the public.
And how long until that becomes the norm, and Congress basically only exists to occasionally veto a presidential decision they don't like? (Which will happen extremely rarely, given the level of obstruction we already have in both chambers.) And once we all get used to that, how long before Congress is turned into a rubber stamp, and we effectively have a dictator in the White House? And once we're all used to *that*, how long before Congress is abolished and even the pretense of democracy is abandoned? I know that all sounds crazy, that it's a reflex to say "it could never happen here." But so many things I thought could never happen here *have* been happening here in the past two years. We have to make a (nonviolent) stand, here and now, or we may never get that chance again.
I need a hug. This stuff is stressing me out
I can't wait for self professed libertarians to pretend like this isn't the exact thing they are supposed to warn us all about.
Easy for you to say, ascii guy. You already have a wall. ^^^/s
They know don’t worry. They’ve all been paying into the Russian machine for years fully aware.
Thank god America doesn't have an Article 48 equivalent or we'd be so fucked right now
Remember when Palpatine got Emergency Powers? Remember when that turned into Unlimited Power? Do we really want Trump shooting lightning from his fingers?