Wasn’t the stated goal to eliminate 2 trillion in spending? So, he’s destroyed the government’s ability to function and compromised the security of the government’s computer systems he’s only reached 2.75% of his stated goal? But not actually?
I want off this ride
People say that about the rich in America too. “Don’t tax them, they’ll leave and take all their money with them!”
But I dunno, maybe we shouldn’t let people get so rich we’re terrified of them leaving with their money? Just a passing thought…
But also I call bullshit. Doing business in America is, for the foreseeable future, profitable. The rich aren’t going to leave because they’re making less profit as long as “less profit” is more than “how much profit will I have if I leave”
Of course, now that they’ve completely captured the US government, the conversation is kind of moot.
In comparison, Reyes said, Trump needs only to provide Congress with 30 days’ notice and a written explanation to remove an inspector general.
She cites the legal procedure in her comments declining the motion. If that’s not an acknowledgement of the illegality of what happened instead, what is?
So putting a stop, even temporarily, to plainly illegal actions by government official(s) is unreasonable if the illegal actions aren’t illegal enough? And “illegal enough” doesn’t include “taking one of the biggest ever steps to remove one of the largest barriers to corruption”
And that’s… Reasonable?
I like to be more nuanced with ideas like this, because I like to acknowledge the widespread voter disenfranchisement that happens in our country.
If a person could have voted and didn’t, then I agree; they made an active choice and that counts.
If a person is eligible to vote but can’t–maybe their voter registration was wrongfully purged, or they genuinely can’t afford to take time off work, or something else valid I dunno–then that’s not an active choice to not vote and I don’t think “not voting is voting” can be applied.