>>> These people know no bounds in pursuit of power, so how confident can you be this time that it's all above board and the best candidate will win?
>>>In 1789, a lot of people in Philadelphia were asking questions like that.
>
>Nice segue... except that Washington did not create a pee pee dossier to destroy Jefferson; he invited him into cabinet. When the sides continued to bicker, Washington was moved to say in his resignation speech that "the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it”. I don't believe Franklin or Washington would have interpreted that as corrupt sleaze to advantage a certain faction at the last election, and if you're part of a "wise people", nor should you.
>
>>>Somehow, Franklin found a way to let those slave owners, farmers and yankee merchants come together
>>>They call that leadership.
>>>We haven't seen it in a long time, but we should be ready and anxious to recognize it when it comes along.
>
>The founding fathers would be called Nazis today. An Electoral College to promote Union? Haters! Despots! Set Antifa on them. Of course flyover states should experience taxation without representation.
>
>But seriously: today's corrupt swamp is rigged to disadvantage maverick leaders- witness antics in the last primaries when Bernie was promoting different ideas- and the MSM has been practicing how to demonize if the people fail to select the correct candidate. I agree that in this fashion, swamp and vested interests do resemble the English who could have maintained the colony had they been a little more reasonable but whose arrogance and disdain for colonial deplorables, ended up provoking a revolution.

Focusing on the "other" might be fun and it can energize a lot of people for a while, but it rarely accomplishes more than making gaps between people wider.