Is the second impeachment funny?
My son John has a Facebook post reacting to the impeachment with jokes:
I said, "Is it funny?"
The most impeached president in American history! I wonder if Trump is tired of all this winning…
Half of all impeachments of an American president have been of Trump!...
We’re going to have impeachment, like you wouldn’t believe. A lot of people are saying he’s the best president ever at getting impeached. No one had ever heard of impeachment before Trump.
John said, "Is it funny to turn the tables on the pompously powerful?" and I — copying the humor of "No one had ever heard of impeachment before Trump"* — said, "There are very pompously powerful people on both sides."**
I don't want to be part of the that's-not-funny crowd, but I do wonder if those who are wielding the power — using the mechanism of government — are themselves clowning. I heard some of yesterday's speechifying, and I detected a lack of sobriety. There's a lot of political theater, and I'm wondering if this show is a farce.
Trump is almost out the door. He's being kicked as he leaves. And there's the prospect of conducting the impeachment trial after he's out of office.*** Farce?
____________________________
* Last June, Trump asserted that "nobody had ever heard of" Juneteenth before he made it "very famous."
** Reacting to the violent protests in Charlottesville in April 2017, Trump said there were "very fine people, on both sides."
*** Makes me think of this.
Posts
231 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 231 of 231What's funny in a sick-humor kind of way is that Dementia Joe is actually going to be president in a few days.
Somebody's GOT to explain:
If this is true....
What was going on here?
Joe and Kamala are the illegitimate children of an illegitimate stolen election.
How bad does it have to get before we require term limits of these leeches fucking us over day after day?
If the R’s get the house back in 2022 impeaching President Harris is going to be the first order of business. Now that’s funny.
@rehajm:
Farmer said -ism. Everybody drink.
Doesn't count. I'm only using them to complain about their use ;)
@Iman:
Drop the “Kenyan Marxist Communist”, leave the rest with the understanding that all of it would be on Big Zer0’s wishlist.
In that case, he was a "socialist Islamist anti-colonialist who was going to abrogate democracy, seize everyone's guns, and impose totalitarianism." That's still an unhinged take. Obama is a center-left neoliberal, well within the tradition of the New Democrats going back to the Democratic Leadership Council in 1985. In other words, a Clintonite.
George W. Bush was a center-right neoliberal (i.e. "compassionate conservative"). Clinton, Bush, and Obama's presidencies are much more similar than dissimilar, more continuous than discontinuous. They all governed within the neoliberal paradigm established during the Reagan era. And yet, their political opponents depict them as dangerous, extreme radicals.
@320Busdriver:
How bad does it have to get before we require term limits of these leeches fucking us over day after day?
How the fuck would we do that?
Now I know why I've never visited your son's blog. Nor do I ever intend to.
How the fuck would we do that?
1/14/21, 3:25 PM
My only guess is a Convention of States, which I believe is still in the development stage, although I have not been keeping up. Most probably have forgotten that Trump did bring the topic up before he was elected. I know I'm tired of the piss poor leadership of the senior members, especially when they get caught with their hands in the cookie jar. They work for us and only with our consent. I think most people have it backwards. That has to end.
We know how pissed off you people are.
No. You don't. You don't have any idea. Because if you did, you'd shut the fuck up for a change and stop kicking us in the teeth.
The funny part is the impeachment boosting Trump's approval rating.
They've made a mockery of the process while being stupidly sanctimonious about it.
Run Benny Hill music under this crap.
Earnest Prole said, "Four years of Trump as President and now is the moment Althouse chooses to mention that clowning and politics may be a bad combination?"
Actually that's been a significant theme of this blog since Trump was elected. Althouse has been one of the most incredulous observers of TDS around.
They all governed within the neoliberal paradigm established during the Reagan era. And yet, their political opponents depict them as dangerous, extreme radicals.
We were talking about Obama. I would’ve impeached him for all the racial healing and the clusterfuck he made out of immigration, just for starters. His Title IX crap, his funding of the world’s number 1 terrorist regime, the list goes on.
You write as if you have no practical, real world life experience. IMO.
^^too judgmental^^
Farmer, you often make interesting points. But your style and insulated, gaseous, campus-denizen approach often bespeaks a desire to be taken down a few pegs. Just sayin’...
J. Farmer said...Both sides create false narratives. That's how partisanship is maintained.
Of course, but there are masters and there are amateurs. The Republicans are amateurs who don't have the corporate media to help them. Could they have pulled off the Kavanaugh and Thomas Inquistions and two absurd impeachments? No way.
The example of false narratives about Obama indicates how pitifully weak they were. At the time, I had the impression that it was Democrats masquerading as conservatives who were responsible because it felped Obama far more than it hurt him. The narrative they should have stuck to was Obama's association with leftist organizers in Chicago (some of whom I know personally) and his almost complete lack of accomplishments. Bill Clinton had his number.
Dersh agrees with Althouse that this is not a legal question:
""The famed lawyer, who defended Trump in his first impeachment trial, called the second move pushed by House Democrats "political theater" and said, "There really is no room for a lawyer (to get involved)."
@Iman:
We were talking about Obama
So was I. The "They" in that sentence refers to Clinton, Obama, and Bush.
You write as if you have no practical, real world life experience. IMO.
"Practical, real world life experience" in what?
But your style and insulated, gaseous, campus-denizen approach often bespeaks a desire to be taken down a few pegs. Just sayin’...
Give me your address. I'll mail you a quarter, and you can call someone who gives a fuck.
Honestly, though, whatever you think my "desire" is is irrelevant. It has no connection to the validity or truthfulness of any statement I make.
"who was going to abrogate democracy, seize everyone's guns, and impose totalitarianism.”
We have seen the courts say that there is no legal redress for a stolen election.
We will have to see what Biden does on guns. It looks like their Reichstag Fire inspired new anti-terrorism law aimed specifically at the right is going to be a doozy. We shall see what gets enacted.
They have imposed speech limitations on Americans through the coordinated efforts of a partisan oligopoly of Tech billionaires closely allied with an infragovernment, and that this alliance was powerful enough to impose regime change on the United States.
I am not ready to say that these concerns are “unhinged."
I often think our Overseers are laughing at all of us, especially their own flock, like they are testing how ridiculous a notion can we get folks to go for?
Exhibit A:
Young self-respecting women convinced to proudly knit and wear their own “pussy hats”
Exhibit B: candidates for President of the Free-World, Joe and the Hoe.
“No worries! they’ll vote for anyone we say. Wanna See?!”
@Francisco:
Of course, but there are masters and there are amateurs. The Republicans are amateurs who don't have the corporate media to help them. Could they have pulled off the Kavanaugh and Thomas Inquistions and two absurd impeachments? No way.
I disagree completely that the Republicans are amateurs. The media ecosystem the Republicans built in the 90s, comprising talk radio, Fox News, Internet news aggregation, book publishing, and various periodicals--far surpassed anything the Democrats had at their disposal.
It pulled off getting Clinton impeached in 1998 for lying about having sex with Monica Lewinsky during a deposition for the Paula Jones lawsuit. The Republicans in the 90s made the same mistake with Clinton that the Democrats made with Trump. They tried to turn every molehill into a mountain, turn every scandal up to an 11.
Oh, and one more piece of evidence they are playing with us all:
Of all the Reps Pelosi could choose from, Fang Fang Swalwell was included in the impeachment commitee.
Rubbing our faces in their outlaw power
This second impeachment is not funny, but it is a joke. The Democrats demean everything.
Er, when the Chief Law Enforcement Officer at the head of the federal government lies under oath to protect himself from liability in a sexual assault lawsuit, that is germane. Where the GOP blew it was not coming together before the House impeached Clinton to agree to convict. The Democrats would not have made that mistake.
"Fang Fang Swalwell was included in the impeachment commitee"
Farting in Trump's general direction.
Give me your address. I'll mail you a quarter, and you can call someone who gives a fuck.
That’s what I’m talking about, Farmer. It has been so long since you’ve been off-campus you aren’t aware that public pay phones are as rare as hen’s teeth AND that $.25 had doubled and then tripled before the smart phone explosion rendered pay phones obsolete.
Farmer
Your points about the Clinton impeachment seem valid, but you really didn't address my points. It was not a narrative. It was the truth.
@Francisco D:
Your points about the Clinton impeachment seem valid, but you really didn't address my points. It was not a narrative. It was the truth.
My apologies, but I am not sure which points you believe I "didn't really address." If you would not mind clarifying for me, I'll be more than happy to give my response. I agree that the Lewinsky scandal was not a "false narrative," but I was responding to your claim that without "corporate media" help, the Republicans could not pull off an absurd impeachment. But that's precisely what they did.
I don't think our disagreement is so much qualitative as it is quantitative. I'm not exactly sure how to even quantify it, but I certainly don't think the difference is as vast as masters versus amateurs. I think we've seen the same dynamic replayed over and over since the Clinton administration. Derangement Syndrome is a bipartisan disease effecting whoever happens to be members of the opposition party. The Republicans were over-the-top and absurd about Clinton, the Democrats were over-the-top and absurd about Bush, the Republicans were over-the-top and absurd about Obama, and the Democrats were over-the-top and absurd about Trump. My prediction: the Republicans will be over-the-top and absurd about Biden.
None of this, of course, is meant to imply that there are not numerous legitimate criticisms of these presidencies. I've made them myself.
@Iman:
That’s what I’m talking about, Farmer. It has been so long since you’ve been off-campus you aren’t aware that public pay phones are as rare as hen’s teeth AND that $.25 had doubled and then tripled before the smart phone explosion rendered pay phones obsolete.
I assume you recognized that as a joke and are joking back with me. I hope anyway. Poe's law and what not.
Not that it matters, but I've been "off-campus" since 2005, when I was 23 years old. Do you understand why the ad hominem is fallacious?
What do those interred at St Adalbert's cemetery and soon to be president Biden have in common?
None of them can vote without assistance.
Weeeeeeeeeeeelllll, it IS amusing! To me.
Post a Comment