If not, they should be.

They should be meeting in emergency session. They should be talking. They should be discussing what is happening to our country? They need to put partisanship aside. They need to get serious.

The nation calls for them to act. They should not leave the room until they agree.

These are the times that the Congress can not be out to lunch.

Whenever you support someone who divides the people with his every utterance, there comes a time when your country can no longer carry the weight.

Dumbasses enjoy the "us" vs "them" speeches of wannabe dictators. They cheer when their political opponents are mocked and called names. Real dumbasses spread the lies and propaganda and salute their superior movement.

They do not think twice about the division created by their leaders. For every action, there is a like reaction. Eventually, there is a spontaneous combustion as the divide sparks violence and revolt.

Dumbasses thought our country was too strong to be affected by divisive forces, foreign or domestic. They had no idea how fragile their democracy was, nor how easy it is to destroy.

Only when it is too late do dumbasses realize that the only way we can survive is if we are united for a common purpose. Division is as old as the Bible itself, as old as Cain and Abel.

Nothing is going to get better with Donald Trump as your president - it will only get worse. So, you do not believe that?

As George Will has recently noted, the next crisis will be one of national security.

Talk to your politicians. Demand oversight.

We have been warned.

It is a most serious question.

The question is not meant to provoke or promote division, but rather to define and understand it.

Can the divisions reach such a scale that the Union can no longer stay together?

If we could someday look back at these times, would we say that it was the beginnings of the Second Great Revolution?

https://liberationist.org/dividing-people-is-the-best-way-to-lead/

<snip>
Hint: leaders either divide people or unite them

There are two ways to lead people and drive impact.

One way is by dividing people. Create a mutual enemy and lead a crusade to conquer it. Turn it into a life or death situation — the sense of urge unleashes unconditional support. Conquering, winning at-any-cost, is all that matters.

Another way to lead is by uniting people. Create a shared ambition and inspire people to build it with you. Turn it into a life quest — the journey to build something bigger than themselves unites people. The desire to leave a legacy is why people join a mission.

Leaders have two choices — to unite or divide.

more at link above:

(From Google)

The Divide And Conquer Approach

The Latin phrase “Divide et impera” is as old as politics and war. The divide your enemy so you can reign approach is attributed to Julius Cesar — he successfully applied it to conquer Gaul twenty two centuries ago (no typo).

===========================

The larger the target, the better the chance to divide. Simply from a PR standpoint, known and popular with the people, the easier it is for people to take one side over the other.

Large institutions, such as our Military Posts and Generals, can be persuaded to choose one side over the other, by a simple suggestion, from the Chain of Command. That is divisive for our country.

In my opinion, removing the active military troops alone, does not lesson the military/police build-up around this White House. Yes, it is serious.

All one need to do is "divide et impera"?

If the economy has already lost 42 million jobs and it gains 2.5 million new jobs, but it loses another 1.9 million thru unemployment stats, how many people are unemployed? Shouldn't that number be somewhere around 41 million still unemployed?

What would be the real unemployment rate, according to the facts as we know them?

(Consider that @63% of the population is in the work force) About 157 million workers total?

In my math, 41 million unemployed is more than 25%.

In order to get to 13%, approximately 21 million more Americans would need to get their jobs back.

Is "justice" only a legal precept?

Or does "justice" cover everything that happens in our society?

For example, isn't it unjust to discriminate against one person or race when they apply for a job?

Isn't it unjust to block certain people from living in the neighborhoods they choose?

There are probably many definitions for "justice"?

How do you personally define "Justice"?