LOL, maybe dial back on the snarkyism, both youse guys?
CQ, are you making the assertion that PP's theorizings are all 100% correct? Because he's been mistaken on certain things, which he admits himself.
PP's Opinion: "I don’t think he ever “left”...He is still President, and we’re in a state of devolution at the moment."
However, as I understand it, devolution theory is essentially about devolution of authority in govt as a means to maintain govt continuity. Thus, devolution theory ALSO includes the possibility that there is NO president, that DJT devolved the executive authority over to a devolved military authority.
A similar scenario or situation would be in a country where there is a fraudulent election, the military steps in or does a coup, and executes military rule while there is no actual president in the country, with the purpose of having "proper" elections at a later date. There are historical incidents of such as far as I know, nations where there has been a "military junta" being examples....
The difference between the above situation and what devolution potentially implies is that such a transference of power from civilian to military is initiated by the military in the former, whereas in devolution theory, IF it takes place, it is initiated by the civilian executive authority.
In conclusion, devolution of govt (for continuity of govt) does NOT necessarily mean that DJT is president. It is also possible, and I believe PP mentioned this point on several occasions I have listened to him, that there is currently NO president.
What I like about commentators like PP is that they make a lot of effort to distinguish between theorizing on one hand, speculation on the other, and opinions on a third. We do well to do likewise.
LOL, maybe dial back on the snarkyism, both youse guys?
CQ, are you making the assertion that PP's theorizings are all 100% correct? Because he's been mistaken on certain things, which he admits himself.
PP's Opinion: "I don’t think he ever “left”...He is still President, and we’re in a state of devolution at the moment."
However, as I understand it, devolution theory is essentially about devolution of authority in govt as a means to maintain govt continuity. Thus, devolution theory ALSO includes the possibility that there is NO president, that DJT devolved the executive authority over to a devolved military authority.
A similar scenario or situation would be in a country where there is a fraudulent election, the military steps in or does a coup, and executes military rule while there is no actual president in the country, with the purpose of having "proper" elections at a later date. There are historical incidents of such as far as I know, nations where there has been a "military junta" being examples....
The difference between the above situation and what devolution potentially implies is that such a transference of power from civilian to military is initiated by the military in the former, whereas in devolution theory, IF it takes place, it is initiated by the civilian executive authority.
In conclusion, devolution of govt (for continuity of govt) does NOT necessarily mean that DJT is president. It is also possible, and I believe PP mentioned this point on several occasions I have listened to him, that there is currently NO president.
What I like about commentators like PP is that they make a lot of effort to distinguish between theorizing on one hand, speculation on the other, and opinions on a third. We do well to do likewise.