Maybe you should re-read the OP.
IOW, you are wrong. Clearly plenty of people, apparently applying a literal definition of ‘public,’ have equated the two.
Oh, gimme a fucking break. There are countless things you shouldn’t say while running for office. For most of us, it isn’t a problem because it wouldn’t occur to us to say them.
If you’re the sort who would, then perhaps you shouldn’t be running for public office.
Major League Baseball gave her $5000 after her hanging comments, and then backtracked and asked for their money back after it was publicized.
Given that the judicial public hangings ended in 1936 (before Hyde-Smith’s lifetime), and the extrajudicial public hangings continued for decades past that (including well into her lifetime), doesn’t that in fact lend more weight to the hypothesis that when she refers to public hangings, she means the extrajudicial ones?
Well, you’ve got my vote!
Octopus in 2020!
Wal-Mart, Pfizer and AT&T are also asking for their money back; no word from the campaign if it will do so.
One thing is certain:
- As public hangings are now considered barbaric, and
- as she openly stated she would enthusiastically attend such a gathering if the man in question invited her to,
it therefore seems to me that this candidate for high public office can be depended upon to enthusiastically support atrocities as long as she likes the person who asks her to do so.
You wouldn’t vote for me even if I didn’t make any of those comments.
My problem is that in addition to already deciding to not vote for me, you would be on guard to take any innocent comment I would make and claim it was racist or sexist, or advocates genocide or race related murder.
Again, a public hanging is not a lynching. 20,000 Watched the Last Public Hanging 78 Years Ago – Mother Jones
Mother Jones, that right wing conservative rag, says the last public hanging was in 1936. Ye Gads! Does it not know of all of the lynchings since then!!!
Yes, the left does practically call everything racist, sexist, ____ist but that doesn’t mean that some comments even if not bigoted are in very poor taste.
And you dismiss any criticism as “the left”, as if it is one monolithic entity, with no difference of opinion or independent thought. Some college student with a blog calls something “racist”, and that is “the left” calling it racist, which means you can criticize someone who did not call it racist for calling it racist, as you see “them” as all the same.
I can do the same thing with “the right”, except I don’t have to go scouring college blogs, I can just listen to the person that “the right” elevated to the oval office. Do you take responsibility for each and every utterance that DJT makes? If not, then why should anyone associated with the other side of the spectrum be responsible for whatever you can dig up on the interwebs?
Lynchings were almost always done by a mob, as a public and communal activity. Given that the purpose was to terrorize Blacks in the community being of a public nature was requisite.
Warning graphic content of photos of crowds of white folk gathering round having a grand time at the lynchings and burning alive of some Blacks at this link, but still it’s the cite for this:
Ulf the Unwashed,
An election on a special day is not about who decides to stay home. On these elections staying home is the default. In general about half as many voters turn out to vote on a special election day as they do for a general election day, and general election turnout last time was only 55%. The turnout for this midterm was … exceptional. But many would be expected to have other things to do this Tuesday. These elections get decided by who decides to be exceptional and come out in the week after Thanksgiving with so much else to get done.
So who is motivated and enthusiastic enough to be come out and vote yet again this Tuesday?
Likely under most circumstances those who voted for Espy would overrepresent those who wouldn’t bother again. Why bother? Now though they have a reason to bother. Voters who didn’t really love Hyde-Smith to begin with, (they voted for the other R) and now see her behaving just idiotically? Meh. The Senate is safe in GOP hands, and she’s likely going to win without me bothering, and Espy is pretty benign as Ds go … yawn. I got shopping to get done.
She very very likely WILL win too. But not as for sure as it was, and not by the 17 or so that any R who was not a fool would win by.
:rolleyes:
No. This is wrong. The term “public hanging” means a hanging in public. You don’t get to define terms.
Again: you don’t get to define terms. And your bias is showing besides.
You’re the only one trying to re-write things here.
I note that Mother Jones does not make the claim that the term “public hanging” only applies to judicial hangings; your assertion is baseless.
Why can’t we just extend his logic and assert that octopus has asserted that it’s okay to grab women’s genitals? I mean, that’s what the POTUS said and he’s the leader of the right and octopus is part of the right. He hasn’t disputed what Trump said; therefore he agrees, right?
Would you say that’s a fair and accurate assessment, octopus? :dubious:
Or would you say there’s some dubious logic and reasoning that led to such a conclusion?
(I assume you’re directing this at Dem candidate Espy; although you don’t indicate what remarks of his are an “emotional screed” or “revisionist history”.)
It’s pretty laughable of you to accuse others of revisionist history after making these claims:
You weren’t sure that your claims where historically correct, but they fit your argument, so you went with them.
Then Railer13 and RTFirefly pointed out that the last judicial public hanging was carried out in 1836
, and drew up to 20,000 spectators.
That’s not “nearly (over?) a century” ago; that’s a whole generation short of a century. And the numbers certainly don’t suggest a lack of public enthusiasm at the time.
The article that you yourself referred to indicates a very different reason for the practice of public hanging being ended in Kentucky.
As to this:
Well, as others have pointed out, lynchings have also been performed publicly with large crowds attending. How can you NOT equate them? Especially in Mississippi.
I mean that seriously. If someone mentioned public hanging in Mississippi, I would think it would take astounding effort to block out any thought of the history of lynchings in that state. Or astounding ignorance.
My bolding.
I agree with most of what you’ve written here, but I do take some issue with the bolded part–which I addressed in my earlier post.
Ordinarily I would agree that people who don’t get their first choice will be less likely to turn out for a second round. But in this particular race I have my doubts. That’s because McDaniel (the “other R”) is extremely, extremely conservative verging on openly racist. Thus,
a) his voters are, we’ll just say, unlikely to shrug and mumble, well, “Espy is pretty benign as Ds go”; and
b) Hyde-Smith’s recent comments would seem to put her right into standard McDaniel territory, making her that much more palatable to the far-right voters who originally chose him. (No, btw, I do NOT think she’s doing it on purpose to make herself more popular among the extreme right.)
So, in this election I think we will see much stronger turnout than usual from the supporters of the vanquished candidate, and all or virtually all of that will break for the incumbent.
I do agree that Espy supporters are furious about what’s going on with Hyde-Smith, energized from the midterms, and hopeful given the incumbent’s behavior, and that good turnout among these people is more likely than not. I also agree it probably won’t be enough. I hope I’m wrong.
Do not wish harm on others. Don’t even venture close to this line.
[/moderating]
Maybe not, but it’s critical that he inspires massive numbers of black (and other minority) voters to show up at the polls. There’s a lot more on the line in this race than just a dog-whistling neo-confederate winning a senate race. If this kind of campaign can be successful at the statewide level in Dixie, you can absolutely bet your ass that this kind of campaign will be copied elsewhere across the South, and not just in Senate races but even more significantly in governor’s races, in state house races, and in state senate races. And if the neoconfederates win these kinds of races, they will go a lot farther than just making difficult for rural black residents to vote; they will go full on Jim Crow.
You might ask why? What would be gained by that?
The answer is obvious. Once a white conservative majority makes it more difficult to vote, then it becomes obvious that if you really want to strip power from people, if you really want to strip them of their standing in society, and if you really want to dominate people, then you don’t just stop there; you go after everything they have assumed to be rightfully theirs. You go after their rights. People - even progressives - don’t understand how the conservatives think. They don’t think in terms of fairness or rights; they think in terms of power. They want to use brute force to dominate their opposition and to make it impossible for them to mount a challenge. Oh sure, they’ll still have ‘elections’ so they can call themselves a ‘democratically-elected’ group of elected officials. But they’ve inherited the same kind of hierarchical, aristocratic, and racist mentality that has governed their society for generations.
Going back to what I said at the top of my post: it’s important that Espy inspire lots of voters. If the Mississippi neo-confederates are going to try to assault the rights of minorities, then it’s imperative that minorities be seen asserting these rights for themselves. If they’re going to try to suppress voting and purge voters from the rolls, then it’s imperative that those who’ve been affected are visibly attempting to vote and that they’re viewed as being victimized in large numbers. If they stay at home, if they aren’t actively asserting their rights and defending them to the bitter end, then everyone who’s watching will conclude that the neoconfederate assault on ‘equal protection’ is a victimless crime.
Since the Voting Rights Act of 1965 has been essentially gutted by the John Roberts court, that legislation is moot. What we’re talking about here is the survival of not just an act of congress, but the 1868 understanding of equal protection under the law. Yes, this country is having THAT debate again. You can think I’m being alarmist if you want; I know the truth.
I’m reconciled to the fact that CHS will probably win this round. (Espy is not a Doug Jones-level-good candidate, and has not been running an especially good campaign, although he’s leagues ahead of his opponent just by being competent.) But this is a special election for a term that expires in 2020, and with strong recruiting on the Dem side and two additional years to make a fool of herself, CHS should be eminently beatable then.