Emphasis mine.
The Republican Convention is currently being held in Cleveland, Ohio.
The events described in your link happened in San Jose, California, about six weeks ago. They have been discussed in considerable detail on these boards.
Good job keeping up with the latest events!
My blunder; I searched for the text that was reported on CBS news.
So, I pointed to the wrong event. But CBS Radio News is reporting that banners saying “America was Never Great” are being shown at the current Republican Convention in Cleveland.
My cite was wrong, but, apparently, the bad behavior is happening now. I apologize for getting the link wrong, but my point, apparently, is still valid. People are saying such dumb things.
Regardless… I’d rather the stupid liberal ideas be taking place outside of the convention than inside of it.
That highlights the difference in the two threads. The Republican version of this thread has elected representatives at all levels of government and the best-known pundits.
All it takes to get a mention here is for some anonymous schmuck to hold up a fucking sign.
Total agreement!
One of the reasons I mentioned this is to try to show that liberals are more willing to police themselves than conservatives are. If a liberal politician had cribbed notes for a speech, liberals would be among the first to condemn this intellectual dishonesty.
But when a conservative does it, the conservatives make up crazier and crazier excuses, and engage in large-scale digression (“Well, Hillary is the anti-Christ, so who cares about a little speech?”) and other defenses of the bad behavior.
It keeps on happening this way, over and over and over. Republicans are in favor of law and order…until a handful of Congressmen get caught taking bribes. Republicans are in favor of family values…until several of them are caught having gay sex in public bathrooms.
At very least, we liberals condemn, as strongly as we can, criminality by liberal politicians, such as Rod Blagojevich. When Republicans broke the law, the Republican President contrived to fire the Federal Attorneys who were investigating the crime.
(And there weren’t any Congressional hearings over that, either. God DAMN, these fuckers are hypocrites!)
Well, let’s make a distinction here. A LOT of us don’t like our nominee because he’s racist, ignorant, and if we weren’t so focused on those minor details he’d probably have scandal after scandal in his past to answer for.
Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton, who skated about as close to a felony as you can get and was extremely careless with national security secrets and is considered dishonest and untrustworthy by a large majority of Americans, has nearly lockstep support within the Democratic Party. Furthermore, she’ll be preceded by about a dozen speakers at the convention who are more popular than her, yet not the nominee.
What happened in the Democratic Party looks an awful lot what normally would happen within the Republican Party. It was her turn, so that’s that.
I’d also not that in order to “police” a movement it can’t be grassroots, which the Democratic Party has never been. Control by elites is pretty strongly maintained, whereas in the GOP control has slipped away and now it actually is run by wahoos in Kansas and Alabama. Not even the billionaires’ money can control that party now. It is firmly in control by a tens of millions strong mob of angry Americans.
If the Democratic party elite let control of the party slip the result would be equally interesting. Might happen, if the strength of the Bernie Bros is any indication.
Hillary Clinton is very popular within the Democratic party. Why would it be a surprise or unusual that a very popular Democrat who is widely known and has lots of experience won the primary?
I would bet it would be more OWS types, some of the extreme parts of BLM (the parts like Malik Shabazz who thinks cop killers are heroes, etc.), and anti-Israel nutcases.
It was her turn, but that’s not why she won. It’s because none of the popular people who will be speaking before her at the DNC wanted to run against her. The primary was her, Sanders (who, let’s face it, was a no-name before this year) and a bunch of also-rans and never-weres.
Now, if some of those popular people had foreseen the e-mail “scandal,” they might have run. But they didn’t.
I meant “those weren’t my words” as in “I wasn’t the poster who posted them.” DerekMicheals00 posted those words. I am Lance Strongarm.
You even quoted the two of us and still didn’t notice.
I suggest, again, that you stop spewing insults and you might have time to notice such details.
Just saw this. No worries - I have done stupider things (but without all the insults and bluster to make it hurt even worse when you realize you’re being a dumbass :smack:).
Aggrieved progressive activists are attempting to organize a fart-in by Sanders delegates at the Democratic convention.
This, of course, is adaher-speak for “Hillary Clinton, who was investigated and exonerated for a breach of regulations and was slightly careless with political documents, and is considered dishonest and untrustworthy by a minority of Americans.”
Mr. Topspin, spin me a fable; don’t bother with the truth, because we know you aren’t able.
This word exonerated doesn’t mean what you think it means. Americans have judged for themselves what Comey actually did in her case, and “exonerated” is not the word they, nor Comey ,would use.
If this is what passes for “policing” your movement you fell just a bit short.
Actually, Americans overwhelmingly feel that it is in fact **adaher **who is full of shit, making up generalizations to fit his world view and presenting them as facts, usually in a thinly veiled attempt to shit on Hillary Clinton while making it sound like it pains him to do it. But then Americans are like that.
As a result of most people thinking I’m full of shit, I am rather unlikely to be elected President. Guess who else is unlikely to be elected President? Someone who was careless with national security secrets, is a serial liar, and who thinks different rules apply to her.
But anyway, the actual point is that Democrats’ policing themselves is rather overrated, and to the extent it happens, it’s only because the party is controlled by elites, not the grassroots.
Trump indeed gives all the appearance of being ignorant, but the problem isn’t that he’s racist - it’s that him hinting that he’s racist and being cheered for it highlights just how strongly racist the Republican Party is.
Or maybe the Republicans are only hinting that they’re racist and being cheered for it, highlighting how strongly racist America is.
It’s a rich tapestry.
It’s more a case that racists are a fairly large group of disenfranchised voters and they will tend to flock to any movement that looks like it might have a chance. The nativists ruined the Reform Party just when it started to get going. And it should be noted, Trump was a Reform Presidential candidate before he became a Republican. And if he’d decided to run as a Democrat don’t think he wouldn’t get a pretty decent number of votes. Trump brings his own voters with him and they’ll be there regardless of what party he decides to run under.
In any case, if the party was racist then we wouldn’t be having an issue right now, would we? We’d all be firmly behind Trump and it’d all be hunky-dory.
Whereas, whatever group Clinton needs to throw under the bus to get elected(or to govern successfully), that’ll be forgiven simply by flip flopping later on down the road. I mean, is there any group she hasn’t throw under the bus? BLacks(Superpredators!), gays, Latinos(she voted for a wall)? I think Jews and Asians are still safe.
I said strongly racist, not wholly racist, but I gather nuance isn’t your strong suit.
Or even your strong swimsuit.
We don’t have swimsuit competitions. Probably for the best.