Thank you so much for keeping it going!

The don't forget about congress. 216 GOP congressional reps voted to handicap congress's ability to halt tariffs. For much of the current session of congress, their calendar wasn't counting days.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/house-republicans-block-con...

Considering American involved Wars: American Civil War, Vietnam War, First Gulf War, Iraq War, World War 2

Considering how many millions have died due to unrestrained capitalism destroying ecosystem, contaminating air, water, soil?

Please do not pretend that capitalism does not promote nor allow the deaths of those who it is profitable to allow to die.

Those seem like harder challenges then the changes themselves.

It is more than willing to implement its extreme nationalism via executive orders, regardless of what the law says.

What, do you think they should not be punished, or should be immune from following the law? The laws passed by the representatives and president of the democracy you're so keen on?

If you think they are following the law, you sound crazy, because you are.

There's such a long list of things one could say that about.

In this instance the "representation matters" thought process seems to bear out.

Folks talk about aspiring to role models who look like them. People also react strongly when this sort of thing happens to someone who looks like them.

Streisand Effect and all.

You sound like a doom sayer who'd stop investing in the USA because the current admin has made it an unsafe environment.

You 'othered' people from the get-go. Why are you so upset about others doing it?

> You automatically assumed that I was a conservative.

Where did anyone call you a conservative? Referring to conservatives in the 3rd person is not referring to you?

Why are you taking things personally?

> You assumed that I was using the term 'your justice' as a reference to ideological instead of national identification

Because that is often how it is discussed. Having never met a person who uses the words the way you are using them, so why assume that someone is using a term in a novel way? In Dutch, are you going to assume people are using terminology to mean something, while technically correct, that no one you have met uses? Props if so, but that's sounds like a tall tale.

> You have now listed a long list of things which according to you apply to those other people who you do not agree with

They apply to many people. If you do not have personal experience, that's fine.

But, don't try to invalidate other people's lived experiences.

> When I asked a direct question on whether something applied to your circles

There was no deflection. Simply a response. If you cannot parse the response, it can be clarified to your benefit.

> You tried to imply 'racist' motives

Explaining why something is racist is not prescribing intent. Why are you prescribing intent, but while criticizing others by falsely reading into their intent?

> When called out on this you bring up the tired old trope of 'dog whistles'

Pretending something isn't a problem is a rather poor defense.

> using a severely biased Wikipedia link.

Maybe you're the one with a rather large bias? Or maybe small bias? Who knows.

It depends on what you view a "discussing politics". To borrow a quote, "politics is the art of the possible." You have to use politics to define what problems are even considered, much less the possible ways they might get solved.

For instance, unlimited spending on political campaigns is either a problem, or not a problem, depending on your politics, never mind if it should be solved via amendment, court packing, or congressional act[1].

I agree, many people go hardcore on tribalism. I would likely agree it is a bad thing that many Americans define politics as, "us" and, "them". If you want to be results oriented, you have to convince people it's a problem, you're going to need to use politics to do so.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

Feels like that's how extremism wins? If no one wants to confront other's political ideas, out of fear irrational responses,

At least in the United States, Americans are more unified on issues than the current executive branch, or (at the very least) the largest main stream media outlet would have you believe. It'd be great if people worked at the center, dealing with outcomes. There's far too much talking past each other, as people stand on their mountain of comfortable points, far too many who ignore evidence as soon as it does not conform to their world view.

It is _extremely_ common to speak that way about government officials in conservative circles in the United States. Not centrist, liberal or progressive ones, because such language is reductive and problematic.

It is also _extremely_ common to use the dog whistle[1] of "define a woman" in American Conservative circles. American conservatives often use such bigotry to justify political violence against those they see as less than themselves[2].

If you want to say, "your Supreme Court's latest Justice", or "your nation's newest Justice", feel free.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_whistle_(politics)

[2]https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-rich...

If anyone in the DOJ cared to enforce it.