Two Cheers As Nancy Pelosi Does The Responsible and Ethical Thing (Though In An Unethical Way)

Linking her statement to a link regarding Rep. Maxine Waters’ despicable call for Trump Administration officials to be harassed by mobs and shown that they aren’t welcome anywhere in public places, the House Minority Leader tweeted,

“In the crucial months ahead, we must strive to make America beautiful again. Trump’s daily lack of civility has provoked responses that are predictable but unacceptable. As we go forward, we must conduct elections in a way that achieves unity from sea to shining sea.”

The two cheers are for Pelosi slapping down Waters, as she was obligated to do as a responsible leader, not that this has always motivated Pelosi before.

The missing cheer is because nothing Trump has ever done or said justifies or provoked any of the recent vile attacks on him, his family and his administration, and Pelosi’s allies, supporters and colleagues have been far more uncivil since Trump’s election than he has been.

For Nancy, however, this is still progress.

And just think: if she had been unequivocally ethical, the world would have spun off its axis, we’d have human sacrifice,dogs and cats  sleeping together, mass hysteria…and nobody wants that.

______________________

Pointer: Arthur in Maine

76 Comments

Filed under Character, Etiquette and manners, Government & Politics, Leadership, U.S. Society

76 responses to “Two Cheers As Nancy Pelosi Does The Responsible and Ethical Thing (Though In An Unethical Way)

  1. Wayne

    Big deal. A mild scold is hardly what Water’s deserved. Pelosi should have called for censoring her incitement to riot.

  2. Chris Marschner_

    It’ something but not unlike the responses to riots; they are unacceptable but predictable..

    I can make a similar statement to condemn Trump’s less than ideal communication style. It’s unacceptable but given the Democrats insistance on demonizing its opposition it is predictable if not necessary to counter the villification of conservatives.

    Personally, to me it is mere equivocation and not a slap down. Why? Nowhere does she take Waters to task for her statement but instead suggests they are the ones are taking the high road. It was a simply a rationalization of Waters comments.

  3. Chris Marschner_

    Upon rereading the tweet she suggests that the election of Trump was not legitimate.

  4. JP

    Hmm… This is uncharacteristic. Perhaps she tried to drill a hole in her head?

  5. Pelosi said, “In the crucial months ahead, we must strive to make America beautiful again. Trump’s daily lack of civility has provoked responses that are predictable but unacceptable. As we go forward, we must conduct elections in a way that achieves unity from sea to shining sea.”

    Based on what I know about Pelosi; I think Pelosi very carefully crafted this statement to pander to both sides by using language that can, and will be, interrupted by both sides as meaning that she is on their side.

    Point of fact: “unacceptable” does not always mean wrong it can easily mean that the unacceptable responses didn’t go far enough. It’s a crafty little dog whistle to both sides.

    Don’t take anything Pelosi says or does at face value.

  6. Pelosi said, “In the crucial months ahead, we must strive to make America beautiful again.”

    Beautiful as in the eyes of a Progressive, everything else is unacceptable.

    Pelosi said, “Trump’s daily lack of civility has provoked responses that are predictable but unacceptable.”

    That’s right Nancy, pander to both sides instead of saying outright that something is wrong.

    Pelosi said, “As we go forward, we must conduct elections in a way that achieves unity from sea to shining sea.”

    The only unity in the mind of a Progressive is when everyone agrees with them.

  7. Rip

    First the resultant and in past theatres that refuse to respect their guests and patrons are wrong, even if as one article in defense of actions points out. Saunders supported the mastercake bakery, and its religious Freedom. Note to all your freedoms should not cancel out your customers, politics does not belong in service establishments or theatres. Do i Sabre with any of these idiot no, you do not like the politics fine go protest go campaign go vote. But let me enjoy not having indejestion hear about it in the resteraunt. Let me eat. And let her while your at it.
    But Ms.Press Secretary if your going to stand against gays i wouldn’t eat out. Not all restaurant workers feel like i do. It is rare to find a restaurant staffed with people that think like you do.

    • Rip

      Oh and JACK I NEARLY LOST MY LUNCH AT SEEING YOUR HEADLINE. NEVER THOUGHT I WOULD SEE YOU CHEER FOR PELOPSI. I can,t even go there.

    • Michael R.

      So, are you suggesting that lgbt supporters will poison her food? Or are you suggesting that when they see her they will drive her from the restaurant, then follow her from restaurant to restaurant, harassing her in any establishment she tries to get a meal (since that seems to be what actually happened)? So, if someone disagrees with your beliefs, they should not be allowed in public?

  8. Chris Marschner_

    Upon rereading the tweet she suggests that the election of Trump was not legitimate. The use of the word provoked suggests the Water’s suggestion was justified.

  9. Glenn Logan

    There are a number of issues here. Let’s look at this quote again:

    “In the crucial months ahead,

    What makes the months ahead any more or less crucial than the current one, or the ones before and after the presidential election? I’m at a loss to see what, other than the Democrats are out of power and are hopeful to regain at least a measure thereof.

    we must strive to make America beautiful again.

    Perhaps she means beautiful in the sense of civility, because it’s otherwise just as beautiful as ever. More likely, she means it’s only beautiful when Democrats are in charge of the government.

    Trump’s daily lack of civility has provoked responses that are predictable but unacceptable.

    Provoked? Civility demands you overlook incivility, not return it with interest. What is predictable is that the Democrats lost, they cannot accept it, and civility will not return until they win, at least for their part. That’s the message I’m getting. News for Nancy — Neither Trump nor the Republicans are inclined to lose just so the Democrats can feel more civil. I suspect they’re willing to put up with just about as much incivility as Pelosi and her buds can muster.

    As we go forward, we must conduct elections in a way that achieves unity from sea to shining sea.

    Again, what does this mean? To me, it says that if Democrats don’t win, the incivility will continue until they do.

    I can’t muster even one cheer for this Authentic Frontier Gibberish summoned from the vasty depths of her nether regions, where she apparently keeps her brain.

    No sale.

    • Chris Marschner_

      One should not measure the coarseness of civility by the eloquence of the insult communicated Civility is best measured by the frequency of the insults. I would wager that civility hit the skids long before Trump.

      Schumer is far cry from the voice of reason. It only appears that way when compared to Maxine Waters.

    • Glenn Logan

      Certainly rare. Reason is welcome from anywhere you find it, sez me.

  10. Sue Dunim

    At his rallies, he used to reminisce about the “good old days” when hecklers got roughed up. “I’d like to punch him in the face,” he said of one protester. “Knock the crap out of them.” “The audience hit back. That’s what we need a bit more of.”
    – WaPo

    It seems there’s a double standard here. No one is advocating that Cabinet members be roughed up or punched in the face. Just shunned.

    As Democrats have noted with dismay, and Republicans with glee, the Democrats could get 60% of the popular vote, and still be in the minority in both houses. Shunning is a non violent protest , consistent with law and order. May protests from both sides continue that way, though the vandalism of several restaurants with names like Red Hen doesn’t bode well.

    • You can’t be serious. 1) Campaign rhetoric in a rally, prior to election, is 100% irrelevant now, though I know the “resistance” regards it as a constant source of rationalizations. 2) The ‘resistance’s” effort to harm officials is based on viewpoints and association, not conduct. 3) “Shunning” is not supporting an official/ Not allowing any citizen to enjoy the fruits of liberty openly and without harassment isn’t shunning. It’s abridging their human rights.

      You appear to have lost your ethical compass completely.

      OH: that’s right: we don’t parcel out seats in Congress according to gross votes. System has worked pretty well. And I know that you know that distribution can make a lot more than 60% still end up with a minority, if, say, 80 % of the districts go GOP by 5 votes and 20% go Democratic by a 90% margin. Because, see, its democracy in the communities, and a single vote’s enough, AND the mob outside doesn’t matter. Nothing unjust about that, just representational democracy. Did you know the majority of the public in 1776 opposed independence? Sure you did.

      We learned in 2016 that Democrats regard any election that they lose as illegitimate. Got it.

      • Sue Dunim

        “After consultation with my staff and public health experts, please be advised that this establishment will not accept or allow members of the Cabinet to be served in any capacity in this public facility”

        • Glenn Logan

          So perhaps a MAGA hat-wearing mob should descend upon it, and “occupy” the place against the further abuse of American traditionalism and tolerance.

          Sounds like a plan that would end well…

          • Sue Dunim

            Then call the police and have them arrested for trespass.
            Works really well if they’re black, doesn’t it?

            Anyway something like that’s already happened, minor vandalusm. They just got the wrong Red Hen restaurant. Wrong city. Wrong state. In one case, wrong country. Those in the Make America Great Again Movement as the Leader calls it aren’t known for their attention to facts.

            Still minor league stuff though. They haven’t gotten around to bombings and shootings yet, as the Right did over abortion. I hope they never do, there have to be some limits to malice and stupidity, don’t there? Maybe not. I haven’t seen any on the Left anyway.

            • The last politically motivated mass shooting was by a Leftist towards congressional republicans.

              It was last year.

              The last politically motivated mass shooting by a Right winger was…

              Oh. I don’t think that happened. I mean, you could consider the Charlottesville car attack sort of kind of on the same plane, even though it was an emotional reaction to violent riots against the protesters on site.

              The Left rioted and engaged in mass property damage after 2016.

              This comment of yours is beyond obtuse.

              • I think Dylann Roof has to qualify as an extreme Right Wing nut, no?

                • Jack Marshall wrote, “I think Dylann Roof has to qualify as an extreme Right Wing nut, no?”

                  Actually he qualifies as an extreme racist wing nut not an extreme right wing nut, as far as I know he didn’t shoot those people because they were Democrats, he shot them because they were black.

                • Was his shooting politically motivated or racially?

                • Steve-O-in-NJ

                  No. He was a racist who believed blacks were taking over the world and needed to be stopped, but was not otherwise involved or identified with conservative ideology. With respect, Jack, lumping racism in with conservativism or the right wing generally isn’t correct and you know it.

                  • Wait—are you really arguing that white supremacy doesn’t reside on the far right end of the political spectrum? Come on. I get the sensitivity, but I think that’s an impossible case to make.

                    • Sue Dunim

                      Let’s just say that it’s an atypical extreme that many on the right would disavow. Most? I used to think so. No, I was sure so. Now I still think so, but my certainty has been shaken.

                      I can say with certainty that the vast majority of right wingers on this site loathe this doctrine as much as I loathe the late unlamented SLA. Possibly even all of them, without exception.

                    • The argument is that “White Supremacy” isn’t an inherently “Right Wing” political stance. I think White Supremacists find a place to hide on the right currently, because Left wing political objectives are seen to confer benefits on non-whites. Naturally, creating a tribalistic realm in which to operate (as the Left does), and then picking winners and losers (as the Left does), the losers in Left-opia are going to vote for the side that doesn’t want to confer benefits on anyone, even if white supremacists want to confer benefits on whites.

                      White supremacists found a solid home in the Left when the contemporary tribe-of-choice of the Left happened to be white folk.

                      There is nothing inherently present in “White Supremacy” and the American Right that tie the two together.

                      Further convoluting the issue is that Right Wingers do generally believe that American *culture* is a superior set of values and traditions and generally like to protect that *culture*. But in America, culture is not ethnicity. But the Left has successfully painted the picture and set the narrative that “American culture” is a *white* thing, and therefore supporters of that culture are white supremacists.

                • Not only that, I don’t think we can accurately claim racism is an exclusively right-wing thing anymore (if it ever was exclusively).

                  • Michael West wrote, “Not only that, I don’t think we can accurately claim racism is an exclusively right-wing thing anymore (if it ever was exclusively).”

                    Racism knows no political ideological boundaries; that has always been true and it always will be true.

              • Glenn Logan

                Probably the 2015 Planned Parenthood shootings in Colorado Springs was the last case of an actual shooting by a legitimate right-winger who wasn’t objectively mentally compromised.

            • Why the “works if they’re black” jab?

              How is that even relevant?

            • Glenn Logan

              I would think it would work just as well, black or white, under the circumstances to which you obliquely refer. That was rather gratuitous, was it not?

              But to your point, it’s just a matter of time, and minor vandalism is a far cry from personal confrontation. That’s where tragedies happen, and that’s been the strategy of the Left so far. I worry far more about that than death threats and harrassing calls, although I’m certainly not defending either of those.

          • Sue Dunim

            Maybe I should have been clearer in my minor paraphrase of one of the Leader’s tweets.

      • Did you know the majority of the public in 1776 opposed independence? Sure you did. We learned in 2016 that Democrats regard any election that they lose as illegitimate. Got it.

        Did you know that the rebels of 1776 dealt with that difficulty in precisely the manner that you fear may be coming, that is the logical culmination of today’s Democrats’ approach: massacre, exile, repression, and so on? Sure you did.

        I really don’t see why you sometimes call this un-American. There is ample precedent for throwing the board over when you can’t win within the rules.

        • By un-American, I mean in defiance of established American democratic values, not “something that has never occurred in America.” The Red Scare was unAmerican. So was the Klan. So is Black Lives Matter.

          • I knew you meant that, and I was addressing precisely that, but my point seems to have got lost somewhere.

            The precedent isn’t a mere historical matter, it goes to just what those values were, as expressed in what was done then. Occasional repetition of those tricks, in great or small ways as seemed fit to those involved, never stopped – which goes to show that it remains true to this day that there is nothing un-American about any of that. As Huey Long reputedly remarked, “the time has come for all good men to rise above principle”. And please don’t fall prey to a disguised “no true Scotsman” argument; exceptions to principle can’t be ruled out for being unprincipled, not when the point is that the culture routinely calls them into existence; cometh the hour, cometh the man.

            • It seems to me, that you are arguing that there is a similarity in fervor- that the Revolutionaries of the 1770s believed strongly enough in their Cause to become violent and that the insurrectionists of the 2010s are similarly fervent in their Cause.

              It seems to me, that Jack is arguing that there is a difference in those Causes and that one from the 1770s produced America and it’s set of values and the one from the 2010s is distinctly un-American in the set of values it seeks to impose.

              Jack’s is the more useful comparison. If your point more important, it would be like saying, “how very American of the Egyptians of the 2nd intermediate period to rebel against their Hyksos overlords”. But that isn’t useful at all.

              • No, I am not “arguing that there is a similarity in fervor- that the Revolutionaries of the 1770s believed strongly enough in their Cause to become violent and that the insurrectionists of the 2010s are similarly fervent in their Cause”.

                I am arguing that what they did then, that violates American values as presented here, really can’t be a violation of their real values but rather an expression of them – because they did those things, and so did their successors, down to today. Now, it is quite possible to say that the values ought to be such and such, and to make out that (say) condemning what was done to Japanese Americans means that the “real” values are different – but it happened just the same, and I am confident that the let out will be used in the future, too.

                It’s not the violence, it’s that repression was used and people were OK with it at the time. Whenever the time comes, that happens. So it can’t be un-American. Saying that those things are breaches, that all the other times were the only ones that count – well, that’s in the begging the question/no true Scotsman area.

                It seems to me that, if someone seems to tell you something that doesn’t make sense to you, it possibly isn’t that after all and you should ask for clarification rather than put words in that person’s mouth.

                • PM, your entire piece focused on the techniques used to pursue ends- force and violence- and drew the comparison there. Human history is replete with people using violence for their ends. So of course violence is going to show up in American history.

                  That doesn’t mean that use of violence for an end is a value. The values of the United States are to pursue the Republican process delineated in the Constitution to whatever ends are desired. Have Americans, as humans, faltered in this? Of course. Does this give Americans, as Americans, the right to say “that is un-American to pursue those ends with violence” or “those ends are un-American”. OF COURSE.

                  Your final paragraph sounds alot like “I’m really angry you pointed out potential flaws in my comparisons.” Sorry, I’m going to continue to do that because it gives you an opening to clarify.

                  • PM, your entire piece focused on the techniques used to pursue ends- force and violence- and drew the comparison there. Human history is replete with people using violence for their ends. So of course violence is going to show up in American history.

                    I regret that you read that, and only that, into it, because that was never my point and you are countering something entirely different. (So, no, it did not focus “on the techniques used to pursue ends- force and violence- and drew the comparison there”.)

                    What you have there goes to the fact of a violent rebellion. What I was pointing out – I hoped – was that the rebels squashed local dissent then in much the way that today’s Democrats seek to now: with direct, local action that did not work through existing procedures, and had no logical end short of massacre, exile, expropriation, and so on (tarring and feathering was no small thing). How else could they have marginalised those in authority then? And what else are their successors attempting now? For, in both cases, existing structures did not let them prevail – so, out with them. But the logical end – the violence – is not the point, though it shows the seriousness. The point, the actual point, is that Americans are willing to step outside the system to work against those locals who have succeeded within it and who support it. It may not happen all the time, but it does come up every so often – and that is the point.

                    That doesn’t mean that use of violence for an end is a value. The values of the United States are to pursue the Republican process delineated in the Constitution to whatever ends are desired. Have Americans, as humans, faltered in this? Of course.

                    And I never suggested otherwise. You read that in.

                    Does this give Americans, as Americans, the right to say “that is un-American to pursue those ends with violence” or “those ends are un-American”. OF COURSE.

                    NO!!! Because, then, they would be lying. Because, clearly, they do indeed have that in their toolkit. But, more importantly, and what I was actually telling readers, they have it in their toolkit to pursue those ends outside the system (even unto violence, though that is neither here nor there).

                    Your final paragraph sounds alot like “I’m really angry you pointed out potential flaws in my comparisons.” Sorry, I’m going to continue to do that because it gives you an opening to clarify.

                    I am going to make the charitable assumption that you don’t know what you are talking about (i.e. the alternatives are less charitable). It should sound like, don’t assert that I said such and such, ask me if I did, because if – as here – it isn’t what I said, it’s bound to be confrontational when I tell you to back off with that putting words in my mouth. Yet the alternative is to let error prevail.

                    You NEVER “pointed out potential flaws in my comparisons”, you pointed out the very things that made your misreading a straw man. If what you point out indeed has defects, you should at least consider the possibility that you are not pointing out things that are really in what I presented; the remedy for that is to seek further and better particulars.

                • “seems to” must carry a great deal of different connotation in your culture than in ours. In ours, it conveys a sense of uncertainty, or potential confusion, or least a certain level of “unconfidence” in one’s own observation.

                  You know, communicating exactly the attitude you demand from your final paragraph. But you didn’t want to accept for that. You wanted to run a condescending martyr routine when someone didn’t agree with what you said.

                  • Yet you still did not ask me a question, you made a statement that only allowed a confronting way to reply, short of accepting it. And it is certainly pushy to tell me what I mean, even using weasel words. So I confronted rather than let error prevail – no matter how well intentioned the wording may have been. I thought it fitting to use similar “it seems” wording, so that if you really meant reservations rather than weasel words, you could take it that way yourself. I see you have not done so.

                    • Nonsense.

                      Pro-tip: leave out self-martyring final paragraphs and this wouldn’t be a problem.

                    • [Replying to my respondent here for lack of reply depth]

                      Do you mean, roll over and accept your characterisation of what I meant rather than pointing out that you are doing that, and then there won’t be a problem? But there would be – error would prevail.

                      Oh, I forgot. I should be using your terms of discourse.

                      It seems that you mean, if I don’t correct your reworking of what I said and if I don’t point out that you are doing it, or at any rate if I let you make out that it is self-martyring to point out what is wrong with what you are doing and how you are doing it, you won’t have a problem.

                      But you would still be wrong. Now, I don’t have a problem with just you being wrong – though you yourself might have a problem without even realising it. But I do have a problem with others being misled, as error would then start to spread in ever widening circles, which in the end could consume us all (if taken to a logical conclusion). So I find it important to let readers know, whether you take advantage of that yourself or not.

            • Huey Long was un-American, using American tropes to abuse power. Good example.

              • And there’s the “No true Scotsman”. Huey Long emerged from U.S. culture, and he was no isolated case, so clearly what he exemplified was at least present in it. Saying he was rejected, outside, U.S. culture is just precisely taking him out of the data set. “[U]sing American tropes to abuse power” is precisely what Americans do, when working within the rules and the spirit doesn’t work for them. (I am sure I am tempting readers to “whataboutism” here – some might suggest Australian cases, too, like the Rum Rebellion – but I am not suggesting that this is a peculiarly U.S. failing, only that the U.S.A. has no exceptional freedom from it.)

                I am not suggesting that any of that is typical or ordinary, only that it is part of the repertory – and so, out it comes on occasion.

                I used Huey Long for purposes of illustration, because of his saying, but I could more aptly have used the fate of the Strangite Mormons; they were most immediately beset by people who were outside the formal processes, who rejected how those processes had helped the Strangite Mormons.

                • Charles Manson emerged from US culture too. That’s just silly. Now, if you said “Louisiana culture,” you would have a point.

                  • Do you really not see that you are cherry picking, deliberately discarding cases from the data set? For every “oh, that’s just Louisiana”, we can find other cases. Do you really intend to add “oh, that’s just Michigan” to cover what happened to the Strangite Mormons, and so on? Because you will run out of cop outs doing that.

                    And if that were justified, how would it differ from discarding deplorables from consideration as not being fit for consideration, even though they existed all the same? Just as La Clinton should have remembered that those were part of what she was dealing with, so also you should realise that there is ample U.S. precedent for what Brad De Long calls “breaching norms” when he looks at the ancient world. It’s not that there aren’t norms; but the norm “unworthy of Americans” isn’t an “ought” you can get from the “is” of “what Americans never do”, i.e. un-American, since it does come up quite frequently in the record – unless you drop things from the record for not fitting the norm, which is that no true Scotsman thing.

                    • They are all anomalies. All of them. All of them violate core ethical norms on which the nation is based.Your argument is essentially a riff on “Everybody does it”: if core values are violated often, they aren’t core values. It’s an intellectually dishonest argument that requires ignoring the entire concept of ethics. For example, most journalists violate the core tenets of journalism ethics. Based on this argument, you would claim that this isn’t true: they are self-defining jourmalism’s values.

                      Wrong.

                • PM, you seem to be equating the American Freedom Fighters with the tactics in favor with socialists today.

                  This rubs Americans wrong, at an instinctive level. This causes the first impulse to object to your position. Sure, there were excesses leading up to (and during) the war. However, the British and their supporters struck first, in egregious ways which are enumerated in the Declaration of Independence. The cases are NOT morally equivalent, as you seem to imply.

                  The second impulse to object is looking at motives: one side was fighting against tyranny, while the other wishes to impose it. While you can pick out evil in the history of any country, you seem to imply that this aberration is just as American as to impulse to fight it. False.

                  This assertion on your part is a part of a greater attack on American exceptionalism, which not only exists but causes this nation to be the world leader it has grown to be. America IS different, and the values we are endorsing are ‘American’ are a large reason why. You seek to minimize this historical fact.

                  Have erstwhile ‘Americans’ made mistakes, taken advantage of the system, and been ‘unAmerican?’ Sure. But saying that their actions were of the same ‘American’ value system we are discussing is simply not true.

                  • PM, you seem to be equating the American Freedom Fighters with the tactics in favor with socialists today. This rubs Americans wrong, at an instinctive level. This causes the first impulse to object to your position.

                    Of course it triggers that emotional reaction. I am hoping, though, that insight and reason will start to work all the same.

                    Sure, there were excesses leading up to (and during) the war. However, the British and their supporters struck first, in egregious ways which are enumerated in the Declaration of Independence. The cases are NOT morally equivalent, as you seem to imply.

                    Beep. Whataboutism, red herrings, it’s not the worst thing, and so on.

                    I am afraid that you and perhaps other readers may be taking your eye off the ball here. Where I came in was, showing that there were many U.S precedents for tossing out the system to repress those who were working under it. That was just an early one, to show how far back it goes. It doesn’t matter whether they were 100% right to do so! It only matters to show that what is happening now isn’t un-American. It can’t be, because Americans do indeed resort to it from time to time.

                    If it makes you happy, I will stipulate that they may well have been right to do what they did then. I only ask in return that you concede that they did in fact do what they did.

                    The second impulse to object is looking at motives: one side was fighting against tyranny, while the other wishes to impose it. While you can pick out evil in the history of any country, you seem to imply that this aberration is just as American as to impulse to fight it. False.

                    We might disagree about which side was fighting tyranny (Samuel Johnson certainly did). But that has nothing to do with it.

                    Look, this “aberration” is there. I wanted to show that. Is there an impulse to fight it? Yes, and it even shows in just such failures of reason as all this going into denial that I see in this discussion. I would rather you fought it on a basis of insight, not denial, but there it is.

                    Motives don’t come into it. Whether this capacity to break the rules is an aberration or not, it too is part of U.S. capacity. Would you refuse to treat kidney failure on the grounds that things shouldn’t be like that, or would you recognise the capacity to fail?

                    This assertion on your part is a part of a greater attack on American exceptionalism, which not only exists but causes this nation to be the world leader it has grown to be. America IS different, and the values we are endorsing are ‘American’ are a large reason why. You seek to minimize this historical fact.

                    Er… no. Not even that hubris is exceptional. Sadly, you will find out, as hubris always does.

                    I do not seek to minimise the historical coincidence that, at present, the U.S.A. is in that position of conjoined strength and vulnerability. But that is a matter for people alive today, not for the ages.

                    Have erstwhile ‘Americans’ made mistakes, taken advantage of the system, and been ‘unAmerican?’ Sure. But saying that their actions were of the same ‘American’ value system we are discussing is simply not true.

                    And that is why I never claimed that, not nowise, not nohow.

                    I claimed, and gave evidence for, the fact that there is nothing un-American about Roper’s position in “A Man For All Seasons”: a willingness to tear down the laws to get at the Devil. I make no comment about the U.S. value system as such when I point out that breaching it has been quite common. If you go into denial about it you will be all the less able to steer clear of situations where you might be tempted as Roper was – and all the more likely to fail to see that you are throwing over the board if you get that far, because you will be convinced you never do those things and so you don’t even have to ask if you ever are doing them.

                    But you Americans will do those things – again – soon or late, in great or in small. In this respect at least, there is nothing exceptional about Americans. It may well be happening now among U.S. Democrats.

    • Chris Marschner_

      Sue, If I recall correctly, Trump made that comment after a heckler who was punching on an elderly black Trump supporter was being escorted from the arena by security. Trump commented about how well the heckler was being treated before he said he’d like to punch him out. The heckler it turns out was a paid operative organized by Bob Creamer.

    • Sue Dunim wrote, “Shunning is a non violent protest, consistent with law and order.”

      That’s #4 on Jack’s list of Unethical Rationalizations and Misconceptions; 4. Marion Barry’s Misdirection, or “If it isn’t illegal, it’s ethical.”

      The goal of these unethical political hacks, Sue, is to impede the ability of the President of the United States to do his job (subversion) in any manner possible and either destroy or make the life of anyone that works for the President or supports the President as miserable as they possibly can.

      If the anti-Trump resistance can’t unseat the one at the top that is hated (President Trump) then they attack anyone and everyone that doesn’t publicly support their anti-Trump hate and use the new “Scarlet Letter” to publicly sham them and make their lives as miserable as possible. The new “Scarlet Letter” is extreme confrontational public harassment and viral video; in other words, make the public at large literally fearful of not openly and publicly agreeing with anti-Trump hate – truth, morals, ethics, etc be damned.

      Let’s get to the core of this Sue; what the owner of the restaurant did was wrong, unacceptable is a political dog whistle, and that kind of nonsense is being inspired by Monkey See, Monkey Do Hive Mindedness throughout the anti-Trump resistance. What Maxine Waters did was to literally use sedition (speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state) to inflame more anti-Triump subversion (the undermining of the power and authority of an established system) and that Miss Dunim is what Nancy Pelosi, Progressives in general, and you have refused to openly say is WRONG!. Way too many in the political left is just dancing around this with political dog whistles.

      Anti-Trumpers are morally bankrupt and enabling extremism, this will not end well.

      • Glenn Logan

        Well, I disagree with her idea that shunning is nonviolent to begin with. Certainly in the case of SHS, it did violence to her family’s enjoyable evening, not to mention the ideal of American tolerance, forbearance, and the biblical concept of “love thy enemy,” many of which those on the left purport to adhere to, but enthusiastically repudiate whenever it suits their purposes.

        By the way, when we talk about that biblical concept I mentioned, this particular event was the archetypal antithesis of what it means.

  11. Sue Dunim

    I see yet another Trump supporter, Anthony Scott Lloyd, has been indicted by a Grand Jury for the attempted murder of Maxine Walters. But the attempt was made some time ago, so not really news, and not connected with Trump’s latest threats against her. I have to give credit to the FBI here, they’re doing a very good job foiling political assassinations by the right.

  12. Sue Dunim

    From 2012. I agreed with the Baker, though not his politics.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.