Hypothetical question

Given that our president’s grandfather emigrated to the U.S. by breaking the law, would it be reasonable at a Democratic rally for the crowd to start shouting “Send him back”?

And if they did that, suppose the Democratic candidate were to simply look on silently, allowing the chant to rise to a meme-creating crescendo.

And suppose the next day, when it was too late, the Democratic candidate were to finally disavow the “Send him back” chant, saying that the president should not have to answer to the unlawful way his grandfather came to our country.

Would we be ok with her doing that?

2 Responses to “Hypothetical question”

  1. Hitoshi says:

    It is hard to against to demoralization. But I think it is better to keep your moral. I see you still keep your moral standard high. Demoralization also weakens the both side (and I already see a quite effect.). The motivation of demoralization is destroying your spiritual value first. I think moral is like an entropy, one direction is easier. But that direction’s value is lower. It is better not go to their lower moral by losing your value. If the both are demoralized, only a third party benefits.
    I think the roman empire has this strategy. They invented so many incredible algorithms, one is “demoralization” to first destroy the people’s moral and then destroy the country, the other is “divide and conquer” to rule the other countries. Divide is an attack. I think these are classic, but algorithm itself works well and difficult to against. But it is possible to against.
    Thus I suggest to not her to do that. But a comedian can do that. So for me the best way is a comedian asked one of them, and they answer to show they have high moral and values for all the people (including the other side, you could use this an opportunity to unite some people from the other side). Hitoshi

  2. admin says:

    I completely agree. My question was a rhetorical question, and I agree with your analysis and your answer.

Leave a Reply