loafa

Maybe, but for those of us who aren't experts on constitutional law, it's difficult to ascertain exactly who is in the right, we have to decide which self-proclaimed experts to believe.

For this reason it's helpful to understand the motives of those putting forth a particular argument.

I have a rule, and I think it's a good one. When I hear some political rhetoric I ask myself "if the parties were reversed would this person still be saying the same thing?" If the answer is no, I ignore that person. This cuts out about 97% of all political discussion and saves a lot of time.

Fair enough, but the EPA twitter account isn't exactly mission-critical for anyone, it can afford to not tweet for a little while.

Also I don't think it's particularly ironic that the President of the United States gets certain privileges which his subordinates don't.

Or more likely, if you're just a super-hater of Trump and/or Republicans and feel the need to claim that every single decision is terrible, disastrous, stupid etc. Let's face it, roughly 80% of political discourse comes down to this, from one side or another, and can safely be ignored.

What's with the "actually" in the title?

It seems to me that if a group of people did come across some new land and decide to vote on what to do with it, they'd immediately vote to subdivide it amongst themselves. Leave some bits as public land for roads and parks and other stuff, and subdivide the rest equally so that families can build their own houses and grow their own crops or whatever with confidence.

Of course within a few generations of inheritances and sales that equitable distribution of land will no longer look like that at all.