Just hilarious, these Trump enablers hanging on until the literal, mathematical last second & then leaving amidst a bunch of self-congratulation. Just the worst possible people, all of them.
Like this guy. 🙄 Shove your "disappointment" up your ass, you grubby apparatchik. wsj.com/articles/kudlo…
Brave, brave Sir Azar ran away ... with this resignation set to go into effect the day he would have lost his job anyway. Such stirring courage. cnn.com/2021/01/15/pol…
Among other things, this last 5 years has been a relentless parade of world's worst human beings -- some aggressively cruel, some scheming, some deluded, some cynical. A kaleidoscope of ugliness & human rot, on constant display. So draining.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This article -- about Ted Cruz's aides & how shocked they are at his recent behavior -- prompts me to share a take I've had for a while, that's only gotten stronger in the last few years. (A short thread.) nymag.com/intelligencer/…
There's a kind of longstanding mythology in political journalism that the best work comes from getting "inside," getting sources that are close to the action. The idea is you're tapping into a kind of secret insider knowledge, the real deal, the stuff that matters.
It applies to punditry too -- supposedly you get the best insight from those on the inside, up close, who see the game & aren't fooled by the pageantry presented to hoi polloi.
The stance of "objective" media seems to be, if you listen to arguments on both sides of an issue & then decide one side is correct, you then become "partisan," which means you can't be trusted. Thus, the only way to truly be open-minded & trustworthy is to never take a position.
But of course, the people who have studied an issue most & understand it best are those *most likely to make a judgment on the merits*, so if you exclude them as "biased," you're left with glib, mealy-mouthed, "both sides have points" poseurs.
I just got online ... and ... Playbook did *what*?
If you want to spotlight & understand the very heart of US political media dysfunction, think about the nest of background assumptions required to imagine Chris Hayes & Ben Shapiro as equivalent.
One tries his best to tell the truth; one lies freely. One has a coherent, principled worldview that he tries to apply fairly; one glibly hops from faux principle to faux principle as it suits him. One has experience & skill in reporting; one has never done anything but Takes.
I know this exercise is futile, but still: imagine if thousands of disaffected black voters gathered, stormed the US capitol, & came very close to kidnapping or killing lawmakers. Would anyone be saying, "they were just angry, they need to be heard, let's unify & move on"?
It's obvious to the point of absurdity, but still: if this were ANYONE except for rural & exurban white people ("real Americans"), this act of terror would have prompted an absolute national convulsion. Every participant would be in jail, every black person under suspicion.
If black members of Congress had egged it on, called them "my people," tweeted to them about the location of their colleagues ... they'd be gone already, not just booted from Congress but brought up on charges.
Question: if the House impeaches but the Senate votes *against* removal from office (like last time), is Trump thenceforth banned from public office? When does that particular prohibition become active?
All right, my above-average readers have informed me that the ban from public office is *not* an automatic result of impeachment. It's a vote in the Senate, held separately from the vote to convict.
My one remaining question: can the vote to prohibit future public office happen *before* the vote to convict? Or if the vote to convict fails, can there still be a subsequent vote? Does the prohibition from public office *require* conviction?
How can I watch this AOC thing? Don't make me figure out Instagram Live.
All right, I'm watching it, and everyone is right.
Good lord, watching AOC talk is like phasing into a different reality. She's smart, can speak in complete sentences extemporaneously, knows the details of policy, just radiates compassion. I want to live in this place.