Freud relates the story of a man who was accused by his neighbour of having returned a kettle in a damaged condition and the three arguments he offers.
That he had returned the kettle undamaged
That it was already damaged when he borrowed it
That he had never borrowed it in the first place
Though the three arguments are inconsistent, Freud notes that it is so much the better, as if even one is found to be true then the man must be acquitted.
Remember when in the last few weeks during the transition to Biden that general went behind the President's back to reassure China of our intentions (regarding nuclear warfare), thereby commiting actual treason, and everybody (even Republicans) was all like "s'okay, you did the right thing, and maybe deserve a medal" (bc the alternative was so very much worse?). Yeah we are so fucked if we think we can survive that kind of brush with starting WWIII a second time.
That was my point. I mean technically it is, but how much worse would it have been if he had not done that? And how bad was it to have put him into that position in the first place, where he had to struggle through the ethics of that. So I mean: don't gloss over the fact that the other side of that would have been worse than treason!?
That hero put himself onto a live grenade, for the sake of us all.
And now, there's a not insignificant chance that we'll throw another one just like it.
I.E. Needing a political martyr to diffuse something can demonstrate to foreign parties how unstable a leader, and by relation their country is. If that leader were to regain power, it could elicit the "fool me once" scenario.
All the more so when you consider how similar the situation was back with Bush, between Clinton and Obama. The USA has bipolar disorder, waffling back-and-forth between conservativism and slightly less conservatism, except Trump is blowing that wide open.
Also he stacked the courts. Remember that Congressional Republicans blocked all nominations for seven and a half years under Obama's Presidency. A few months into his office they essentially declared him "not my President", and just shut that whole function of government down, until they could get someone, anyone at all in there (it was supposed to be JEB, but he flubbed, so it came down to Ted Cruz vs. Trump, or as top Republican leadership themselves put it, "taking poison vs. being shot in the head").
But that was then, whereas this time, Trump - if he wins - would do so entirely on his own, and possibly against the main Republican establishment (e.g. McConnell). This is different. This time would be for real. At that point sometime during those 4 (or more?) years we might see not only treason, but we really could be seeing another, better-organized (this time) coup - from either side, given those kinds of stakes (again: WWIII vs. not that). (also notable: this seems true regardless of who wins the actual election)
The fact that there are so many different treasonous acts under discussion here that it is difficult to keep track of which one(s) we are even referring to, is already by itself a HUGE wake-up sign, regardless of what comes after this. We are beyond yellow flags, or orange ones, or even red ones at this point - e.g. Biden may be supporting genocide, but Trump would f-ing do it himself, personally even, if given half the chance. And with all the various supporting characters that were put into place over the last 4 years - he seems very likely to be given that, would he not?
Not sure why the downvotes when it could definitely use use better punctuation. A semicolon or an em dash could definitely help with the flow without looking like a hyperactive 14y/o wrote it.
This would be a bit more understandable
When you; didn't take, accidentally took, innocently used, declassified and then took, took and then declassified; the documents that you never took and were illicitly planted in your house by the FBI--all simultaneously.
