Paul (uncle)
January 21, 2021
For President Biden:
I like that you’re for unity. It’s clearly been lacking from some in your
party. How about telling Nancy who’s boss in town and make her stop her
impeachment plan, which is fueled by nothing but her hatred of former President
Trump. I think it would be a very helpful step toward unity in this town.
Paul (uncle)
*Ask her nicely, and
let the press know.
Lee (sister-in-law)
Have you tried the
thought experiment where Obama incited a mob to storm the Capitol, resulting in
several deaths, and then you asked President McCain to call off Mitch
McConnell’s impeachment trial in the hope of prioritizing unity over
accountability? If Trump’s actions aren’t impeachable, what is?
Paul (uncle)
Nice to hear from you, Lee. I have a couple of
responses.
1. Your thought experiment fails for me because one
could not impeach Obama without being labeled racist, which is a game changer.
Here's a question: is my comment racist? I'm asking because it's really hard to
tell what "racist" means today.
2. There are facts
and there are opinions. Probably every word spoken by President Trump during
his term was recorded. These are facts. You seem to have the opinion that
President Trump "incited a mob to storm the Capitol". My opinion is
that President Trump invited people to protest peacefully, which was their
right. Those who committed acts of violence were far right and far left and
maybe others who had an agenda to cause mayhem and trouble of various kinds.
They should be rounded up and prosecuted. The President did not encourage these
illegal actions. So I guess we disagree.
Andrew
Paul I have a few responses to your responses.
1. a) I believe the point of Lee's thought experiment
was to imagine "reversing the party polarity". I don't think the
intent was to bring Obama's race into the equation. Since that seemed to be a
sticking point for you, allow me to rephrase Lee's thought experiment:
Imagine "an outgoing Democrat President"
incited a mob to storm the Capitol, resulting in several deaths, and then you
asked "an incoming Republican President" to call off "Republican
[Senate Majority Leader/Speaker of the House]'s" impeachment trial in the
hope of prioritizing unity over accountability? (Note: As this is a thought
experiment, we are taking this hypothetical president's actions as factually
having incited a mob. This removes any "matter of opinion" concerns.)
1. b) You asserting that an Obama example would
necessarily become focused on race is troubling. I don't think that that is, in
and of itself, racist, but it saddens me that you'd bring it up and completely
sidestep Lee's legitimate question.
1. c) I don't think the definition of racist is that
elusive. I just googled and found this:
a person who is prejudiced against or antagonistic
toward people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic
group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.
As is pointed out in other comments in this thread,
there are the facts of what Trump has said and typed that have been recorded
and, it is my opinion, that it would not be a gross miscategorization to
classify a non-trivial portion of these sentiments as "prejudiced against
or antagonistic toward people" based solely on "their membership in a
particular racial or ethnic group".
2. a) I agree that there are facts and there are
opinions. (I consider this statement to be a fact. Perhaps one might try to
argue that this is merely my opinion. Regardless, it would be an opinion we
share.) Not only is Lee of the opinion that "President Trump incited a mob
to storm the Capitol", but it seems that this was the opinion of 232
members of the House of Representatives. (That number, I believe, has been
recorded as a fact.)
2. b) Person A may
be of the opinion that 1 + 1 = 7. Person B might believe that 1 + 1 = 2 and
additionally be of the opinion that Person A's assertion is false. One could
say that "Person A and Person B disagree", which is true. However,
stating it that way seems to give the impression that both beliefs are equally
valid, appropriate, viable, and in some way "correct".
Diana (unrelated)
Andrew Anyone attempting to impeach Obama would be labeled a racist. Here is Eric Holder in 2014, “You know, people talking about taking their country back,” Holder said. “There’s a certain racial component to this for some people. I don’t think this is the thing that is a main driver, but for some there’s a racial animus.” Here is Kamala Harris in 2017, "Democrats, we know we have a long road and many fights ahead. It may get harder before it gets easier. But I’ll tell you how we take our country back. It starts with you." Obama critics were routinely labeled racist. Just type it into your search bar.
Andrew
It sounds like we agree that racism remains an
unresolved problem in our country. Point taken. However, the thought experiment
remains: If it was a straight white able-bodied married cis-male Democrat
President, who had been impeached for inciting a mob to storm the Capitol,
resulting in several deaths, and the Democrats were crying out in the name of
unity for the incoming Republican President to call off the trial, would you
support that? Does that seem fair, right, appropriate, what you'd want, and
what you think the Republicans would get behind?
Trump's impeachment had nothing to do with race. Why do you refuse to even consider the tables turned without hiding behind accusations of racism? If you'd like to discuss racism separately, I'd be delighted, but, the crux of Lee's question was if "unity over accountability" is a pill you could swallow if the shoe was on the other foot.
No comments:
Post a Comment