revelette3
 
  3  
Reply Wed 22 Jan, 2020 12:06 pm
@Lash,
I am a little surprised, you must be older than me, I wasn't born until 1965 when Malcom X was assassinated only three when King was assassinated. Probably makes a difference.
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Jan, 2020 12:30 pm
@revelette3,
I’m not much older than you, but our family was very politically-attuned, and so much was happening around me irl. Of course, my little girl opinion was to love MLK and to be very afraid of Malcolm—but my second look as an adult, and my third look from more realistic historical perspective dramatically changed my views about Malcolm.

revelette3
 
  2  
Reply Wed 22 Jan, 2020 01:17 pm
@Lash,
My family actually was politically involved as well, but more locally and closer to the things which affected their lives. I remember my parents and other older relatives talking about the civil rights leaders, but I didn't pay any attention to "grown up" talk. All my life I have heard about MLK and knew from their tone he must have been a great man, but other than that, I was pretty ignorant. On one side, we had iron workers, the other was mine workers, so both were very pro-union and thus democrat. I doubt I even really knew what a union was, just remember my mom talking about how important they were and that is why they were democrats.

All I really meant was, those who more mature during the civil rights movement and later the civil rights laws, probably have a much deeper understanding of it. Or those directly affected by the issues. Whites can emphasis, but we can't really appreciate just how bad it was then.

I remember a sermon my dad gave once, talking about these issues and he brought up an experience he had. He had a friend who was black. They did everything together, but when they went to the movies, they had to separate. It didn't stop either of them from being friends or going to the movies, but my dad always remembered it but his feelings probably were not as bad his friend's. Both would have a better appreciation of that period than we would being the children of the age of the civil rights.
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Jan, 2020 01:41 pm
@revelette3,
revelette3 wrote:

My family actually was politically involved as well, but more locally and closer to the things which affected their lives.

Interesting. We were very heavily involved in local and state politics, as well. Had an assortment of State and local politicians in the house.

This is the first time I’ve heard this about your family history. I bet your stories about local mine workers (!!!) and the local iron industry and their effect on local politics and the community would be fascinating. You’ll have to find a spot to share some stories.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Jan, 2020 01:56 pm
@Olivier5,
God it galls me to agree with this guy, but . . . 2016 was Clinton's election to lose, and that's just what she did. She acted as though the convention was a coronation, then she sat around on her fat backside doing nothing for three weeks. Criticized for that, she said she had been ill, something no elderly candidate should ever admit to. Thereafter, she ran an idiotic campaign, failing to visit states that Obama had won easily in 2012. She wasted time and resources in Florida, a state she could never hope to win. When she finally broke down and asked Mr. Obama to campaign for her, she wasted his considerable political capital in Florida. She lost three states which Obama had won and which would have put he over the top: Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania.

She's a Jonah, Democrats shouldn't even talk to her let alone talk about her.
revelette3
 
  2  
Reply Wed 22 Jan, 2020 02:49 pm
@Setanta,
Even given all that, which really can't be disputed, you can't deny those factors I mentioned yesterday didn't help matters. However, she could have easily overcame it. Considering she did well in the popular vote, it would have been hard not to, she should have concentrated more on those states Obama won.
0 Replies
 
revelette3
 
  2  
Reply Wed 22 Jan, 2020 02:55 pm
@Lash,
Thanks but I doubt it, I was kind of known for a dreamer when I was younger, didn't really pay attention unless it was stories my mom told; the only kind of sermons I listened to as well. I do remember a very relevant story which caused a very big friction on both sides of my family between the mine workers and iron workers and my parents getting married. But I didn't learn that until years later, probably everybody else already knew it.
0 Replies
 
glitterbag
 
  2  
Reply Wed 22 Jan, 2020 10:01 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

There is still time to convince more people to vote for Sanders. That's what primaries are for, no?


So, if you were an American (and you might be), would you expect Bernie to actually become president? I like Bernie, I just don't think he can beat anybody.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Jan, 2020 01:28 am
@glitterbag,
Quote:
I like Bernie, I just don't think he can beat anybody.

I like him too, and I think he's got a decent chance this time.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Thu 23 Jan, 2020 01:37 am
@Setanta,
Hey Set. If it's any consolation, i don't like it when you agree with me either.

How's your girlfriend doing? Tell her we all miss her very much, will you? :-)
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  0  
Reply Thu 23 Jan, 2020 04:18 am
People standing around saying why something can’t be done just get in the way of the people doing it.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  0  
Reply Thu 23 Jan, 2020 04:29 am
If Hillary Clinton has proof that a presidential candidate is a Russian asset, shouldn’t she report that to the CIA? Her friends at the FBI!?

It’s time for this McCarthyist smear to be outlawed without hardcore evidence.
Now that she’s being pinned down about her ridiculous statements, she and her ‘spokesmen’ are trying to get the story rewritten.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/10/18/politics/hillary-clinton-tulsi-gabbard/index.html

Former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton said Thursday the Russians are currently "grooming" a Democrat running in the presidential primary to run as a third-party candidate and champion their interests.

The comment appears to be directed at Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, who has been accused of being cozy with Russia in the past.

"I'm not making any predictions, but I think they've got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate," Clinton said, speaking on a podcast with former Obama adviser David Plouffe. "She's the favorite of the Russians."


Clinton never names Gabbard, but there are only five women running for President -- Gabbard, California Sen. Kamala Harris, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar and author Marianne Williamson -- and none of the other woman have been accused of being boosted by Russia.

Clinton did not provide proof about how Russia is "grooming" Gabbard. She and her team pointed to allegations that Russian news and propaganda sites often report on Gabbard's campaign and that moments in Gabbard's campaign have been reportedly amplified by trolls and bots on Twitter with ties to Russia. Gabbard has denied those allegations.

"They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far," Clinton said.

Clinton's team also noted that some of Gabbard's foreign policy views align closely with Russian interests.

Gabbard responded on Twitter Friday afternoon to Clinton's comments.

"Thank you @HillaryClinton. You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain," she tweeted.

"From the day I announced my candidacy, there has been a concerted campaign to destroy my reputation," she added. "We wondered who was behind it and why. Now we know — it was always you, through your proxies and powerful allies in the corporate media and war machine, afraid of the threat I pose."

"It's now clear that this primary is between you and me. Don't cowardly hide behind your proxies. Join the race directly."

Responding to Gabbard's attacks, Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill said, "Divisive language filled with vitriol and conspiracy theories? Can't imagine a better proof point than this."

Asked earlier if the former secretary of state was referring to Gabbard in her comment, Merrill told CNN, "If the nesting doll fits."

Here are the 19 Democrats who are running for president
Here are the 19 Democrats who are running for president
"This is not some outlandish claim. This is reality," Merrill said. "If the Russian propaganda machine, both their state media and their bot and troll operations, is backing a candidate aligned with their interests, that is just a reality, it is not speculation."

On Friday evening, after Clinton's comments drew considerable criticism from both Democrats and Republicans, Merrill backed away from the former secretary of state's allegation, tweeting, "She doesn't say the Russians are grooming anyone. It was a question about Republicans."


Gabbard, in a late August interview with CNN, ruled out a third-party bid.

"I will not," the Hawaii Democrat told CNN. "No, I have ruled that out."

Gabbard has tried to fight off the charge that she is being pushed by Russian interests.

"Just two days ago, the New York Times put out an article saying that I'm a Russian asset and an Assad apologist and all these different smears," Gabbard said, referring to a recent story that said she is being backed by Russians on Twitter. "This morning, a CNN commentator said on national television that I'm an asset of Russia. Completely despicable."

Clinton also accused Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate in both the 2012 and 2016 elections, of being a "Russian asset."

"That's assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not, because she's also a Russian asset," Clinton said. "Yes, she's a Russian asset, I mean, totally. They know they can't win without a third-party candidate."

Stein's campaign, which earned nearly 1.5 million votes in the 2016 election, was part of Russia's meddling efforts, according to a host of congressional reports, including a Senate Intelligence Committee report that indicated Russian social media efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election included messaging in support of Stein.

A summation of the report's findings on "comprehensive anti-Hillary Clinton operations" said while the group's assumed Twitter personas had some pro-Clinton content, "the developed Left-wing Twitter personas were still largely anti-Clinton and expressed pro-Bernie Sanders and pro-Jill Stein sentiments."

Stein, who had dinner with Russian President Vladimir Putin in 2015, has also compared Russian interference in the 2016 election to American overseas efforts.

"I think it would be naive to think that Russia did not try to interfere." But, she said, "Certainly that's what the United States does," though she added, "that's not to justify it."

"Interference is wrong and it's an assault against democracy, and it should be pursued, but (the United States) should pursue it knowing that we do it, too."

CORRECTION: This story has been updated to reflect when Clinton made the comments, to provide more context about Clinton's allegations and with additional comment from a Clinton spokesman.
——————————-
More lies, rewrites and pay-offs, coming soon!!

Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Jan, 2020 04:40 am
@Lash,
At this point, I wonder whether Hillary Clinton isn't a Russian asset... Only half-kidding: she is causing grievous harm to the dem primary.
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Jan, 2020 04:56 am
@Olivier5,
I’m thinking another investigation is in order.🙃
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Jan, 2020 06:34 am
@Olivier5,
She wasn't satisfied with just ruining 2016, now she has to destroy 2020.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Jan, 2020 06:44 am
@Brand X,
God forbid someone else succeeds where she failed, I guess...
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Jan, 2020 06:51 am
Karen Finney

Verified account

@finneyk
12h12 hours ago
More
Because facts matter - turns out I was wrong this morning, Senator Sanders was the most popular Senator in Morning Consult Q4 2019 poll at 65%, fellow Vermonter Patrick Leahy comes in at 64%
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  3  
Reply Thu 23 Jan, 2020 08:46 am
Interesting — I read that Nikki Haley gets a million dollars a year for sitting on the board of Exxon. She must have taken the same crash course in fossil fuels that Hunter did.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 23 Jan, 2020 10:45 am
Der ferk! We’ve taken nasty hits from Warren and Clinton in the past couple of weeks and it has paid off in spades.

Will somebody call Obama and tell him to take a swipe at Bernie? Some more Bernie Bro slurs, maybe??

Political Polls
@PpollingNumbers
#NEW New Hampshire
@WBUR
Poll. (Change since December)

Sanders: 29% (+14)
Buttigieg 17% (-1)
Biden 14% (-3)
Warren 13% (+1)
Klobuchar 6% (+3)
Yang 5% (-)
Gabbard 5% (-)
Steyer 2% (-1)
revelette3
 
  2  
Reply Thu 23 Jan, 2020 10:58 am
@Lash,
Obama would never do it. It's not who he is or how he operates.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 04/25/2024 at 06:09:18