Big Lies of Our Time in the United States
Klinker said:
nohero said:Its like you distilled bull crap and used it in a cocktail.
Ms. Nan, I have been very careful to not mention the elephant in the room, which is that the Berniecrats have no use for anybody who is not white (unless they can exploit them for their own purposes.
There. I said it. It's true. Deal with it.
Black voters did tend to support HRC but a lot of that had to do with endorsements and the shenanigans of the Clintons post 2008. In the end though, voters of all stripes routinely vote against their own interests. Look at the way poor whites supported Trump who is now screwing them like a porn star with a fresh boob job. Does that mean that the Dems are prejudiced against poor people?
There are claims and there are facts. I stick to facts.
"Evidently, Senator Bernie Sanders wishes that the region had a little less electoral power. During Thursday’s debate with Hillary Clinton, he repeated a point that has recently gained prominence in his own remarks and the echoes of his surrogates: That an early front-loading of primaries in the South 'distorts reality' and that the South is not a vital part of the Democrats’ national coalition. With that sentiment comes a bit of a deeper implication. The minority voters of the South might not be a part of his plans moving forward."
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/sanders-race-south/478506/
nohero said:
Klinker said:There are claims and there are facts. I stick to facts.
nohero said:Its like you distilled bull crap and used it in a cocktail.
Ms. Nan, I have been very careful to not mention the elephant in the room, which is that the Berniecrats have no use for anybody who is not white (unless they can exploit them for their own purposes.
There. I said it. It's true. Deal with it.
Black voters did tend to support HRC but a lot of that had to do with endorsements and the shenanigans of the Clintons post 2008. In the end though, voters of all stripes routinely vote against their own interests. Look at the way poor whites supported Trump who is now screwing them like a porn star with a fresh boob job. Does that mean that the Dems are prejudiced against poor people?
"Evidently, Senator Bernie Sanders wishes that the region had a little less electoral power. During Thursday’s debate with Hillary Clinton, he repeated a point that has recently gained prominence in his own remarks and the echoes of his surrogates: That an early front-loading of primaries in the South 'distorts reality' and that the South is not a vital part of the Democrats’ national coalition. With that sentiment comes a bit of a deeper implication. The minority voters of the South might not be a part of his plans moving forward."
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/sanders-race-south/478506/
The operative part of your quote:
With that sentiment comes a bit of a deeper implication. The minority voters of the South might not be a part of his plans moving forwardis a claim (actually speculation) of the author, not a fact.
author said:Eisenhower was a product of his times. What white leaders were active in the Civil Rights struggles
Democratic Party Liberals like Hubert Humphrey. Leftists and also white clergy
Geneva accords again........if elections had been held in 1956 to restore Vietnam to its former state, there
is no question Ho Chi Minh would have won. Unacceptable to an America that interfered in elections at will. I don't think Eisenhower could have imagined the agony that would follow.
Not many could have imagined but besides the fact that he was POTUS and had the responsibility to imagine all results he was General Eisenhower and knew what war meant.
nohero said:There are claims and there are facts. I stick to facts.
Are we really supposed to listen to a man who can't even spell the word "farts"?
I'm sorry dude. On this one you are so full of it you are sloshing and I have no use for anything you might say on this subject moving forward.
Next!
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:The operative part of your quote:
Klinker said:There are claims and there are facts. I stick to facts.
nohero said:Its like you distilled bull crap and used it in a cocktail.
Ms. Nan, I have been very careful to not mention the elephant in the room, which is that the Berniecrats have no use for anybody who is not white (unless they can exploit them for their own purposes.
There. I said it. It's true. Deal with it.
Black voters did tend to support HRC but a lot of that had to do with endorsements and the shenanigans of the Clintons post 2008. In the end though, voters of all stripes routinely vote against their own interests. Look at the way poor whites supported Trump who is now screwing them like a porn star with a fresh boob job. Does that mean that the Dems are prejudiced against poor people?
"Evidently, Senator Bernie Sanders wishes that the region had a little less electoral power. During Thursday’s debate with Hillary Clinton, he repeated a point that has recently gained prominence in his own remarks and the echoes of his surrogates: That an early front-loading of primaries in the South 'distorts reality' and that the South is not a vital part of the Democrats’ national coalition. With that sentiment comes a bit of a deeper implication. The minority voters of the South might not be a part of his plans moving forward."
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/sanders-race-south/478506/
With that sentiment comes a bit of a deeper implication. The minority voters of the South might not be a part of his plans moving forwardis a claim (actually speculation) of the author, not a fact.
I didn't copy-and-paste the entire article, which I guess means that you didn't read it.
There seems to be no rhyme or reason about many of these primary races. No firm trend. Sometimes centrist democrats win, sometimes democratic socialists win, sometimes socialist democrats win, etc. Is the real takeaway that people want new relatable faces no matter how far left or centrist? And by new I mean not Hillary, Bernie, or Joe (as much as I love Joe).
Klinker said:
nohero said:Are we really supposed to listen to a man who can't even spell the word "farts"?
There are claims and there are facts. I stick to facts.
I'm sorry dude. On this one you are so full of it you are sloshing and I have no use for anything you might say on this subject moving forward.
Next!
graphic credit: Sbenois
paulsurovell said:
Klinker said:graphic credit: Sbenois
nohero said:Are we really supposed to listen to a man who can't even spell the word "farts"?
There are claims and there are facts. I stick to facts.
I'm sorry dude. On this one you are so full of it you are sloshing and I have no use for anything you might say on this subject moving forward.
Next!
I could write something like, "What are you, twelve years old?" but that would be an insult to 12 year olds.
LOST said:
author said:Democratic Party Liberals like Hubert Humphrey. Leftists and also white clergy
Eisenhower was a product of his times. What white leaders were active in the Civil Rights struggles
Not many could have imagined but besides the fact that he was POTUS and had the responsibility to imagine all results he was General Eisenhower and knew what war meant.
Geneva accords again........if elections had been held in 1956 to restore Vietnam to its former state, there
is no question Ho Chi Minh would have won. Unacceptable to an America that interfered in elections at will. I don't think Eisenhower could have imagined the agony that would follow.
I think I referenced Humphrey in another context the other day. When I have trouble remembering
where I parked my car last night I am not about to reference another thread.
Vietnam........the US had never experienced a conflict like it. Yes Korea was in Asia but the battle lines were drawn and the enemy wore uniforms..........unlike the shoe shine boy next to you who
was prepared to blow up himself with you. Yes Ike knew what war meant but he was unprepared to fight such an unfamiliar enemy on basically his own territory.
annielou said:
There seems to be no rhyme or reason about many of these primary races. No firm trend. Sometimes centrist democrats win, sometimes democratic socialists win, sometimes socialist democrats win, etc. Is the real takeaway that people want new relatable faces no matter how far left or centrist? And by new I mean not Hillary, Bernie, or Joe (as much as I love Joe).
Sure there is. More conservative and whiter states are voting for the centrists. More liberal with a higher level of diversity, the democratic socialists.
nohero said:There are claims and there are facts. I stick to facts.
"Evidently, Senator Bernie Sanders wishes that the region had a little less electoral power. During Thursday’s debate with Hillary Clinton, he repeated a point that has recently gained prominence in his own remarks and the echoes of his surrogates: That an early front-loading of primaries in the South 'distorts reality' and that the South is not a vital part of the Democrats’ national coalition. With that sentiment comes a bit of a deeper implication. The minority voters of the South might not be a part of his plans moving forward."
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/sanders-race-south/478506/
Just a note. I mentioned this argument to my wife and she made a point that, in my shock at the base stupidity of the nohero's assertion I had missed.
Black voters overwhelmingly supported Barack Obama in the 2008 primaries. If we are to apply nohero's dubious logic to those results wouldn't we then conclude that HRC and her supporters also "have no use for anybody who is not white (unless they can exploit them for their own purposes)"?
Klinker said:
nohero said:Just a note. I mentioned this argument to my wife and she made a point that, in my shock at the base stupidity of the nohero's assertion I had missed.
There are claims and there are facts. I stick to facts.
"Evidently, Senator Bernie Sanders wishes that the region had a little less electoral power. During Thursday’s debate with Hillary Clinton, he repeated a point that has recently gained prominence in his own remarks and the echoes of his surrogates: That an early front-loading of primaries in the South 'distorts reality' and that the South is not a vital part of the Democrats’ national coalition. With that sentiment comes a bit of a deeper implication. The minority voters of the South might not be a part of his plans moving forward."
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/sanders-race-south/478506/
Black voters overwhelmingly supported Barack Obama in the 2008 primaries. If we are to apply nohero's dubious logic to those results wouldn't we then conclude that HRC and her supporters also "have no use for anybody who is not white (unless they can exploit them for their own purposes)"?
In addition to applying nohero's dubious logic to 2008, there are the examples of the explicit race-baiting by the Hillary campaign in that year.
.https://www.politico.com/story/2008/02/obama-slams-smear-photo-008667
https://www.politico.com/blogs/ben-smith/2008/05/clintons-white-americans-008545
And especially this:
Klinker said:
nohero said:Just a note. I mentioned this argument to my wife and she made a point that, in my shock at the base stupidity of the nohero's assertion I had missed.
There are claims and there are facts. I stick to facts.
"Evidently, Senator Bernie Sanders wishes that the region had a little less electoral power. During Thursday’s debate with Hillary Clinton, he repeated a point that has recently gained prominence in his own remarks and the echoes of his surrogates: That an early front-loading of primaries in the South 'distorts reality' and that the South is not a vital part of the Democrats’ national coalition. With that sentiment comes a bit of a deeper implication. The minority voters of the South might not be a part of his plans moving forward."
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/sanders-race-south/478506/
Black voters overwhelmingly supported Barack Obama in the 2008 primaries. If we are to apply nohero's dubious logic to those results wouldn't we then conclude that HRC and her supporters also "have no use for anybody who is not white (unless they can exploit them for their own purposes)"?
I think you should read the actual quote (and maybe more the article), which would show that your attempt to draw a parallel to 2008 doesn't work.
paulsurovell said:
Klinker said:In addition to applying nohero's dubious logic to 2008, there are the examples of the explicit race-baiting by the Hillary campaign in that year.
nohero said:Just a note. I mentioned this argument to my wife and she made a point that, in my shock at the base stupidity of the nohero's assertion I had missed.
There are claims and there are facts. I stick to facts.
"Evidently, Senator Bernie Sanders wishes that the region had a little less electoral power. During Thursday’s debate with Hillary Clinton, he repeated a point that has recently gained prominence in his own remarks and the echoes of his surrogates: That an early front-loading of primaries in the South 'distorts reality' and that the South is not a vital part of the Democrats’ national coalition. With that sentiment comes a bit of a deeper implication. The minority voters of the South might not be a part of his plans moving forward."
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/sanders-race-south/478506/
Black voters overwhelmingly supported Barack Obama in the 2008 primaries. If we are to apply nohero's dubious logic to those results wouldn't we then conclude that HRC and her supporters also "have no use for anybody who is not white (unless they can exploit them for their own purposes)"?
.https://www.politico.com/story/2008/02/obama-slams-smear-photo-008667
https://www.politico.com/blogs/ben-smith/2008/05/clintons-white-americans-008545
And especially this:
ol' Keith sure can get overheated. What his overwrought rant has to do with race-baiting though, I fail to see. But then, I rarely see what Paul sees.
Sounded like Oberman covered that to me, but I'm not going back to listen again. He was very through.
Related to lie #12: We Get Meaningful Input on Policy Through Voting.
Nick Brana argues that we need a third party if we want to turn that around.
drummerboy said:
paulsurovell said:ol' Keith sure can get overheated. What his overwrought rant has to do with race-baiting though, I fail to see. But then, I rarely see what Paul sees.
Klinker said:In addition to applying nohero's dubious logic to 2008, there are the examples of the explicit race-baiting by the Hillary campaign in that year.
nohero said:Just a note. I mentioned this argument to my wife and she made a point that, in my shock at the base stupidity of the nohero's assertion I had missed.
There are claims and there are facts. I stick to facts.
"Evidently, Senator Bernie Sanders wishes that the region had a little less electoral power. During Thursday’s debate with Hillary Clinton, he repeated a point that has recently gained prominence in his own remarks and the echoes of his surrogates: That an early front-loading of primaries in the South 'distorts reality' and that the South is not a vital part of the Democrats’ national coalition. With that sentiment comes a bit of a deeper implication. The minority voters of the South might not be a part of his plans moving forward."
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/sanders-race-south/478506/
Black voters overwhelmingly supported Barack Obama in the 2008 primaries. If we are to apply nohero's dubious logic to those results wouldn't we then conclude that HRC and her supporters also "have no use for anybody who is not white (unless they can exploit them for their own purposes)"?
.https://www.politico.com/story/2008/02/obama-slams-smear-photo-008667
https://www.politico.com/blogs/ben-smith/2008/05/clintons-white-americans-008545
And especially this:
From this Special Comment:
"Senator (Clinton) you actually used the word "assassination" in a middle of a campaign with a loud undertone of racial hatred . . . you actually used the word “assassination” in a time where there is a fear, unspoken and vivid and terrible that our again that our troubled land and fractured political landscape might target a black man running for President . . . you used the word against an African American man against whom the death threats started the minute he declared his campaign"
Keith also referenced Hillary's dissing of Martin Luther King, discussed in this NY Times editorial:
In Mrs. Clinton’s zeal to make the case that experience (hers) is more important than inspirational leadership (Mr. Obama’s), she made some peculiar comments about the relative importance of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and President Lyndon Johnson to the civil rights cause. She complimented Dr. King’s soaring rhetoric, but said: “Dr. King’s dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. ... It took a president to get it done. ”
Why Mrs. Clinton would compare herself to Mr. Johnson, who escalated the war in Vietnam into a generational disaster, was baffling enough. It was hard to escape the distasteful implication that a black man needed the help of a white man to effect change. She pulled herself back from the brink by later talking about the mistreatment and danger Dr. King faced. Former President Bill Clinton, who seems to forget he is not the one running, hurled himself over the edge on Monday with a bizarre and rambling attack on Mr. Obama.
The GOP and the Democratic Party, at least in the south, more or less swapped places over Civil Rights in the 1960s. Many Democrats became Republicans (and probably vice versa, although I'm less certain about that since I lived in Texas where practically all of the politicians were Democrats and then suddenly switched over.) As a result, the GOP no longer has a moral claim as "the Party of Lincoln", nor should they be trumpeting the fact that there were many Democrats in the KKK. (If they were still around, those KKK Democrats were probably among the first to switch.) This was the "GOP Southern Strategy". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
paulsurovell said:
In Mrs. Clinton’s zeal to make the case that experience (hers) is more important than inspirational leadership (Mr. Obama’s), she made some peculiar comments about the relative importance of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and President Lyndon Johnson to the civil rights cause. She complimented Dr. King’s soaring rhetoric, but said: “Dr. King’s dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. ... It took a president to get it done. ”
Isn't that true? One of the purposes of the Civil Rights movement, perhaps the principle purpose, was to convince politicians to enact laws. They succeeded spectacularly when LBJ, a Southern politician, pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1964. LBJ may have been a terrible person and his motives far from pure but he must be given credit where due.
Further Hillary, as a politician, was saying that elections and politicians are important.
Hillary Clinton's words are routinely twisted by those who seem to suffer from what might be called Hillary Derangement Syndrome.
Klinker said:
LOST said:I am still legitimately curious about this one.
Klinker said:Suggest you check out Sen. Kaine, including his family background.
All I can say is that if Tim Kaine is the Dem nominee in 2020, I will not throw away my vote in a lost cause. That sandwich has clearly turned.
Kaine received his B.A. in economics from the University of Missouri in 1979, completing his degree in three years and graduating summa cum laude.[1][2] He was a Coro Foundation fellow in Kansas City in 1978.[10] He entered Harvard Law School in 1979, interrupting his law studies after his first year to work in Honduras[11][12][a] for nine months from 1980 to 1981, helping Jesuit missionaries who ran a Catholic school in El Progreso.[8][15] While running a vocational center that taught carpentry and welding, he also helped increase the school's enrollment by recruiting local villagers.[2] Kaine is fluent in Spanish as a result of his nine months in Honduras.[15]
After graduating from law school, Kaine was a law clerk for Judge R. Lanier Anderson III of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, in Macon, Georgia.[9] Kaine then joined the Richmond law firm of Little, Parsley & Cluverius, P.C.[9] In 1987, Kaine became a director with the law firm of Mezzullo & McCandlish, P.C.[9] Kaine practiced law in Richmond for 17 years, specializing in fair housing law and representing clients discriminated against on the basis of race or disability.[17] He was a board member of the Virginia chapter of Housing Opportunities Made Equal, which he represented in a landmark redlining discrimination lawsuit against Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. arising from the company's practices in Richmond.[18][19]
Kaine had a largely apolitical childhood, but became interested in politics in part due to the influence of his wife's family
On July 1, 1998, Kaine was elected mayor of Richmond, succeeding Larry Chavis.[25][26] He was chosen by an 8-1 vote[23] on the majority-black City Council,[b] becoming the city's first white mayor in more than ten years,[22][24] which was viewed as a surprise.[25] Rudy McCollum, an African American city councilor also interested in the position of mayor, decided to back Kaine after a private meeting between the two, clearing the way for Kaine to win election.[23]
As mayor, Kaine used a sale-leaseback arrangement to obtain funds to renovate the historic Maggie L. Walker High School and reopen it in 2000 as a magnet governor's school, the Maggie L. Walker Governor's School for Government and International Studies, which "now serves the top students in Central Virginia."[28] Three elementary schools and one middle school were also built in Richmond under Kaine.[29] Along with Commonwealth's Attorney David Hicks, U.S. Attorney James Comey, and Police Chief Jerry Oliver, Kaine was a supporter of Project Exile, a "controversial but effective program" that shifted gun crimes to federal court, where armed defendants faced harsher sentences.[25] The effort "won broad political support"
This is Virginia, a Confederate State, the capital of which was the Capital of the Confederacy.
Running on the platform of Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez or Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders doesn't get you elected Senator in Virginia.
I italicized the mention of Kaine's wife's family because of some interesting facts about her and her father, which I will try to post.
I posted about this before. Kaine is in a "right to work" state and opposes Medicare for All. He loves the TPP and trade deals. He is to the right of Hillary. He has a fun sponge personality. Not going to work. Snoozer.
Anne Holton, Tim Kaine's wife:
Born in Roanoke, Virginia, Holton is the daughter of Virginia Harrison "Jinks" (Rogers) and A. Linwood Holton, Jr.,[1][2] a lawyer and Republican Party politician.
When her father became governor, he first enrolled Holton in a prestigious grade school.[4] In response to a federal court decision desegregating Richmond Public Schools, she and her siblings attended predominantly black schools, including Mosby Middle School, near the Virginia Executive Mansion.[6]
Holton graduated magna cum laude from Princeton University with a degree from the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs[7] in 1980. At Princeton, Holton was a member of Colonial Club.[9]
Holton then attended Harvard Law School, where she met her future husband, Tim Kaine.[10] The future couple met as students in a legal assistance program focusing on prisoners' civil rights.[4] While a law student, Holton also served on the Mental Health Legal Advisors Committee.[4] Both Holton and Kaine earned their law degrees from Harvard in 1983.[11]
They married in November 1984 at a Roman Catholic church in Richmond.[12] Holton decided to keep her maiden name, a decision Kaine supported.[13]
Following graduation from law school, Holton served as a law clerk for Judge Robert R. Merhige, Jr. of the Richmond-based United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.[4][16] From 1985 to 1998, she worked as an attorney for the Central Virginia Legal Aid Society, where she helped create an award-winning volunteer lawyers' program in Richmond.[17]
Education Secretary of Virginia[edit]
.[6]
As Education Secretary, Holton wrote in 2015 that high-stakes testing in Virginia resulted in "teaching to the test" and made it difficult to attract good teachers to low-income schools. Holton opposed the expansion of charter schools in the state, and supported increases in teacher pay and changes to the state's high school curriculum.[21]
Her father, the Republican Governor of Virginia sent her to an integrated public school. I can remember when almost all elected officials in the South were engaged in "massive resistance to school integration. I specifically remember when a County in Virginia had no public schools whatsoever for many years because the County officials closed all the schools rather than integrate them.
I see a magna cum laude graduate of Princeton and then Harvard Law Scoll going to work for a Legal Aid Organization rather than a fancy Wall Street or Washington DC Law firm at ten times the salary.
These appear to me to be very good people.
It sounds like he makes a fine Senator for Virginia. I would not support him as a nominee for President.
Seems like very good people? Who cares what church he goes to when he supports perpetual war.
Tim Kaine’s War Scam Hits a Speed Bump
Excerpt:
Senator Tim Kaine has short- and long-term scams for permawar. But his short-term racket just ran into an obstacle. When Kaine proposes a new AUMF (Authorization for the Use of Military Force, a.k.a. formal renunciation of Congressional war powers), he pretends it’s a means of taking war powers back for Congress from presidents. That pretense has just become a lot harder to maintain, because Senator Jeff Merkley has announced that he will introduce a new AUMF that actually does what Kaine falsely claims his does. In fact, 50 members of Congress have just signed a letter backing actual, rather than pretend, retaking of war powers for Congress. According to Congresswoman Barbara Lee, “After 16+ years of war, the last thing we need is another blank check like #CorkerKaine.” (The reference is to the AUMF proposed by Kaine and Senator Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee). Even the ACLU, which only just this year began opposing wars, has joined other groups in opposing Senators Kaine’s and Corker’s duplicitous efforts to bestow royal war powers on the White House.
Now, any AUMF unconstitutionally circumvents a real declaration of war, and utterly fails to in any way legalize the international crime of waging war, which is banned with narrow exceptions by the UN Charter and without exceptions by the Kellogg-Briand Pact. But an AUMF as broad as Kaine’s is significantly more dangerous than one with greater limitations.
Then there’s the long-term strategy. The War Powers Act of 1973 unconstitutionally circumvents the Constitution’s provision of war powers to Congress, and utterly fails to in any way legalize the crime of war. But the existing War Powers Act is highly preferable to Senators Tim Kaine’s and John McCain’s (Republican, Arizona) War Powers Consultation Act. The Constitution gives the power to declare war to Congress. The existing War Powers Act requires a president who launches a war on his/her own to notify Congress within 48 hours and to end it within 60 days unless Congress authorizes it. The McCain/Kaine bill would repeal the War Powers Act, turn Congress into an impotent consulting firm, and arrange for a vote without consequences on “approval” of each war within 30 days of its start. Only if Congress voted down “approval” would its invertebrate members vote on “disapproval.” And if they passed “disapproval,” nothing would follow from that. This amounts to nothing less than unconstitutionally bestowing the power to make war on the president.
That, of course, is something that everyone would expect of John McCain and nobody will believe of Tim Kaine even if he succeeds in doing it. But you can read the bill. Like most direct sources of information it is shorter than the commentary on it, and leaves little doubt what it would accomplish.
LOST said:
paulsurovell said:Isn't that true? One of the purposes of the Civil Rights movement, perhaps the principle purpose, was to convince politicians to enact laws. They succeeded spectacularly when LBJ, a Southern politician, pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1964. LBJ may have been a terrible person and his motives far from pure but he must be given credit where due.
In Mrs. Clinton’s zeal to make the case that experience (hers) is more important than inspirational leadership (Mr. Obama’s), she made some peculiar comments about the relative importance of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and President Lyndon Johnson to the civil rights cause. She complimented Dr. King’s soaring rhetoric, but said: “Dr. King’s dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. ... It took a president to get it done. ”
Further Hillary, as a politician, was saying that elections and politicians are important.
Hillary Clinton's words are routinely twisted by those who seem to suffer from what might be called Hillary Derangement Syndrome.
To be clear, the words under my name are not mine as your post suggests, but are from a NY Times editorial.
paulsurovell said:ol' Keith sure can get overheated. What his overwrought rant has to do with race-baiting though, I fail to see. But then, I rarely see what Paul sees.From this Special Comment:
"Senator (Clinton) you actually used the word "assassination" in a middle of a campaign with a loud undertone of racial hatred . . . you actually used the word “assassination” in a time where there is a fear, unspoken and vivid and terrible that our again that our troubled land and fractured political landscape might target a black man running for President . . . you used the word against an African American man against whom the death threats started the minute he declared his campaign"
Keith also referenced Hillary's dissing of Martin Luther King, discussed in this NY Times editorial:
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/09/opinion/09wed1.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Martin+Luther+King%2C+Hillary&oref=slogin
In Mrs. Clinton’s zeal to make the case that experience (hers) is more important than inspirational leadership (Mr. Obama’s), she made some peculiar comments about the relative importance of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and President Lyndon Johnson to the civil rights cause. She complimented Dr. King’s soaring rhetoric, but said: “Dr. King’s dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. ... It took a president to get it done. ”Why Mrs. Clinton would compare herself to Mr. Johnson, who escalated the war in Vietnam into a generational disaster, was baffling enough. It was hard to escape the distasteful implication that a black man needed the help of a white man to effect change. She pulled herself back from the brink by later talking about the mistreatment and danger Dr. King faced. Former President Bill Clinton, who seems to forget he is not the one running, hurled himself over the edge on Monday with a bizarre and rambling attack on Mr. Obama.
Paul,
I assume you realize that mere assertions by KO do not prove the existence of race-baiting, right?
Is that your standard of proof - the utterings of a TV talking head?
I guess that explains all of the Jimmy Dore posts.
Keith Olbermann was like a liberal God back in 2008. Of course his analysis is a valid yardstick of prevailing views. Back then, he was as respected as a New York Times editorial. He's a joke now (as is the New York Times frequently), but hindsight is 20/20.
drummerboy said:
paulsurovell said:Paul,
ol' Keith sure can get overheated. What his overwrought rant has to do with race-baiting though, I fail to see. But then, I rarely see what Paul sees.From this Special Comment:
"Senator (Clinton) you actually used the word "assassination" in a middle of a campaign with a loud undertone of racial hatred . . . you actually used the word “assassination” in a time where there is a fear, unspoken and vivid and terrible that our again that our troubled land and fractured political landscape might target a black man running for President . . . you used the word against an African American man against whom the death threats started the minute he declared his campaign"
Keith also referenced Hillary's dissing of Martin Luther King, discussed in this NY Times editorial:
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/09/opinion/09wed1.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Martin+Luther+King%2C+Hillary&oref=slogin
In Mrs. Clinton’s zeal to make the case that experience (hers) is more important than inspirational leadership (Mr. Obama’s), she made some peculiar comments about the relative importance of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and President Lyndon Johnson to the civil rights cause. She complimented Dr. King’s soaring rhetoric, but said: “Dr. King’s dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. ... It took a president to get it done. ”Why Mrs. Clinton would compare herself to Mr. Johnson, who escalated the war in Vietnam into a generational disaster, was baffling enough. It was hard to escape the distasteful implication that a black man needed the help of a white man to effect change. She pulled herself back from the brink by later talking about the mistreatment and danger Dr. King faced. Former President Bill Clinton, who seems to forget he is not the one running, hurled himself over the edge on Monday with a bizarre and rambling attack on Mr. Obama.
I assume you realize that mere assertions by KO do not prove the existence of race-baiting, right?
Is that your standard of proof - the utterings of a TV talking head?
I guess that explains all of the Jimmy Dore posts.
Not really. Here's the substance of my post:
I provided three links that show examples of "race-baiting" by Hillary in 2008:
https://www.politico.com/story/2008/02/obama-slams-smear-photo-008667
On Obama campaign's unrebutted claim that Hillary's campaign was circulating a photo of Obama in African garb
https://www.politico.com/blogs/ben-smith/2008/05/clintons-white-americans-008545
On Hillary's statement:
"Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me"
Plus the Keith Olbermann's commentary that cited the race-baiting aspects of Hillary's comments on (1) assassination of Presidential candidates and on (2) MLK's achievements. I also posted a link to the NY Times editorial that also cited the race-baiting aspects of Hillary's statement on MLK mentioned by Keith.
For Sale
-
REVO luggage $100
More info
Garage Sales
-
Huge Garage Sale Sale Date: May 4, 2024
More info
Free Items
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
I also want to thank nohero for posting this, because it's a good segue into this January 2018 Harvard-Harris poll which found the following for Very Favorable or Favorable:
African Americans:
Bernie Sanders -- 76%
Hillary Clinton -- 64%
Hispanics:
Bernie Sanders -- 66%
Hillary Clinton -- 45%
http://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Final_HHP_18Jan2018_RegisteredVoters_Xtabs.pdf