Originally Posted by Oklahomahawk
Poor taste on the cast. Much like when Carson lit into President Obama at that prayer breakfast. Makes your side feel all righteous when it's being done to someone else.
Poor taste on the cast. Much like when Carson lit into President Obama at that prayer breakfast. Makes your side feel all righteous when it's being done to someone else.
I take your point from the first paragraph. That's a sentiment that I actually share to some degree.
I don't know much about Sessions's early career either. And I'm not saying that he's a racist. I have no idea.
However, just as whatever cropped up in his hearings in the 80s don't mean he is a racist, a couple of things that he did as a US Attorney under the mandate of the Justice Department don't prove that he isn't. I'm glad he prosecuted a Klansman, though I hardly feel like this deserve a special pat on the back in the 1980s. I'm glad he worked on desegregation, though as I understand it, he was mandated to do so. Did he do anything involving desegregation as a private citizen, on his own time? I'm glad that he stood beside John Lewis 50 years after the fact. I would be a whole lot more impressed if he did it when, as I said, there were police batons, horses' hooves, and rocks flying.
Again, to me the question is not whether or not he's a racist. The question is how low is the bar set that we are even having this conversation?
I have no idea if he's a racist. I do think it's fair--and in no way an accusation of racism--to ask why he doesn't have a more compelling connection to the civil rights movement, in that he grew up at its epicenter? Why do you think that is?
How high do you want the bar set? Seems a bit anachronistic and highly judgmental. Where is he today? What are his views now? That seems more pertinent unless you want to do the same thing conservatives did with Robert Byrd.
FIFY
I admit that I am prone to prejudging conservative sourthern politicians of a certain age. That's not a joke. I do, and I recognize my tendency to do so.
I also don't think it's irrelevant that Jeff Sessions was unsuccessfully trying to prosecute voter fraud cases against civil rights activists in the 1980s.
Certainly, as you say, where he is now is more important. On the other hand, I have no idea where he is now.
I mean, I know where he is on immigration, and I know where he is on gay rights, and I know where he is on Trump's Muslim ban. I know that he spoke against the voting rights act in his confirmation hearings in the 80s, and I know that he recently declined to support updating it to square it with the contemporary court challenge to it . . . despite the fact that he comes from precisely the kind of place that made it necessary to begin with. So I don't think it's a stretch to say that he's not a champion of civil rights in the broader sense.
Do you know where he is now?
I mean, if the bar is "is not an active, vocal racist" or "is willing to have a photo taken while clasping hands with a Civil Rights icon," then yeah, I'd say the bar is too low.
mqt (11-19-2016)
I suppose if you use the "well he was doing his job" response to his fighting against segregation then to be fair you ought to use that same measure of judgment for voter fraud work. No?
Also, note I haven't said past action or inaction is irrelevant.
No, I don't know and haven't claimed to have known. Argue against him as you'd like. Maybe he is a flaming racist that just tries to hide his true colors. Or maybe he's got different, but not necessarily illegitimate, views on matters than you do. Doesn't make him or you right. I don't know. I'm just sick of the shrillness on both sides of the aisle. I get nauseated reading idiots on the left and on the right painting everyone that is on the other team in the worst possible light - right out of the gate.
"Sheets Byrd" and "well he doesn't line up with me then he is probably a racist" arguments might not be the best.
Last edited by BedellBrave; 11-19-2016 at 09:34 PM.
AerchAngel (11-19-2016)
Calling someone a "racist" use to carry a lot of weight - as it should. Imho, it's a weighty charge. But when everyone not on your team gets knee-jerked called that, then you are diminishing the effectiveness of the charge.
AerchAngel (11-19-2016), Hawk (11-20-2016), weso1 (11-19-2016)
I understand this, and it's a valid criticism. However, sometimes it's simply appropriate to suggest that someone might have some troubling views on race relations. In the case of Sessions, it feels pretty justifiable to at least have a discussion on it, and in my opinion that does not make him a great choice for an administration falling over itself to quell fears that it will not be a bad thing for minorities.
And a discussion is fine. Again, I'm no Sessions expert. I will say though, that it's not a slam dunk, as the left wants to make it - again, imho.
I do get Trump picking him, per his campaign immigration rhetoric.
AerchAngel (11-19-2016)
Oh, OHawk, maybe Trump was pulling a Bobby Cox defending his players act. Still just comes across as being thin skinned. I guess we better get use to it though - he's the Twitter President after all.
True, and I don't think this was a big deal in and of itself, but a couple of things on this. First given the things that have been said by Repubs in general and minorities and others of diversity in particular I don't think it's totally crazy for them to wonder if they're going to have the same protections under Trump/Pence as they did under Obama/Biden. There's no proof, other than rhetoric that anything's going to change, but this was a golden opportunity for Pence to address the issue and all but eliminate the whole issue with just a few assuring words. I guess there isn't the urgency to accomplish anything like that but why let a solution to even a potential problem just be thrown away, unless you really just don't care.
Also, and this one seems more significant (if you want to call it that) to me, what does Trump mean "...a safe space" after all the sh!t Repubs have been throwing around about libs needing safe spaces when things don't go their way. I know it was just a figure of speech but it wasn't a very good one, IMO.
No argument it was a hypocritical choice of words, or to give the benefit of the doubt, a dumb choice of words.
Pence not saying anything - I wouldn't critique him personally on that. It's hard to know what's best in awkward situations like that.
I think their concerns are frankly overblown and more in keeping with the incessant drum beat on the left that anyone who doesn't champion their causes (think the full LBGT agenda) are some heinous villains out to lynch them. They've - and most all of us - are being played by fear mongers peddling their wares and lining their pockets. It's about time to at least pause and ask, "is it really that bad?" Was Hillary going to confiscate all the guns? Will Trump handcuff those actors and actresses and put them on a train and send them to Mexico? Really?
Pretty much agree, there really wasn't a "big deal" that took place from either point of view IMO. I think Pence came out of it smelling much better than Trump, as you said Pence didn't say or do anything wrong on this. All I'm saying is, he missed a chance to "make things better". He certainly isn't wrong or bad for not offering some positive words that make relations better, but I still feel it was a "missed opportunity". Oh, and I don't feel like those actors said anything that was all that bad either, they could have made huge arses of themselves, like the ahole who played General Zod in the most recent Superman movie, but all they did (unless there's more that I haven't seen or heard about) was address the fears they have, maybe silly fears, maybe not. Was it the right venue? No not at all, but it's not like they see the guy every week or so, so I guess they just "carpe diem-ed".
As for their fears being real, imagined, silly, etc., I can't swear to that one way or the other. I think it's kind of like when we try to figure out what AA would think, say, or do, about a racial issue. Sure, we all like AA and we want only the best for him, but since we aren't a minority can we really fully understand how they feel about an issue? I think we try and that's good but I"m not sure we ever really "nail it" on that one. Just my opinion.
If so, let's hope Trump was pulling a regular season Bobby Cox (maybe the best ever during the regular season) and definitely NOT a post season Bobby Cox, perpetual Hall of Fame level DUMAS in the post season. :)
I'm more and more convinced though that we are all being played and pitted against one another. And it's only getting worse. I don't want to play but find myself giving into it too easily.
Well the Geppettos pulling the strings in this country have invested a LOT of time and money to get us to do just that, so don't feel bad, as long as we both do it, we're both in good company, right?
Forgive me for taking one snippet of your entire post and running with it, but I think this is worth discussing. When you say the full LGBT agenda, what does that mean? I feel like the agenda starts and ends with being treated as equals in our society and under the law. In the past, Pence has taken actions that have undermined that effort specifically. I don't think it's wrong to suggest that anyone who opposes equal rights for the LGBT community is in the wrong, and the reason I point out your use of the word agenda isn't because I think it's offensive, but because I think that many people misunderstand what the aim is of the movement. LGBT people in this country have had it really, really bad and have finally found themselves over the past few years on a fast track to normalcy. The concern is that someone like Pence, who has a recent history of opposing that path, could not only affect efforts to further the cause, but cause a step back. It has to be a scary thought for LGBT citizens.
mqt, I'm not avoiding you, but what might you think I mean by full LGBT agenda?
And what do you mean by "further the cause"? What else, in your opinion, needs to happen for the cause and movement?
Also, let me give a caveat - and change the phrase from "the full LGBT agenda" to "a common full LGBT agenda."
Last edited by BedellBrave; 11-20-2016 at 12:07 AM.
I think what's left is largely more progress in terms of getting states to stop trying to restrict the rights of the LGBT community, and sustaining the progress that has been made thus far.
The reason I bolded your statement is that the term LGBT Agenda is a charged one in most cases. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth or presume anything, but often times the idea of a Gay Agenda is considered trying to "force gayness" on others. If you consider the LGBT Agenda to be merely asking for equal rights, then you can be damn sure I'm willing to pass judgement on those that seek to go against that.
Are there some who would push for more? I would assume you would think there are. If so what more would you venture to think they'd want?
When I say, "a common full LGBT agenda," I mean that within the public domain, all citizens must not merely acknowledge all the legal rights that heterosexuals enjoy, but there can be no refusal to render public service to LGBT in the pursuit of those rights no matter one's religious convictions, no public practice by those who disagree will be allowed, and ultimately that no public (or familial) disapproval be tolerated. Ultimately, it's not about accommodation or acceptance it's about approval. To give public disapproval will be hate speech. To teach disapproval will be brainwashing. Neither will be tolerated. First via cultural pressures. But likely and eventually by legal pressures.
Last edited by BedellBrave; 11-20-2016 at 01:38 AM.
Still to this day the only time someone has ever Stump The Trump.
Forever Fredi
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
