Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I've a British phrase for this: Bollocks.
The exchange between Tlaib and Meadows was silly because the entire discussion of racism in the context of a hearing over the buffoonish behavior of a fool like Michael Cohen is so utterly misplaced -- so obviously shoehorned into the hearing for political points -- that it degraded everyone in the room.
Tlaib asked Cohen an absurd hypothetical about what he viewed as racism. Michael Cohen is an idiot. Asking him about his views of what does and doesn't constitute racism is like asking him what he thinks of quantum mechanics. It was silly grandstanding for Tlaib or anyone else to ask his opinion on that. And it was silly grandstanding, and downright stupid, for Meadows to bring out a black person as proof Trump is not racist.
This was a hearing about whether Trump is a crooked con man. AOC asked perfect questions aimed at furthering inquiry in that regard. The speeches given by congresspeople regarding Trump's character undercut the search for facts. The man has no character. Beating that horse publicly made the Ds who did it look foolish. And the Rs who fought it look foolish for taking the bait. There is no winning a political show hearing, and when this hearing went beyond factual inquiries into hypothetical views on what Cohen thinks (about anything), that's what it was: A pandering show hearing.
That Cohen teed it up by offering to answer hypotheticals doesn't make it any better.
"Michael Cohen, you would agree with me that [insert hypothetical]..." is a sentence that need never be spoken. Why not ask a street corner wino for his answer to such hypotheticals.
This isn't white fragility. This is me calling something stupid. Asking an imbecile a hypothetical on a complex issue is just plain stupid. Even politically, where stupid is often smart.
|
I'm sure that you can guess at this point, I'm not going to engage with you on this topic. I used your post as a point to jump off into a topic that interests me.
TM
