I am sorry, but I am so tired of the "save democracy", "threat of democracy" canard with respect to Trump that I simply cannot take the writer seriously. It is an intellectually bankrupt meme that has been repeated so many times that it has lost its meaning even if it had been based on anything real... which it had never been.
The only real threat to democracy that we have experienced has been from the left administrative authoritarians throughout the pandemic. As these power-hungry talent-less politicians and bureaucrats have drunkenly granted themselves emergency powers, they then went to work abusing those emergency powers to their maximum potential... deleting any and all voices of the people that might oppose as their families, children and businesses were irreparably and unnecessarily harmed.
I remember, when George W. Bush was coming into office, someone arguing that he should pardon Bill Clinton for the sake of national healing. Ah, to go back to those innocent times, when lying about sex in the Oval Office was what people got angry at the President for.
I’m commenting just to say, “Wow all of this is so stupid and should never have happened.” I’m specifically talking about an extremely uninteresting, incompetent person being given the worlds most important job. It should shock us more--the inability to pick intelligent and thoughtful leaders. The stupidity of our (The USAs) particular brand of politics will continue to drag down our collective potential.
And all for temporary power in this tiny stretch of human history. Gross.
When the Supreme Court handed abortion back to the democratic process, leftists/liberals were very upset. Now we are supposed to be upset by a 'threat of democracy? Which is it? Leftists/liberals hate democracy when they don't like the results and love democracy otherwise.
A verbatim excerpt from the essay above. Does the professor's writing inform and persuade? Or does it speculate and opine?
"If Trump committed… It is too early to know… We do not know for sure… We may soon learn more if… This may implicate… We do not know… of course, there is no way of knowing… Assuming that there is evidence… Caution is in order. …these documents may shed some light… On the one hand… On the other hand… …would be unlikely… …democracies tend to. …leaving open the question… One can argue… perhaps it is necessary… …has the potential… …in the event of… At this point… …too little information to know… …Department of Justice does seem to be… …if we get… …the consequences are unpredictable…"
"Whatever the Justice Department decides to do, the law alone will be insufficient to rescue our democracy from its malaise. Legal accountability for wrongdoing is neither necessary nor sufficient for political accountability, and the latter can only come with a loss at the polls. The election itself is the verdict. Here is where prosecution has the potential to backfire. After the search, the Republican Party predictably circled the wagons nearly as quickly as Trump sought to monetize the event with a fundraising appeal. This dynamic will continue and intensify in the event of an eventual prosecution."
I'm confused as to what the exact point of this article is. This makes it seem like maybe we shouldn't have carried out an investigation of some kind of law-breaking because it may backfire. What? We have a justice system and a legal system. If the crime in question is one that the FBI would investigate if someone else did it, than they should investigate a former president. We must try to apply the laws equally. Choosing not to prosecute because it might not bring our democracy back to life is answering the wrong question.
"It's of a piece with various Republicans like McCarthy who refuse to say that Joe Biden was the legitimate winner of the election, replying only "Joe Biden is the President" when explicitly asked about legitimacy."
I guess you think that Hillary must be a really awful person because she has said that Trump is an 'illegitimate president'. Carter has said more or less the same thing.
I am sorry, but I am so tired of the "save democracy", "threat of democracy" canard with respect to Trump that I simply cannot take the writer seriously. It is an intellectually bankrupt meme that has been repeated so many times that it has lost its meaning even if it had been based on anything real... which it had never been.
The only real threat to democracy that we have experienced has been from the left administrative authoritarians throughout the pandemic. As these power-hungry talent-less politicians and bureaucrats have drunkenly granted themselves emergency powers, they then went to work abusing those emergency powers to their maximum potential... deleting any and all voices of the people that might oppose as their families, children and businesses were irreparably and unnecessarily harmed.
I remember, when George W. Bush was coming into office, someone arguing that he should pardon Bill Clinton for the sake of national healing. Ah, to go back to those innocent times, when lying about sex in the Oval Office was what people got angry at the President for.
Incredibly disappointing take.
I’m commenting just to say, “Wow all of this is so stupid and should never have happened.” I’m specifically talking about an extremely uninteresting, incompetent person being given the worlds most important job. It should shock us more--the inability to pick intelligent and thoughtful leaders. The stupidity of our (The USAs) particular brand of politics will continue to drag down our collective potential.
And all for temporary power in this tiny stretch of human history. Gross.
When the Supreme Court handed abortion back to the democratic process, leftists/liberals were very upset. Now we are supposed to be upset by a 'threat of democracy? Which is it? Leftists/liberals hate democracy when they don't like the results and love democracy otherwise.
A verbatim excerpt from the essay above. Does the professor's writing inform and persuade? Or does it speculate and opine?
"If Trump committed… It is too early to know… We do not know for sure… We may soon learn more if… This may implicate… We do not know… of course, there is no way of knowing… Assuming that there is evidence… Caution is in order. …these documents may shed some light… On the one hand… On the other hand… …would be unlikely… …democracies tend to. …leaving open the question… One can argue… perhaps it is necessary… …has the potential… …in the event of… At this point… …too little information to know… …Department of Justice does seem to be… …if we get… …the consequences are unpredictable…"
"Whatever the Justice Department decides to do, the law alone will be insufficient to rescue our democracy from its malaise. Legal accountability for wrongdoing is neither necessary nor sufficient for political accountability, and the latter can only come with a loss at the polls. The election itself is the verdict. Here is where prosecution has the potential to backfire. After the search, the Republican Party predictably circled the wagons nearly as quickly as Trump sought to monetize the event with a fundraising appeal. This dynamic will continue and intensify in the event of an eventual prosecution."
I'm confused as to what the exact point of this article is. This makes it seem like maybe we shouldn't have carried out an investigation of some kind of law-breaking because it may backfire. What? We have a justice system and a legal system. If the crime in question is one that the FBI would investigate if someone else did it, than they should investigate a former president. We must try to apply the laws equally. Choosing not to prosecute because it might not bring our democracy back to life is answering the wrong question.
"It's of a piece with various Republicans like McCarthy who refuse to say that Joe Biden was the legitimate winner of the election, replying only "Joe Biden is the President" when explicitly asked about legitimacy."
I guess you think that Hillary must be a really awful person because she has said that Trump is an 'illegitimate president'. Carter has said more or less the same thing.