Don’t Impeach the Precedent; Pence Lurks
Abel Cohen

While your thesis — with Pence waiting in the wings, impeaching Trump isn’t the final solution — has merit, I have to wonder at your use of over-the-top*, anti-christian hyperbole. What exactly do you hope to accomplish?

Traditionally, essays can have different purposes; to inform, persuade, explain, or entertain.

If your purpose is to inform, you’ve missed the mark because you’re only making assertions without any evidence.

If you’re purpose is to persuade, you’ve fallen flat. The only people you’ll manage to persuade are those that are already persuaded. “Preaching to the choir” is the usual cliche, but not perhaps appropriate in this case.

If you intend to explain, you’ve done a fair job framing it in terms that your own ideological group understands, but most of them don’t really need the explanation.

As far as entertainment, you’ve accomplished your goal at least for a subset of readers. At least half of your readers, however, won’t be amused, to put it mildly. So the net affect across all readers is going to be essentially zero.

In today’s world, there are a couple of other reasons for writing articles: provoke "dislikes” or to garner “likes”.

Here you’ve done pretty well at both. “Likes” in terms of recommends and flattering comments, and “dislikes” in terms of angry comments.

The first four (traditional) purposes of essays are all outwardly focused. That is to provoke some change in the reader. The last purpose is inwardly focused. It is to make yourself feel good by having people agree with you, or by angering people who don’t. Either way, it’s selfish.

And I think that last is all you’ve managed to accomplish. Which is a shame because the actual subject of Pence’s vice-presidency, and its implications for the future, is important.

*note: yeah, “over-the-top” and “hyperbole” is redundant.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.