Chris Cillizza
He looks as dorky as Zuckerbutt.
Posted on 06/14/2021 3:52:44 PM PDT by Kaslin
There are many, many, many things we should never accept lectures from CNN over, and defining what this country is and isn’t is definitely one of them.
CNN’s editor-at-large Chris Cillizza, who once infamously declared that “Reporters don’t root for a side. Period,” apparently became fauxfended after Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) told the New York Times in a Monday piece on how Republicans are “shrugging” over Democratic “warnings of democracy in peril” that “the idea of democracy and majority rule really is what goes against our history and what the country stands for.”
Further, Paul stated, “The Jim Crow laws came out of democracy. That’s what you get when a majority ignores the rights of others.”
There was nothing wrong, zero, nada, with what Paul told the Times. But because everything is stupid, Cillizza responded with this clickbait tweet which to the ignorant who not only don’t know what “democracy” means but who also are not aware that the United States is not a democracy, makes Paul sound like he’s against everyone having a voice at the table:
Rand Paul is not a big fan of, uh, democracy?https://t.co/7ECnwTLpxV
— Chris Cillizza (@ChrisCillizza) June 14, 2021
Except, well, he’s not a fan of “democracy” for a reason, dude:
Chris Cillizza is not a big fan of, uh, the intent of the Framers. https://t.co/DqR5VSLF56
— Lake Bum (@dustopian) June 14, 2021
Good. We're a republican (small r) form of government, not a democracy. I wish more people understood this and spoke precisely about this instead of throwing the term democracy around, like you are, Chris. This is one of my pet peeve. #democracy #republic Know the difference. https://t.co/JeyYKBIBrv
— Michael D. Brown (@MichaelBrownUSA) June 14, 2021
Ever read The Federalist Papers, bub? https://t.co/B0fvB9414T
— Phineas Fahrquar (@irishspy) June 14, 2021
From The Federalist Papers No. 10 (someone needs to read the whole thing) pic.twitter.com/cMo4zGlqeO
— Mike Glenn (@ilude) June 14, 2021
The funny thing is that if you read the actual article, Cillizza very reluctantly admits that Paul is technically right before he attempts a thin lecture on what Paul supposedly got wrong.
He finished with these two paragraphs, perhaps thinking he’d really hit a home run:
Three things have always been true of Paul: 1) He is utterly convinced he is smarter than just about anyone, 2) He tends to think and talk in broad theoretical terms without considering lived experiences and 3) He loves to create controversy via trolling.
When all three of those character traits combine, you get moments like this from Paul. Moments in which he sounds more like a college student in a late-night riff session over Alexis de Tocqueville’s “Democracy in America” and a lot less like a United States senator.
Three things have always been true of Cillizza: 1) He always thinks Republicans are dangerously wrong and rarely criticizes Democrats when they’re actually wrong (which is often), 2) He tends to think and talk using standard Democratic talking points without considering the parts of U.S. history that are inconvenient to his arguments, and 3) He loves to pretend he’s smarter than everyone else in the room.
When all three of those character traits combine, you get moments like this from Cillizza. Moments in which he sounds more like a self-important spokesman on behalf of the College Democrats for America and a lot less like the objective “reporter” he’s supposed to be.
Then again, considering his piece came out just a few hours after this one did …
Republican Senators openly expressing contempt for democracy is now routine https://t.co/NjzPTC3aCo
— Jonathan Chait (@jonathanchait) June 14, 2021
I hate the articles/stories with dozens of links.
Not smart enough to realize when his @$$ gets handed to him…
Another failure of the educational system.
Very few realize the difference between a democracy and republic, and then many, many more don’t realize the USA is the later.
Democrat reporters are nothing but activists so the truth is irrelevant to them.
“Democracy demands that we resist vote integrity.”
If we had true democracy we could vote the blacks back into slavery. The logistics might be a bit problematic. But in a true democracy there is nothing stopping this except the morality of the populace. And that is a morality that Democrats reject.
(Because we have a republic, the Democrats take a different approach. Get them on the plantation and keep them dependent forever. The votes follow. It works fairly well.)
I hate articles/stories that confuse what a few people say on Twitter for actual news.
Chris Schillizza’s detractors will probably get suspended from Twitter. He got BTFO.
Would you do it? Or better said would your consion (sp) let you do it? Now think about if they would reverse the role and would hold us as slaves?
Chris Cillizza
He looks as dorky as Zuckerbutt.
. . . deriving it’s JUST (and ONLY just) power from the consent of the governed.
Michael has a good radio show in Denver. Heck of a job Brownie. Got thrown under the bus by W.
a republic, if you can keep it
B Franklin
My conscience would not allow me to do that. But the Democrats would allow such a thing to happen if they got their democracy. Most Democrats are too ignorant of history to know what happens to democracies. That’s all dead white males stuff. As for holding us as slaves, they would have absolutely no compunction about that AS THEY KNOW NEITHER RIGHT NOR WRONG.
Bkmk
Ironically, the reverse is snowballing in that direction.
Considering both the abject ignorance of most people governing the lengths to which they will go - 2020 election being merely one - and the fact that there is literally nearly no one left to enforce the rule of law...
...well, I'm reminded about this thing about a 'tree'.
Care to enlighten about that tree? Don’t leave us hangin’.
"I do not know whether it is to yourself or Mr. Adams I am to give my thanks for the copy of the new constitution. I beg leave through you to place them where due. It will be yet three weeks before I shall receive them from America. There are very good articles in it: and very bad. I do not know which preponderate. What we have lately read in the history of Holland, in the chapter on the Stadtholder, would have sufficed to set me against a Chief magistrate eligible for a long duration, if I had ever been disposed towards one: and what we have always read of the elections of Polish kings should have forever excluded the idea of one continuable for life. Wonderful is the effect of impudent and persevering lying. The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, and what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it’s motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion.1 The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusets: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen yard in order. I hope in god this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted."Thomas Jefferson
Awesome words of Jefferson! Thanks for posting them again on FR.
However, I’m wondering what is the source where you got them, since there are three punctuation errors that I doubt Jefferson would have made (i.e. using “it’s” when he clearly mean “its”). Do you have a link to the site so I can annoy them with grammar nazism? He is too important to misquote.
I’ have the URL; I’ll post it later when I return to the office.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.