Not at all, on a societal level the US has been increasingly constructed as a huge, intricate, Prisoner's Dilemma where everyone, allegedly, has all to lose and noone, allegedly, has a say in the matter, therefore everyone complies with whatever the system, or media, asks of them.
Everyone thinks they're the victim, everyone thinks civic duty is something the oppressor is responsible for, not them personally, therefore everyone is free to be an oppressor themselves.
This problem will be intensified whenever, as we've seen elsewhere, the military starts being transformed from within and sycophants are put in positions of power.
It is fine and encouraged to say "Trump is an idiot" or "Harris is an idiot", but better think twice before engaging with actual issues like whistleblowing or disobeying an unlawful order.
Just watch how topics of poor white MAGA voters who are being sold out are avoided and flagged on all sides. No one wants to hear about that. People like Bannon (a millionaire) can make some performative speeches, but nothing will happen.
What are you talking about here? Please share more about this.
Trump says these things to get a rise out of people. He’s fueled by reaction. You can’t tell if he’s ever being serious, and I doubt even he knows if he’s being serious most of the time. Getting enraged by his actions is his goal, and he’s very good at playing his opponents into blunders this way. Best to not play along.
"After 60 days" is very different from "first".
And, since the President can unilaterally extend the timeline by 30 days, its actually 90 days, even if the War Powers Act is valid (an unresolved Constitutional question.)
And, in practice, it doesn't even require that if you don't have active majorities in Congress opposing the action; see the NATO-Yugoslavia war and the failure of legal challenges by members of Congress against it predicated on the War Powers Act limitations, because of lack of standing.
If invading Greenland was an actual real goal, something like this would definitely "happen", to manufacture the necessary pretext. Way cheaper than the alternatives.
Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the sole power to declare war, it does not, on its own, prohibit any other action than "declaring war" to any other actor.
The War Powers Act (or Resolution) attempts to put some additional rules around this (note that it is widely seen as being either an unconstitutional intrusion on Presidential authority or an unconstitutional delegation of Congressional authority, and courts have so far failed to resolve it, having found lack of standing in the few cases that have been brought under it.)
But even the War Powers Act doesn't purport to prohibit the President from using force in advance of Congressional authorization.
That's why it will be a "Special Military Operation in Greenland" or "SMO in Canada".