Will Hunter Biden Walk?

[Res Ipsa]

In the horrible scenario that Trump does win, what you cynically think of as the "Deep State" might well be our last hope to save us all from his unabashedly expressed tyrannical ambition to end our democracy for good.

Isn't Democracy about respecting the will of the voters? How is using the deep state to overturn the will of the voters saving Democracy? It seems to me like it's doing the exact opposite. It's liberal fascism.

How did you get as old as you are without any understanding the American system of government? We don’t have a direct democracy in which every issue would be decided by a vote. If we did, then we could talk about the will of the voters when it comes to specific issues.

We have a representative democracy, where the people choose representatives to do the governing. That doesn’t mean that everything an elected official does is the “Will of the people.” Biden has taken actions that are against my will. My will comes from me. Biden’s actions no more define my will than yours do.

We also have a constitutional democracy in which the will of the people is limited by individual rights, both at the state and the federal level. And to change those constitutional limitations requires a supermajority in order to protect the rights of the minority.

Even if it were the will of a majority of Americans to change our system of government into a dictatorship headed by Trump (which it isn’t — not by a long shot), it would take a complete writing of the Constitution, which requires supermajorities in Congress and in states.

It’s a complete fallacy to say that, just because a president gets the most votes, everything he may do in the future reflects “the will of the people.”

We already know what your people want: We heard it at CPAC. Kill Democracy and replace it with a one party dictatorship a-là Stalin and the old Soviet Union. Man, how fast the Republican Party has fallen.

The vast majority of what you describe as the deep state are good folks trying to do their best for the country who refused to put Trump’s greed and lust for power and acclaim ahead of the good of the country. I prefer that to bootlickers who plead the Neuremberg defense.

[ajax18]

The vast majority of what you describe as the deep state are good folks trying to do their best for the country who refused to put Trump’s greed and lust for power and acclaim ahead of the good of the country.

You mean the good of 3rd world illegal immigrants, the CCP, and the globalist oligarchs. Unlike most uniparty billionaires, Donald Trump has sacrificed his fortune and freedom to take back the rights of working class American people with his America first agenda. Censoring conservative political speech, lawfare, election interference, taking his name off the ballot, is the antithesis of the 1st amendment and representative US democracy.

[Gadianton]

Ajax,

Suppose someone who had been stranded on a desert island for the last 20 years is rescued and this person, who was a political independent in their 20s at the time they were lost, has no idea what's goin' on in American politics. It's between you and Res Ipsa to get them up to speed. Do you really think this person should believe you over Res just because you repeat the same lines about global oligarchs and the deep state, without any details or facts to back anything up, over Res's very thoughtful and researched positions?

I realize Res can go on at length on a number of topics at the same time, but, you don't have to respond to everything. You could find one thing that he's very wrong about and bring the facts to light that he's either missed or willfully misrepresented. The thing is, we know you're very angry at the Deep State and the global oligarchs, but we don't know anything about these people -- it's a black box that magically justifies whatever position you want to take at the time.

[ajax18]

Ajax,

Suppose someone who had been stranded on a desert island for the last 20 years is rescued and this person, who was a political independent in their 20s at the time they were lost, has no idea what's goin' on in American politics. It's between you and Res Ipsa to get them up to speed. Do you really think this person should believe you over Res just because you repeat the same lines about global oligarchs and the deep state, without any details or facts to back anything up, over Res's very thoughtful and researched positions?

I realize Res can go on at length on a number of topics at the same time, but, you don't have to respond to everything. You could find one thing that he's very wrong about and bring the facts to light that he's either missed or willfully misrepresented. The thing is, we know you're very angry at the Deep State and the global oligarchs, but we don't know anything about these people -- it's a black box that magically justifies whatever position you want to take at the time.

I'm just saying that the left's idea of preserving democracy is to weaponize the justice system against their political opponents. Do you not see a contradiction in that? We believe people have the right to vote, but only if they vote for the candidate we agree with.

[Gunnar]

In the horrible scenario that Trump does win, what you cynically think of as the "Deep State" might well be our last hope to save us all from his unabashedly expressed tyrannical ambition to end our democracy for good.

Isn't Democracy about respecting the will of the voters? How is using the deep state to overturn the will of the voters saving Democracy? It seems to me like it's doing the exact opposite. It's liberal fascism.

What you seem to be suggesting is we should respect the will of the voters even if they vote to end democracy, thereby opposing the very concept of respecting the will of the voters by electing a tyrant claiming the right to do whatever he wants without restraint or opposition, regardless of whatever anyone else wants. What could be more oxymoronic than that?

[Gunnar]

I'm just saying that the left's idea of preserving democracy is to weaponize the justice system against their political opponents. Do you not see a contradiction in that? We believe people have the right to vote, but only if they vote for the candidate we agree with.

Indicting and prosecuting someone for actual crimes is not unjust weaponizing of the justice system, even if the miscreants happen to be political opponents. That is the legitimate, lawful duty of the criminal justice system, regardless of the perpetrators' political affiliations and activities. Falsely accusing the left of weaponizing the justice system against their political opponents is another clear case of projection by MAGA conservatives, because no one is more adamant about vowing to investigate, prosecute and "lock up their opponents" than Trump and his sycophants!

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Projection:

I'm just saying that the left's idea of preserving democracy is to weaponize the justice system against their political opponents.

Followed up by a Freudian slip:

We believe people have the right to vote, but only if they vote for the candidate we agree with.

Nice.

- Doc

[Gunnar]

Projection:

I'm just saying that the left's idea of preserving democracy is to weaponize the justice system against their political opponents.

Followed up by a Freudian slip:

We believe people have the right to vote, but only if they vote for the candidate we agree with.

Nice.

- Doc

Awfully damaging admission, isn't it? I suspect sometimes that ajax doesn't even realize how stupidly and how often he contradicts himself.

[Chap]

I think that when ajax wrote this:

I'm just saying that the left's idea of preserving democracy is to weaponize the justice system against their political opponents. Do you not see a contradiction in that? We believe people have the right to vote, but only if they vote for the candidate we agree with.

his intention was to suggest that 'the left' (in effect) said to their opponents "We believe people have the right to vote, but only if they vote for the candidate we agree with". That is, they wish to see Trump prevented from running for President.

I do not think he intended that sentence to be interpreted as expressing his own view.

I dislike having to defend ajax from criticism, but we must be fair.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

I do not think he intended that sentence to be interpreted as expressing his own view.

Precisely. Hence the Freudian slip.

- Doc