I find is sad how the libs want everyone to "come together and unite" and promote free speech, yet they are the ones starting all the riots and promoting "fighting in the streets" as Tim Kaine said the other day. There is no uniting. They aren't even trying. They don't even give this president a chance. They are just fighting and dividing deeper then ever.
Yep. They want unity as in hive mind. Everyone thinks the same
There's a bunch of things to unpack here.
I'm not sure where the exhortations to unite are coming from, but presumably it's encouraging everyone vaguely blue to unite with other blues and blue-ish people? A call for sustained protests and opposing action? Not a call to find middle ground with reds and unite as a country, politically.
Most liberals are not demonstrating. Most demonstrators are not rioting. Most rioters earnestly believe that their actions are far less damaging than those the Trump administration has taken and/or indicates it will take. (On the direct level I happen to agree, but they are failing to account for the indirect value of the conventions of modern civil society and the rule of law.)
"Hive mind" is a pretty silly term that I could just as easily slap on Tea Partiers or Trumpistas or anyone else who from the outside seems unreasonably motivated for their cause and prone to repeating catchphrases. There's a tremendous diversity of opinion in both blue and red camps; it's not very useful to pick a handful of the noisiest asshats and use them to describe half the country.
Promotion of free speech, as opposed to promotion of speech of which you approve in the name of "free speech", is primarily a libertarian virtue. I see both reds and blues frequently applying very... object level analysis to free speech issues. (Obviously, it is also possible to be a modern liberal or conservative and still hold strong views on free speech; I am generalizing.)
I'm not sure what manner of chance you wish for Trump to have? I was giving him a chance. I still am, though to a considerably smaller degree. This flurry of EOs and apparent (albeit not yet fully clear) disregard for judicial authority is tremendously troubling. I wasn't particularly interested in the demonstrations 2 weeks ago, but I was one of those who donated to the ACLU this week.
In my view, a more reasonable order of events would have been to concentrate on confirming out the cabinet, then thoroughly discussing and tweaking any upcoming EOs internally, and only then to start releasing them, probably around April or so. What we've got instead seems to be a damaging rush-job.
I'm earnestly interested in what you'd consider to be a reasonable next sequence of events, and general shape of the next few years, to consider Trump to have earned his chance? Or, perhaps more concisely, what would Trump have to do to fully lose his chance in your eyes?
Fighting and dividing has been a major trend since... the 90s, I guess? It has flared up because power has transitioned. This is not remarkable. It takes 2 to tango, and the dance is getting quite vigorous of late. Every opposition now seeks to be highly obstructionist. I agree that it's really quite irksome, and I wish the members of our esteemed legislature would hurry up and get over themselves.
Author