In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On July 21 2016 13:25 acker wrote: Do conservatives have some sort of collective amnesia over the Southern Strategy?
Most are unaware it exists. Though I have pointed it out over and over, many choose to see it as a thing from a long time ago and therefore not relevant. Even though it has shaped politics for decades and continues to do so.
...well, it's not like I particularly mind the Republicans dying out in the future. Even if I do have to figuratively melt my guns down.
Hillary Clinton literally held a memorial funeral where she and Bill praised her close friend and mentor, who just so happened to be in the KKK. I have a feeling Trump is going to do far better with minorities come November than early polling indicates.
He was currently in the KKK? This was brought up a week or two ago and I asked for a clarification and no one did. So here it is again and I am asking again. Is this the FORMER KKK member? Or is it someone else? That's an awfully big difference- former vs current. Unless you believe people cannot change ever change.
He was a former KKK member.
Right, so it's one and the same person I was thinking: Robert Byrd
Okay, so then why did you say "who just so happened to be in the KKK". Do you believe people cannot change? Because if you do believe people can change that is such a deliberate misrepresentation/ character assassination, an outright falsehood because it's quite clear to me that what Clinton valued was his change of heart, not his KKK membership, which in 1952 Byrd "After about a year, I became disinterested [in the KKK], quit paying my dues, and dropped my membership in the organization,"
People can change. I suppose it would have been more clear to have said 'former KKK member' but I think what I said is incompatible with that either; it was just ambiguous on that point.
He was an adult when he joined the KKK wasn't he? He rose to very high ranking offices in the democrat party as an ex-KKK member.
It's just something I just find horribly ironic when people try to say 'republicans are racists and minorities should vote democrat because they are'
That is what I find to be deliberate misrepresentations of the truth
"In 1997, Byrd told an interviewer he would encourage young people to become involved in politics but also warned, "Be sure you avoid the Ku Klux Klan. Don't get that albatross around your neck. Once you've made that mistake, you inhibit your operations in the political arena."[22] In his last autobiography, Byrd explained that he was a KKK member because he "was sorely afflicted with tunnel vision — a jejune and immature outlook — seeing only what I wanted to see because I thought the Klan could provide an outlet for my talents and ambitions."[23] Byrd also said, in 2005, "I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times ... and I don't mind apologizing over and over again. I can't erase what happened."
The man regretted it for the rest of his life and admitted it was a mistake of his youth. The sad part is that he clearly saw errors of his ways, but all you can do is use this as a way to attack Clinton and Democrats.
Also this was decades before the GOP decided to pander to racists and never try to attract black voters.
Good it's something he SHOULD regret for the rest of his life.
I think people should live with their mistakes and be held accountable for them.
And I think Clinton should suffer the political fallout for continuing to praise a former KKK-member as a close mentor and friend. Either she's too stupid to realize that there's going to be political fallout for that or she just doesn't care. She made that decision
If you're asking me to sympathize with Byrd, he chose the wrong career field for not wanting to be criticized for the mistakes of his past.
Byrd knew this when he was in politics and I'm sure the Clintons knew it too.
They would ironically never get away with this if they were Republicans.
On July 21 2016 12:25 GreenHorizons wrote: Sorry to interrupt the convention talk, but seriously...
I suppose the silver lining is now when people say "Hands up, Don't shoot" the "all lives" crowd can shut up and presume they are referring to this man.
Someone's not going to be a cop much longer
Unless the system fucks up
On July 21 2016 12:31 Stratos_speAr wrote:
On July 21 2016 12:25 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
On July 21 2016 12:23 acker wrote:
On July 21 2016 12:14 GGTeMpLaR wrote: I mean if you guys think LGBT and racial equality issues would have ever been allowed by speakers at the RNC by any other candidate than Trump you're seriously delusional. Or a NASA mission commander advocating for a renewal of space funding. Let alone an islamic speaker being given a timeslot as well.
Trump is doing his best at moving the Republican party out of the stoneage with the base he's working with
The Republicans parade out minority speakers every year to pander to an increasingly non-white voter population. Zero minorities believe it. Presumably because the camera keeps panning out to a crowd so white it reflects the spotlights.
Incidentally, the Republican party platform supports gay conversion therapy. This is even after Trump removed every reference from Russia from the Ukraine section.
I mean when 90% of blacks are democrats for example, what do you expect?
Do you think we should see 50% blacks in the crowd when roughly 1% of the U.S. population are republican blacks?
Maybe actually do something that helps the black community and you'll start getting more black people to vote Republican?
The black community is, as a whole, rather socially conservative. The problem is that Republicans have done jack squat to help race relations in any way for generations.
I don't think you need to police people to vote for your party based on their race or gender or religion. If one party happens to better represent a demographic then they should vote for that party and force the other party to make more accommodations or else suffer in the voting booth.
It's funny though because you seem to think the democrat party is much better.
Hillary Clinton literally held a memorial funeral where she and Bill praised her close friend and mentor, who just so happened to be in the KKK. I have a feeling Trump is going to do far better with minorities come November than early polling indicates.
You're such a shameless Republican/Trump shill that it's amusing.
It's also sad that you cite one bizarre, obscure, and irrelevant example when trying to paint the Democratic party in a bad light, while simultaneously ignoring the last 60+ years of history where most significant positive social and political movements for race relations and minority livelihoods were supported by the left and opposed by the right.
I'm not even a Republican I supported Obama over both McCain and Romney.
Trashy internet posting 101: Resort to personal attacks and call who you disagree with a shill
You seem to have not been following the conversation if you think I'm trying to offer a historical analysis of the Republican Party vs the Democratic Party 60 years ago. I'm talking about this election and you've entirely failed to demonstrate an understanding of my point
And you spout off useless vagaries about "missing the point" instead of actually stating what I supposedly missed.
Your continued lack of intellectual integrity still demonstrates why I can't take you seriously.
Anyway, I've followed Trump very closely throughout this election, and I think he's by far the most pro-LGBT, least workplace discrimination, and least racist Republican nominee ever... He's pro-choice, not driven by religion, and naturally he has to claim certain stuff to appeal to some of the Republican party. But I think anyone who really spent some time looking at Trump would think the same thing.
I feel like we've gotten to some kind of conservative Stockholm Syndrome.
Just because Trump was marginally better than the rest of the field in this election cycle doesn't make him comparable to Republican candidates of past elections.
I don't really take you seriously either when all you do it insult me.
My meaning was in the original post you had a chance to read it then and instead wanted to flame me over falsities.
Then you post to complain that I didn't reiterate my original point, which still remained in the post you chose to insult me over rather than actually read the first time.
People are complaining that it's a problem that there are very few black people in the crowd at the RNC. This is not the problem. This is a natural symptom of the problem. I brought up the fact that maybe 1% of the U.S. population are Black Republicans. 90% of blacks vote democrats 10% republicans - this is the problem.
Further, it ought to be a self-correcting problem in a functioning democracy. The Republican party is the one that suffers from blacks disproportionately voting democrat, and so the republicans must adjust their platform to better accommodate a platform and message that better promotes racial equality. Until they do this, the will suffer in the voting booths for it. It acts as an incentive to progress the Republican party on racial equality issues, something I've seen far more this cycle than in 2008 and 2012. I expect when all is said and finished the black vote will be more equally distributed than in 2008/2012.
I already think part of the issue, as someone else noted, was due more to 'inertia' than the democratic party having a good contemporary track record on promoting racial equality and fighting for minorities.
Your original reply didn't have any deeper or nuanced meaning because you directly scoffed at the idea that the Democratic party was any better by bringing up one irrelevant example of Clinton complementing a former KKK member. No matter how much you try to backtrack it, that was nothing but a cheap attempt to discredit the Democratic party's long history of supporting pro-minority movements when compared to the Republican party. You did precisely what I called you on and then tried to take some intellectual high ground in a cheap attempt to recover.
Good it's something he SHOULD regret for the rest of his life.
I think people should live with their mistakes and be held accountable for them.
And I think Clinton should suffer the political fallout for continuing to praise a former KKK-member as a close mentor and friend. Either she's too stupid to realize that there's going to be political fallout for that or she just doesn't care. She made that decision
If you're asking me to sympathize with Byrd, he chose the wrong career field for not wanting to be criticized for the mistakes of his past.
Byrd knew this when he was in politics and I'm sure the Clintons knew it too.
They would ironically never get away with this if they were Republicans.
Republicans get away with it all the time. You excuse Trump for the litany of racist and sexist things he's said throughout his years.
Hillary Clinton literally held a memorial funeral where she and Bill praised her close friend and mentor, who just so happened to be in the KKK. I have a feeling Trump is going to do far better with minorities come November than early polling indicates.
He was currently in the KKK? This was brought up a week or two ago and I asked for a clarification and no one did. So here it is again and I am asking again. Is this the FORMER KKK member? Or is it someone else? That's an awfully big difference- former vs current. Unless you believe people cannot change ever change.
He was a former KKK member.
Right, so it's one and the same person I was thinking: Robert Byrd
Okay, so then why did you say "who just so happened to be in the KKK". Do you believe people cannot change? Because if you do believe people can change that is such a deliberate misrepresentation/ character assassination, an outright falsehood because it's quite clear to me that what Clinton valued was his change of heart, not his KKK membership, which in 1952 Byrd "After about a year, I became disinterested [in the KKK], quit paying my dues, and dropped my membership in the organization,"
People can change. I suppose it would have been more clear to have said 'former KKK member' but I think what I said is incompatible with that either; it was just ambiguous on that point.
He was an adult when he joined the KKK wasn't he? He rose to very high ranking offices in the democrat party as an ex-KKK member.
It's just something I just find horribly ironic when people try to say 'republicans are racists and minorities should vote democrat because they are'
That is what I find to be deliberate misrepresentations of the truth
From Byrd himself:
"In 1997, Byrd told an interviewer he would encourage young people to become involved in politics but also warned, "Be sure you avoid the Ku Klux Klan. Don't get that albatross around your neck. Once you've made that mistake, you inhibit your operations in the political arena."[22] In his last autobiography, Byrd explained that he was a KKK member because he "was sorely afflicted with tunnel vision — a jejune and immature outlook — seeing only what I wanted to see because I thought the Klan could provide an outlet for my talents and ambitions."[23] Byrd also said, in 2005, "I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times ... and I don't mind apologizing over and over again. I can't erase what happened."
The man regretted it for the rest of his life and admitted it was a mistake of his youth. The sad part is that he clearly saw errors of his ways, but all you can do is use this as a way to attack Clinton and Democrats.
Also this was decades before the GOP decided to pander to racists and never try to attract black voters.
Good it's something he SHOULD regret for the rest of his life.
I think people should live with their mistakes and be held accountable for them.
And I think Clinton should suffer the political fallout for continuing to praise a former KKK-member as a close mentor and friend. Either she's too stupid to realize that there's going to be political fallout for that or she just doesn't care. She made that decision
If you're asking me to sympathize with Byrd, he chose the wrong career field for not wanting to be criticized for the mistakes of his past.
Byrd knew this when he was in politics and I'm sure the Clintons knew it too.
They would ironically never get away with this if they were Republicans.
Yeah they would. The GOP has had ex members of the KKK in it. The GOP literally created the war on crime/drugs to attack blacks. They have racist members in the GOP right now. They are getting away with it right now. Make America America again.
The sad part is you wagging your finger at Clinton and Byrd, even though he developed the self reflection that seems to escape you. But its fine, the next time some racist garbage come flowing out of the GOP, I will enjoy watching you bend over backward to justify it. And I'll think about you wagging your finger of disapproval at the ghost of Byrd.
Hillary Clinton literally held a memorial funeral where she and Bill praised her close friend and mentor, who just so happened to be in the KKK. I have a feeling Trump is going to do far better with minorities come November than early polling indicates.
He was currently in the KKK? This was brought up a week or two ago and I asked for a clarification and no one did. So here it is again and I am asking again. Is this the FORMER KKK member? Or is it someone else? That's an awfully big difference- former vs current. Unless you believe people cannot change ever change.
He was a former KKK member.
Right, so it's one and the same person I was thinking: Robert Byrd
Okay, so then why did you say "who just so happened to be in the KKK". Do you believe people cannot change? Because if you do believe people can change that is such a deliberate misrepresentation/ character assassination, an outright falsehood because it's quite clear to me that what Clinton valued was his change of heart, not his KKK membership, which in 1952 Byrd "After about a year, I became disinterested [in the KKK], quit paying my dues, and dropped my membership in the organization,"
People can change. I suppose it would have been more clear to have said 'former KKK member' but I think what I said is incompatible with that either; it was just ambiguous on that point.
He was an adult when he joined the KKK wasn't he? He rose to very high ranking offices in the democrat party as an ex-KKK member.
It's just something I just find horribly ironic when people try to say 'republicans are racists and minorities should vote democrat because they are'
That is what I find to be deliberate misrepresentations of the truth
Where is the irony? Clinton (whom I presume is not a racist) valued the mentorship of someone that is also not a racist. Yes, he formerly was a racist. But there is no surprising contrast on one not-racist, complementing another not-racist. I'm glad you think people can change. But then you need to apply that belief. Byrd changed and so there is no irony in him being praised.
The other month, I was watching a VICE documentary on some of the warlords of Liberia- one of the warlords General "Butt-Naked" used to practice cannibalism. He has since become a pastor, bringing in former child soldiers, even his former enemies, whom the rest of Liberia had thrown out and shunned when they had no further use for child soldiers- but he brought them in.
Now, if another two decades passed of him doing the same pastoral work, I would praise him for his pastoral work. If someone jumped in and said 'haha! you support cannibalistic warlords!" Well. No. No, I do not support cannibalistic warlords. And if he went back to his old ways, or had continued in his old ways but demanded people ignore his actions because he's just being misrepresented, I would condemn him. But I will stand beside a man who has changed, has given up fighting, and made peace with his enemies. It's quite clear that what I am praising is Joshua Blahyi, the changed man, not General Butt Naked, the absolutely despicable and perverted warlord of Liberia.
Hillary Clinton literally held a memorial funeral where she and Bill praised her close friend and mentor, who just so happened to be in the KKK. I have a feeling Trump is going to do far better with minorities come November than early polling indicates.
He was currently in the KKK? This was brought up a week or two ago and I asked for a clarification and no one did. So here it is again and I am asking again. Is this the FORMER KKK member? Or is it someone else? That's an awfully big difference- former vs current. Unless you believe people cannot change ever change.
He was a former KKK member.
Right, so it's one and the same person I was thinking: Robert Byrd
Okay, so then why did you say "who just so happened to be in the KKK". Do you believe people cannot change? Because if you do believe people can change that is such a deliberate misrepresentation/ character assassination, an outright falsehood because it's quite clear to me that what Clinton valued was his change of heart, not his KKK membership, which in 1952 Byrd "After about a year, I became disinterested [in the KKK], quit paying my dues, and dropped my membership in the organization,"
People can change. I suppose it would have been more clear to have said 'former KKK member' but I think what I said is incompatible with that either; it was just ambiguous on that point.
He was an adult when he joined the KKK wasn't he? He rose to very high ranking offices in the democrat party as an ex-KKK member.
It's just something I just find horribly ironic when people try to say 'republicans are racists and minorities should vote democrat because they are'
That is what I find to be deliberate misrepresentations of the truth
Where is the irony? Clinton (whom I presume is not a racist) valued the mentorship of someone that is also not a racist. Yes, he formerly was a racist. But there is no surprising contrast on one not-racist, complementing another not-racist. I'm glad you think people can change. But then you need to apply that belief. Byrd changed and so there is no irony in him being praised.
Clinton is most definitely raycist. Though praising Byrd would not be my go to example of her raycism.
Hillary Clinton literally held a memorial funeral where she and Bill praised her close friend and mentor, who just so happened to be in the KKK. I have a feeling Trump is going to do far better with minorities come November than early polling indicates.
He was currently in the KKK? This was brought up a week or two ago and I asked for a clarification and no one did. So here it is again and I am asking again. Is this the FORMER KKK member? Or is it someone else? That's an awfully big difference- former vs current. Unless you believe people cannot change ever change.
He was a former KKK member.
Right, so it's one and the same person I was thinking: Robert Byrd
Okay, so then why did you say "who just so happened to be in the KKK". Do you believe people cannot change? Because if you do believe people can change that is such a deliberate misrepresentation/ character assassination, an outright falsehood because it's quite clear to me that what Clinton valued was his change of heart, not his KKK membership, which in 1952 Byrd "After about a year, I became disinterested [in the KKK], quit paying my dues, and dropped my membership in the organization,"
People can change. I suppose it would have been more clear to have said 'former KKK member' but I think what I said is incompatible with that either; it was just ambiguous on that point.
He was an adult when he joined the KKK wasn't he? He rose to very high ranking offices in the democrat party as an ex-KKK member.
It's just something I just find horribly ironic when people try to say 'republicans are racists and minorities should vote democrat because they are'
That is what I find to be deliberate misrepresentations of the truth
Where is the irony? Clinton (whom I presume is not a racist) valued the mentorship of someone that is also not a racist. Yes, he formerly was a racist. But there is no surprising contrast on one not-racist, complementing another not-racist. I'm glad you think people can change. But then you need to apply that belief. Byrd changed and so there is no irony in him being praised.
Clinton is most definitely raycist. Though praising Byrd would not be my go to example of her raycism.
Therein lies my point. Or rather it is not at all an example of racism or raycism.
July 21 2016 12:59 GGTeMpLaR wrote:They would ironically never get away with this if they were Republicans.
Give me a truly repentant former KKK Republican politician, and I will prove you wrong. My belief that people can change exists entirely outside the realm of politics, and more fundamental to me than the left or right wing ends of the spectrum- I don't even know the politics of Joshua Blahyi.
Hillary Clinton literally held a memorial funeral where she and Bill praised her close friend and mentor, who just so happened to be in the KKK. I have a feeling Trump is going to do far better with minorities come November than early polling indicates.
He was currently in the KKK? This was brought up a week or two ago and I asked for a clarification and no one did. So here it is again and I am asking again. Is this the FORMER KKK member? Or is it someone else? That's an awfully big difference- former vs current. Unless you believe people cannot change ever change.
He was a former KKK member.
Right, so it's one and the same person I was thinking: Robert Byrd
Okay, so then why did you say "who just so happened to be in the KKK". Do you believe people cannot change? Because if you do believe people can change that is such a deliberate misrepresentation/ character assassination, an outright falsehood because it's quite clear to me that what Clinton valued was his change of heart, not his KKK membership, which in 1952 Byrd "After about a year, I became disinterested [in the KKK], quit paying my dues, and dropped my membership in the organization,"
People can change. I suppose it would have been more clear to have said 'former KKK member' but I think what I said is incompatible with that either; it was just ambiguous on that point.
He was an adult when he joined the KKK wasn't he? He rose to very high ranking offices in the democrat party as an ex-KKK member.
It's just something I just find horribly ironic when people try to say 'republicans are racists and minorities should vote democrat because they are'
That is what I find to be deliberate misrepresentations of the truth
Where is the irony? Clinton (whom I presume is not a racist) valued the mentorship of someone that is also not a racist. Yes, he formerly was a racist. But there is no surprising contrast on one not-racist, complementing another not-racist. I'm glad you think people can change. But then you need to apply that belief. Byrd changed and so there is no irony in him being praised.
Clinton is most definitely raycist. Though praising Byrd would not be my go to example of her raycism.
Therein lies my point. Or rather it is not at all an example of racism or raycism.
Yeah, the last thing we need is for people to never be able to live down being in the KKK (or whatever), why would they quit? Just to get shit from their KKK buddies as well as everyone else?
Now if people could understand the same applies to gang members/criminals, maybe we can make some progress.
*Raycism explained: It's basically the academic version of "racism" that some people here refuse to accept.
Hope that clarifies for those who have missed previous explanations.
Trump would get better press if his camp just played off what happened like an endorsement. Hardly the most difficult logical leap they could have made this cycle.
And talk about Pence more. He did a good job.
Edit: They saw everything in advance and yet Day 3 is also a disaster.
Hillary Clinton literally held a memorial funeral where she and Bill praised her close friend and mentor, who just so happened to be in the KKK. I have a feeling Trump is going to do far better with minorities come November than early polling indicates.
He was currently in the KKK? This was brought up a week or two ago and I asked for a clarification and no one did. So here it is again and I am asking again. Is this the FORMER KKK member? Or is it someone else? That's an awfully big difference- former vs current. Unless you believe people cannot change ever change.
He was a former KKK member.
Right, so it's one and the same person I was thinking: Robert Byrd
Okay, so then why did you say "who just so happened to be in the KKK". Do you believe people cannot change? Because if you do believe people can change that is such a deliberate misrepresentation/ character assassination, an outright falsehood because it's quite clear to me that what Clinton valued was his change of heart, not his KKK membership, which in 1952 Byrd "After about a year, I became disinterested [in the KKK], quit paying my dues, and dropped my membership in the organization,"
People can change. I suppose it would have been more clear to have said 'former KKK member' but I think what I said is incompatible with that either; it was just ambiguous on that point.
He was an adult when he joined the KKK wasn't he? He rose to very high ranking offices in the democrat party as an ex-KKK member.
It's just something I just find horribly ironic when people try to say 'republicans are racists and minorities should vote democrat because they are'
That is what I find to be deliberate misrepresentations of the truth
From Byrd himself:
"In 1997, Byrd told an interviewer he would encourage young people to become involved in politics but also warned, "Be sure you avoid the Ku Klux Klan. Don't get that albatross around your neck. Once you've made that mistake, you inhibit your operations in the political arena."[22] In his last autobiography, Byrd explained that he was a KKK member because he "was sorely afflicted with tunnel vision — a jejune and immature outlook — seeing only what I wanted to see because I thought the Klan could provide an outlet for my talents and ambitions."[23] Byrd also said, in 2005, "I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times ... and I don't mind apologizing over and over again. I can't erase what happened."
The man regretted it for the rest of his life and admitted it was a mistake of his youth. The sad part is that he clearly saw errors of his ways, but all you can do is use this as a way to attack Clinton and Democrats.
Also this was decades before the GOP decided to pander to racists and never try to attract black voters.
Good it's something he SHOULD regret for the rest of his life.
I think people should live with their mistakes and be held accountable for them.
And I think Clinton should suffer the political fallout for continuing to praise a former KKK-member as a close mentor and friend. Either she's too stupid to realize that there's going to be political fallout for that or she just doesn't care. She made that decision
If you're asking me to sympathize with Byrd, he chose the wrong career field for not wanting to be criticized for the mistakes of his past.
Byrd knew this when he was in politics and I'm sure the Clintons knew it too.
They would ironically never get away with this if they were Republicans.
Yeah they would. The GOP has had ex members of the KKK in it. The GOP literally created the war on crime/drugs to attack blacks. They have racist members in the GOP right now. They are getting away with it right now. Make America America again.
The sad part is you wagging your finger at Clinton and Byrd, even though he developed the self reflection that seems to escape you. But its fine, the next time some racist garbage come flowing out of the GOP, I will enjoy watching you bend over backward to justify it. And I'll think about you wagging your finger of disapproval at the ghost of Byrd.
Your constant smug patronizing posts are really pathetic. You show me a republican spouting racist garbage or who was ex-KKK and I'll condemn them no differently than I condemned Byrd for being in the KKK. I'm not a republican, but I don't think that is what republican values are about, and the constant smug posts here trying to insinuate that is true 'intellectual dishonesty'.
When I registered to vote I chose to register as an independent because both major political parties are faulty in ways such that I wouldn't want to identify as belonging to either of them. My choice to support the republicans this cycle is because they are less harmful than the democrats at this point in time. In 2008 and 2012 that was not the case, but they have made some progress since then. The democrats have crown cocky and it's time for them to be put in their place so they can have some self-reflection in their defeat about making their party platform stronger. It's very likely if Hillary manages to beat Trump in this election that Ted Cruz will be a major frontrunner of the Republican Party in 2020, and coming from someone who strongly believes politics should beb secular, that is a terrible thing for everyone.
I suppose the silver lining is now when people say "Hands up, Don't shoot" the "all lives" crowd can shut up and presume they are referring to this man.
Someone's not going to be a cop much longer
Unless the system fucks up
On July 21 2016 12:31 Stratos_speAr wrote:
On July 21 2016 12:25 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
On July 21 2016 12:23 acker wrote:
On July 21 2016 12:14 GGTeMpLaR wrote: I mean if you guys think LGBT and racial equality issues would have ever been allowed by speakers at the RNC by any other candidate than Trump you're seriously delusional. Or a NASA mission commander advocating for a renewal of space funding. Let alone an islamic speaker being given a timeslot as well.
Trump is doing his best at moving the Republican party out of the stoneage with the base he's working with
The Republicans parade out minority speakers every year to pander to an increasingly non-white voter population. Zero minorities believe it. Presumably because the camera keeps panning out to a crowd so white it reflects the spotlights.
Incidentally, the Republican party platform supports gay conversion therapy. This is even after Trump removed every reference from Russia from the Ukraine section.
I mean when 90% of blacks are democrats for example, what do you expect?
Do you think we should see 50% blacks in the crowd when roughly 1% of the U.S. population are republican blacks?
Maybe actually do something that helps the black community and you'll start getting more black people to vote Republican?
The black community is, as a whole, rather socially conservative. The problem is that Republicans have done jack squat to help race relations in any way for generations.
I don't think you need to police people to vote for your party based on their race or gender or religion. If one party happens to better represent a demographic then they should vote for that party and force the other party to make more accommodations or else suffer in the voting booth.
It's funny though because you seem to think the democrat party is much better.
Hillary Clinton literally held a memorial funeral where she and Bill praised her close friend and mentor, who just so happened to be in the KKK. I have a feeling Trump is going to do far better with minorities come November than early polling indicates.
You're such a shameless Republican/Trump shill that it's amusing.
It's also sad that you cite one bizarre, obscure, and irrelevant example when trying to paint the Democratic party in a bad light, while simultaneously ignoring the last 60+ years of history where most significant positive social and political movements for race relations and minority livelihoods were supported by the left and opposed by the right.
I'm not even a Republican I supported Obama over both McCain and Romney.
Trashy internet posting 101: Resort to personal attacks and call who you disagree with a shill
You seem to have not been following the conversation if you think I'm trying to offer a historical analysis of the Republican Party vs the Democratic Party 60 years ago. I'm talking about this election and you've entirely failed to demonstrate an understanding of my point
And you spout off useless vagaries about "missing the point" instead of actually stating what I supposedly missed.
Your continued lack of intellectual integrity still demonstrates why I can't take you seriously.
Anyway, I've followed Trump very closely throughout this election, and I think he's by far the most pro-LGBT, least workplace discrimination, and least racist Republican nominee ever... He's pro-choice, not driven by religion, and naturally he has to claim certain stuff to appeal to some of the Republican party. But I think anyone who really spent some time looking at Trump would think the same thing.
I feel like we've gotten to some kind of conservative Stockholm Syndrome.
Just because Trump was marginally better than the rest of the field in this election cycle doesn't make him comparable to Republican candidates of past elections.
I don't really take you seriously either when all you do it insult me.
My meaning was in the original post you had a chance to read it then and instead wanted to flame me over falsities.
Then you post to complain that I didn't reiterate my original point, which still remained in the post you chose to insult me over rather than actually read the first time.
People are complaining that it's a problem that there are very few black people in the crowd at the RNC. This is not the problem. This is a natural symptom of the problem. I brought up the fact that maybe 1% of the U.S. population are Black Republicans. 90% of blacks vote democrats 10% republicans - this is the problem.
Further, it ought to be a self-correcting problem in a functioning democracy. The Republican party is the one that suffers from blacks disproportionately voting democrat, and so the republicans must adjust their platform to better accommodate a platform and message that better promotes racial equality. Until they do this, the will suffer in the voting booths for it. It acts as an incentive to progress the Republican party on racial equality issues, something I've seen far more this cycle than in 2008 and 2012. I expect when all is said and finished the black vote will be more equally distributed than in 2008/2012.
I already think part of the issue, as someone else noted, was due more to 'inertia' than the democratic party having a good contemporary track record on promoting racial equality and fighting for minorities.
Your original reply didn't have any deeper or nuanced meaning because you directly scoffed at the idea that the Democratic party was any better by bringing up one irrelevant example of Clinton complementing a former KKK member. No matter how much you try to backtrack it, that was nothing but a cheap attempt to discredit the Democratic party's long history of supporting pro-minority movements when compared to the Republican party. You did precisely what I called you on and then tried to take some intellectual high ground in a cheap attempt to recover.
Good it's something he SHOULD regret for the rest of his life.
I think people should live with their mistakes and be held accountable for them.
And I think Clinton should suffer the political fallout for continuing to praise a former KKK-member as a close mentor and friend. Either she's too stupid to realize that there's going to be political fallout for that or she just doesn't care. She made that decision
If you're asking me to sympathize with Byrd, he chose the wrong career field for not wanting to be criticized for the mistakes of his past.
Byrd knew this when he was in politics and I'm sure the Clintons knew it too.
They would ironically never get away with this if they were Republicans.
Republicans get away with it all the time. You excuse Trump for the litany of racist and sexist things he's said throughout his years.
It was in the nestled quotes which I took as relevant to the conversation.
I do believe that the democratic party isn't much better in terms of promoting racial equality than the republican party; they are just much better at racial pandering which they pay the price for in being spineless. I believe their racial pandering is what results in the vastly disproportionate amount of minorities in support of the democratic party rather than their 'progressive promotion of racial equality'. The republican party promotes racial equality it just doesn't waste significant amount of time or resources to racial pandering.
In no such way did I attempt to undermine the parties long history of supporting pro-minority movements. My beef is with the present. You're mistaken to extrapolate my criticism of the contemporary democratic party with that of 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago.
I'm okay with us calling my attack a political cheapshot. I'll back down from the idea that it makes Clinton a racist, but I still find it humorously ironic that the black vote was captured in majority by a woman who praised an ex-KKK member over an individual who was arrested marching in the civil rights movement with MLK.
I haven't seen any substantial allegations that Trump is a racist or sexist in this thread. The only examples I've seen from this election cycle are the result of significant amounts of media dishonesty and disingenuous exaggerations. At worst, I would consider examples of him being 'racist or sexist' I've seen this cycle as a sort of 'benign racism/sexism' that exists in most people. I think of the army guys making the tampon joke a couple days ago and some people in the thread threw a smug fit of what can only be described as virtue signaling - 'that joke was so offensive and sexist oh my god the republicans are so intolerant, it's 2016!' and I'm just like 'really..? it was a stupid joke get over it'. As far as I'm concerned Trump's going to treat someone working under him the same regardless of their race or religion or gender. This is something that many people in this thread have beef with but I consider it a point of slander on the same level of my political cheapshot against Clinton for her associations with ex-KKK member Byrd.
Hillary Clinton literally held a memorial funeral where she and Bill praised her close friend and mentor, who just so happened to be in the KKK. I have a feeling Trump is going to do far better with minorities come November than early polling indicates.
He was currently in the KKK? This was brought up a week or two ago and I asked for a clarification and no one did. So here it is again and I am asking again. Is this the FORMER KKK member? Or is it someone else? That's an awfully big difference- former vs current. Unless you believe people cannot change ever change.
He was a former KKK member.
Right, so it's one and the same person I was thinking: Robert Byrd
Okay, so then why did you say "who just so happened to be in the KKK". Do you believe people cannot change? Because if you do believe people can change that is such a deliberate misrepresentation/ character assassination, an outright falsehood because it's quite clear to me that what Clinton valued was his change of heart, not his KKK membership, which in 1952 Byrd "After about a year, I became disinterested [in the KKK], quit paying my dues, and dropped my membership in the organization,"
People can change. I suppose it would have been more clear to have said 'former KKK member' but I think what I said is incompatible with that either; it was just ambiguous on that point.
He was an adult when he joined the KKK wasn't he? He rose to very high ranking offices in the democrat party as an ex-KKK member.
It's just something I just find horribly ironic when people try to say 'republicans are racists and minorities should vote democrat because they are'
That is what I find to be deliberate misrepresentations of the truth
Where is the irony? Clinton (whom I presume is not a racist) valued the mentorship of someone that is also not a racist. Yes, he formerly was a racist. But there is no surprising contrast on one not-racist, complementing another not-racist. I'm glad you think people can change. But then you need to apply that belief. Byrd changed and so there is no irony in him being praised.
The other month, I was watching a VICE documentary on some of the warlords of Liberia- one of the warlords General "Butt-Naked" used to practice cannibalism. He has since become a pastor, bringing in former child soldiers, even his former enemies, whom the rest of Liberia had thrown out and shunned when they had no further use for child soldiers- but he brought them in.
Now, if another two decades passed of him doing the same pastoral work, I would praise him for his pastoral work. If someone jumped in and said 'haha! you support cannibalistic warlords!" Well. No. No, I do not support cannibalistic warlords. And if he went back to his old ways, or had continued in his old ways but demanded people ignore his actions because he's just being misrepresented, I would condemn him. But I will stand beside a man who has changed, has given up fighting, and made peace with his enemies. It's quite clear that what I am praising is Joshua Blahyi, the changed man, not General Butt Naked, the absolutely despicable and perverted warlord of Liberia.
I'll admit it was a political cheapshot. I for the life of me can't imagine ever joining the KKK at any point in my life, even if I was born 80 years ago. I also can't ever imagine being at a point in my political career like Hillary Clinton and thinking that praising someone who used to be in the KKK is a smart political move. But I wasn't in Byrd's or Clinton's shoes so I'll concede that maybe I'm not giving them enough credit on these points.
On some level your story is confusing me because at what point is it okay to not hold someone accountable for their past wrongdoings if they 'turned a new leaf' so to speak and are making a positive difference in the world. I feel like 'General Butt-Naked' should be punished for murdering and cannibalizing people but at the same time any sort of meaningful punishment would impede on his ability to do further pastoral work which is beneficial to society as a whole. Similarly, part of me thinks that Byrd should have never been allowed the honors of serving in public office for having been a member of a violent hate group.
Hillary Clinton literally held a memorial funeral where she and Bill praised her close friend and mentor, who just so happened to be in the KKK. I have a feeling Trump is going to do far better with minorities come November than early polling indicates.
He was currently in the KKK? This was brought up a week or two ago and I asked for a clarification and no one did. So here it is again and I am asking again. Is this the FORMER KKK member? Or is it someone else? That's an awfully big difference- former vs current. Unless you believe people cannot change ever change.
He was a former KKK member.
Right, so it's one and the same person I was thinking: Robert Byrd
Okay, so then why did you say "who just so happened to be in the KKK". Do you believe people cannot change? Because if you do believe people can change that is such a deliberate misrepresentation/ character assassination, an outright falsehood because it's quite clear to me that what Clinton valued was his change of heart, not his KKK membership, which in 1952 Byrd "After about a year, I became disinterested [in the KKK], quit paying my dues, and dropped my membership in the organization,"
People can change. I suppose it would have been more clear to have said 'former KKK member' but I think what I said is incompatible with that either; it was just ambiguous on that point.
He was an adult when he joined the KKK wasn't he? He rose to very high ranking offices in the democrat party as an ex-KKK member.
It's just something I just find horribly ironic when people try to say 'republicans are racists and minorities should vote democrat because they are'
That is what I find to be deliberate misrepresentations of the truth
Where is the irony? Clinton (whom I presume is not a racist) valued the mentorship of someone that is also not a racist. Yes, he formerly was a racist. But there is no surprising contrast on one not-racist, complementing another not-racist. I'm glad you think people can change. But then you need to apply that belief. Byrd changed and so there is no irony in him being praised.
Clinton is most definitely raycist. Though praising Byrd would not be my go to example of her raycism.
Therein lies my point. Or rather it is not at all an example of racism or raycism.
July 21 2016 12:59 GGTeMpLaR wrote:They would ironically never get away with this if they were Republicans.
Give me a truly repentant former KKK Republican politician, and I will prove you wrong. My belief that people can change exists entirely outside the realm of politics, and more fundamental to me than the left or right wing ends of the spectrum- I don't even know the politics of Joshua Blahyi.
But at what point do you not hold someone morally responsible for their actions based on the fact that 'they've changed'?
Hillary Clinton literally held a memorial funeral where she and Bill praised her close friend and mentor, who just so happened to be in the KKK. I have a feeling Trump is going to do far better with minorities come November than early polling indicates.
He was currently in the KKK? This was brought up a week or two ago and I asked for a clarification and no one did. So here it is again and I am asking again. Is this the FORMER KKK member? Or is it someone else? That's an awfully big difference- former vs current. Unless you believe people cannot change ever change.
He was a former KKK member.
Right, so it's one and the same person I was thinking: Robert Byrd
Okay, so then why did you say "who just so happened to be in the KKK". Do you believe people cannot change? Because if you do believe people can change that is such a deliberate misrepresentation/ character assassination, an outright falsehood because it's quite clear to me that what Clinton valued was his change of heart, not his KKK membership, which in 1952 Byrd "After about a year, I became disinterested [in the KKK], quit paying my dues, and dropped my membership in the organization,"
People can change. I suppose it would have been more clear to have said 'former KKK member' but I think what I said is incompatible with that either; it was just ambiguous on that point.
He was an adult when he joined the KKK wasn't he? He rose to very high ranking offices in the democrat party as an ex-KKK member.
It's just something I just find horribly ironic when people try to say 'republicans are racists and minorities should vote democrat because they are'
That is what I find to be deliberate misrepresentations of the truth
Where is the irony? Clinton (whom I presume is not a racist) valued the mentorship of someone that is also not a racist. Yes, he formerly was a racist. But there is no surprising contrast on one not-racist, complementing another not-racist. I'm glad you think people can change. But then you need to apply that belief. Byrd changed and so there is no irony in him being praised.
Clinton is most definitely raycist. Though praising Byrd would not be my go to example of her raycism.
Therein lies my point. Or rather it is not at all an example of racism or raycism.
Yeah, the last thing we need is for people to never be able to live down being in the KKK (or whatever), why would they quit? Just to get shit from their KKK buddies as well as everyone else?
Ideally they would never join in the first place and the movement would die out.
Ideally if they did join, they would eventually quit because it's not something they ought to have joined in the first place.
I mean it's great if they quit but if their primary motivations for quitting are because they don't want to get shit from other people for being a member of a 'racist hate group', then the point is really moot anyways and they're still a shitlord who still would be doing terrible things if society allowed them to.
Hillary Clinton literally held a memorial funeral where she and Bill praised her close friend and mentor, who just so happened to be in the KKK. I have a feeling Trump is going to do far better with minorities come November than early polling indicates.
He was currently in the KKK? This was brought up a week or two ago and I asked for a clarification and no one did. So here it is again and I am asking again. Is this the FORMER KKK member? Or is it someone else? That's an awfully big difference- former vs current. Unless you believe people cannot change ever change.
He was a former KKK member.
Right, so it's one and the same person I was thinking: Robert Byrd
Okay, so then why did you say "who just so happened to be in the KKK". Do you believe people cannot change? Because if you do believe people can change that is such a deliberate misrepresentation/ character assassination, an outright falsehood because it's quite clear to me that what Clinton valued was his change of heart, not his KKK membership, which in 1952 Byrd "After about a year, I became disinterested [in the KKK], quit paying my dues, and dropped my membership in the organization,"
People can change. I suppose it would have been more clear to have said 'former KKK member' but I think what I said is incompatible with that either; it was just ambiguous on that point.
He was an adult when he joined the KKK wasn't he? He rose to very high ranking offices in the democrat party as an ex-KKK member.
It's just something I just find horribly ironic when people try to say 'republicans are racists and minorities should vote democrat because they are'
That is what I find to be deliberate misrepresentations of the truth
From Byrd himself:
"In 1997, Byrd told an interviewer he would encourage young people to become involved in politics but also warned, "Be sure you avoid the Ku Klux Klan. Don't get that albatross around your neck. Once you've made that mistake, you inhibit your operations in the political arena."[22] In his last autobiography, Byrd explained that he was a KKK member because he "was sorely afflicted with tunnel vision — a jejune and immature outlook — seeing only what I wanted to see because I thought the Klan could provide an outlet for my talents and ambitions."[23] Byrd also said, in 2005, "I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times ... and I don't mind apologizing over and over again. I can't erase what happened."
The man regretted it for the rest of his life and admitted it was a mistake of his youth. The sad part is that he clearly saw errors of his ways, but all you can do is use this as a way to attack Clinton and Democrats.
Also this was decades before the GOP decided to pander to racists and never try to attract black voters.
Good it's something he SHOULD regret for the rest of his life.
I think people should live with their mistakes and be held accountable for them.
And I think Clinton should suffer the political fallout for continuing to praise a former KKK-member as a close mentor and friend. Either she's too stupid to realize that there's going to be political fallout for that or she just doesn't care. She made that decision
If you're asking me to sympathize with Byrd, he chose the wrong career field for not wanting to be criticized for the mistakes of his past.
Byrd knew this when he was in politics and I'm sure the Clintons knew it too.
They would ironically never get away with this if they were Republicans.
Yeah they would. The GOP has had ex members of the KKK in it. The GOP literally created the war on crime/drugs to attack blacks. They have racist members in the GOP right now. They are getting away with it right now. Make America America again.
The sad part is you wagging your finger at Clinton and Byrd, even though he developed the self reflection that seems to escape you. But its fine, the next time some racist garbage come flowing out of the GOP, I will enjoy watching you bend over backward to justify it. And I'll think about you wagging your finger of disapproval at the ghost of Byrd.
Stop being terrible. Both parties probably have ex members of the KKK in it. The WBC is filled with democrats. People didn't create the war on drugs because they hated black people they did it because crime was fucking crazy and the nation was scared. Just look at Hillaries "super predator" comments to see that the Clinton era democratic party has just been GOP lite for a decade now.
Someones gotta represent the racists in the country, doesn't make the whole party racist for that. Trump is a racist tho thats n ot hard to see for anyone whos even remotly impartial on the conservative side let alone for people trying to see faults with him.
Hillary Clinton literally held a memorial funeral where she and Bill praised her close friend and mentor, who just so happened to be in the KKK. I have a feeling Trump is going to do far better with minorities come November than early polling indicates.
He was currently in the KKK? This was brought up a week or two ago and I asked for a clarification and no one did. So here it is again and I am asking again. Is this the FORMER KKK member? Or is it someone else? That's an awfully big difference- former vs current. Unless you believe people cannot change ever change.
He was a former KKK member.
Right, so it's one and the same person I was thinking: Robert Byrd
Okay, so then why did you say "who just so happened to be in the KKK". Do you believe people cannot change? Because if you do believe people can change that is such a deliberate misrepresentation/ character assassination, an outright falsehood because it's quite clear to me that what Clinton valued was his change of heart, not his KKK membership, which in 1952 Byrd "After about a year, I became disinterested [in the KKK], quit paying my dues, and dropped my membership in the organization,"
People can change. I suppose it would have been more clear to have said 'former KKK member' but I think what I said is incompatible with that either; it was just ambiguous on that point.
He was an adult when he joined the KKK wasn't he? He rose to very high ranking offices in the democrat party as an ex-KKK member.
It's just something I just find horribly ironic when people try to say 'republicans are racists and minorities should vote democrat because they are'
That is what I find to be deliberate misrepresentations of the truth
From Byrd himself:
"In 1997, Byrd told an interviewer he would encourage young people to become involved in politics but also warned, "Be sure you avoid the Ku Klux Klan. Don't get that albatross around your neck. Once you've made that mistake, you inhibit your operations in the political arena."[22] In his last autobiography, Byrd explained that he was a KKK member because he "was sorely afflicted with tunnel vision — a jejune and immature outlook — seeing only what I wanted to see because I thought the Klan could provide an outlet for my talents and ambitions."[23] Byrd also said, in 2005, "I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times ... and I don't mind apologizing over and over again. I can't erase what happened."
The man regretted it for the rest of his life and admitted it was a mistake of his youth. The sad part is that he clearly saw errors of his ways, but all you can do is use this as a way to attack Clinton and Democrats.
Also this was decades before the GOP decided to pander to racists and never try to attract black voters.
Good it's something he SHOULD regret for the rest of his life.
I think people should live with their mistakes and be held accountable for them.
And I think Clinton should suffer the political fallout for continuing to praise a former KKK-member as a close mentor and friend. Either she's too stupid to realize that there's going to be political fallout for that or she just doesn't care. She made that decision
If you're asking me to sympathize with Byrd, he chose the wrong career field for not wanting to be criticized for the mistakes of his past.
Byrd knew this when he was in politics and I'm sure the Clintons knew it too.
They would ironically never get away with this if they were Republicans.
Yeah they would. The GOP has had ex members of the KKK in it. The GOP literally created the war on crime/drugs to attack blacks. They have racist members in the GOP right now. They are getting away with it right now. Make America America again.
The sad part is you wagging your finger at Clinton and Byrd, even though he developed the self reflection that seems to escape you. But its fine, the next time some racist garbage come flowing out of the GOP, I will enjoy watching you bend over backward to justify it. And I'll think about you wagging your finger of disapproval at the ghost of Byrd.
Your constant smug patronizing posts are really pathetic. You show me a republican spouting racist garbage or who was ex-KKK and I'll condemn them no differently than I condemned Byrd for being in the KKK. I'm not a republican, but I don't think that is what republican values are about, and the constant smug posts here trying to insinuate that is true 'intellectual dishonesty'.
When I registered to vote I chose to register as an independent because both major political parties are faulty in ways such that I wouldn't want to identify as belonging to either of them. My choice to support the republicans this cycle is because they are less harmful than the democrats at this point in time. In 2008 and 2012 that was not the case, but they have made some progress since then. The democrats have crown cocky and it's time for them to be put in their place so they can have some self-reflection in their defeat about making their party platform stronger. It's very likely if Hillary manages to beat Trump in this election that Ted Cruz will be a major frontrunner of the Republican Party in 2020, and coming from someone who strongly believes politics should beb secular, that is a terrible thing for everyone.
I suppose the silver lining is now when people say "Hands up, Don't shoot" the "all lives" crowd can shut up and presume they are referring to this man.
Someone's not going to be a cop much longer
Unless the system fucks up
On July 21 2016 12:31 Stratos_speAr wrote:
On July 21 2016 12:25 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
On July 21 2016 12:23 acker wrote:
On July 21 2016 12:14 GGTeMpLaR wrote: I mean if you guys think LGBT and racial equality issues would have ever been allowed by speakers at the RNC by any other candidate than Trump you're seriously delusional. Or a NASA mission commander advocating for a renewal of space funding. Let alone an islamic speaker being given a timeslot as well.
Trump is doing his best at moving the Republican party out of the stoneage with the base he's working with
The Republicans parade out minority speakers every year to pander to an increasingly non-white voter population. Zero minorities believe it. Presumably because the camera keeps panning out to a crowd so white it reflects the spotlights.
Incidentally, the Republican party platform supports gay conversion therapy. This is even after Trump removed every reference from Russia from the Ukraine section.
I mean when 90% of blacks are democrats for example, what do you expect?
Do you think we should see 50% blacks in the crowd when roughly 1% of the U.S. population are republican blacks?
Maybe actually do something that helps the black community and you'll start getting more black people to vote Republican?
The black community is, as a whole, rather socially conservative. The problem is that Republicans have done jack squat to help race relations in any way for generations.
I don't think you need to police people to vote for your party based on their race or gender or religion. If one party happens to better represent a demographic then they should vote for that party and force the other party to make more accommodations or else suffer in the voting booth.
It's funny though because you seem to think the democrat party is much better.
Hillary Clinton literally held a memorial funeral where she and Bill praised her close friend and mentor, who just so happened to be in the KKK. I have a feeling Trump is going to do far better with minorities come November than early polling indicates.
You're such a shameless Republican/Trump shill that it's amusing.
It's also sad that you cite one bizarre, obscure, and irrelevant example when trying to paint the Democratic party in a bad light, while simultaneously ignoring the last 60+ years of history where most significant positive social and political movements for race relations and minority livelihoods were supported by the left and opposed by the right.
I'm not even a Republican I supported Obama over both McCain and Romney.
Trashy internet posting 101: Resort to personal attacks and call who you disagree with a shill
You seem to have not been following the conversation if you think I'm trying to offer a historical analysis of the Republican Party vs the Democratic Party 60 years ago. I'm talking about this election and you've entirely failed to demonstrate an understanding of my point
And you spout off useless vagaries about "missing the point" instead of actually stating what I supposedly missed.
Your continued lack of intellectual integrity still demonstrates why I can't take you seriously.
Anyway, I've followed Trump very closely throughout this election, and I think he's by far the most pro-LGBT, least workplace discrimination, and least racist Republican nominee ever... He's pro-choice, not driven by religion, and naturally he has to claim certain stuff to appeal to some of the Republican party. But I think anyone who really spent some time looking at Trump would think the same thing.
I feel like we've gotten to some kind of conservative Stockholm Syndrome.
Just because Trump was marginally better than the rest of the field in this election cycle doesn't make him comparable to Republican candidates of past elections.
I don't really take you seriously either when all you do it insult me.
My meaning was in the original post you had a chance to read it then and instead wanted to flame me over falsities.
Then you post to complain that I didn't reiterate my original point, which still remained in the post you chose to insult me over rather than actually read the first time.
People are complaining that it's a problem that there are very few black people in the crowd at the RNC. This is not the problem. This is a natural symptom of the problem. I brought up the fact that maybe 1% of the U.S. population are Black Republicans. 90% of blacks vote democrats 10% republicans - this is the problem.
Further, it ought to be a self-correcting problem in a functioning democracy. The Republican party is the one that suffers from blacks disproportionately voting democrat, and so the republicans must adjust their platform to better accommodate a platform and message that better promotes racial equality. Until they do this, the will suffer in the voting booths for it. It acts as an incentive to progress the Republican party on racial equality issues, something I've seen far more this cycle than in 2008 and 2012. I expect when all is said and finished the black vote will be more equally distributed than in 2008/2012.
I already think part of the issue, as someone else noted, was due more to 'inertia' than the democratic party having a good contemporary track record on promoting racial equality and fighting for minorities.
Your original reply didn't have any deeper or nuanced meaning because you directly scoffed at the idea that the Democratic party was any better by bringing up one irrelevant example of Clinton complementing a former KKK member. No matter how much you try to backtrack it, that was nothing but a cheap attempt to discredit the Democratic party's long history of supporting pro-minority movements when compared to the Republican party. You did precisely what I called you on and then tried to take some intellectual high ground in a cheap attempt to recover.
Good it's something he SHOULD regret for the rest of his life.
I think people should live with their mistakes and be held accountable for them.
And I think Clinton should suffer the political fallout for continuing to praise a former KKK-member as a close mentor and friend. Either she's too stupid to realize that there's going to be political fallout for that or she just doesn't care. She made that decision
If you're asking me to sympathize with Byrd, he chose the wrong career field for not wanting to be criticized for the mistakes of his past.
Byrd knew this when he was in politics and I'm sure the Clintons knew it too.
They would ironically never get away with this if they were Republicans.
Republicans get away with it all the time. You excuse Trump for the litany of racist and sexist things he's said throughout his years.
It was in the nestled quotes which I took as relevant to the conversation.
I do believe that the democratic party isn't much better in terms of promoting racial equality than the republican party; they are just much better at racial pandering which they pay the price for in being spineless. I believe their racial pandering is what results in the vastly disproportionate amount of minorities in support of the democratic party rather than their 'progressive promotion of racial equality'. The republican party promotes racial equality it just doesn't waste significant amount of time or resources to racial pandering.
In no such way did I attempt to undermine the parties long history of supporting pro-minority movements. My beef is with the present. You're mistaken to extrapolate my criticism of the contemporary democratic party with that of 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago.
I'm okay with us calling my attack a political cheapshot. I'll back down from the idea that it makes Clinton a racist, but I still find it humorously ironic that the black vote was captured in majority by a woman who praised an ex-KKK member over an individual who was arrested marching in the civil rights movement with MLK.
I haven't seen any substantial allegations that Trump is a racist or sexist in this thread. The only examples I've seen from this election cycle are the result of significant amounts of media dishonesty and disingenuous exaggerations. At worst, I would consider examples of him being 'racist or sexist' I've seen this cycle as a sort of 'benign racism/sexism' that exists in most people. I think of the army guys making the tampon joke a couple days ago and some people in the thread threw a smug fit of what can only be described as virtue signaling - 'that joke was so offensive and sexist oh my god the republicans are so intolerant, it's 2016!' and I'm just like 'really..? it was a stupid joke get over it'. As far as I'm concerned Trump's going to treat someone working under him the same regardless of their race or religion or gender. This is something that many people in this thread have beef with but I consider it a point of slander on the same level of my political cheapshot against Clinton for her associations with ex-KKK member Byrd.
Hillary Clinton literally held a memorial funeral where she and Bill praised her close friend and mentor, who just so happened to be in the KKK. I have a feeling Trump is going to do far better with minorities come November than early polling indicates.
He was currently in the KKK? This was brought up a week or two ago and I asked for a clarification and no one did. So here it is again and I am asking again. Is this the FORMER KKK member? Or is it someone else? That's an awfully big difference- former vs current. Unless you believe people cannot change ever change.
He was a former KKK member.
Right, so it's one and the same person I was thinking: Robert Byrd
Okay, so then why did you say "who just so happened to be in the KKK". Do you believe people cannot change? Because if you do believe people can change that is such a deliberate misrepresentation/ character assassination, an outright falsehood because it's quite clear to me that what Clinton valued was his change of heart, not his KKK membership, which in 1952 Byrd "After about a year, I became disinterested [in the KKK], quit paying my dues, and dropped my membership in the organization,"
People can change. I suppose it would have been more clear to have said 'former KKK member' but I think what I said is incompatible with that either; it was just ambiguous on that point.
He was an adult when he joined the KKK wasn't he? He rose to very high ranking offices in the democrat party as an ex-KKK member.
It's just something I just find horribly ironic when people try to say 'republicans are racists and minorities should vote democrat because they are'
That is what I find to be deliberate misrepresentations of the truth
Where is the irony? Clinton (whom I presume is not a racist) valued the mentorship of someone that is also not a racist. Yes, he formerly was a racist. But there is no surprising contrast on one not-racist, complementing another not-racist. I'm glad you think people can change. But then you need to apply that belief. Byrd changed and so there is no irony in him being praised.
The other month, I was watching a VICE documentary on some of the warlords of Liberia- one of the warlords General "Butt-Naked" used to practice cannibalism. He has since become a pastor, bringing in former child soldiers, even his former enemies, whom the rest of Liberia had thrown out and shunned when they had no further use for child soldiers- but he brought them in.
Now, if another two decades passed of him doing the same pastoral work, I would praise him for his pastoral work. If someone jumped in and said 'haha! you support cannibalistic warlords!" Well. No. No, I do not support cannibalistic warlords. And if he went back to his old ways, or had continued in his old ways but demanded people ignore his actions because he's just being misrepresented, I would condemn him. But I will stand beside a man who has changed, has given up fighting, and made peace with his enemies. It's quite clear that what I am praising is Joshua Blahyi, the changed man, not General Butt Naked, the absolutely despicable and perverted warlord of Liberia.
I'll admit it was a political cheapshot. I for the life of me can't imagine ever joining the KKK at any point in my life, even if I was born 80 years ago. I also can't ever imagine being at a point in my political career like Hillary Clinton and thinking that praising someone who used to be in the KKK is a smart political move. But I wasn't in Byrd's or Clinton's shoes so I'll concede that maybe I'm not giving them enough credit on these points.
On some level your story is confusing me because at what point is it okay to not hold someone accountable for their past wrongdoings if they 'turned a new leaf' so to speak and are making a positive difference in the world. I feel like 'General Butt-Naked' should be punished for murdering and cannibalizing people but at the same time any sort of meaningful punishment would impede on his ability to do further pastoral work which is beneficial to society as a whole. Similarly, part of me thinks that Byrd should have never been allowed the honors of serving in public office for having been a member of a violent hate group.
Hillary Clinton literally held a memorial funeral where she and Bill praised her close friend and mentor, who just so happened to be in the KKK. I have a feeling Trump is going to do far better with minorities come November than early polling indicates.
He was currently in the KKK? This was brought up a week or two ago and I asked for a clarification and no one did. So here it is again and I am asking again. Is this the FORMER KKK member? Or is it someone else? That's an awfully big difference- former vs current. Unless you believe people cannot change ever change.
He was a former KKK member.
Right, so it's one and the same person I was thinking: Robert Byrd
Okay, so then why did you say "who just so happened to be in the KKK". Do you believe people cannot change? Because if you do believe people can change that is such a deliberate misrepresentation/ character assassination, an outright falsehood because it's quite clear to me that what Clinton valued was his change of heart, not his KKK membership, which in 1952 Byrd "After about a year, I became disinterested [in the KKK], quit paying my dues, and dropped my membership in the organization,"
People can change. I suppose it would have been more clear to have said 'former KKK member' but I think what I said is incompatible with that either; it was just ambiguous on that point.
He was an adult when he joined the KKK wasn't he? He rose to very high ranking offices in the democrat party as an ex-KKK member.
It's just something I just find horribly ironic when people try to say 'republicans are racists and minorities should vote democrat because they are'
That is what I find to be deliberate misrepresentations of the truth
Where is the irony? Clinton (whom I presume is not a racist) valued the mentorship of someone that is also not a racist. Yes, he formerly was a racist. But there is no surprising contrast on one not-racist, complementing another not-racist. I'm glad you think people can change. But then you need to apply that belief. Byrd changed and so there is no irony in him being praised.
Clinton is most definitely raycist. Though praising Byrd would not be my go to example of her raycism.
Therein lies my point. Or rather it is not at all an example of racism or raycism.
July 21 2016 12:59 GGTeMpLaR wrote:They would ironically never get away with this if they were Republicans.
Give me a truly repentant former KKK Republican politician, and I will prove you wrong. My belief that people can change exists entirely outside the realm of politics, and more fundamental to me than the left or right wing ends of the spectrum- I don't even know the politics of Joshua Blahyi.
But at what point do you not hold someone morally responsible for their actions based on the fact that 'they've changed'?
Hillary Clinton literally held a memorial funeral where she and Bill praised her close friend and mentor, who just so happened to be in the KKK. I have a feeling Trump is going to do far better with minorities come November than early polling indicates.
He was currently in the KKK? This was brought up a week or two ago and I asked for a clarification and no one did. So here it is again and I am asking again. Is this the FORMER KKK member? Or is it someone else? That's an awfully big difference- former vs current. Unless you believe people cannot change ever change.
He was a former KKK member.
Right, so it's one and the same person I was thinking: Robert Byrd
Okay, so then why did you say "who just so happened to be in the KKK". Do you believe people cannot change? Because if you do believe people can change that is such a deliberate misrepresentation/ character assassination, an outright falsehood because it's quite clear to me that what Clinton valued was his change of heart, not his KKK membership, which in 1952 Byrd "After about a year, I became disinterested [in the KKK], quit paying my dues, and dropped my membership in the organization,"
People can change. I suppose it would have been more clear to have said 'former KKK member' but I think what I said is incompatible with that either; it was just ambiguous on that point.
He was an adult when he joined the KKK wasn't he? He rose to very high ranking offices in the democrat party as an ex-KKK member.
It's just something I just find horribly ironic when people try to say 'republicans are racists and minorities should vote democrat because they are'
That is what I find to be deliberate misrepresentations of the truth
Where is the irony? Clinton (whom I presume is not a racist) valued the mentorship of someone that is also not a racist. Yes, he formerly was a racist. But there is no surprising contrast on one not-racist, complementing another not-racist. I'm glad you think people can change. But then you need to apply that belief. Byrd changed and so there is no irony in him being praised.
Clinton is most definitely raycist. Though praising Byrd would not be my go to example of her raycism.
Therein lies my point. Or rather it is not at all an example of racism or raycism.
Yeah, the last thing we need is for people to never be able to live down being in the KKK (or whatever), why would they quit? Just to get shit from their KKK buddies as well as everyone else?
Ideally they would never join in the first place and the movement would die out.
Ideally if they did join, they would eventually quit because it's not something they ought to have joined in the first place.
I mean it's great if they quit but if their primary motivations for quitting are because they don't want to get shit from other people for being a member of a 'racist hate group', then the point is really moot anyways and they're still a shitlord who still would be doing terrible things if society allowed them to.
Ideally God would change all their hearts through divine revelation, unfortunately we occupy reality. As such, quitting the KKK and then apparently being a decent human being is pretty much the best we can hope for.
There's plenty of racist organizations/groups other than the KKK btw. But to your larger point, no it's not just the "pandering", what progress we've made recently (pre-BLM) has been as a result of Democrats responding to black constituents, even if inadequately. Republicans on the other hand, have been actively antagonizing PoC consistently. Whether it's being the home for anyone who thinks Islam should be banned, the party that nominated the guy who pushed a crazed conspiracy theory about the first black president not being legally president, or any of the other countless issues, to pretend that Republicans are just suffering from bad PR is pure delusion.
Hillary Clinton literally held a memorial funeral where she and Bill praised her close friend and mentor, who just so happened to be in the KKK. I have a feeling Trump is going to do far better with minorities come November than early polling indicates.
He was currently in the KKK? This was brought up a week or two ago and I asked for a clarification and no one did. So here it is again and I am asking again. Is this the FORMER KKK member? Or is it someone else? That's an awfully big difference- former vs current. Unless you believe people cannot change ever change.
He was a former KKK member.
Right, so it's one and the same person I was thinking: Robert Byrd
Okay, so then why did you say "who just so happened to be in the KKK". Do you believe people cannot change? Because if you do believe people can change that is such a deliberate misrepresentation/ character assassination, an outright falsehood because it's quite clear to me that what Clinton valued was his change of heart, not his KKK membership, which in 1952 Byrd "After about a year, I became disinterested [in the KKK], quit paying my dues, and dropped my membership in the organization,"
People can change. I suppose it would have been more clear to have said 'former KKK member' but I think what I said is incompatible with that either; it was just ambiguous on that point.
He was an adult when he joined the KKK wasn't he? He rose to very high ranking offices in the democrat party as an ex-KKK member.
It's just something I just find horribly ironic when people try to say 'republicans are racists and minorities should vote democrat because they are'
That is what I find to be deliberate misrepresentations of the truth
From Byrd himself:
"In 1997, Byrd told an interviewer he would encourage young people to become involved in politics but also warned, "Be sure you avoid the Ku Klux Klan. Don't get that albatross around your neck. Once you've made that mistake, you inhibit your operations in the political arena."[22] In his last autobiography, Byrd explained that he was a KKK member because he "was sorely afflicted with tunnel vision — a jejune and immature outlook — seeing only what I wanted to see because I thought the Klan could provide an outlet for my talents and ambitions."[23] Byrd also said, in 2005, "I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times ... and I don't mind apologizing over and over again. I can't erase what happened."
The man regretted it for the rest of his life and admitted it was a mistake of his youth. The sad part is that he clearly saw errors of his ways, but all you can do is use this as a way to attack Clinton and Democrats.
Also this was decades before the GOP decided to pander to racists and never try to attract black voters.
Good it's something he SHOULD regret for the rest of his life.
I think people should live with their mistakes and be held accountable for them.
And I think Clinton should suffer the political fallout for continuing to praise a former KKK-member as a close mentor and friend. Either she's too stupid to realize that there's going to be political fallout for that or she just doesn't care. She made that decision
If you're asking me to sympathize with Byrd, he chose the wrong career field for not wanting to be criticized for the mistakes of his past.
Byrd knew this when he was in politics and I'm sure the Clintons knew it too.
They would ironically never get away with this if they were Republicans.
Yeah they would. The GOP has had ex members of the KKK in it. The GOP literally created the war on crime/drugs to attack blacks. They have racist members in the GOP right now. They are getting away with it right now. Make America America again.
The sad part is you wagging your finger at Clinton and Byrd, even though he developed the self reflection that seems to escape you. But its fine, the next time some racist garbage come flowing out of the GOP, I will enjoy watching you bend over backward to justify it. And I'll think about you wagging your finger of disapproval at the ghost of Byrd.
Stop being terrible. Both parties probably have ex members of the KKK in it. The WBC is filled with democrats. People didn't create the war on drugs because they hated black people they did it because crime was fucking crazy and the nation was scared. Just look at Hillaries "super predator" comments to see that the Clinton era democratic party has just been GOP lite for a decade now.
Someones gotta represent the racists in the country, doesn't make the whole party racist for that. Trump is a racist tho thats n ot hard to see for anyone whos even remotly impartial on the conservative side let alone for people trying to see faults with him.
You might have missed it but the creators of the Drug War have come out and admitted they created it to target PoC especially black people (along with some hippies).
EDIT: Probably not going to help the conversation, but I should add that I agree that Hillary's "super predator" comment was an extension of the same type of racism. The thing you don't seem to realize is that bill and rhetoric was their attempt to appease the right, whether some people on the left supported the idea independently or not.
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people," former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman told Harper's writer Dan Baum for the April cover story published Tuesday.
"You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities," Ehrlichman said. "We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."
Cruz was such a sucker to fall into this... "Sure Ted, we'd love to have you speak. No, I read your speech, I don't mind that you're not still not endorsing. You were the only tough resistance in the primary, you deserve it. You can go between the video of the guy who finished 3rd saying to vote for me, and my son, who may or may not endorse me."
So trump was basically going to let Kasich run the country for VP, I sure as hell hope he did offer the same deal to Pence. God help us all if he gets elected but he does not seem to like Pence so he will at least do his job. SInce as bad as trump is Pence is so much worse.
On some level your story is confusing me because at what point is it okay to not hold someone accountable for their past wrongdoings if they 'turned a new leaf' so to speak and are making a positive difference in the world. I feel like 'General Butt-Naked' should be punished for murdering and cannibalizing people but at the same time any sort of meaningful punishment would impede on his ability to do further pastoral work which is beneficial to society as a whole. Similarly, part of me thinks that Byrd should have never been allowed the honors of serving in public office for having been a member of a violent hate group.
Oh, if the state decided to lock Joshua up for his past crimes that would be fine, and the man admitted as much. But in the mean time, he can do what good he can. Also, there's a reason there is an option to let people off for good behaviour- unfortunately that can lead to a revolving door of criminals, but in theory it does allow truly reformed people another chance. However, if I'm saying good things about the guy's pastoral work, don't get it twisted and say I'm saying good thing about his life as a warlord- that was the point.
In the case of Byrd, it's a matter of does the punishment fit the crime. For instance, I don't agree with this modern mob justice of trying to destroy people's careers for the rest of their life, by hounding a person out of job after job due to past mistakes. The internet dogpile if you will. Consequences, yes but in proportion and at some point, if the person has changed, street justice needs to lay off. In the case of Byrd, if once a KKK member, should he always be barred from public office? You may not think so, but I don't... now that will likely (and I imagine did) hound him for the rest of his life. I guess the hounding is the consequences, but I don't think it auto disqualifies him- it does make his journey a lot harder. But that's true of a lot really bad mistakes at a young age (getting tangled up gangs with a criminal record will make for a much harder journey than not.) But in the end, if he proved to be an honourable mentor as a politician, I would not hold his past life against those that now look up to what he became.
Wow, I just saw a bunch of clips from speakers at the RNC... granted it was from the Daily Show so I probably only got a select few clips, but that was terrifying man. How can people stand on stage and say such things? All the fear and hate mongering... It's hard to believe that they actually spoke like that.
Edit: Oh god I need to stay out of this thread, it is way too upsetting lol
On July 21 2016 20:02 a_flayer wrote: Wow, I just saw a bunch of clips from speakers at the RNC... granted it was from the Daily Show so I probably only got a select few clips, but that was terrifying man. How can people stand on stage and say such things? All the fear and hate mongering... It's hard to believe that they actually spoke like that.
When you have no ideas how to improve the country beyond "Beat the other side", it is all you have to talk about.
EPT
