Like what do you think the “demanding” is going to look like if not an emotional frenzy and protests?
You find this all over and have to question about each issue that is emotionally charged... how does fanning the flames help certain parties and politicians? Likewise for news sources.
There's an incentive partially intentional by those pulling the strings and partially emergent (or a stand-alone complex for Ghost in the Shell fans) phenomenon where by in a intentional/emergent collusion between parties, politicians, media, and individuals... the most emotionally charged issues dominate the political landscape these days because from somebody seeking out the emotional rush of a like to a politician winning elections to corporate news advertisement sales there are benefits everywhere to make people frenzy about something, and whatever is most apt for it gets it, regardless if rationally it's a solved issue that only a few hangers on really want to fight about any more.
>Like what do you think the “demanding” is going to look like if not an emotional frenzy and protests?
There's a real core of the problem, inability to imagine what meaningful political discourse would look like without an emotional frenzy.
> it would just be solved
You can’t say “god why are we still taking about this, can’t we just do the_thing_i_want and call it a day?” Because obviously there would be a lot less political strife if we all just agreed or put up with outcomes we don’t like.
We don't want to have one set of regulations for each party which change with the president, (we also don't want to delude ourselves into thinking our preferred party will keep winning).
You're assuming that there are "parameters" given to agencies to create regulation with the force of law and the case seems to be about the circumstances where these are not nearly direct enough.
I don't want the president to be able to run the country with executive actions, this has very much gotten out of hand.
Specific ideas involve people not watching news paid for with advertisements, changes to election funding which should be obvious (removing the idea that unlimited political contributions are "free speech"), killing the filibuster, fixing gerrymandered districts, alternatives to first-past-the-post voting, someone going out and trying to inform the electorate in a way that encourages independent thought and not just cheer-leading for ones own side, re-enforced and expanded limits on corporate media/news ownership.
Ultimately though, the electorate just has to demand it instead of letting itself get whipped up into an emotional frenzy with the ever-present latest manufactured crisis.