cá độ bóng đá qua mạng hop phap

NeoNote — The process or the Republic?

??Odd how all these terrible things also happened in the eight years prior to Trump's inauguration, yet it wasn't important enough to notice.

Regardless of your opinions about Trump (and I am not a Trump supporter), there is some pretty potent stuff built into the very structure of D.C. It's not about Trump, it's not even about the Presidency. It's about the Republic. There are a thousand little rituals that reinforce that power constantly. As long as Trump's election is perceived as legitimate, he falls under that protection and is pretty much immune to anything magickal that gets tossed his way.

Go after his "legitimacy" without just cause and you're attacking the Republic, not his Presidency.

And that's a whole lot more than I really wanted to say about the subject.

See, that's the thing. Trump is objectionable, but he was legitimately elected. Inventing all these stories about manipulating the election while overlooking the shenanigans of the Democrat nominee attacks the process of the election. On a symbolic level, it makes Trump's points about an unaccountable elite class for him.

This is not an accident and it certainly isn't because of Trump's political genius.

If the election had gone the other way, no one but the die hards would be paying any attention to the process. Focus on the "broken" process and you make Trump stronger. Even without the subtle magickal workings, there's no payoff. Attacking the process just makes the next office holder weaker. Is that what you want for a candidate from your party?

Absolutely Trump should be responsible for what he says and does. But hands off the process and the Republic.

Personally I think that real campaign finance reform means that you have to be a registered voter in the area affected by the election BEFORE you are allowed to donate to a candidate or cause. Of course that would destroy the political parties…

Still, Citizens United was another attack on the process focused on shutting up conservatives while giving progressives a permanent leg up.

So the question is do you want to manipulate the process? Or do you want an open field where your ideas stand or fail on their own merits?

Pardon, but you're assuming that one side is "better" than the other. You can't consider Citizens United without including McCain-Feingold. And that leads to the Soros-funded (alright, partially funded) astroturf groups that backed campaign finance reform. And so on and so on and so on. This is not something that happened recently. The "super delegate" changes I mentioned happened in the 1970s.

Take a step back. If anyone is trying to control the process, it's about the politics and not the ideas.

If you want to get into who is more corrupt, I'd point out that the sitting President at the time conspired with the presumptive Democrat candidate to lock out any challengers well before the primary process. Not to mention help picking the opposition candidate that would be easiest to defeat. None of this is a secret, all of it is a matter of public record, and all of it attacks the process.

Frankly, the Democrat leadership didn't think people could be trusted to make the "right" choice and they worked to cut the people out of the process. Both major parties do this, but the Democrats have been worse since the introduction of "super-delegates." And if you don't believe me, look at the "reforms" the DNC just introduced.

I'm so very tired of progressive "elites" and reporters focusing on the "dirty tricks" of Republicans all while excusing the excesses of their own side. Because of course, that is "justified" because Their Hearts are Pure and Their Cause is Just. They are still attacking the process.

You're right, they didn't. They didn't want "mob rule." Which is one reason why Senators weren't originally popularly elected.

They did have a point though. Individual rights can't be protected by popular rule. There will always be a push to take away rights and powers from those people who aren't in the majority.

Pure democracy and pure popular choice is a mistake. It took me a long time to accept that (and even longer to accept the electoral college). But let's face it, rights aren't popular all the time or even most of the time. If we make free speech and the right to bear arms and protection from search and seizure subject to popular vote, does it really protect our rights?

I'm obligated to mention that part of my acceptance of the electoral college is the fact that the Democrat nominee did not become President. Given her actions since the election, I'm even more convinced that she was a terrible choice.

Don't get me wrong, I think Trump was a terrible choice too.

Given my druthers, I would have been all for the ancient Roman custom of exile or disgrace for both of them.

Symbolically, the American system is supposed to be about ideas to make things better. All that magick in D.C. that I mentioned is designed to support that.

But focusing on the process, the rules lawyering, the nit-picking undermines the Republic for a very short-term gain. Just as a brief example, if you want to take out the current President, is your time better spent rehashing the previous election or working against his re-election? Which one is about changing the future instead of changing rewriting the past?

More to the point, assume for that Trump gets removed from office for whatever reason. Does that make the Republic stronger? Doesn't that mean that the next President could be removed for some "silly" reason???
NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.

2019       2018       2017       2016       2015       2014       2011       2010       2009       2008       2007       2006       cá độ bóng đá qua mạng hop phap