Okay, the title of this post is a bit over the top. But what I’m seeing in the news media is even more over the top righteously arrogant. I just wanted to point out the hypocrisy.
For example, see Timothy Stanley’s piece titled, “Donald Trump can win — and he must be stopped.” Think about that for a minute. “Can Win” versus “Must be Stopped.” What?! We’re in a democracy, where the will of the people is suppose to be honored. The entire tenor of that article is that the people may actually elect Trump if some big-boys from the Republican establishment don’t get their act together and cut him off at the knees. Hear me: That attitude ALONE makes me want to vote for Trump. What an arrogant hypocritical attitude toward the American populous.
It would be better to ask why people are voting for him and ADDRESS their concerns. Instead, you decide the right path is to manipulate the system with “political expertise” to remove the man from the supporters, or remove opportunity from the man. Unbelievable. The Democrats have “super delegates” from the establishment to bury the popular vote if all the rabble-rousing citizens of America get out of hand. I guess that is what the author bemoans Republicans don’t have. I guess the Republicans are too, uh…, Republican (in the spirit of Thomas Jefferson). I note the above author is from Britain, as were backers of Adams and Hamilton.
I’m coming to a realization that Democrat or Republican alike, the establishment only wants to make some reparations, help a few people a little bit, keep down the rebels, and gently move into tomorrow. Their standard is whatever historical good they perceive as a target.
The only person I’m hearing reach above that standard is Trump. He pursues a “Sky is the limit” expectation of what can be done tomorrow better than any yesterday. His end-game desire is above all the establishment candidates. And why not? That’s what he’s personally done. You just aren’t going to find many other people who, in one generation, have done what he has done.
Reaching beyond what has been demonstrated as possible is simply the way Trump thinks – deeply embedded in who he is. What if I told you he was going to vault to a primary win and dominate national polls on the back of the entire media enterprise who hates him? You’d say I was crazy. In fact, that’s what most pundits DID say. However, here we are. What if he can do this internationally? THINK about it. I would not bet against Mexico funding a wall.
Anybody who values American democracy should say, “The will of the people must be done!” instead of “Trump must be stopped [even if the people want him].” Anybody getting this reversed is perverting the American way and demonstrating that they are the ones that are “philosophically ill-defined”.
Do you really believe America is first or do you want America to only apologetically exist? You may not like America. Shoot, there are things I don’t like about America. However, the President is suppose to first defend and promote it. That’s virtually the job description! For that I give him high marks.
[Update 2/12/16] – I pointed out to a friend that the democratic process had Trump in the lead so he should get the office. My friend pointed out that more people are voting against Trump than for him (adding up all the other candidates), therefore the democratic process should keep him out of office. Wow.. What a change. Negative votes?! Is that legal? By counting votes for all the other candidates, we interpret those as votes against someone and say the democratic process has voted against that person so he must not get the office. Again, Trump has created original thought and driven people to new places. However, I think it’s perverse to apply this first and only to Trump when it could also be applied (and could have been applied) to pretty much every candidate that is not in a 2-person race.
[Update 2/26/16] – Ron Elvin from NPR joins the fray. “It appears increasingly crucial for someone to stop or at least stall Trump on March 1, or he will have a lead in the delegate count and a momentum with GOP voters of the kind that leads to nominations. He will have won more, and faster, than any other non-incumbent candidate for the nation’s highest office.”
And this is a bad thing? Doing even better than Reagan? Do you despise success, or what?! Why has winning suddenly become the “policy issue” that, per se, means I should not vote for someone? Why are you trying to make winning a bad character trait? Obama has already celebrated internationally how faulty America is. Time to change by honoring history. Thomas Jefferson deeply respected the republican plebiscite aggregate will. This is deeper than 2016. Deeper than Trump. Deeper than the contemporary issues.
You’re suppose to stop someone because you have a better idea. Instead the trend has become “We must stop him because he could win.” This is a perversion of democracy. Honoring democracy would show deference to someone supported “…more than any other non-incumbent..” because of his role in the process — above and beyond his specific time and place in the flow of history.
99% of ICOs Will Fail
The 10,000 year view of cryptocurrency