zenpundit.com » donald trump

Archive for the ‘donald trump’ Category

One serpent, one equivalence, for Trump

Friday, September 1st, 2017

{ by Charles Cameron — the pardon ouroboros, the antifa / neo-Nazi equivalence ]
,

A couple of issues of form cropped up for me this morning in WaPo — one from today, one from yesterday, carried over.

Let’s start with Jennifer Rubin. Her headline, Trump may get bitten by his own abuse of the pardon power, comes close to calling Trump a serpent, if like me you think of “self-biting” in terms of the ourobotos. Of course, Ms Rubin may not think like me..

I don’t see any further serpent references in Rubin’s piece, though, but I did find a Pharaoh reference:

To the contrary, as far as I understand, most of Arpaio’s most egregious conduct will go unpunished. Combined with his frequent attacks on the judiciary, this latest episode will no doubt harden Pharaoh’s proverbial heart.

There are serpents in the Old Testament too, Jennifer.

Oh God, there’s an impeachment reference if the Dems take over the House.And reverends are already all but calling for civil war in that eventuality…

Argh.

**

And then — back to issues of form — there’s Marc Thiessen, Yes, antifa is the moral equivalent of neo-Nazis. Moral equivalences are frequently contested. and often “read into” statements of comparisons that aren’t necessarily intended to imply equivalence. Here, the claim of moral equivalence is specific — it’s right there in the title.

It’s interesting that the article itself bases the equivalence on terming Antifa communist:

Mark Bray, a Dartmouth lecturer who has defended antifa’s violent tactics, recently explained in The Post, “Its adherents are predominantly communists, socialists and anarchists” who believe that physical violence “is both ethically justifiable and strategically effective.” In other words, they are no different from neo-Nazis.

Well okay — communist equals Nazi, right? — from that oerspective, case closed.

But are there other perspectives?

Antifa equals Neo-Nazis, right? Could be — but my question is whether Antifa would exist if Neo-Nazis hadn’t already shown up. Does that make a difference? WHo struck th first blow, so to speak? Or is it a simple matter pof two forms of extreme violence, mirroring eachg other.

Mirroring: another formal property to watch for,

And all the chairs are musical

Tuesday, August 29th, 2017

[ by Charles Cameron — two cases of unreal real estate, Moscow & Washington ]
.

Putin:

Clinton:

What the tweet proclaims..

Monday, August 28th, 2017

[ by Charles Cameron — c’mon, WaPo ]
.

What the tweet proclaims at time of posting [upper panel].. and what you get when you go there [below]:

**

Sources:

  • WaPo, tweet
  • WaPo, article
  • Unified is not duelling: please make up your mind, WaPo.

    And you know something’s happening, but you don’t know what it is, do you, Mr. Jones?

    Monday, August 28th, 2017

    [ by Charles Cameron — gulf water temperatures 2° above average fuel winds, flooding in TX ]

    Furthermore,

    **

    These frank admissions that we have gone beyond the known signal a qualitative shift in the situation.

    You don’t know what it is, do you, Mr. Jones?

    It’s altogether a hard rain falling..

    Both side of both sides, a DoubleTweet

    Thursday, August 24th, 2017

    [ by Charles Cameron — didn’t i post this? okay, it’s a few days old, but i’ll post it ]
    .

    Trump:

    Obama:

    **

    Both forms of both / and:

    What interests me here is that Trump’s tweet and Obama’s both represent “both / and” positions.

    Obama sees our common humanity cutting across whatever borders of skin color or whatever might be thought to separate us.

    Trump shares the blame equally between the alt-right folk and the folk who were protesting them, when at least arguably the protesters came with (largely) peaceable intent, while the alt-right folk were trying for provocation:

    Note, however, that Trump sees things in exactly the reverse manner — another enantiodromia? From Amy Davidson Sorkin in the New Yorker — Donald Trump, from His Tower, Rages at “the Other Side” in Charlottesville:

    You had a group on one side that was bad and you had a group on the other side that was also very violent. And nobody wants to say that. But I’ll say that right now.” The bad group was the white nationalists; the “very violent” group was those who had come to object. In case anyone missed his point, he continued, “You had a group on the other side that came charging in—without a permit—and they were very, very violent.” Trump wasn’t putting the two sides on the same level; he was saying that the counter-protesters were worse.

    **

    There’s a very different feel to the two kinds of “both / and” IMO — Trump’s actually favoring one side in a conflict and protecting it by shifting some of the blame away from it, while Obama’s is neutral as to sides (though in the case of racists vs non-racists, he’d presumably favor the non-racists.

    My head buzzes: an interesting little logical knot, I think.


    Switch to our mobile site