by Joseph DeMaio, ©2021 

(Sep. 14, 2021) — Regarding your humble servant’s post here, proposing a “zinger fastball” leading to a swift impeachment of the Goofball-in-Chief, commenter “Hendricks” has offered a “rebuttal” meriting a surrebuttal.  Faithful P&E readers might better appreciate the following offering if they would first read (or re-read) the above-noted “zinger fastball” post.

The rebuttal posits that “[t]he most likely method to remove Biden will occur on November 5, 2024.  Prepare for that.”  In fact, the actual “removal” of that person – short of his resignation after his defeat in the November 5, 2024 general election – would not occur until January 20, 2025, a date nearly 40 months distant in the future.  After seeing what the Goof has “accomplished” in a mere 8 months so far this year, 40 months is far too long to wait: remember, this guy has access to the nuclear missile launch codes and he’s got a red phone in the Oval Office.

The rebuttal also posits that “the most likely method to hamper his administration will occur on November 8, 2022.  Prepare for that as well.”  The hypothetical set out in the “zinger fastball” hypothetical seeks not to “hamper” the current administration.  Instead, it seeks to bring its outrages to an end, and far sooner than the mid-term elections in 2022.  Again, this guy has become an existential threat to the Republic as we have known it (perhaps echoing Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.’s 2016 promise of “fundamental transformation” of the nation… and was that a marionette string we saw at the Goof’s last scripted presser…?), thus warranting his impeachment and removal from office sooner rather than later.

Finally, the rebuttal counsels: “And don’t waste time and energy daydreaming about technically possible but utterly improbable scenarios.”  Under that rubric, the Wright Brothers should have confined their activities to building bicycles in Ohio and Donald Trump should have remained a real estate mogul billionaire in New York. 

Moreover, the hypothetical is only a “daydream” if it never comes to fruition.  And rest assured, it will never come to fruition if it is never considered or attempted.  That is why the hypothetical exists in the first place.  The rebuttal in effect urges that the hypothetical be aborted at the outset.  Kind of an “RU-486” thing.

No, thank you.  Besides, your servant’s post and the commenter’s rebuttal provide for some interesting and spirited exchanges, courtesy of the P&E’s intrepid Editor and, oh, yeah, the First Amendment.  And, by the way, there is nothing inconsistent with exploring the proposed “hypothetical” at the same time as one “prepares for that,” referencing the rebuttal’s suggested “inside-the-box” alternatives. 

That is prudent advice, since most true patriots can actually multi-task.  Unconfirmed rumors abound that the Goofball-in-Chief can even chew gum and eat ice cream – Ben and Jerry’s, no doubt – at the same time.

As for the commenter’s prior observations seeking more detailed information regarding the hypothetical, those too are telling. 

For example, identifying information is sought as being “helpful” regarding any existing Democrats who might change their party affiliation and do the “Reagan epiphany” in the House.  In addition, “helpful” information is also sought on any existing Democrat Senators who might vote to convict on a Senate impeachment trial.  Finally, information is sought as to which Florida House member might be willing to resign and thus create a vacancy which President Trump might fill. 

The commenter then claims that, “[w]ithout these kinds of details, the proposal is long on wishful thinking and short on practical realities.”

Ummm…., not really.  And is “wishful thinking” now outlawed as “misinformation?”

First, a brief tutorial on semantics and language might help.  The proposal being advanced – as a hypothetical – acknowledges in numerous places that the “players” are, as yet, unidentified.  That means “incapable of being identified” for the benefit of those wishing to know.  The lack of specific identities of the players, however, has nothing to do with the viability of the hypothetical, qua hypothetical.  Indeed, it concedes at the outset that it is a “long shot” with a low likelihood of success.

That said, recall that the potential for a multi-billionaire named Donald Trump becoming the 45th President of the United States was in early 2016 almost universally mocked and lampooned by a host of “very thoughtful” people as being “wishful thinking” but “short on practical realities,”… until November 8, 2016.  Those who don’t learn from the errors of the past are doomed to repeat them in the future.

Second, even if the players were at present known, why would any one of them – prior to the actual execution of the hypo – wish to expose themselves to the onslaught of criticism, invective, social media condemnation, political pressure and – yes, Virginia – even threats of violence which would surely await them from Democrats, CNN, MSNBC, The Gray Trollop, the WaPo and others after the plan was implemented? 

Seeking the disclosure of this sort of information now, even if it existed (it does not) serves only to provide ammunition to those who would want to kill it in the womb.  And if you think that a “Reagan epiphany” can occur only in Congress, think again. Go, Larry!

The hypothetical posits – for the linguistically-challenged that is why the proposal is characterized as a “hypothetical” – that within their own minds, each of the affected “players” would need to follow their own moral compasses and make their own decisions.  It does not claim or assert that any decision has already been made, but only that the proposal be considered as an alternative to doing nothing but twiddling one’s thumbs and waiting for the future to arrive. 

Recall, Virginia, that doing nothing amounts to tacit acquiescence – if not passive approval – of the actions of the Goofball and his cabal.  Re-arming the Taliban, providing them with U.S. military weapons which may be now, in fact, being turned against civilians is a direct result of the catastrophic decisions drooling out of the Oval Office’s Person of Slumber (“POS”). 

The Taliban patrolling Kabul, Afghanistan, August 17, 2021, public domain

However, U.S. military weapons abandoned by the POS cabal were apparently unnecessary when Taliban hyenas beheaded an Afghan police chief after the “all circumstances considered” exit of the country ordered by the POS.  It is not believed that we left any scimitars behind…., although a lot of American citizens were.

In short, those who would attack a hypothetical on the grounds that not enough details were disclosed to support its ultimate viability do not understand the point of hypotheticals.  They also can be seen as bystanders to a calamity when a “long-shot” hypothetical might bring an end to the calamity.  Or, as 60’s radical Eldridge Cleaver observed: “If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.”

And as far as your humble servant can determine, “wishful thinking” and “daydreaming” are not yet victims of the cancel culture censors…, “yet” being the operative word.

Join the Conversation

1 Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. “In short, those who would attack a hypothetical on the grounds that not enough details were disclosed to support its ultimate viability do not understand the point of hypotheticals.”

    This pertains to those same people: “It is better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.” — Abraham Lincoln