Why did pragmatism die out in the 20th century post World War 2? There seems to be no middle ground anymore...

Why did pragmatism die out in the 20th century post World War 2? There seems to be no middle ground anymore. There are only two sides which dominate political affairs now which are liberalism and conservatism, both of which operate like a bunch of zealous cults t b h who refuse to change their outdated ideologies or compromise.

>inb4 /pol/
Unfortunately /pol/ is too underage to have a mature discussion about this, but I have tried my best to keep this historically relevant.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>Why did pragmatism die out in the 20th century post World War 2?
It's having a revival with Trump and brexit.

As for why it died out, probably the deep state and powerful NGO's working to constantly fulfill their goals.

Because it's boring.

>Trump
>Brexit

>pragmatic

>pragmatism, It's having a revival with Trump and brexit.

>post World War 2

The rise of extremism was what led to WW2 in the first place and the airing out of differences between competing ideologies with a massive global conflict.

Not an argument. But I guess an unlimited neo-liberalism is pragmatic in your minds.

it was marx, the world was divided into the oppressor and the oppressed. everything became a battle and neither side will concede. honestly, how could you compromise with someone who you think oppresses you?

Not them but pragmatism is anathema to dogmatism, Trump and Brexit are not inspired by a desire to test their ideologies on the anvil of practicality and if failing to change course but rather by some dogmatic belief or other, they are already sure they are right and care for nothing else.

Trump is all about a pragmatic balance between nationalism and globalism. As is brexit.

Wherever or not that statement is the truth is beside the point, pragmatism is not centrism, or indeed another political position, pragmatism is a philosophical way to approach a problem, starting from your point of view Trump (for example) does not hold a pragmatic balance between nationalism and globalism, he holds a dogmatic balance between nationalism and globalism, why? Because as he has implied often, he is right and everyone else is wrong, he cares not for the testing of his beliefs through data or through compromise.

Trump is pragmatist. He's a negotiator with a list of "Shit that must get done" and no strong ideology to get in the way of that.

Trump is a flimflam man. He will do whatever it takes to enrich himself. If you think that makes him a pragmatists then you are deluding yourself. He cares for nothing but himself, the american people are just a way for him to stroke his ego and make himself feel good.

>sincere man who gave up cushy life to help his nation
>getting more done in less then a month than Obama got done in 8 years
>flimflam
Sure

You're wrong, but not entirely.

His motivation is to a large extent selfish, but its a matter of ego, not riches. He wants to be remembered as the greatest president of all time [believe me], he doesn't give a rat's ass about the money.

THe problem is not whatever he has an ideology or not, it's how he comes to believe what he believes, and the ability to self assess whatever he is right or wrong, as various people pointed about the former comes from the media and the latter doesn't exist.
Besides every president has a list of "shit to be done"

Trump has accomplished nothing. Obama was able to work with congress and have laws passed by now. Under Trump congress is doing nothing and his signature EO has been halted by the courts and is under rewrite.

He will be, at best, an ineffective president because he is unable to wield soft power. It is clear that he is unable to work with people, he is used to being a ceo, in other words a dictator with supreme authority.

>There seems to be no middle ground anymore.
There never was a middle ground.

>He will do whatever it takes to enrich himself
>He cares for nothing but himself

>killing the GOP is accomplishing nothing

>get out of TPP
That's something.
>get legislation ready to build wall
That's something
>deport illegal criminal aliens
That's something

Pragmatism isn't about the self. Your deluded. It's about ideology. Willing to remove 5 feet off the wall's height? That's pragmatism.

>There are only two sides which dominate political affairs now which are liberalism and conservatism
The US is not the only country in the world.

>he doesn't give a rat's ass about the money.

I would argue he cares about the appearance of money and success because it fuels his ego. You are correct in that his motivation is psychological. He wants love and approval from a father that no longer exists and.

>t. Freud

Go back to analyzing dicks.

True.

Of course its about the self, it makes a whole difference whether he shaved 5 ft because of cost/benefit data or just because it came to him in a dream.

It's obvious Trump, as a business man, doesn't do shit because they come to him in dreams.

>Of course its about the self
So you think talking a talk is worth more than walking a walk?

>Trump this
>Trump that
You may have had good intentions OP, but this is a 100% /pol/ thread

Then maybe he should start explaining the reasoning for his ideas with data and coherent thoughts
That makes absolutely no sense, pragmatism is as much a way of doing things as it is about the end results, to arrive at the right goals you have to employ the right method

In his particular case, he has the last fifty years of data/records in the failed neocon/neolib globalist policy to base his actions and judgements on; these being pragmatic, as he was elected on the position of taking practical approaches to solving decades old problems that have consistently degraded the quality of life of the average American citizen.

He has already taken action by taking protectionist measures in favor of the average American citizenry, though many of these actions will hurt the interests of the deep government and the hyper rich. It seems he is sacrificing our position as a global super empire in return for improvement in our own country's infrastructure and living standards. This is something I am personally Ok with.

It's tons of fun to chant USA USA USA! and know that we are the invincible global military and economic power, but this land is growing restless, the people are divided in an intensity the likes of which this country has never seen since the civil war. Poverty, low upward social mobility, crime, drug use, illegal immigration, terrorism, and low educational standards are reaching epidemic proportions.

I am not a communist, I am not a reactionary, and I am not a centrist. I like to look at the state of global affairs beyond ideology and rather as a complex game of chess and the raw empirical data of resources, military power, national interests, and economic mobility that motivate each nation to move their pieces across the geopolitical board.

>FUCK OFF BACK TO /POL

FUCK OFF BACK TO /POL

>FUCK OFF BACK TO /POL

FUCK OFF BACK TO /POL

>FUCK OFF BACK TO /POL

FUCK OFF BACK TO /POL

>FUCK OFF BACK TO /POL

FUCK OFF BACK TO /POL

>FUCK OFF BACK TO /POL

FUCK OFF BACK TO /POL

>FUCK OFF BACK TO /POL

FUCK OFF BACK TO /POL

>FUCK OFF BACK TO /POL

FUCK OFF BACK TO /POL

>FUCK OFF BACK TO /POL

FUCK OFF BACK TO /POL

Continued.

I can't be certain that trump is the person that will lead our nation out of its current untenable situation, but I have some faith that he will make desicions based on practicality rather than ideology, considering he is not a politician and his political leanings have flipped from left to right many times over the years. He seems to care little for things like partisan loyalty, the Washington political machine, and international dealings that have held steadfast in slowly outsourcing jobs and crushing the middle class over the last several decades.

These are good things in my eyes, this I gave him my vote. Even still, there is something about his personality that leads me to doubt that he will have the stability to make a smooth transition towards a better state of the union. However I don't doubt that he will improve the life of the average American and increase the size of the middle class. I would also personally wash his dirty feet if he audited/restructured/destroyed the federal reserve.

>Why did pragmatism die out in the 20th century post World War 2? There seems to be no middle ground anymore
Any organization or society not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left wing.

> both of which operate like a bunch of zealous cults t b h who refuse to change their outdated ideologies or compromise.
The illusion of "compromise" is the precise mechanism by which leftist infiltrators are able to subvert societies and organizations. There is no such thing as an "outdated" ideology, history is not an advancing arrow of "progress" and improvement, it is simply what works, and what works will typically continue to work long after intellectuals have declared it "outdated".

He does. You're so blind in seething rage of Trump for deporting your family that you don't listen.

You need to realize that you're not arguing with them about the actual Trump, you're arguing with them about the "idea" of Trump that they've instilled in their heads through years of ironic memeing that transformed into serious wishful thinking. You take him at face value, they see some grand unseen design behind everything he does. Every gaff is actually 7D chess, every ridiculous baseless idea is actually a well-thought out masterstroke (he just won't ever bother to explain it coherently because reasons).

This, every time trump goes full retard on twitter or in a press conference the conservatives conjure of some ridiculous claim that its part of some political strategy

He's explained everything coherently.

"Liberal" and "conservatism" in itself is far too narrow.

To my mind, the main forces are Progressivism (tearing down fences), Conservatism (keep the fences we currently have), and Reaction (building new fences). This gives us a better idea of the real story of history.

That reminds me of a quote I always liked by G.K Chesterton
>The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected. Even when the revolutionist might himself repent of his revolution, the traditionalist is already defending it as part of his tradition. Thus we have two great types -- the advanced person who rushes us into ruin, and the retrospective person who admires the ruins. He admires them especially by moonlight, not to say moonshine. Each new blunder of the progressive or prig becomes instantly a legend of immemorial antiquity for the snob. This is called the balance, or mutual check, in our Constitution.

I miss when Catholics were an influential voice.

>deep state and powerful NGOs

Pragmatism is the most underage ideology imaginable.

He's not giving up his cushy lifestyle, he still goes golfing every other weekend in Florida while his sons run his businesses that will continue to make him money. This presidential thing was a combination of him wanting to expand the dying Trump brand and wanting to remain powerful and relevant. I'm sure he has some good intentions but to say he's completely motivated by a selfless drive to help America is to disregard his entire being. Also, I don't like Obama or even apporove of most of his policies but you sound retarded when you say shit like Trump has already accomplished more than him

It has nothing to do with helping the nation. It's to stroke his own ego, he doesn't give a shit about Americans. He's not sincere, he lies on an almost daily basis.

>He's not sincere, he lies on an almost daily basis.
Except he doesn't.

Dubs confirm.
Cucks BTFO!

>As far as the cyber, I agree to parts of what Secretary Clinton said. We should be better than anybody else, and perhaps we’re not. I don’t think anybody knows that it was Russia that broke into the DNC. She’s saying Russia, Russia, Russia—I don't, maybe it was. I mean, it could be Russia, but it could also be China. It could also be lots of other people. It also could be somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds, okay?

Real coherent there Don

...

There was nothing in that statement that was incoherent.

Don't confuse being articulate with being intelligent. That misconception is how we ended up with Obama.

That statement is very coherent. Unless you have poor comprehension skills. He's saying the DNC leaks could have been from russia like the DNC is remarking but there is just as equal a chance they came from China or anywhere else.

>Muh terror attack in sweden yesterday

>I never said XYZ even though it's literally on my twitter account as I speak

We best hope he's lying, because otherwise the guy is not mentally well enough that he can comprehend reality. Because he doesn't even lie like a politician with half and technical truths, he doesn't even respect people enough for that. The dude straight up pulls shit out of his ass, and jerks off his audiences with what they want to hear so that they jerk him off back.

>le straight talker meme

Please. We're not even talking about grey area policy stuff that can be up to interpretation. We're talking about him saying shit that is demonstratively, objectively, provably false. And if you'd pay even an eighth of the skepticism you apply to his opponents, you'll realize he does this constantly and compulsively.

Numale begone.

Just speaking as a Trump supporter, I really don't give a shit about most of the meme issues that he and the press volley over. I don't care about crowd sizes, whether Mike Flynn talked to a Russian, or "alternative facts". I know that the press is full of shit most of the time just like anyone with any amount of objectivity does. I also know that Trump is prone to making things up and has a poor verbal IQ. It doesn't matter, because I support about 80% of his stated policy goals. I also see the media for what they are: a mouthpiece for the DNC. It's hilarious and refreshing to see a major Republican, the POTUS, no less, call them idiots and scumbags on a regular basis. I think a lot of people that support him are like me. We recognize that he has faults, but what are we supposed to do? Vote for Elizabeth Warren or whatever sack of shit the Dems nominate next time around? No thanks.

There's everyday shit happening in Sweden.
If Sweden says that they don't know what he means then they ignore that already whole parts of cities arent under governmental control anymore and attempts of reconquest by the police is met with granades.

Rather be a numale than not only getting cucked hard by Trump, but enjoying it as much as delusional Trumpfags seem to be too.

The amount of dick sucking going on of the guy you'd think he just pulled out of your wife

What the fuck is "the cyber"? Also, "I don't think anybody knows that it was Russia that broke into the DNC" is a blatant lie. People knew.

He speaks like a literal retard, which I understand isn't an argument, but dear lord is it embarrassing for our great nation.

The cyber is clearly the internet. for a 70 year old that's pretty good.
>>People knew.
The "Russia hacked the DNC" talking point has never been proven. Regardless of what you believe it speaks nothing about the coherency of his statement.

I'm actually interested to see what policy goals you want.

Because from where I'm sitting

Pros

>DC vs. Heller doesn't get "reinterpreted"
>Ashton "the cuck" Carter gets replaced with Mad Dog Mattis
>pre-sequestration military funding
>no immigration amnesty

Cons

>Banks deregulated back to 2006 levels
>Laffer curve comes back
>massive deficit spending
>foreign policy consists of making angry phone calls and then getting laughed at
>real chance he'll get Jewed into committing ground troops in the middle east
>continues to expand the police state because "muh terror"

I'm not the guy you were talking to but I basically agree with everything in that post.

>for a 70 year old that's pretty good

I understand older folk aren't tech savvy, but most can at least say "the internet" or "world wide web" properly. Especially an older person attempting to become the most powerful man in the world.

His covers up his ignorance by repeating himself, or making extremely vague statements.

It's obvious he's not very competent at anything but jewing for more real estate shekels and making rednecks cream themselves

>DC vs. Heller doesn't get "reinterpreted"
>Ashton "the cuck" Carter gets replaced with Mad Dog Mattis
>pre-sequestration military funding
>no immigration amnesty
I, too, strongly support all of these.

>Banks deregulated back to 2006 levels
I don't think that's totally accurate, but would be in the con territory for me too.
>Laffer curve comes back
Not sure what this one means.
>massive deficit spending
There's legitimately nothing that can be done about it. The nature of our government is now that if you want to do anything important you have to do it with deficit spending. Medicaid, medicare, SS, and defense put us into a spot where there's little room for anything else without going into debt and all of those things are basically politically impossible to fix. We need an infrastructure package. We need to stop illegal immigration. We need to incentivize manufacturing. Hopefully we see long-term economic returns on all of this, but in the short term it's going to cost money.
>foreign policy consists of making angry phone calls and then getting laughed at
Reductio ad absurdum
>real chance he'll get Jewed into committing ground troops in the middle east
It's possible, but pretty hard to say. He doesn't seem to be in the nation building camp at least. It seems like Mattis is really in charge of defense goals and Trump would rely heavily on his advice there. Regardless, the mess that Obama and Hillary created in Iraq, Syria, and Libya is fucking astounding and it's borderline criminally negligent on the part of the press for not thoroughly linking those situations to them.
>continues to expand the police state because "muh terror"
He's got a little too much Giuliani in him when it comes to this for my liking, so I agree and put that in the 20% cons for me.

I think the media is less affiliated than you think- it's just that when the election became the status quo vs Trump, they picked the status quo pretty much unanimously aside from Trump's cheerleader orgs. Media is bullshit to be sure but the most rabidly bullshit organizations on the left side of things tend to be the ones that DIDN'T support the DNC. The media is of little profit directly to the massive corporate sponsors that run them, so they're either ideological enterprises (like Fox/MSNBC/CNN) or corporate mouthpieces trying to reinforce whatever stabilizes their other businesses as effectively as possible. Tbhfam, the major concern for me and I think many that would consider themselves "in the middle" for the most part is that Trump is terrible at doing the uniting job of the President, choosing to ridicule his opponents with his mentioned low verbal IQ, and he's clearly not a very focused man, which could potentially be a huge problem in a real crisis situation given the inexperienced, disorganized skeleton crew that runs his administration. I understand the attractiveness of giving a middle finger to all the cynic government game-players that don't give a fuck about anyone, but I really don't believe Trump does either and the net loss seems bigger than the gain- and we're just one month in.

>my Point of Views are Pragmatic/Objectivist and based on logic while my Boogeyman Idealogical Enemy View's are based on emotion
When will this meme die?

When he says the cyber, he means cyber-security.

While I think Trump is frankly pretty ignorant of geopolitics, I definitely agree that Mattis is the biggest source of relief to someone like me. Trump's going to sound like a fucking idiot to anyone well-versed in diplomacy which could work to his favor, but I expect people will be looking to Mattis/security experts for the real story since Trump does seem to deal more in flashy statements.

>Just speaking as a Trump supporter, I really don't give a shit about most of the meme issues that he and the press volley over

For the specific issues themselves, I don't give a shit either. Too bad I can't say the same about the guy himself. Half his focus is on meme issues.

I have to ask, why do you give trump a pass on this shit that you don't to the media? Why isn't he a scumbag and an idiot, and he just has "a low verbal IQ"? As much (or little, really) trustworthiness as the media has, doesn't the degradation of the concept even the most basic truth disturb you when it's coming out of the oval office itself as well? Because these lies and memes sure as hell seem to be what's guiding the dude's policy. And as disturbing as the lack of integrity of the media is, at least they're just trash tier glorified tabloids and not actual policymakers.

Again, the lack of cynicism towards trump comparatively just astounds me. Partisanship is complete cancer, and it sure feels like your post is halfway to straight up saying "Sure he's a fucking liar, but he's my fucking liar" Kinda hard to respect that from people who take such offense to the same bullshit coming from the other side.

Well, he wants to repeal Dodd-Frank.

The way I see it, there's a pretty big risk we'll catch another big punch on the jaw if we keep letting Wall Street write their own regulations.

>Not sure what this one means

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

The basic idea is, "if we lower tax rates, we'll get more taxes." It's failed every time we put it into practice, but the GOP still tries it every chance they get because it's the free market solution and rich people like tax cuts.

>There's legitimately nothing that can be done about it

I'd honestly suggest that we've simply used up all of our credit.

In between the Global War on Terror, the Bush Tax Cuts and all the stimulus shit Obama did, we've hit the piggy bank about as hard as it can take.

>Regardless, the mess that Obama and Hillary created in Iraq, Syria, and Libya is fucking astounding and it's borderline criminally negligent on the part of the press for not thoroughly linking those situations to them.

I honestly don't know how much anyone could have done with the shit sandwhich they inherited. Obama himself admitted fucking up by not doing more to put Libya back together after the bombing, but I think Syria would have self destructed either way.

Maybe he should have bombed them in 2013, but you know everyone, including /pol/ would have crucified him for it.

Polite sage for off topic, because nothing I'm posting in this thread is Veeky Forums.

>objectivist

retard shit stirrer identified

>Tbhfam, the major concern for me and I think many that would consider themselves "in the middle" for the most part is that Trump is terrible at doing the uniting job of the President, choosing to ridicule his opponents with his mentioned low verbal IQ,
I won't say that this isn't a valid criticism, but the nature of politics right now is that it's probably impossible to actually unite this country to some extent. Obama certainly either was unable to or didn't try to. Which of those it was probably depends on your party affiliation, which in itself only further proves this.
>and he's clearly not a very focused man, which could potentially be a huge problem in a real crisis situation given the inexperienced, disorganized skeleton crew that runs his administration.
I think this has been seriously overstated by the media, and the fact that his cabinet has been slowed by congress so much is likely part of the problem. Whether his admin is really dysfunctional or if it just seems that way because of the media firestorm and far greater scrutiny they receive is a question worth asking.

I'm not giving him a pass. The stuff you're talking about is why I was somewhat hesitant to vote for him and I didn't in the primaries, even though I agree with more of his actual policy platform than I did with who I did vote for (Rubio.) I agree with your criticisms of his general character for the most part, but the choice at the end of the day right now is Trump or the Democrats. It's not a particularly hard choice for me.

I think Obama in the end fell prey to the same cynicism that infests politics in general, and to think Trump will avoid it is shortsighted in my opinion. Once the Tea Party shit really crystallized the radical resistance to him, he just said fuck it and declared political war too- which was a huge mistake and shows his flaws. It really sucks but was a long time in the making; the anger behind Obama's election points to this too. I think the War on Terror era has really done a number on our national unity and our identity. Trump's image is forged in the nanny-state-demanding pussy population that demands that we do anything to make them feel safer, fuck the facts.
Re: the media portrayal, he's not much worse off than other presidents in earlier administrations cabinet-wise at all, and I find it extremely hard to believe you think there's not a policy/execution problem just based solely on the travel ban. That shit was badly done on every single level and not even well-thought-out in concept. I get the desire to compare and contrast media portrayals too, but we should not let that deter us from criticizing the things that he's done badly.

Fair enough, I held my nose voting for Clinton too, and didn't even bother voting in the primaries as I wasn't a Bernie fan either.

That's what you get when it's an election between moronic blowhard vs robot wearing human skin I guess.

doing what works instead of pursuing some grander ideological goal is bad because it denies the existence of a universal good which is fascist thinking which is obviously evil, didn't you know? you have to ground politics in absolute "rights" that are not open to compromise or you open the door to fascism and nationalism which will obviously lead to genocide 100% of the time; having a flexible position and being willing to negotiate with people you don't agree with is bad

I would call Obama a pragmatist, he's actually known for it. Same with Truman, Clinton, Ford, and Eisenhower. I'm only saying that because you posted a president. I would agree that Congress has acted much more polarized and I largely attribute that to gerrymandering and the rise of neoconservatism starting with Nixon and being full realized with Bush 43

It blows though

>I think Obama in the end fell prey to the same cynicism that infests politics in general, and to think Trump will avoid it is shortsighted in my opinion. Once the Tea Party shit really crystallized the radical resistance to him, he just said fuck it and declared political war too- which was a huge mistake and shows his flaws. It really sucks but was a long time in the making; the anger behind Obama's election points to this too.
To be sure. And honestly, I work with a bunch of guys who buy into a lot of the right-wing conspiracy stuff, (still birthers, think Obama was the worst President in history, think the entire left-wing establishment is definitely a bunch of pedos who diddle kids at a pizza parlor etc.) I argue with them about believing stupid fucking shit all of the time.

>Re: the media portrayal, he's not much worse off than other presidents in earlier administrations cabinet-wise at all, and I find it extremely hard to believe you think there's not a policy/execution problem just based solely on the travel ban. That shit was badly done on every single level and not even well-thought-out in concept.
Basically his entire cabinet was slowed as much as possible by Democrats. Not just one or two that they found to be exceptionally bad. The way they painted Sessions as some sort of backwoods, Klan loving hillbilly was especially bullshit imo.
>I get the desire to compare and contrast media portrayals too, but we should not let that deter us from criticizing the things that he's done badly.
Certainly not. My position is that he's not perfect and there are legitimate criticisms to be had, and also that the media has been in a hysterical fit of Trump Derangement Syndrome since he got elected. (Really since he became the Republican frontrunner.)

I just think you should be open to the possibility that he really is unstable and easily distracted, etc. Just using that frame of reference makes a lot of sense of things to me. You seem like a pretty reasonable person so as long as that's the case we have nothing much to argue about- the crazies that can't or won't listen to anything that fits their worldview are the real scary shit. I just see Trump as the latest symptom in the crisis-addicted existential-threat mode of so many hyperconservatives who demand more feeling of safety, more pandering to their social agenda, more corporate kowtowing, more flash and less substance in satisfying their sense that things are the way they should be because "their guy" is in charge. The alarming admissions and access he's given total cuckoo rags like Infowars/Breitbart (to be expected since Bannon is involved) just show to me that he's inextricably linked to the dipshit-crazy sect of right-wing America, which probably emboldens them just as much as Obama destabilized police relations. I'm also worried that Trump will just turn a blind eye to right-wing violence given how he's instructed the FBI (not that it's just his fault). I dunno, just a bit surreal seeing a guy peddling that kind of ideology being rubber-stamped by Republicans.

Trump is super pragmatic and common sense. For example he doesn't rail against gays like other conservatives because he considers it a non-issue.

>unironcally being a rubot

>Trump is super pragmatic and common sense.

If that were true, he would have known having his NSA dude make calls to Russia before even getting in office would raise a billion red flags.

>We need politicians less attached to an ideology!
>Trump is a flimflam man.

Let me guess, you think that retard Sanders is the epitome of pragmatism.

Kill yourself you underage faggot.

Obama wasn't even articulate. He just happened to be really good at reading a teleprompter/paper script. If he ever had to go off script he instantly turned into a stuttering mess.

It likely prevented a WW3

Frankly, you probably wouldn't like my actual policy positions very much, but I do my best to not just repeat talking points from the internet or media like so many people are prone to do on both sides. It gets tiring seeing the same thngs parroted over and over again on every issue almost verbatim.

The leaks could of also been from a Bernie Sanders supporter who saw someone playing favorites in the DMC but thats just my personal theory.

No you silly goy, Seth Rich was killed in a tragic attempted robbery!

This thread sucks

>redpilling the truth.

>dropping red pills.

>It likely prevented a WW3
Some Americans are beyond deluded.

Can we abort something ~200 years after it was created?

Obama deported 2.5 million illegals.

Obama didn't pass a law until Feb 17th (granted it was the Stim bill)

I'm not American.

How do you even come to that conclusion? The only thing pragmatic about Trump is truth being of no real value unless it's to further his goals, relying on "alternative facts" to further whatever agenda he has.

Brexit is just institutionalized cuckolding since they'll either accept the EU laws without any influence and as such be in a worse position than they were before where they literally watch Brussels make all the laws they have to just accept real cuckolds, or not accept EU laws and be cucked out of the EU market.