Republican voters, bless their hearts, often seem to miss a crucial point about politics: it’s fundamentally a forum for debate, where the ultimate goal is to forge a better path forward through reasoned argumentation. Instead, many treat it like a competitive sport or, perhaps more aptly, Mixed Martial Arts (MMA), where the objective is simply to win at any cost. Their God being the ultimate arbiter. If their God gambles and is addicted to sports... That says enough about how serious their commitment is to the values in their interpretations of their own scripture. The problem with this mindset is that it disregards the constructive purpose of political discourse. It’s not about delivering knockout blows or getting God Dad's approval; it’s about engaging in a dialogue that ideally leads to improved policies and a more inclusive society.
Now, let's talk about the felon. There’s a pervasive belief among his supporters that he’s the ultimate champion who can vanquish the left. The irony, however, is that even if he were to win the election, he wouldn't defeat the left; rather, he would invigorate it. Picture this: Trump’s victory acts as a defibrillator to the heart of the left, jolting it with a renewed sense of urgency and determination. This resurgence would likely amplify the very phenomena that many of his supporters disdain—like the so-called “wokeness” that they find so irksome. Consider the rise of political correctness (PC). Its proliferation can be attributed, in no small part, to Trump’s own antics. He played into the hands of his supporters, who reveled in his brazen disregard for PC norms. But what was the result? An explosion of PC culture, as those who felt targeted by his rhetoric doubled down on their efforts to promote inclusivity and sensitivity. The irony here is rich: Trump, the nemesis of PC culture, unwittingly became its greatest accelerant. Under Biden, PC culture has not vanished but merely quieted down, proving that its vigor was, at least partially, a reaction to Trump’s provocations. Now, let’s entertain some hypotheticals. Imagine Trump pushing through an anti-abortion agenda. The alienation of women would be almost immediate and would grow over time, as more and more women would find themselves disenfranchised and angry. How about mass deportations? Picture federal agents descending upon towns, cities, and villages to carry out these orders. The resistance would be fierce. Agents refusing to participate, invoking parallels to the fugitive slave act, mayors standing in defiance, and affected communities forming human chains to protect their neighbors—all culminating in a dramatic and potentially bloody standoff with the National Guard. This scenario wouldn’t just be a political debacle; it would be a humanitarian crisis and a stain on the national conscience. Politically, a second Trump administration would likely achieve far less than a Democratic one. The internal chaos and external resistance would stymie significant progress on major policy fronts. The spectacle of governance would overshadow the substance, leaving the country more divided and less capable of addressing pressing issues. In summary, the Trump era teaches us that the dynamics of political power are complex and often counterintuitive. Efforts to dismantle progressive movements may, paradoxically, strengthen them. In the end, the true power of politics lies not in the ability to win arguments but in the capacity to listen, debate, and collaboratively craft a better future. On Tuesday, July 16, 2024 at 2:40:32 PM UTC+2 John Clark wrote: > *JD Vance will be Trump's vice president, and one of the few duties of a > vice president that is spelled out in the constitution is to certify > presidential elections. Vance has some interesting things to say about > that:* > > > *" If I had been vice-president in 2020, I would have told the states, > like Pennsylvania, Georgia and so many others, that we needed to have > multiple slates of electors, and I think the US Congress should have fought > over it from there. That is the legitimate way to deal with an election > that a lot of folks, including me, think had a lot of problems in 2020.”* > > So I can't imagine any circumstance in which Vance would certify a > Democratic victory in 2028. Consider the possibilities: > > *If Trump runs for reelection in 2028 it's unlikely the Supreme Court > would rule that a third presidential term is clearly unconstitutional > because by then Trump will have even tighter control of the Supreme Court > than he does now. And even if it did defy him it wouldn't make any > difference because Vance says if the Supreme Court, or any court, makes a > decision that Trump doesn't like he should "stand before the country like > Andrew Jackson did, and say, 'The chief justice has made his ruling. Now > let him enforce it.'"* > > *But suppose Trump decides to retire in 2028, in that case it's highly > likely that Vance will be the Republican presidential candidate. Can you > imagine Vance saying on January 6 2029 that his Democratic opponent has won > the election? I can't.* > > *And then there is a third possibility, Vance is already president in > 2028, after all Trump is nearly as old as Biden, and he is overweight, and > he doesn't exercise, and he has a terrible diet. * > > *No matter how you look at it, 2024 will be the last presidential election > this country ever has, if you don't count North Korea style "elections". * > > John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis > <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis> > > nke > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1fb9a276-708a-48c4-bf11-9749c05af587n%40googlegroups.com.
