Jersey Girl wrote:If anyone wishes to field these questions, be my guest.
1. Did John Lewis claim that this was the first inauguration he wouldn't attend? If so, did he lie?
2. How do we take John Lewis's claims regarding Trump being an illegitimate president in light of the wiki leaks about the DNC's screwing over of Sanders?
3. How do we take John Lewis's recent statements regarding the work of MLK in relation to his boycotting this inauguration when MLK 3 didn't seem to have a problem himself meeting with Trump?
1. Yes. I doubt it. He's an old dude who has attended lots of inaugurations.
2. I don't see how the two are related.
3. Again, what does one have to do with the other? They are two different men, and there is no reason to expect them to march in lockstep. One marched with MLK. The other was 10 when MLK was assassinated. Why should we ecpect them to think in the same way?
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Some members of the Black Caucus decided to boycott Inauguration Day; John Lewis, for instance, spent the day in his Atlanta district. He thought it would be hypocritical to attend Bush's swearing-in because he doesn't believe Bush is the true elected president.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
Jersey Girl wrote:Another question no necessarily related to any of the above, but it's been on my mind. Have the other PE's all formed their cabinets as quickly pre-term as Trump is doing? Is this unusual or typical? I've wondered about this, anyone got an answer?
I looked at the confirmations for Obama's cabinet in 2008 and the timing of announcements in earlier administrations. It looked to me like Trump's timing is pretty typical.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Jersey Girl wrote: 2. How do we take John Lewis's claims regarding Trump being an illegitimate president in light of the wiki leaks about the DNC's screwing over of Sanders?
2. I don't see how the two are related.
Russian hacking claims vs DNC attempts to sabotage Sanders.
I see both as interference with the process. How do you see them?
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
Jersey Girl wrote: 3. How do we take John Lewis's recent statements regarding the work of MLK in relation to his boycotting this inauguration when MLK 3 didn't seem to have a problem himself meeting with Trump?
3. Again, what does one have to do with the other? They are two different men, and there is no reason to expect them to march in lockstep. One marched with MLK. The other was 10 when MLK was assassinated. Why should we ecpect them to think in the same way?
Okay, last one. I find it ironic if not entirely hypocritical, that one man (Lewis) is choosing to use the inauguration to make a statement of protest while the other man (MLK 3) is using the opportunity to meet with Trump to try to do something constructive while both referencing the legacy of MLK Jr.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
Jersey Girl, the WP article says nothing about lying. I didn't say his recent statement was correct. I said He's an old dude who's been to lots of inaugurations.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Res Ipsa wrote:Jersey Girl, the WP article says nothing about lying. I didn't say his recent statement was correct. I said He's an old dude who's been to lots of inaugurations.
If I get any more tired than I am right now, I'm going to start submitting posts in ASL.
He recently stated that this was the first inauguration he's ever sat out as a congressman. The WP article shows that he also opted out of Bush's first inauguration because he didn't believe GWB was a "true president".
He either lied or he CRS.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
Jersey Girl wrote: Russian hacking claims vs DNC attempts to sabotage Sanders.
I see both as interference with the process. How do you see them?
I think the Russian hacking is serious because it represents an overt attempt by a government that has not been one of our bffs to manipulate our election process. It is even more serious because there is circumstantial evidence that the Trump campaign coordinated with the Russian government in this attempt. Given the closeness of the election (100k votes If I recall correctly), it is reasonable to conclude that the drumbeat of negative press was a significant factor in the outcome.
Personnel at the DNC said and did some things they shouldn't have. It looked to me like the kind of favoritism and bias that I expect happens pretty frequently. I think if I looked at the RNC's files, I could find examples of similar conduct. In that respect, I view them as problems or flaws within the process -- not interference with the process. More importantly, the evidence is very weak that anything the DNC did changed the outcome of the primaries. The democratic primary was effectively over on Super Tuesday, after black democrats in the south racked up a huge lead for her. Because of the proportional allocation of voters in all democratic primaries, there was no way for Sanders to catch up.
So, in my opinion, the facts are different enough that one could reasonably take the position that Trump's win was illegitimate and that Clinton's primary win was legitimate without being a hypocrite.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Jersey Girl wrote: Okay, last one. I find it ironic if not entirely hypocritical, that one man (Lewis) is choosing to use the inauguration to make a statement of protest while the other man (MLK 3) is using the opportunity to meet with Trump to try to do something constructive while both referencing the legacy of MLK Jr.
Why would you find that fact either hypocritical or ironic? Is it hypocritical or ironic that there are self-identified Christians who advocate executing homosexuals and others who think they should be able to be priests? Or that some people argue against the legality of abortion or for the legality of abortion based on the document?
A legacy is a pretty amorphous thing, and I don't find it surprising at all that that two men have different opinions on how it applies to concrete decisions in their day-to-day lives.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951