When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

Did you listen to any of the interviews with the reps of Black Men for Sanders on As It Happens over the past couple of months?

They've been consistently interesting and very clear that they are not followers of Sanders. He just happened to be going their direction for a while - they said months ago they wouldn't be supporting him if he wasn't the Democrat's nominee for president. They would not be listening to him further. They'd be continuing on their already planned route without him.

I'm not familiar with the "Brooks Brothers Riot Story" at all.

I'm quite willing to discuss most issues , but like you am unwilling to let others prescribe for me what are the central issues and boundaries of the discussion. You appear to me to be remarkably unaware of the constraints you wish to apply to others, but won't accept for yourself; and of the flaws you observe in your political opponents but ignore in those you favor.

[quote="blatham"

Oh yes. I think we see this pretty broadly in human groups. Religious extremists, for example. It just seems to be some bell curve phenomenon where there's a need to categorize on an us/them binary framing and where some percentage of the folks engaged tend to look inward for the enemy.
[/quote]

It is amazing that you (apparently) don't see the applicability of these words to yourself.

Had not heard any of them, beth. I don't attend to radio, a failing. But the voices you report seem entirely rational to me. Thanks for the data.

This really is a story you should know. How it is you don't know it has got my head shaking. It has a relevance, as ought to become clear, to what I was speaking of when I mentioned it.

During the vote recount in Florida, the RNC wanted the recount stopped for the obvious reason. They gathered up a bunch of operatives (as I noted, Roger Stone and John Bolton were part of this operation), and bused them down to Florida to stop the recount. These were the guys pounding on the doors and threatening the people counting ballots. They said, at the time, they were concerned citizens. Who they actually were and how they'd been put into action only became part of the public record later, after folks dug in on it.

It is amazing that you (apparently) don't see the applicability of these words to yourself.[/quote]
Why would you presume I don't? Obviously, I'm going to sit somewhere on any bell curve. As I think Bernard Levi Strauss was correct in his observation that we humans frame our thinking in binary opposites (at least, fundamentally, as a sort of starting point) I will have arrived at my conclusion through observation of self as well as others.

Turn on the radio. There's a reason CBC radio wins a lot of international awards. At the very least, pay attention to the Massey Lectures and Ideas.

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/masseys/pastlectures

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/pastepisodes

(I'm probably more shocked by this gap than you are by georgeob's missing link re Brooks Brothers riots)

I recall that event, though not the name you gave it. How is it any different from any of a number of organized "public protests", ranging from those of the opponents of government/public sector union reforms in Wisconsin, diehard Bernie fans, Union protests, Black lives matters events, anti or pro abortion protests, or any of a multitude of such things?

I used to listen far more often than I do now (I probably should have said) but the notion of listening online hadn't dawned on me because I'm kind of dull. Thanks for links!

(ps... I'm sure you noted george's answer below)

Such a dodge. You're really not even trying. If X has any precedents, even where those precedents are not at all the same but merely vaguely similar, then X has no importance and is unworthy of note. This is not an intellectual tool that's going to help you much, george.

First, the context where I brought it up (along with another proven example of the RNC running covert ops) was to demonstrate that the RNC does run covert ops using false pretenses. Thus, there's no rational reason to presume they aren't doing so again in order to sew discord among Dems this election. And in that initial post, I even provided some of the historical data later repeated, including a list of the names of the operatives (citing location of source). Your reply suggested that I was merely dealing in conspiracy theories to imagine such a thing. That's fundamentally dishonest.

Second, the examples I provided and the examples you put forward are not of the same category. The Brooks Brothers Riot was not a citizen-populated or citizen-organized protest. It wasn't grassroots as it pretended, it was astro-turf run by the RNC.

I am not dishonest and don't take such suggestions lightly.

That the RNC may have been involved in such an event once doesn't mean it is a part of their normal activity, as your "logic" attests. Should I regard the recently revealed collusion between the DNC and Hillary's campaign staff to discredit Bernie Sanders as proof that this is part of a normal campaign for left wing and progressive organizations? That would be completely analogous to your position.

Such organized capers are a core part of the normal political activity (and thuggery) of many labor unions, almost all in support of Democrats. I cited the several day occupation and trashing of the Capitol of Wisconsin a couple of years ago - in response to legislation restoring freedom of association to public employees in that state. I believe that is the equal of the events in Florida you were addressing.

However it is you who are peddeling the far-fetched conspiracy theories around here, not me.

You may spend too much time conversing with folks whose views and concerns are like your own. It's not good for your critical thinking.

And I gagged when she said "When they go low, we go high."

Remember the "Mitt Romney. Not one of us." ad or the one accusing him for being responsible for the death of one of his former workers wifes, or Harry Reid lying about his tax status on the Senate floor!

So lofty.

Quote Finn:

Yes, I can Romney remember Romney in Michigan, copping on the birther fervor:



The GOP's come up with two doozies in a row-one who liked to "suggest" Obama was not really born in the US, and the one now who says absolutely he wasn't. That's really going high, all right.

Even you would have to admit that the present Republican candidate for president is setting a new standard for coarseness and negativity. Or would you?

What does this ad have to do with whether or not Michelle Obama's comment was disingenuous at best and hypocritical nonsense at worse?

This is Bernie from this morning:

“Our credibility as a movement will be damaged by booing, turning of backs, walking out or other similar displays,” Sanders wrote in a text message to delegate leaders. “That’s what the corporate media wants. That’s what Donald Trump wants. But that’s not what will expand the progressive movement of this country.”

I don't know what a reasonable Bernie follower could say to deny this. But maybe all the noise is really coming strictly from the unreasonable.

I guess you have forgotten that Hillary supporters started that rumor back during the 2008 campaign. It wasn't the GOP who started it, it was Hillary and her people. Not surprising as we now know that the DNC was going to use Sanders religion or lack of religion against him in the south.

Completely false. If they were going to use it, they would have.

One email from ONE guy bringing it up does not represent the entire DNC.

He is coarse and far coarser than I would like to see in the Republican candidate, but if you do some research you'll find that previous presidential elections have been replete with "coarse negativity" so I'm not going to agree with your premise.

At the same time we are hearing accusations from Dems that Trump is a sociopath and even a psychopath. I don't know about you, but think that's pretty rough.

Now you may think he actually is one of these two things and so the accusations aren't necessarily negative, but rather "accurate."

I happen to think Clinton is a lying crook and so I don't consider the accusation to be necessarily negative, but rather "accurate"