Is there truth in those sentences?
"We all want to put this awful chapter in our nation’s history behind us."
Who is "we"? The Senators or the people? I don't think he'd say "All we Senators want to put this awful chapter in our nation’s history behind us." That would be enraging. More than 74 million people voted for Trump, and the point of the impeachment, now that he is out of office, is to disqualify him from running for office again — to deprive the people of the option of ever voting for him. It's flatly wrong to assert that we all want Trump powerfully and absolutely excluded from electoral politics.
But what is "this awful chapter" that we are told we all want "to put... behind us"? The past is always behind us (assuming you use the conventional metaphor that time is a walk and we're facing forward), but there's some fuzzy idea of doing something to the past that makes it more behind us — resolved somehow or less accessible. But if the point of the trial is to bar Trump from running for office, Schumer is talking about manipulating the future, not alienating us from the past.
What is the "awful chapter"? Is it the January 6th attack on the Capitol or is it the entire Trump presidency? We all deplore Trump and want to sever him from our understanding of ourselves? But obviously we don't all want that. Biden enters the presidency with a poll — from Rasmussen — that has the exact same percentages of approval and disapproval that Trump had on his last day — 48% approve, 45% disapprove.
Of course, Schumer is explaining waiting until February 8th. The next sentence is:
"But healing and unity will only come if there is truth and accountability."
The implication is that by spending 2 weeks prepping for trial — after the House voted without taking any time at all — we'll get a proceeding that will deliver "truth and accountability." Another way to read that sentence is that there will never be healing and unity, because it will only come if there is truth and accountability, and that's not going to happen. Who believes the 2 weeks will be used to ensure that the trial is centered on the truth?
And isn't the delay designed to give President Biden a little time to establish himself in the presidential role, to bask in the positive light the media are shining on him, before the harsh spotlight returns to Trump and it's all about "this awful chapter"?
Posts
216 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 216 of 216"We all want to put this awful chapter in our nation’s history behind us. But healing and unity will only come if there is truth and accountability."
Cool!
So we're going to investigate all the Democrats vote fraud?
We're going to investigate all the Democrats who pushed the lying "Trump Russia Collusion" hoax?
We're going to investigate and prosecute every DoJ, FBI, CIA, NSA etc person who did any spying on Republicans during the Obama Admin, or against Trump et. al. during the Trump Admin?
I'm so glad we're finally going to be getting to all their crimes. Let's go!
The FBI knew of the plans for the 1/6 riot. Why didn't they arrest the ringleaders before the ringleaders could stage the riot? The FBI told Nancy Pelosi about the planned riot and Nancy did nothing. Didn't tell the Capitol Police to get reinforcements. Didn't direct the CP to reinforce the perimeter with a reserve force able to plug any holes. They let the riots occur so they could blame DJT.
If really fearful of 75 million "domestic terrorists", pushing for a scurrilous post-presidency impeachment is a terrific way to calm them down.
Fuck your healing.
Fuck your unity.
Power politics we've come to accept. But sanctimonious power politics are nauseating.
Bigotry on parade and with a straight face. #HateLovesAbortion
There needs to be a tag for Unity Bullshit.
@Clayton:
"No one will have to worry about the law after that; no one will recognize there still is such a thing."
Will?
What is "the law" now but a convenient tool for our overlords? To be ignored when rioters destroy property, to be upended when former liberties stand in the way of emergency powers, to be invoked when it helps to crush enemies, and to be reinterpreted to make old concepts mean once-unimagined things like SSM?
Of course, I am a cynic. I wish I didn't have to be. But I am a realist.
Mike of Snoqualmie said...
"The FBI knew of the plans for the 1/6 riot. Why didn't they arrest the ringleaders before the ringleaders could stage the riot? The FBI told Nancy Pelosi about the planned riot and Nancy did nothing. Didn't tell the Capitol Police to get reinforcements. Didn't direct the CP to reinforce the perimeter with a reserve force able to plug any holes. They let the riots occur so they could blame DJT."
What really got them was the lack of property damage and dead bodies and ambulances lined up to take people to the hospital. In fact it's a stretch to call it a riot. But the democrats needed a riot. So it became a riot.
Matt Sablan said:
-- Come on folks, if we're going to be full on crazy right-wingers, the obvious answer is Macbeth.
Macbeth was an accomplished warrior who led men in battle and won victories for King Duncan. He and his wife believed the prophecy of the three witches and murdered Duncan to usurp the throne. Joe Biden would never have the courage to knife his liege lord and take over. His true Shakespeare character is Malvolio from Twelfth Night, who thought he had "greatness thrust upon him." Some of the other characters locked up Malvolio in a dungeon as a madman, just as the DNC kept Biden hiding in his basement for much of the campaign, afraid to confront the electorate and find out what they really thought of him.
Who is "we" in "We all want to put this awful chapter in our nation’s history behind us"?
The Exclusive “we”. . . embodies the Latin term for The Royal We: pluralis majestatis – plural majesty. There’s a layer of meaning in the Latin term that is important: it’s the majesty that matters. This is when “We” is used to bolster the aura of the majesty of a single individual. That use of Royal We is exclusive. It turns the speaker into a grandiose narrator. The exclusive Royal We is pluralis majestatis in full effect.
It’s when [speakers] bust out the pluralis majestatis for grandiose effect that it all goes wrong. Like when Margaret Thatcher declared “We have become a grandmother.” Or . . . when Newt Gingrich said “Philosophically, I am very different from normal politicians. We have big ideas.”
Donald Trump is and was forever a user of the majestic Royal We, but I don't recall the subject arising on this blog.
“Every four years, we gather on these steps to carry out the orderly and peaceful transfer of power, and we are grateful to President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama for their gracious aid throughout this transition.“
Here he mentions the orderly and peaceful transfer of power but at the time it was the only governmental power transfer familiar to Americans so all of America did not feel grateful - but four years later we found out that Trump was and is a total autocrat.
“…we are transferring power from Washington, D.C. and giving it back to you, the American People.” Yeah, right!
Remember, the Royal We can easily become a double edged sword. Any tool you use can also be used against you - as in "What goes around . . . "
Donald Trump is and was forever a user of the majestic Royal We, but I don't recall the subject arising on this blog.
His use of "we" included his voters which Biden could care less about, even if he was still sentient.
You Marxists are all about history as you imagine it. Lenin was constantly surprised by events as he had no interest of exposure to real people. Just like you.
" healing and unity will only come if there is truth and accountability."""
Funny.
That's how a vast amount of the 75 million Trump voters feel about election integrity.
At least a couple thousand affiants signed their name to their concerns. Who knows how many were afraid to.
Dems: Shut up! Unity!
gadfly said, "...but four years later we found out that Trump was and is a total autocrat."
gadfly, please help me out. How exactly was Trump a "total autocrat"? My impression was he completely worked within the existing system.
A total autocrat might have the cancelled altogether and simply kept power. But, Trump used the courts to challenge the outcome of the election, hardly the behavior of a total autocrat.
Trump was no "threat to our democracy." That's risible.
"We all want to put this awful chapter in our nation’s history behind us." And bury it deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeply, where no one will be able to find it.
I'm with Bob at 12:26PM. And Dems do that so Welllllllllllllll. Experience does that.
gadfly, if Trump had been "a total autocrat" as you say, wouldn't "liberals," "progressives" and other State-fellators have liked him better? That's how you power junkies roll.
Post a Comment