But WHO WROTE THE LETTER!?!?
IT MUST HAVE BEEN SOOOOOMMMEEEOOOONNNNEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
9/6/18, 10:02 pm EDT
By John Corry, photo from The Odyssey
BUT WE MUST KNOW!–
Was it RUSSIA?! Was it SEAN HANNITY, the FAILING New York Times, or any of those other big, bad, scaaaaaary Democrats (real Satanists they are (every single one))?
How about Cher? Sting? Henry Hill? Jimmy Page? The Dali Lamma?? Richard NIXON??? The FAKE MOON LANDING???? CHUCK NORRIS???????
The political world–for the first time in a long, long while–has been shaken like never before in recent days, as an anonymously written letter has been published by The New York Times describing an unfit president going mad crazy-horse in the white house still waiting for the last season of Game of Thrones. The author has claimed she/he is a senior official in the Trump administration, and that her/his concerns are shared with many in similar positions that 'the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic' and that 'many of (the Trump administration's) policies have already made America safer and more prosperous.'
Yeah, I didn’t get it, either (seriously: this ‘partisan-pandering’ is getting ridiculous).
So how does this change anything? Trump is 'unfit' to lead the country: the presidency shouldn't have half the power it currently has specifically for that reason, and that’s been a known known, accepted argument ever since the country was founded (in fact: it was one of its primary founding principles (checks and balances)).
But why else might someone write such a horrible (*Brave) letter?
Here’s a quick story to more fully illustrate the point:
In the award-winning documentary-psychology series 'Jersey Shore', two of the housemates write a similarly worded (*Joke) anonymous letter describing a similar situation (not a joke) between two of the other housemates, then dating, though one cheating on the other. The writers wrote the letter because they felt that the victim 'needed to know the truth'. The similarities here are obvious, and obviously many.
They felt bad for the victim, though they didn’t think much about their course of action (because anonymously given revelations always work out great); they thought the victim was being made to look stupid and that the cheater didn't deserve to continue to get away with it. Whether these two are at all implicated in the paradox that is Moral-Relativism seems beside the point (in this circumstance (who are they to imagine that they could possibly imagine someone else’s suffering? (all suffering is Absolutely objective/subjective because suffering, in itself, is experience-based))): in the end, our Pulitzer authors refused to admit it:
They'd been the ones who'd written the letter.
What followed was one of the most psychologically significant and educational events in the history of the entire study (widely accepted).
It didn't end well.
You can't simply say that Trump is 'unfit to lead the country', even if you were standing with your own name. Because no matter what 'facts' you have to prove your point, Grand Societal Psychology just isn't developed enough yet to know how to handle the idea that such a complex idea as the one the founding fathers founded the country on (checks and balances in-power) could be so easily (and perhaps naturally) misconstrued in practice. And yes, I just made up that phrase 'Grand Societal Psychology', because ‘psychology’ itself in its current form has only been around for a little over 120 years (Freud; about 150 if coming from Nietzsche), with the opportunity for widespread world-wide statistics about half that, which is not to say that people aren't entitled to an opinion on the subject (especially those with extensive knowledge on it (like Michael Scott)), only that the widespread capability for the knowledge now is extremely (relatively) new (que: quick advancements in tech), and that it takes time to sort out such complex psychological issues regardless of that fact, which only exacerbates what is already a complex situation (like: the general psychology of large groups of people).
Conclusion: Regardless of Trump's character, most republicans agree with his policies. If Democrats weren't so busy fear-mongering, they'd have a better opportunity to understand why: it's a different world out there today more so than ever before, and you can’t assume that you know so much more than anyone else as they can to you. As such you can't assume anything (including an anonymous person’s reasons for making such a big deal out of things people have been saying about Trump since he first announced his campaign over two years ago), and nor can one go on without questioning the norms which came with the world before (something Liberals have historically been quite apt to do, ironically).
The 'Democratic' message of equal opportunity, moral responsibility, and open-minded rhetoric (though I’ll admit that last one has been out the window for quite some time now /> whatever) is in serious danger if we aren't willing to put behind us our need to stand in contrast with the human condition's natural proclivity to put justifying emotions before everything else, and realize what makes that possible in the first place, and the first thing this ‘situation’ truly requires, as every situation…
An open mind.
*POSTSCRIPT: BUT IS THERE any entity out there who might have REASON to cause division sewed inevitably by this type of letter (seriously)?
It's not too tough to see: Trump's already got not-the-best record when it comes to acting like a politician. All you gotta do is plant the seeds and they'll come running... This letter has no paragraphs longer than three sentences, again: no actual points that the liberal media haven't been drooling over ever since Trump first announced his candidacy...
What might a foreign entity have to gain from such a situation ALL Americans clearly take so seriously every moment of every day when they wake up thinking what their next steps must be in retaliation to this power they are inherently unable to misconstrue??