Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnR
I am not sure what you mean. Both are unfit IMO to be President. The fact that the Nation, at large, will need to chose between them is horrible. I really hope we can make it through the next 4-12 years. There may be a small chance I will vote for one of these two - we are beyond the lesser of two weevils - but too much is at stake not to vote.
The problem I have is I thought (and now I KNOW) Hillary broke the law, thinks she is above the masses, and she is a a horrible person. Trump I know is a horrible person but I don't know if he has broken the law.
We are as divided as a nation as we have been for the past 150 years.
|
This is what we get when we have abandoned the Constitutional order. This might even be thought of as an end game. The thorough destruction of that order is needed to solidly replace it with an unlimited centralized power.
The Progressives are very bright. They constantly let us know how smart they are. How qualified they are to make our lives better because they know better. They are smart enough to know how destructive their policies have been to the old order over the last 100 years. They have very well demonstrated that there is no secret super smart method of constantly spending more than you have and winding up with a solvent government. And they are smart enough to keep the process going by mesmerizing us with rational sounding strings of words which promise a utopia if we just keep following the plan. Of course, they were smart enough to brain wash (that is a rather harsh phrase, oh well . . . ) our "educators" with smart strings of words on how to make us all smart by cookie--cutter methods which would mold us into a one-minded (but "diverse") people.
And they were smart enough to change us from a rough hewn people into followers of their dream. The well taught ones would, by their university bona fides of superior intelligence molded by the bright new egalitarian thinking, "qualify" them for influential positions in media and government. And they were smart enough to convince us, by beautiful strings of words crafted by the new Progressive leaders, that the old idea of a free market functioning under market forces, may have led to wealth, but a wealth spread too unevenly. They were smart enough to sprinkle their beautiful strings of words with "fair" and "equal" and "discrimination" and "racism" and others that struck at the feelings of a growing new, smarter, one-minded (but diverse) people. And they were smart enough to constantly preach the dream, but smart enough to see the nightmare results. But that was good.
It was good because transformation must first experience turmoil. The results were always smartly blamed on the unfair market system, on greed, on racism, on inequality. And the new, more smartly educated, population were conditioned to respond with right (but diverse) feelings to the emotional rhetoric sprinkled with the good words.
The process was long. No matter how smart the new, better, more diverse but egalitarian Progressives were, there was still that obstacle, the constitutional order, that kept them from freely ruling us with the total power their superior intelligence gave them a right to. Over time, with enough turmoil and destruction which necessarily facilitated their thefts of power from that document, they were able to get more and more of their smarter people into the gear box of government, especially the judiciary--and thus were enabled to twist the nuts and bolts of the Constitution, even eliminating, or eviscerating much of it.
Their were despicable Presidents in the past, but the constitutional order kept them in check. Our history is full of despicable people and rotten politicians. But one thing kept them all from turning this country and its people, into a totalitarian state--the power the constitutional order gave to its rough hewn, individualistic, and actually diverse people.
Destroying that power of the people and transferring it to a central power was necessary, in the smart minds of Progressive thinkers and politicians. Only in that way could good, fair, egalitarian, non discriminatory rule be imposed on a truly diverse unruly people. We are at that tipping point where that transfer of power can be completed. In the minds of the smartly educated, like-minded (but diverse) people, the President is the most important person in the government and the government is our protector against those bad emotional words. And the President, being the leader of an acknowledged all-powerful government, with the advice and consent of smart, Progressive Senators, can appoint the balance of Judges with those who believe that government prevails over individual rights. That government creates those rights. And government can control or remove those rights.
So here we are now, faced with having to choose between two unattractive (despicable to some) candidates. But, unlike in the past constitutional order, there is the potential that one will be able to impose things on us that those in the past were checked from doing. One, in my mind, will surely nominate Judges who will make that possible. The other probably will nominate Judges who will retain the remaining constitutional check against that possibility. And might, in the longer run, enable us to restore more fully that check.