2016 Presidential Horse Race

[NDinL.A.]

Criticizing Trump and his supporters is, at least on the right, usually just a way for GOPe dead-enders to avoid the difficult soul-searching and policy work necessary to coopt this populist fervor and prevent another such rebellion from destroying the party in the future. The only criticism you level at the GOP is for not doubling down even harder on stale Reaganism.

Not everyone who hates Trump thinks that way Whiskey. I want the GOP to do soul-searching. There are (very, very general) ideas of Trump's that I agree with (going after terrorists stronger, securing our borders, not bowing down to the establishment and not being a politician, flip-flopping on policies and simply saying what the people want to hear, etc.). The problem is, his foreign policy knowledge is embarrassingly weak, he goes WAY overboard on certain issues, he makes shit up on the fly and lies all the time, he openly encourages racism and violence, he has proven to be a politician in every sense of the word, and he treats people like absolute garbage. He COULD have been the candidate we needed, but instead he is a massive fraud.

And now we're all screwed because of it.

 

[wizards8507]

Agreed, but this is looking a lot like what happened on the early 90's with Perot.

I'm not so sure. The Republican nominee isn't going to be the only candidate who's hated by a plurality of voters in November. Clinton will be as well. There's more reason to be optimistic that a third party candidate could actually secure some state wins than was the case in 1992.

 

[drayer54]

As I previously said I am wavering on voting for Trump. But seriously you have no clue about how the government operates if you think all the president has to do is say launch the nukes and it will happen or I am going to slap China imports with a 45% tariff. Not going to happen either. And as far as the Supreme Court goes, how did Reagan's and Bush's appointments work out? Not that great as far as conservatives are concerned. But that is an issue I don't want to get into. Besides I actually went through this before when I voted for Perot. That actually worked out pretty well if you can stomach the idea of having a sexual pervert running the country for eight years. But economically it work out fine, so quite frankly I see I have nothing to lose by a protest vote. Personally I do not think he has a chance of winning anyway and I really don't think if the Dems win again it will really impact my life much anyway. Not much will change.

I never said he had a nuclear button nor the ability to initiate a trade war or tariff on his own. His words could send our markets down in a hurry and not having Hillary pick the supreme court is pretty important. All I can do now is hope for a 3rd party to save us or the party elite to block him in Cleveland.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Not everyone who hates Trump thinks that way Whiskey. I want the GOP to do soul-searching. There are (very, very general) ideas of Trump's that I agree with (going after terrorists stronger, securing our borders, not bowing down to the establishment and not being a politician, flip-flopping on policies and simply saying what the people want to hear, etc.). The problem is, his foreign policy knowledge is embarrassingly weak, he goes WAY overboard on certain issues, he makes shit up on the fly and lies all the time, he openly encourages racism and violence, he has proven to be a politician in every sense of the word, and he treats people like absolute garbage. He COULD have been the candidate we needed, but instead he is a massive fraud.

And now we're all screwed because of it.

I don't disagree with any of that, which is already abundantly clear to any rational person following this election cycle. Which leaves educated voters like MJ who might vote Trump as a "f*ck you" to the GOP, and uneducated voters who will take your criticism of Trump as a condescending attack on themselves. Criticizing Trump without offering a substantive alternative isn't going to achieve anything with either group of voters.

Of course Trump would be a disaster as president. Of course some of his supporters are uneducated and/or bigoted. The more pressing question is how did such a candidate manage to hijack the GOP in the first place? And how can we prevent that from happening again?

On those two subjects, most right wing pundits have little or nothing to offer. Which is damning in and of itself.

 

[MJ12666]

I never said he had a nuclear button nor the ability to initiate a trade war or tariff on his own. His words could send our markets down in a hurry and not having Hillary pick the supreme court is pretty important. All I can do now is hope for a 3rd party to save us or the party elite to block him in Cleveland.

We have no idea what the markets will do. Besides even if the markets did go down they would go right back up. The markets always "overreact" to news events and in a couple of months bounce back or down depending on the initial reaction. I have come to the conclusion that the Supreme Court is overblown. I really cannot think of one US Supreme Court ruling that had a major impact on my life. Do I agree with many of their decisions? Absolutely not. Robert's swing vote upholding the penalty/tax on Obamacare was atrocious. But ultimately it has no impact. Like it or not the US is moving toward a government run system. It is just the way it is no matter what the Supreme Court ruled. Anyway I need to sign off and hit the road. I suspect I stayed to late as it is and traffic is going to be heavy.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

If you just listen to the sound bite, out of context portion of Wright's "God damn America" sermon, it is easy to conclude he is a bigot. If you listen to the whole sermon, not so easy to come to that conclusion. Similarly, if you listen to Trump speak (which, I have done all too many times now), there is little misunderstanding about what he is saying. He is an unapologetic bigot. Those who are supporting him hear the same things that I've heard, and yet they follow. That tells me they are, at best, OK with having a known racist run the country. And we shouldn't kid ourselves that what a certain cross section of them are so angry about is that we've had a black president for the past 7 years and they want to Make America Great Again.

Wright's comments were not out of context. There's a reason Obama had to run as far away and quickly as he did when those videos came out: Wright is a radical racist who got his certificate to preach out of a Fruit Loops box. No person wearing the cloth should have such hate coming from their mouths.

If you can't come to terms with that, it's a you problem.

 

[GoIrish41]

Wright's comments were not out of context. There's a reason Obama had to run as far away and quickly as he did when those videos came out: Wright is a radical racist who got his certificate to preach out of a Fruit Loops box. No person wearing the cloth should have such hate coming from their mouths.

If you can't come to terms with that, it's a you problem.

Watch the video I linked in post #9016.

 

[kmoose]

Watch the video I linked in post #9016.

I don't understand..........

You post a racist video as proof that the speaker is NOT racist?

 

[GoIrish41]

I don't understand..........

You post a racist video as proof that the speaker is NOT racist?

To speak the truth about the sins in this country's past is not racist. Tell me what he said that was not true. In any event, he was talking about the stability of God vs. the wobbly nature of government by citing historical consequences. Why is that racist?

 

[kmoose]

To speak the truth about the sins in this country's past is not racist. Tell me what he said that was not true. In any event, he was talking about the stability of God vs. the wobbly nature of government by citing historical consequences. Why is that racist?

Just because something is true, that doesn't mean that it is NOT racist. If you don't understand why that crap was racist, then nothing I say is going to make a difference to you.

 

[GoIrish41]

Just because something is true, that doesn't mean that it is NOT racist. If you don't understand why that crap was racist, then nothing I say is going to make a difference to you.

you are probably right

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Watch the video I linked in post #9016.

1) You can criticize our nation's past mistakes without using the words, "God damn America."

2) You can criticize US foreign policy without saying, "America's chickens are coming home to roost" after 9/11.

3) Show me another "pastor" filled with such hate as this man. It's disgusting.

4) The hands down funniest part of all this is that you're steadfastly defending the guy, and he absolutely haaaaaaaates you haha

 

[GoIrish41]

1) You can criticize our nation's past mistakes without using the words, "God damn America."

2) You can criticize US foreign policy without saying, "America's chickens are coming home to roost" after 9/11.

3) Show me another "pastor" filled with such hate as this man. It's disgusting.

4) The hands down funniest part of all this is that you're steadfastly defending the guy, and he absolutely haaaaaaaates you haha

1. Not racist

2. Not racist

3. Nope ...

4. You don't know the man, you don't know anyone who knows him, and you know his mind. Gotcha! And I am not defending him as much as pointing out that what he actually said vs. what was reported are pretty far apart.

 

[BGIF]

State Department halts review of Clinton emails at FBI request | Reuters

By Arshad Mohammed

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. State Department has suspended plans for an internal review of whether classified information was properly handled in former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's emails at the request of the FBI, a spokeswoman said on Friday.

Clinton, the front-runner in the race for the Democratic Party nomination in the Nov. 8 presidential election, has apologized for using a private email server for official business while in office from 2009 to 2013 and said she did nothing wrong. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is probing the arrangement.

On Jan. 29, the State Department said 22 emails sent or received by Clinton had been upgraded to top secret at the request U.S. intelligence agencies and would not be made public as part of the release of thousands of Clinton's emails. It said that none of the emails was marked classified when sent.

At the time, the department also said it would conduct an internal review on whether the information in the emails was classified at the time it passed through Clinton's private clintonemail.com account run on a server in her New York home.

The State Department consulted the FBI about this in February, and in March the law enforcement agency asked the State Department to halt its inquiry.

"The FBI communicated to us that we should follow our standard practice, which is to put our internal review on hold while there is an ongoing law enforcement investigation ," State Department spokeswoman Elizabeth Trudeau told reporters.

"The internal review is on hold, pending completion of the FBI's work," she added." We'll reassess next steps after the FBI's work is complete."

A U.S. State Department official who spoke on condition of anonymity said the State Department had really only done "administrative work" on its review but had held off while waiting for a response from the FBI.

"It took a little bit of time for the FBI to respond to our request for advice and in the interim we did not pursue the review out of prudence," said the official, who declined further comment on the State Department review.

The government forbids handling of classified information, which may or may not be marked that way, outside secure government-controlled channels, and sometimes prosecutes people who remove it from such channels. The government classifies information as top secret if it deems a leak could cause "exceptionally grave damage" to national security.

Two judges have allowed a group suing for Clinton's records to seek sworn testimony from officials. On Tuesday, one judge said there was "evidence of government wrongdoing and bad faith" over the arrangement.

 

[phgreek]

State Department halts review of Clinton emails at FBI request | Reuters

By Arshad Mohammed

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. State Department has suspended plans for an internal review of whether classified information was properly handled in former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's emails at the request of the FBI, a spokeswoman said on Friday.

Clinton, the front-runner in the race for the Democratic Party nomination in the Nov. 8 presidential election, has apologized for using a private email server for official business while in office from 2009 to 2013 and said she did nothing wrong. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is probing the arrangement.

On Jan. 29, the State Department said 22 emails sent or received by Clinton had been upgraded to top secret at the request U.S. intelligence agencies and would not be made public as part of the release of thousands of Clinton's emails. It said that none of the emails was marked classified when sent.

At the time, the department also said it would conduct an internal review on whether the information in the emails was classified at the time it passed through Clinton's private clintonemail.com account run on a server in her New York home.

The State Department consulted the FBI about this in February, and in March the law enforcement agency asked the State Department to halt its inquiry.

"The FBI communicated to us that we should follow our standard practice, which is to put our internal review on hold while there is an ongoing law enforcement investigation ," State Department spokeswoman Elizabeth Trudeau told reporters.

"The internal review is on hold, pending completion of the FBI's work," she added." We'll reassess next steps after the FBI's work is complete."

A U.S. State Department official who spoke on condition of anonymity said the State Department had really only done "administrative work" on its review but had held off while waiting for a response from the FBI.

"It took a little bit of time for the FBI to respond to our request for advice and in the interim we did not pursue the review out of prudence," said the official, who declined further comment on the State Department review.

The government forbids handling of classified information, which may or may not be marked that way, outside secure government-controlled channels, and sometimes prosecutes people who remove it from such channels. The government classifies information as top secret if it deems a leak could cause "exceptionally grave damage" to national security.

Two judges have allowed a group suing for Clinton's records to seek sworn testimony from officials. On Tuesday, one judge said there was "evidence of government wrongdoing and bad faith" over the arrangement.

Hard to read between the lines here. Seems like the FBI probably doesn't want a State Department review because they don't want any appearance of witness tampering, or actual witness tampering.

On a separate issue it seems like at least one judge doesn't like the cooperation, or lack thereof coming from the State Department.

Put it together, and my takeaway is, some chicanery is still being perpetrated by the State Department. SMH.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

1. Not racist

2. Not racist

3. Nope ...

4. You don't know the man, you don't know anyone who knows him, and you know his mind. Gotcha! And I am not defending him as much as pointing out that what he actually said vs. what was reported are pretty far apart.

They're not far apart at all. You just can't come to grips with it. Probably going to say his using phrases like "US of KKA" and saying elite colleges have "white, racist DNA" are taken out of context too, right?

If this isn't the most racist/ hateful man wearing a cloth in America, show me who is.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

They're not far apart at all. You just can't come to grips with it. Probably going to say his using phrases like "US of KKA" and saying elite colleges have "white, racist DNA" are taken out of context too, right?

If this isn't the most racist/ hateful man wearing a cloth in America, show me who is.

How about the Ted Cruz supporter pastor who has advocated for killing gay people?

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

How about the Ted Cruz supporter pastor who has advocated for killing gay people?

Nice try, but no. Obama sat in Wright's church for 20 years. The pastor you mentioned is not Cruz's pastor. Cruz was a guest speaker (along with others) at a religious liberties event that pastor organized where he spewed the bullshit that he did.

The difference is that I can call out this Swanson guy (pastor who hates gays) for the reprehensible comments, while GoIrish41 will defend a guy like Wright no matter what. Why...who knows?

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Nice try, but no. Obama sat in Wright's church for 20 years. The pastor you mentioned is not Cruz's pastor. Cruz was a guest speaker (along with others) at a religious liberties event that pastor organized where he spewed the bullshit that he did.

The difference is that I can call out this Swanson guy (pastor who hates gays) for the reprehensible comments, while GoIrish41 will defend a guy like Wright no matter what. Why...who knows?

You asked if there was another more hateful person wearing the cloth. I gave you one. He thinks that killing gay people is cool. That's worse. I didn't say he was Cruz' pastor (though Cruz had appeared at his events). I mentioned Cruz to help identify the specific guy (there are others).

Wright used inflammatory rhetoric for sure. You can argue that it was counterproductive. I'd pretty much agree. But, as Buster has pointed out (a staunch conservative and huge critic of Wright at the time), the content of the statements are not nearly as off the wall as you're implying.

 

[NDinL.A.]

If this isn't the most racist/ hateful man wearing a cloth in America, show me who is.

How about the Ted Cruz supporter pastor who has advocated for killing gay people?

Nice try, but no. Obama sat in Wright's church for 20 years. The pastor you mentioned is not Cruz's pastor. Cruz was a guest speaker (along with others) at a religious liberties event that pastor organized where he spewed the bullshit that he did.

The difference is that I can call out this Swanson guy (pastor who hates gays) for the reprehensible comments, while GoIrish41 will defend a guy like Wright no matter what. Why...who knows?

I think Jayhawk showed you the exact thing you were asking for, a pastor who was (arguably) more hateful than the other pastor. Wanting to kill gays IMHO is more hateful than what Wright was saying (not defending Wright, btw - they are both reprehensible). It's disgusting that a supposed man of God advocates killing of innocent human beings, regardless of whether you agree with their lifestyle. Sickening.

 

[BGIF]

I think Jayhawk showed you the exact thing you were asking for, a pastor who was (arguably) more hateful than the other pastor. Wanting to kill gays IMHO is more hateful than what Wright was saying (not defending Wright, btw - they are both reprehensible). It's disgusting that a supposed man of God advocates killing of innocent human beings, regardless of whether you agree with their lifestyle. Sickening.

I thought gay "lifestyle" was supposed to be an archaic term from the past millenium. It's not a choice.

 

[NDinL.A.]

I thought gay "lifestyle" was supposed to be an archaic term from the past millenium. It's not a choice.

Was in a hurry, typed faster than my mind was operating. People that believe it is a sin believe it is a choice. I disagree with those people, personally.

 

[Legacy]

GOP Poverty Forum – Its High Notes and Low Notes

It’s encouraging that six Republican presidential candidates appeared today in South Carolina to discuss poverty, and they advanced some positive proposals. Jeb Bush called for expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) for low-income workers not raising children, essentially endorsing a proposal from both President Obama and House Speaker Paul Ryan, while Chris Christie and others spoke of adopting or expanding state Earned Income Tax Credits.

Unfortunately, the candidates also said much that was disappointing. They sometimes misrepresented basic facts and research about poverty and anti-poverty programs. SOME CANDIDATES ADVANCED PROPOSALS THAT WOULD LIKELY INCREASE POVERTY AND HARDSHIP, RATHER THAN REDUCE THEM. Some advanced proposals that would likely increase poverty and hardship rather than reduce them.

The fiscal year 2016 congressional budget resolution, which the Republican-run House and Senate both passed on party-line votes last year (and which is similar to the budgets that Paul Ryan fashioned as House Budget Committee chairman) would secure nearly two-thirds of its budget cuts — more than $3 trillion in cuts over ten years — from programs for low- and modest-income people. Although, as forum speakers noted, the poverty debate should extend well beyond funding levels, those budgets’ severe cuts in assistance for meeting basic needs, making college more affordable, and the like would inescapably increase poverty and hardship.

Moreover, the GOP congressional budget assumes that revenues would remain at their levels under current law. Many Republican presidential candidates, though, have called for multi-trillion-dollar tax cuts, which would necessitate even steeper budget cuts than those in the GOP budget in order to keep budget deficits from exploding. That raises a fundamental question for Republican candidates: how would they craft budget and tax plans that don’t savage assistance for the poor and thereby increase poverty and hardship?

Good read from The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Jan 9, 2016

Also, Trump and Cruz Tax-Cut Plans Would Shrink Government to Truman-Era Levels also from
Cbpp, March 29, 2016

The tax-cut proposals from Republican presidential candidates Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, in conjunction with their calls for balancing the budget, would dictate low levels of government spending not seen since about 1950. Programs that receive support across the political spectrum and are important to the well-being of most Americans would dramatically shrink or disappear altogether. Even if policymakers did not achieve budget balance under their tax-cut plans but simply offset the costs of the plans themselves, the consequences to essential programs — and to low- and middle-income Americans — would be severe.

Such large tax cuts, of course, would also put pressure on the nation’s fiscal situation, which already appears unsustainable over the long term. Under its current path, the budget deficit is expected to rise from 2.9 percent of GDP in 2016 to 4.8 percent in 2026, and the debt is expected to rise from 75 percent to 85 percent of GDP. If the tax cuts are not offset at all, under both plans the annual budget deficit would rise to about 10 percent of GDP in 2026.[4] The debt would jump to 121 percent of GDP in 2026 under Cruz and 124 percent under Trump. Quite simply, failing to pay for tax cuts of this magnitude would be fiscally and economically irresponsible.

 

[Bluto]

Nice try, but no. Obama sat in Wright's church for 20 years. The pastor you mentioned is not Cruz's pastor. Cruz was a guest speaker (along with others) at a religious liberties event that pastor organized where he spewed the bullshit that he did.

The difference is that I can call out this Swanson guy (pastor who hates gays) for the reprehensible comments, while GoIrish41 will defend a guy like Wright no matter what. Why...who knows?

Wright is a black man born in 1941 and a veteran that lived through horrors and has dealt with bullshit most people can't even begin to comprehend. If he thinks the US is the US of KKK and white people suck or whatever considering what he experienced it is completely understandable view point. Comparing him to this Swason a hole is way off base and just typical bait and switch bullshit.

 

[Black Irish]

Wright is a black man born in 1941 and a veteran that lived through horrors and has dealt with bullshit most people can't even begin to comprehend. If he thinks the US is the US of KKK and white people suck or whatever considering what he experienced it is completely understandable view point. Comparing him to this Swason a hole is way off base and just typical bait and switch bullshit.

The first sentence and the third sentence of this post I agree with. But sentence two is ridiculous. Because the man went through hard times then it's no big deal if he thinks that "white people suck?" Come on. A person who believes that "white people suck" is a bigoted jerk. Period.

 

[phgreek]

Wright is a black man born in 1941 and a veteran that lived through horrors and has dealt with bullshit most people can't even begin to comprehend. If he thinks the US is the US of KKK and white people suck or whatever considering what he experienced it is completely understandable view point. Comparing him to this Swason a hole is way off base and just typical bait and switch bullshit.

It is...just not real, or healthy. He is certainly disillusioned. But when does that become delusional? I know people who've become delusional, and while I understand why, I don't hang around listening to their world view, and shout Amen.

This entire discussion is defending someone for hanging out with a man who has gone off the rails...but was Wright always delusional, or was he at one time a watchdog who just lost his grip? Someone who gives a shit enough would have to look at Wright's sermons over his history to determine that...I do know he came into focus to the greater population due to Mr. Obama. What I know of him is simply not good, and when he came into focus, Mr. Obama kinda made some distance between himself and Wright. Rather that was a result of Wright unexpectedly losing his damn mind, or the realization that you can't be President of the United Sates and have/share Wright's views...I don't know.

 

[kmoose]

Wright is a black man born in 1941 and a veteran that lived through horrors and has dealt with bullshit most people can't even begin to comprehend. If he thinks the US is the US of KKK and white people suck or whatever considering what he experienced it is completely understandable view point. Comparing him to this Swason a hole is way off base and just typical bait and switch bullshit.

You know what else Wright has lived through?

Harry Truman
Branch Rickey
Dwight Eisenhower
Both John and Robert Kennedy
and
Jack Greenberg

But, yeah....... it's perfectly understandable that he thinks white people suck.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

I find this thread so entertaining because it is full of assumptions based upon prejudices.

I use prejudice or prejudices, in a much more general, wide ranging scope, as it relates to human behavior, than as a reflection of racism, etc.

Continually, in this thread, and in the outside world of US politics it isn't what is here and now, it is what is common assumption, what is wanted, or a reflection of our values and opinions.

For example, saying anyone doesn't want, "Trump, Cruz, Hillary Clinton, and socialism."

Using the label socialism avoids saying Bernie Sanders. And Bernie Sanders isn't a socialist. He is clearly a progressive, a populist, and a possibilist. Granted, his tendency toward possibilism is where people draw the conclusion he is a socialist, but it is either ignorance, or deceit that motivated that assumption.

But I do agree with one assumption in this thread. Not enough American voters will support any major candidate put forward in the primaries or general election except one.

Yesterday I was an observer in a very enlightening conversation between a Political Science Professor, a Professor of Anthropology, a political consultant (read 'operator.') and a fairly successful politician.

• They all agreed Clinton was too smarmy, and couldn't or wouldn't put together a coalition to win the primary. They noted her eroding support among women, especially younger women.
• They described Trump as a caricature of a candidate, that has generated so much controversy, that voters have gone to the polls because of his candidacy as a referendum of the state of politics in this country by the electorate. They pointed to the incredible number of voters in open primaries, and contended that his high vote totals, as well as the high vote totals, particularly of more regional candidates is not indicative of Trump support, and is not directly related to his campaign, or policy. Instead it is about whether such a poorly qualified candidate should even be on a ballot, just because he has money.
• Therefore Trump might reek havoc in a primary, but any enthusiasm or support would wane in a general election.
• Cruz has blown his wad, so to speak. Pardon the nasty pun. But they used it yesterday; I almost died when I heard it.
• No one else in the Republican party can put together what they need to win, but they may be able to block someone else from winning. This is a perfect opportunity for an 11th hour, dark horse candidate to emerge. But whomever would have to exercise great care and caution, the risk of such an attempt could break the party apart. And, it would be very hard for the GOP to attract the independents they need to win a national election without a well scripted and unified party line, on a candidate with universal party appeal.
• There are no other Democratic candidates worth noting, and Biden doesn't really have a chance to insert himself in the race at this point.
• That leaves Sanders. And don't kid yourself. His message is resonating with a lot of important groups; minorities; youth; women; blue collar voters; and what formerly was known as the middle class. And Sanders only real political drawback is the controversy over his enthusiastic support of the Israeli State.

Guys, it really looks like a generational shift to the smartest folks I know on the issue, and I have to agree with them. And I am not so sure that is a bad thing.

We will find out how true this hypothesis is, come November, seeing who wins the elections, and how long their coattails are. Regardless of who wins the presidency, who makes gains in the senate, and house? That is the question. Because this election may be much more that the petty squabbles over prejudices, and personality that have dominated conversations like this, and presidential politics for several generations.

 

[GoIrish41]

You know what else Wright has lived through?

Harry Truman
Branch Rickey
Dwight Eisenhower
Both John and Robert Kennedy
and
Jack Greenberg

But, yeah....... it's perfectly understandable that he thinks white people suck.

These are six white men out of a nation of millions who helped bring about incrimental progress toward equality. Not to take anything away from any of those men you mentioned but their great deeds do not overcome the experiences of lynchings and dehumanizing treatment of African Americans witnessed by Wright's generation. They don't overcome institutionalized racism in law enforcement or the courts, and they don't overcome the long standing and still active attempts to disenfranchise African Americans.

The accomplishments of the men on your list were, in the big picture, small steps in a journey whose destination is still far away. We would all do well to listen to those people most affected by our past and present policies that still act to hold black people down. Signing a law that removes discrimination in civil service hiring, signing Jackie Robinson as the first black major leaguer, or even signing the first civil rights legislation were all met with widespread societal outrage. You can't ignore that part of Wright's experience or anyone else's.

This nation has a dark history and Wright has the right to talk about it, just as Trump has the right to demonize Muslims and Mexicans. It is important to note, however, that Wright is not running to be president. We can all draw whatever conclusions we wish about the words of Wright and of Trump, but let's consider them in the context of human experience. Wright has reasons for being angry. It is weird that you are consistently the first to defend lifetime rich and privileged Trump's free speech and its obvious implications, yet are so dismissive of Wright as a hateful racist. This is especially true as Wright's beliefs are anchored in a lifetime of experience and Trump's are so clearly directed at appealing to the worst instincts of ignorance and intolerance that still exists in this country ... despite the efforts of a few good white men.

 

[kmoose]

These are six white men out of a nation of millions who helped bring about incrimental progress toward equality. Not to take anything away from any of those men you mentioned but their great steps toward equality does not overcome experiences of lynchings and dehumanizing treatment of African Americans witnessed by Wright's generation. It doesn't overcome institutionalized racism in law enforcement or the courts, and it doesn't overcome the long standing and still active attempts to disenfranchise African Americans.

The accomplishments of the men on your list were, in the big picture, small steps in a journey whose destination is still far away. We would all do well to listen to those people most affected by our past and present policies that still act to hold black people down. Signing a law that removes discrimination in civil service hiring, signing Jackie Robinson as the first black major leaguer, or even signing the first civil rights legislation were all met with widespread societal outrage. You can't ignore that part of Wright's experience or anyone else's.

This nation has a dark history and Wright has the right to talk about it, just as Trump has the right to demonize Muslims and Mexicans. It is important to note, however, that Wright is not running to be president. We can all draw whatever conclusions we wish about the words of Wright and of Trump, but let's consider them in the context of human experience. Wright has reasons for being angry. It is weird that you are consistently the first to defend lifetime rich and privileged Trump's free speech and its obvious implications, yet are so dismissive of Wright as a hateful racist. This is especially true as Wright's beliefs are anchored in a lifetime of experience and Trump's are so clearly directed at appealing to the worst instincts of ignorance and intolerance that still exists in this country ... despite the efforts of a few good white men.

What's amazing to me is how absolutely hypocritical some views of some liberals are. People think it's ok for Wright to disparage white people because of what was going on around him as he grew up. But if some white pastor who grew up next to Compton said that black people are gangbanging drug dealers, those same people would be OUTRAGED.......... and they would feel unsafe and need counseling. They would throw out names like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Jackie Robinson, Oprah Winfrey, and Thurgood Marshall as examples of black people who are fine upstanding citizens who have made contributions to white society as well as their own. If you downplayed those examples and talked about how few they were, you would be shouted down as an insane racist.


It's got nothing to do with Trump. I have never defended Trump making racist statements. What I HAVE said, which you apparently have interpreted in whatever manner best suits your prejudiced opinion of me, is that certain allegations made about the guy are based on what people THINK he said, not what he actually said.