"Now, you may be right,” Schumer told Chris Hayes on Tuesday, as if wearing fascism-cancelling headphones. “I don’t think so … We’re not there. You know, I think we’re getting there. We have to be really vigilant. I just had a meet up today with the Judiciary Committee to decide how we’re working through this. As it goes further, it hasn’t been up to the Supreme Court yet, which would be the classic, ‘if they disobey the Supreme Court,’ we’re on our way there. God, God forbid. But I think we are, and we’ll have to go at it and at it and at it.”
Schumer is talking in circles. Which is what Trump does. Let's dissect this.
1. "...you may be right..." -- deflective wording in the face of both righteous anger and data
2. "We're not there." -- a subjective statement at best, and a lie when you look at the deportations and disappearances, the encouragement of unelected foreigners to raid our data and our money, the persecution of scientists, the collapse of the Education Dept., and the assault on the USPS and on Medicaid.
3. "You know, I think we're getting there." -- another subjective deflection designed to telegraph agreement, qualifying the disagreement in #2--even he doesn't believe his own words. Contradicts the evidence in #3.
4."We have to be really vigilant." Filler fluff designed to look as if he's about to articulate a plan that he doesn't actually have.
5. "...I just had a meet up today..." Look at me! I had a meeting!" He doesn't even say he called it. Maybe that's why he doesn't know if anything concrete happened? Meetings are called for a purpose and decisions and actions come out of good ones. Hold that thought.
6. "...to decide how we're working through this." If you're deciding, then you didn't decide. That's a lot of syllables for "I don't know."
7. "As it goes further, it hasn’t been up to the Supreme Court yet..." THE MONEY SHOT. Schumer has no plan and no intention of a plan. It's the Supreme Court's problem.
8. "‘if they disobey the Supreme Court,’ we’re on our way there." The alleged moment when Schumer admits there's a problem.
9. "God, God forbid." It's funny how there's always a higher authority to petition, and it isn't Schumer. Because he can do nothing, you see. His incompetence compared to Mitch McConnell's ability in the same role is not as breathtaking as his comfort with it is. That's why I believe he will not get better. This is the best he can do. It's not good enough. And, uh, God maybe doesn't exist. I don't see him in the Constitution, do you?
10. "But I think we are, and we’ll have to go at it and at it and at it.” Is this the same "go" as in the meeting with no known purpose, agenda, decisions, and actions coming out of it? How does this support the assertion that "we're going there" (#3) but perhaps we'll be 'there' and God may forbid it (#9) then since "we're not there yet" (#2). Maybe if we all stare really hard (#4) we'll know? But aren't we looking really hard RIGHT NOW?
Are you competent, Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer? Too comfortable to be competent?
No idea who Democrats nominate in 2028 but my theory is it will be whoever fully channels voter anger by then. It won’t be the Biden-esque “turn the page” types, or wonkish Warren “let me explain my complex plan” types. It’ll be whoever can tap into the primal screams of millions who are furious.
And this ideal candidate will be scandal proof, as in “won’t care if a scandal about them emerges” which will insulate them when Pam Bondi indicts them on a made up charge (count on this tactic).
'In 1961, James Baldwin said, “To be a Negro in this country and to be relatively conscious is to be in a state of rage almost, almost all of the time.” This now applies to any relatively conscious racial, gender, or sexual minority. Beware of anyone who tells you to bottle your fury. They usually have the privilege of a calm life and would prefer you not disrupt it.' [GRAZIE]
I am so glad you addressed that stupid fist shake. You and I are theater people. We know performance. And what I saw there was straight up "let me make a soundbite" delivered with none of the sincerity, passion, or fury that you need to actually sell a performance. It was the phoned-in half-assed effort of a septeguenarian freshly rolled in a steaming pile of his own self importance and entitlement. His absolute disconnect with meeting the moment was enraging to watch. He gave us the minimum effort he thinks we deserve and all but followed it up with "so shut your ungrateful yaps, how dare you question me?"
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
Firstly, people need to act now if they want to shove Chuck Schumer onto the ice floe. Start pitching the faves now and get them out there. The faves must savage Schumer at every opportunity, even using the rightwing media human centipede if needs must.
Now I will also note this...practically Schumer (nor any Senator in the minority) is not going to stop the illegal shit because it is not legislation. Potential Senate tricks will count if there is legislation. But the critical flaw in the United States is that you do not need legislation to break everything.
That is why it is critical that Americans do not:
1. Elect a transnational racist criminal enterprise to be your executive branch as that is the branch that enforces the law;
2. Fail to listen to warnings and allow the same criminal syndicate to take control of the Supreme Court.
What will happen is what we see now. Occasional judges will pick at illegal actions but as the enforcement is in the same syndicate nothing will be done about it. The law depends on how it is enforced, else it is just a piece of paper. That of course we are finding out with Mahmoud Khalil.
It really, really matters who is your President.
Nevertheless Democrats have found their public enemy #1 and I am confident that Schumer will be turfed out, as will Pelosi and many other Democrats...if the Dem rank-and-file get serious and use tried and true anti-Democratic tools. So that is my ask...folks need to act now.
The price of eggs was an excuse to NOT vote for the Black lady in 2024, just like "economic anxiety" was an excuse to NOT vote for the white lady in 2016. Both are BS narratives pushed by the MSM and embraced by the bigoted Americans who can't imagine anyone but a white male being a strong leader.
As for bottling up anger - not good in the long run, because it can lead to an explosion. There must be an outlet, and fighting for the nation is a good outlet. Just sitting back and waiting for trump to implode is not an outlet, even a bad one. You hit the nail on the head - Schumer, and others like him are comfortable, and don't see that changing anytime soon, so they don't want to rock the boat.
Yes! You can see it in the military, Veterans, Black, Hispanic and young white men who voted in greater than usual numbers for the "macho" Trump. Maybe the price of eggs kept some Democrats away from voting but it didn't fuel the Republicans. And I'm sort of a minority - Jewish - but angry as a white man who hates Trump with a fiery passion.
"Now, you may be right,” Schumer told Chris Hayes on Tuesday, as if wearing fascism-cancelling headphones. “I don’t think so … We’re not there. You know, I think we’re getting there. We have to be really vigilant. I just had a meet up today with the Judiciary Committee to decide how we’re working through this. As it goes further, it hasn’t been up to the Supreme Court yet, which would be the classic, ‘if they disobey the Supreme Court,’ we’re on our way there. God, God forbid. But I think we are, and we’ll have to go at it and at it and at it.”
Schumer is talking in circles. Which is what Trump does. Let's dissect this.
1. "...you may be right..." -- deflective wording in the face of both righteous anger and data
2. "We're not there." -- a subjective statement at best, and a lie when you look at the deportations and disappearances, the encouragement of unelected foreigners to raid our data and our money, the persecution of scientists, the collapse of the Education Dept., and the assault on the USPS and on Medicaid.
3. "You know, I think we're getting there." -- another subjective deflection designed to telegraph agreement, qualifying the disagreement in #2--even he doesn't believe his own words. Contradicts the evidence in #3.
4."We have to be really vigilant." Filler fluff designed to look as if he's about to articulate a plan that he doesn't actually have.
5. "...I just had a meet up today..." Look at me! I had a meeting!" He doesn't even say he called it. Maybe that's why he doesn't know if anything concrete happened? Meetings are called for a purpose and decisions and actions come out of good ones. Hold that thought.
6. "...to decide how we're working through this." If you're deciding, then you didn't decide. That's a lot of syllables for "I don't know."
7. "As it goes further, it hasn’t been up to the Supreme Court yet..." THE MONEY SHOT. Schumer has no plan and no intention of a plan. It's the Supreme Court's problem.
8. "‘if they disobey the Supreme Court,’ we’re on our way there." The alleged moment when Schumer admits there's a problem.
9. "God, God forbid." It's funny how there's always a higher authority to petition, and it isn't Schumer. Because he can do nothing, you see. His incompetence compared to Mitch McConnell's ability in the same role is not as breathtaking as his comfort with it is. That's why I believe he will not get better. This is the best he can do. It's not good enough. And, uh, God maybe doesn't exist. I don't see him in the Constitution, do you?
10. "But I think we are, and we’ll have to go at it and at it and at it.” Is this the same "go" as in the meeting with no known purpose, agenda, decisions, and actions coming out of it? How does this support the assertion that "we're going there" (#3) but perhaps we'll be 'there' and God may forbid it (#9) then since "we're not there yet" (#2). Maybe if we all stare really hard (#4) we'll know? But aren't we looking really hard RIGHT NOW?
Are you competent, Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer? Too comfortable to be competent?
Or are you outright complicit?
No idea who Democrats nominate in 2028 but my theory is it will be whoever fully channels voter anger by then. It won’t be the Biden-esque “turn the page” types, or wonkish Warren “let me explain my complex plan” types. It’ll be whoever can tap into the primal screams of millions who are furious.
And this ideal candidate will be scandal proof, as in “won’t care if a scandal about them emerges” which will insulate them when Pam Bondi indicts them on a made up charge (count on this tactic).
Love the St. Elsewhere GIF!
'In 1961, James Baldwin said, “To be a Negro in this country and to be relatively conscious is to be in a state of rage almost, almost all of the time.” This now applies to any relatively conscious racial, gender, or sexual minority. Beware of anyone who tells you to bottle your fury. They usually have the privilege of a calm life and would prefer you not disrupt it.' [GRAZIE]
I am so glad you addressed that stupid fist shake. You and I are theater people. We know performance. And what I saw there was straight up "let me make a soundbite" delivered with none of the sincerity, passion, or fury that you need to actually sell a performance. It was the phoned-in half-assed effort of a septeguenarian freshly rolled in a steaming pile of his own self importance and entitlement. His absolute disconnect with meeting the moment was enraging to watch. He gave us the minimum effort he thinks we deserve and all but followed it up with "so shut your ungrateful yaps, how dare you question me?"
Yep. NOW is the time to be methodically angry. How many times are we going to let the bully hit us in the face before we just kick their asses?
“It must be nice.” (it must be nice, to have Pelosi on your side).
Subtle, brilliant reference, SER. Bravo.
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
Just selecting grievances from the list of grievances against King George.
“Pretending you’re not at war doesn’t stop the bombs from falling on your head.”
Thank you, Stephen. This is the very article I’ve been wanting someone to write. You’ve nailed it, with every single word.
Firstly, people need to act now if they want to shove Chuck Schumer onto the ice floe. Start pitching the faves now and get them out there. The faves must savage Schumer at every opportunity, even using the rightwing media human centipede if needs must.
Now I will also note this...practically Schumer (nor any Senator in the minority) is not going to stop the illegal shit because it is not legislation. Potential Senate tricks will count if there is legislation. But the critical flaw in the United States is that you do not need legislation to break everything.
That is why it is critical that Americans do not:
1. Elect a transnational racist criminal enterprise to be your executive branch as that is the branch that enforces the law;
2. Fail to listen to warnings and allow the same criminal syndicate to take control of the Supreme Court.
What will happen is what we see now. Occasional judges will pick at illegal actions but as the enforcement is in the same syndicate nothing will be done about it. The law depends on how it is enforced, else it is just a piece of paper. That of course we are finding out with Mahmoud Khalil.
It really, really matters who is your President.
Nevertheless Democrats have found their public enemy #1 and I am confident that Schumer will be turfed out, as will Pelosi and many other Democrats...if the Dem rank-and-file get serious and use tried and true anti-Democratic tools. So that is my ask...folks need to act now.
The price of eggs was an excuse to NOT vote for the Black lady in 2024, just like "economic anxiety" was an excuse to NOT vote for the white lady in 2016. Both are BS narratives pushed by the MSM and embraced by the bigoted Americans who can't imagine anyone but a white male being a strong leader.
As for bottling up anger - not good in the long run, because it can lead to an explosion. There must be an outlet, and fighting for the nation is a good outlet. Just sitting back and waiting for trump to implode is not an outlet, even a bad one. You hit the nail on the head - Schumer, and others like him are comfortable, and don't see that changing anytime soon, so they don't want to rock the boat.
Don't forget all the people who claimed they couldn't vote for the black lady because of Gaza. Those are especially grating to me these days.
THIS ☝️
Yes! You can see it in the military, Veterans, Black, Hispanic and young white men who voted in greater than usual numbers for the "macho" Trump. Maybe the price of eggs kept some Democrats away from voting but it didn't fuel the Republicans. And I'm sort of a minority - Jewish - but angry as a white man who hates Trump with a fiery passion.
the price of eggs are up and the economy is worse and yet crickets...Yep it was ALWAYS BS
A whole lot was BS but people could sure get a lot of clout flogging it.