The interesting thing is that anatomically modern Homo sapiens appeared about 300,000 years ago and did live exclusively as hunter-gatherers for about 280,000 of those years.
I suspect that as Nate Silver says, Trump is doing this sort of thing because he wants to fight about immigration rather than his other, less popular policies - he thinks he has the public support to win on immigration.
That's my whole point. Might things be a lot worse in a couple of years? Yes. Are things as bad as this article is all about saying they are right now? No, clearly not.
"The American democratic republic is in danger of dying" is true.
"The American democratic republic has died" is histrionics, and histrionics are particularly counterproductive at a time when what's actually going on is so serious.
The U.S. is survived by a country of the same name, the United States of America, now a presidential dictatorship.
This gets an eye roll from me. The USA is certainly in a lot of danger but anyone who calls the current situation a dictatorship is ignorant of what a dictatorship is.
Here's a hint for the author: you wouldn't be getting an article like this one published in a dictatorship.
How are you guys getting all these wrong answers? Because I do use ChatGPT to look up information about software development, which is something I have a lot of experience with, and it's almost always right. "Almost always" isn't "always" but, if I'm being honest, it's probably better than my own memory.
Do you remember how prisoners were kept in Guantanamo Bay, even after they were no longer suspected of any wrongdoing, simply because there wasn't a country that would both accept them and treat them in accordance with US law? Many of those prisoners ended up nowhere near where they came from.
Some countries refuse to accept deportees. Some countries are so likely to mistreat deportees that sending them to those countries is illegal. Some countries simply don't exist anymore.
It sounds like the point they're trying to make is that Americans don't want to have children because things in the USA are getting bad, but if that was the correct explanation then we would expect to see (1) people in countries where it's worse having even fewer children, which we don't see, and (2) people in countries where it's better having more children, which we also don't see.
It's annoying to repeatedly read the same completely unsupported explanations for fertility rate declines.
Except for the part where the fertility rate in El Salvador is higher than it is in the USA. If we're becoming more like them, our fertility rate should be increasing.
The computer that controlled all the doors refused to open any of them, including the door to the room in which it was physically located.
It wasn't quite HAL 9000 because doors could still be opened from the inside, but control over the computer was regained only with the help of a locksmith.
Built to fail? The Constitution worked, more or less, for over 237 years and 44 different presidents. It hasn't even failed yet now, although it is in a lot of danger.
It's the job of Congress to stop the President from doing this, via impeachment. However, in a democracy the people get to choose their leaders and if the people elect not just a man like Trump to be President but also a majority in Congress to support him almost unconditionally, then the people get what they voted for.
Even now, Republicans in Congress fear that they will not be re-elected if they oppose Trump. Thus they're still carrying out the will of the people.
That's a good point, and I suppose that someone sympathetic to Trump might think that he was being unfairly prosecuted after other presidents hadn't been.
I disagree with your implication that a former president should always be punished for having broken the law. The rules do need to be different for presidents than for ordinary people.
A prince, when by some urgent circumstance or some impetuous and unforeseen accident that very much concerns his state, compelled to forfeit his word and break his faith, or otherwise forced from his ordinary duty, ought to attribute this necessity to a lash of the divine rod: vice it is not, for he has given up his own reason to a more universal and more powerful reason; but certainly ’tis a misfortune: so that if any one should ask me what remedy? “None,” say I, “if he were really racked between these two extremes: 'Let him see to it that it be not a loophole for perjury that he seeks.' He must do it: but if he did it without regret, if it did not weigh on him to do it, ’tis a sign his conscience is in a sorry condition."
Montaigne' Essays, book 3 chapter 1
It's one thing to break a law with the belief (perhaps unjustified) that doing so is necessary for the good of the nation and quite another to do to because power protects you from deserved punishment, but how can the law itself make this distinction?
Even the Trump appointees seem like the sort of people who would want to defend the rule of law at least to preserve their own (and therefore the court's) power, so I wonder how each of the six "conservative" judges was convinced to rule the way that he or she did. I don't imagine all of them doing it for the same reason. Maybe some were rewarded for their votes and others wanted to see Trump wreck things (Alito and his flag come to mind) but did some actually think that it was a good idea or the correct legal decision?
Hah, I would be ecstatic if we had a Romney now instead of what we do have. Or even a McCain. Or hell, even a GWB as long as he wasn't allowed to invade anywhere.
The interesting thing is that anatomically modern Homo sapiens appeared about 300,000 years ago and did live exclusively as hunter-gatherers for about 280,000 of those years.