The progression of the need for autocracy for Repu
Post# of 123687
(Total Views: 98)
Posted On: 03/27/2024 8:36:15 AM
The progression of the need for autocracy for Republican presidents.
So, it begins with Nixon. He's the first one who laid it out plainly in his interview with David Frost:
"Frost asked Nixon whether the president could do something illegal in certain situations such as against antiwar groups and others if he decides "it's in the best interests of the nation or something". Nixon replied: "Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal", by definition.
But back in the early 70s, the country still had the same concept for integrity, as well as the expectation of a president whose honesty was beyond reproach. So Nixon stepped down before the system could proceed and establish firm, legal rulings.
How naive of us to believe that questionable business ethics or military might-over-right concepts were qualities that we never wanted to see in a president that could represent all of us. How naive of us to believe that all presidents would want to represent all of us.
In 2000, when the Supreme Court helped seat a president, there had been a definite shift. Maybe it was the first wake-up call for some that something had definitely changed in this country. George Bush II never had to face consequences for the wrong-minded decisions he made in his two terms in office because the storm of conscience that helped Nixon step down, no longer existed. And Bush knew that there was a circle of protection creating a barrier for him. In 2008, he stated it when he said, “I’ll be long gone before some smart person ever figures out what happened inside this Oval Office.”
And then we have Trump. He is so corrupt that history will always wonder what people like us were doing to stop him. In retrospect, they will probably be right in assessing that it took us too long to realize the danger. If we're lucky some will say that we fought using the very process that Republicans were trying to undermine. But at this stage of the war game, we at least can see all the pieces on the table and we understand that the progression that began with Nixon is full in our faces.
"Trump said that presidents “must have full immunity” to avoid indictments being filed against them by “the opposing party.” The protections of immunity, he added, should extend even to “events that 'cross the line. '”"
That's exactly the position that Nixon was trying to promote. And I'm sorry to say that only our side seems to hold the line when it comes to expecting integrity and adherence to the Constitution from our presidents. The rest of the country is too caught up in Machiavellian desires to put the end before the means to realize what they have to destroy in order to reach the endgame.
So, it begins with Nixon. He's the first one who laid it out plainly in his interview with David Frost:
"Frost asked Nixon whether the president could do something illegal in certain situations such as against antiwar groups and others if he decides "it's in the best interests of the nation or something". Nixon replied: "Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal", by definition.
But back in the early 70s, the country still had the same concept for integrity, as well as the expectation of a president whose honesty was beyond reproach. So Nixon stepped down before the system could proceed and establish firm, legal rulings.
How naive of us to believe that questionable business ethics or military might-over-right concepts were qualities that we never wanted to see in a president that could represent all of us. How naive of us to believe that all presidents would want to represent all of us.
In 2000, when the Supreme Court helped seat a president, there had been a definite shift. Maybe it was the first wake-up call for some that something had definitely changed in this country. George Bush II never had to face consequences for the wrong-minded decisions he made in his two terms in office because the storm of conscience that helped Nixon step down, no longer existed. And Bush knew that there was a circle of protection creating a barrier for him. In 2008, he stated it when he said, “I’ll be long gone before some smart person ever figures out what happened inside this Oval Office.”
And then we have Trump. He is so corrupt that history will always wonder what people like us were doing to stop him. In retrospect, they will probably be right in assessing that it took us too long to realize the danger. If we're lucky some will say that we fought using the very process that Republicans were trying to undermine. But at this stage of the war game, we at least can see all the pieces on the table and we understand that the progression that began with Nixon is full in our faces.
"Trump said that presidents “must have full immunity” to avoid indictments being filed against them by “the opposing party.” The protections of immunity, he added, should extend even to “events that 'cross the line. '”"
That's exactly the position that Nixon was trying to promote. And I'm sorry to say that only our side seems to hold the line when it comes to expecting integrity and adherence to the Constitution from our presidents. The rest of the country is too caught up in Machiavellian desires to put the end before the means to realize what they have to destroy in order to reach the endgame.
(2)
(0)Scroll down for more posts ▼