No doubt in my mind that the Founders -- enough of them and particularly Jefferson -- had read both Francis Bacon and Rene Descartes. Science and logic can be applied to almost anything -- not just physical phenomena. The Conserva-tards are so bent on winning that they play many of the cards in the OP post, tripping over their own shoelaces. It has become more absurd to listen to them -- to anyone from the Traitor-in-Chief to the vast army of surrogates like Kaleigh Smack-a-Ninny, Steve Cortes and others. "Causal analysis" is one way they fall down and come apart.
For instance, an "R" congressman appeared early this morning on CNN with Alisyn Camerota who questioned him about justification for the "National Emergency". He spoke to the troubles in his community with drugs and other manifestations, implicitly linking those troubles with a porous border and a conclusion that a Wall was necessary. But a Wall wouldn't address the causes of the symptoms, since most or all of the border smuggling occurs at ports of entry, and the drug plague owes as much to domestic meth labs, Big Pharma and drug imports from China as it does to smuggling across our border with Mexico. I was stunned at how deaf was the congressman to the simple and logical reality of the issue.
They are hell bent on getting their Wall, whether or not it solves any of the cited problems.
Here's another possibility that may include some of the cards. We've had an internet now for more than 25 years. Hold that thought.
Once, I had a friend in the late 60's who took his first and only tablet of LSD-25. He got into a panic and asked someone to take him to the hospital, perhaps so the ER could administer some Thorazine. The literature on that drug suggests that it enhances sensory input, overpowering the mind's ability to process the excess input rationally.
This may be similar to the effect of too much input from the internet and other new-tech sources. The Trumpies may just not be capable of dealing with it rationally. So to make sense of the troubles they perceive, they attempt to concoct and fashion any argument they can that promotes some profound action -- more often directed at factors that aren't really causative.
