I have long thought that anyone that really wants that office is suspect, just by wanting it. It's just that some appear more trustworthy than others. The most damaging thing that Trump did was to not participate in the peaceful transition of power. Al Gore (who did not invent the internet) stopped any further action in the election where he won the popular vote, but not the electoral vote because he understood history, and the damage such a challenge could cause. He put the country first, not himself, or his party. And, that kind of thinking is in short supply these days.
I am less certain that Gore's legal decisions at any particular Point were quite so altruistic. I agree that kind of thinking is in short supply these days.
I'm still on the fence about the election and cheating. I reserved the right to suspect that many more things happened than could be proved. At least keep in mind the general fact of life that out of all the dishonest or manipulative things that people do, the vast super majority of them always go undetected. It is only a tiny fraction that are approved or exposed.
That said, I am certainly willing to let many things go if we could just move on in some kind of a way that's not just totally giving up on justice.
I am willing to assume that Trump has also gotten away with bad things as most famous and rich people have and that he probably has occasionally manipulated situations for his benefit. I definitely do not see it as if he is far worse or even at all worse than most other major politicians. I think his general policies were good but they were extremely disturbing and disruptive to too many people and so the laser focus on his behavior and actions made it seem like he was something especially bad, but I don't think he was any different than average, I think he was just under the focus. It's a matter of perception I guess or at least it could be?
The general trend of the world toward pursuing philosophies that justify whatever feels good or comforting rather than what is right/ true has not been good for us. And it has caused us to be extremely confused about even a semblance of the concepts of right and wrong to the point where two people who both have communities that think of them as very upstanding citizens can be diametrically opposed on dozens of issues.
It's a tough time in that sense.
Even though I have rarely found anyone who agrees with me on this, I remain very suspicious that it's possible the only viable future for the United States is to split into two countries.
Honestly? I don't think that statement is extreme nor violent nor inconsiderate. I think it is one of the kindest and softest possible outcomes.
If the country generally is divided among people who tend to think the other person's philosophies are exactly the opposite of what is best, I just struggle to see a whole bunch of other ways forward sometimes.
I think this viewpoint is actually the gentler softer way. My other option would be hoping that I can persuade or Force my way of thinking on everyone else, but isn't that considered less noble?
Does a culture ever get to such an distinctly divided point to where separation actually makes more sense and is kinder than all other options?
Think about a marriage...
