Thanks for reading my comment. Please let me address the concerns raised by your comment by questioning more than affirming them. Did realizing the ineffectiveness of merely denouncing Trump as a liar and con contribute to your conclusion that other means were necessary to keep him within the bounds of the law and good faith governance? …
Thanks for reading my comment. Please let me address the concerns raised by your comment by questioning more than affirming them. Did realizing the ineffectiveness of merely denouncing Trump as a liar and con contribute to your conclusion that other means were necessary to keep him within the bounds of the law and good faith governance? (Even if such a hope remains unrealistic.) If so, calling him a liar and a con was not useless because it caused some effect. What made you imagine, without asking for clarification, that I just wanted to do «the same thing?» Denouncing, while using all available and adequate legal means to make him as harmless as possible, is what I think is best. He did not win the popular vote. Why is no one campaigning to reform or abolish the Electoral College, which has repeatedly been a source of danger and vulnerability to ill-intentioned politics? Other initiatives, for instance, the recent White House Correspondents Association's protest of the White House's attempt to dominate over the assignment of seats at the Briefing Room, which is an assault on the independence and autonomy of the WHCA. Those actions are essential to denounce the pro-totalitarianism policies of the current administration. Are they not worth publicizing because they don't seem spectacular enough? What Democrats, such as Rep. Jamie Raskin and others, are doing in the Judiciary Committee is not worth divulging or commenting on? Why is it preferable to write in the seeminly passive aggresive tone of Ms. Egan in this case? Why readers who may be not sophisticated, perspicacious, or sensible as Ms. Egan's majority of readers or listeners should be left out of consideration when writing in public? The way to write is to write addressing as broad a readership or audience as possible, is it not?
Thanks for reading my comment. Please let me address the concerns raised by your comment by questioning more than affirming them. Did realizing the ineffectiveness of merely denouncing Trump as a liar and con contribute to your conclusion that other means were necessary to keep him within the bounds of the law and good faith governance? (Even if such a hope remains unrealistic.) If so, calling him a liar and a con was not useless because it caused some effect. What made you imagine, without asking for clarification, that I just wanted to do «the same thing?» Denouncing, while using all available and adequate legal means to make him as harmless as possible, is what I think is best. He did not win the popular vote. Why is no one campaigning to reform or abolish the Electoral College, which has repeatedly been a source of danger and vulnerability to ill-intentioned politics? Other initiatives, for instance, the recent White House Correspondents Association's protest of the White House's attempt to dominate over the assignment of seats at the Briefing Room, which is an assault on the independence and autonomy of the WHCA. Those actions are essential to denounce the pro-totalitarianism policies of the current administration. Are they not worth publicizing because they don't seem spectacular enough? What Democrats, such as Rep. Jamie Raskin and others, are doing in the Judiciary Committee is not worth divulging or commenting on? Why is it preferable to write in the seeminly passive aggresive tone of Ms. Egan in this case? Why readers who may be not sophisticated, perspicacious, or sensible as Ms. Egan's majority of readers or listeners should be left out of consideration when writing in public? The way to write is to write addressing as broad a readership or audience as possible, is it not?