Ajax,
Your article is disjointed as hell. You need to get better at synthesizing information.
I watched a CNN interview with a
Republican Senator from Pennsylvania who tore down the 2000$ "stimulus," and provided he didn't misrepresent the facts regarding the stimulus, I agree with him 100%. The last 2400$ "stimulus" shouldn't have happened either. There are two justifications for government spending in response to an exogenous shock 1) a stop gap: like assisting with unemployment or rent 2) stimulate spending if people are hoarding dollars. These responses aren't without potential criticism, but they are the only justifications on the table to even consider as economic responses. In addition, humanitarian aid for its own sake is justified, even at an economic hit in the long run. But the 2000$ doesn't meet any of these criteria.
I don't know how invested the Democrats really are in the additional 2000$, but if we're looking for ulterior motives, then the article missed by a mile, because obviously, the Democrats would have a huge vested interest to "divide and conquer" -- pit the Senators against the President.
You're getting a glimpse, Ajax, of the world to come should you and your horrifically ignorant peers, peers such as subs, really succeed one day in a coup and put a guy like Trump in as dictator. Lying in the extreme about election fraud just to win will have horrible consequences, and ya'll are getting a tiny taste of it now.
Trump has "mostly acted as a conservative" because his presidency to this point has been a compromise. The cowardly senators and congress who have gone along with the election fraud fraud know they need a front man who can appeal to a wide range of (ignorant or evil) voters so that they can stay in power. In return for getting to be the most famous person in the world, Trump toes the conservative line, sometimes awkwardly as he's not really a conservative, but generally, he knows he must compromise. But once you've found the secret to usurp democracy and get around checks and balances, it's anybody's guess what he's going to do. Once he doesn't need to appease anybody and has full reign to do whatever he wants, then what? You're really willing to take that bet? Yes, you are, because you're that angry. But those who are better educated and less angry should really stop and think about it.
We can't take farmers and take all their people and send them back because they don't have maybe what they're supposed to have. They get rid of some of the people who have been there for 25 years and they work great and then you throw them out and they're replaced by criminals.
