[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

No, I think Tweety listens to those who parrot what he wants to hear, Rudy, Powell, Flynn and drives those that insist he follow the rule of law out.
Because it’s simple. You cannot honor your oath to uphold the constitution, even at the margins and simultaneously serve Tweety.

They’re mutually exclusive.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Oh, so he does listen to his advisers. Naughty, naughty . . . you were fibbing about this for four years.

And he has been following the rule of law, as it has become under Progressive "evolution", all along. He has not disobeyed the courts if they determine that he is wrong about something (those decisions being mostly split) until he gets it right.

See, you're making it about Trump, which leads down the rabbit hole of personal animosity being applied to legal procedure. The degree of how "authoritarian" his personality is only becomes a threat if the system under which he operates is, in itself, authoritarian. We have had many, if not all, Presidents who have had authoritarian personalities to some degree. Some, who have been labeled "great," have been as, or more, authoritarian in nature than Trump, such as Jackson, Roosevelt (both), and LBJ. Some, mostly Democrats, have actually defied the Court and abandoned the Constitution.

It has been the Progressive orientation of politicians in concert with their Progressive cohort in the Courts that have brought about conditions in our governmental system that allow for a continuing degradation of the Constitution. The original Progressives even openly stated that the Constitution is an obstacle to their theory of what and how a government should be--which is a bureaucracy of experts who are unimpeded in legislative power to regulate us in what they consider the most equitable and beneficial way.

We are on the brink of removing what is left of the Constitution's system of protecting our "unalienable" rights, which precede government, and transforming that system into one which tells us what our rights . . .for the moment . . . are. A totally elastic system of "experts" appointed by authoritarian politicians who are mediocre in nature but charismatic or seemingly "appropriate" in every way, who we supposedly voted into office, but who actually are chosen to run by the rich and powerful, regardless of under which co-opted party banner they run.

The Constitution has become a quaint piece of history that has run its course.

We are on the brink of discarding a historically unexpected system in which the individual is the model that it protects, to a system of artificially created competing group behaviors which depend on it for their nurture and existence. A system that defines us instead of we defining ourselves. A system in which any semblance of individual rights resides only in those who hold the ultimate power. An ancient system which seems inherent in the nature of human interaction, and which has thrived in all cultures larger than tiny local tribes. A system, repeated under different names and structures, of the ruling class and its dependents who eventually become some sort of willing or unwilling slaves.

We are on the brink of discarding a system which constrains the inevitable authoritarians among us who will, by their nature, be those who we choose to be our public leaders, and trading that for a system which is, itself, authoritarian. In this particular instance, "we" throw out someone we call authoritarian, and replace him with a system that is authoritarian. But we somehow believe that this time around, it will finally be a good thing.

Of course, the "we" is not clearly defined. In our post modern way, "we" is a social construct. It is whatever we want it to be. And those who hold the power, naturally, define it for us. It is no accident we have those groups, competing at times violently and usually confrontationally, some of which never existed before and some that defy what we consider nature. It is no easy task to strip a nation of individuals from their identity as such. All the traditions, customs, laws, and religions that lead to and support an inviolable belief in the sovereignty of the individual must be destroyed if individuals are to be subsumed into pliable and dependent groups. And the groups must take precedence over the individual. And so we have that as an essential step toward our reincarnated form of "benevolent" dictatorship which we call Progressivism along with its elaborate system of regulatory agencies tasked with the real work of crafting for us what we can do and how.

This refurbished form of power over the masses, the Progressive administrative state, is one of the most seductive sounding ones. It has the smack of logic, intelligence, and power all geared toward making the lives of "the people" comfortable and secure. But it is an ancient story molded to suit the transformation of plucky, resistant, individually oriented people who have strayed from the expected obeisance of the masses, and have a willingness to fight for freedom, into pliable, weak groups who threaten one another so that they must turn toward government for protection and existence.

But even the benevolent, though authoritarian, idea of Progressive government is, inevitably, corruptible. And that has been happening as well. Those unavoidable, predictable, indomitable power seekers among us are going to ply their might no matter the system. Our constitutional system was one of the best, if not the best, way to defend against them. But as we have lost our taste for the hard way of freedom, it has become easier for them to make inroads into our powers of government. They have found it easier to do so as we have become more Progressive and less constitutional--naturally since an authoritarian system is more amenable to their quest for power.

And the power seekers are even using the ancient tactic of creating an empire which conquers as much territory as they can. Most of the supposedly "known" world was captured by the Romans and the Mongols. The Muslims came close to repeating that. This time the target is the globe. We refer to them as globalists--disparagingly by some, admiringly by others.

Trump was an outlier. He didn't, nor did he seem to desire to do so, fit into any category. He was an outlier. A threat to the direction of globalist plans and policies and to the Progressive destruction of the Constitution. A threat to what was steadily and more easily achievable globalist aspirations and totally authoritarian governance. So he had to be removed. And no governmental obstacle could stand in the way of his removal.

Fait accompli, we can now look forward to an authoritarian system of government being the handmaiden of our new age crony corporate ruling class in its quest for global economic power. China will be back in the fold, with its own desires for global power. Somehow, that is supposed to work itself out.

Probably more revolutions coming. Don't know if we can repeat our constitutional one. Maybe a better one. Or . . . our human quest for something or other goes on until the earth explodes.