Why isn't John Lewis Racist?

[_Jersey Girl]

RI,

I've read your posts. I'll try to pick this up again tomorrow. Thanks for thinking with me.

Talk later.

[_Res Ipsa]

Sorry, it's late/long day here...fizzling.

Why should we ecpect them to think in the same way?

I would expect a person holding office to be the one trying to do something constructive.

Why? We've just lived through eight years where one of our party's main goals was making the president fail. How many show votes on repealing the ACA did the house hold when they knew it would never be signed? Was that constructive? They were all office holders.

And referring to King, my history may be a little rusty, but didn't he lead protests and support strikes? Would you say they weren't constructive?

I think it would be reasonable for a politician to conclude that boycotting the inauguration would be part of a strategy to accomplish political goals. In that respect, it could be viewed as constructive. You may disagree, but that doesn't make Lewis a hypocrite.

[_Res Ipsa]

RI,

I've read your posts. I'll try to pick this up again tomorrow. Thanks for thinking with me.

Talk later.

You're welcome. It's interesting for me, too.

[_Res Ipsa]

Jersey Girl, the WP article says nothing about lying. I didn't say his recent statement was correct. I said He's an old dude who's been to lots of inaugurations.

If I get any more tired than I am right now, I'm going to start submitting posts in ASL.

He recently stated that this was the first inauguration he's ever sat out as a congressman. The WP article shows that he also opted out of Bush's first inauguration because he didn't believe GWB was a "true president".

He either lied or he CRS.

I don't think it's one or thes other. Given what we know about how memory works, I think brain fart is the most likely explanation.

EDIT: re-reading this, I think most likely is too strong. I think it's an equally reasonable explanation.

[_EAllusion]

The most damaging thing about the wikileaks reveals wasn't the content of any specific email; it was the daily drip, drip of emails being released with the vague innuendo that something damaging is in there. It provided the fertile ground for Donald Trump to make misleading claims about Team Clinton's emails. I also think there is a really good chance a large chunk of the public conflated the wikileaks emails story with the personal server emails story into one megascandal.

[_The CCC]

Jersey Girl:

While not nice working against another candidate of the same political party isn't near the same as a foreign country trying to influence our elections. "Oppo" research is nothing new.

[_Mayan Elephant]

there is a really good chance a large chunk of the public conflated the wikileaks emails story with the personal server emails story into one megascandal.

that definitely happened.

no question about that.

it was not just the conflation of the stories. if you are meaning that some people think wikileaks hacked the private server and all the drips were coming from things that the fbi had, yes, i think that happened. that is actually a conflation of three or more unique tracts of events. and that conflation was, i probably agree with you on this too, fueled by fake news. the example that comes to mind was the silly story that wiki hacked the server and had the transcript of the goldman sachs presentations. a story that ran all over the place, and was, absolutely fabricated nonsense from the get-effing-go. but the weaving of it all together, including the fake news piece, conflated it all into one big huge mess. i think you saw it all as unique pieces on a dishonest puzzle. i think i did. i think the conflation was rampant across the landscape.

what was the common thread - it all solidified her trustworthy issue with the voters. benghazi, not a story to me, at all. but goddamn, never got off the screens. emails. servers. leaks. screwing bernie and watching his followers go all walter (big lebowski) on the joint. this is what happens... when you .... a stranger.....

so yeah. conflated at a level that could not be unwound. that absolutely happened. no question. but going forward, how does one deal with that? it is a huge dilemma. think about the defense from podesta. wiki did not hack her server, they hacked the dnc. the emails about bernie were not on her server, they were on the dnc server. the fbi is not investigating the emails that wiki has, they are investigating 33,000 other emails. the files on weiner's thing, oh, those are not the deleted ones, those are ones we already gave to the fbi. and comey should shut up about it, because lynch is shutting up about it. it was a MASSIVE pretzel where the defenses to one point was an admission to another.

i guess, EA, i am agreeing with you. yes. conflation happened. but it was a conflation of real crap mingled with fake crap. the worst kind. it required the subject to untangle it, not the consumer.

[_Res Ipsa]

Jersey Girl:

While not nice working against another candidate of the same political party isn't near the same as a foreign country trying to influence our elections. "Oppo" research is nothing new.

Well, the DNC shouldn't be doing oppo research, should it? And, in my opinion, what was done went beyond oppo research. I think the most egregious thing was Donna Brazile leaking debate questions to Clinton, but apparently not to Sanders. Given that the topics of the questions were something the candidates certainly expected, I don't think it made any difference in the debate. Still, it's not something that anyone connected with the DNC should have done.

Most of the other things I saw may have reflected a pro-Clinton bias by certain folks in the DNC, but I didn't see evidence of those comments translating into any action that affected the outcome. For example, long after Super Tuesday, which put Sanders in a hole he could not recover from, Debbie Wasserman-Shultz commented "he won't win" in an e-mail. Rather than implying some nefarious plot, that simply reflected the reality of the state of the race.

[_beastie]

Did you follow the story in question? Did you also follow the story about how he met with Steve Harvey? Are you aware of how much racist criticism Trump took regarding the cancellation intersecting with his retaliatory Lewis tweets? Are you aware of the racist criticism that Steve Harvey took?

All of these stories converged and not only does Harvey come up what was the word, oh yeah, a coon, but Trump comes up like a racist POS who doesn't give two damns about visiting the African American museum in DC on MLK Day when what he actually did on MLK Day was MEET with MLK 3!

This is the **** I'm talking about with the press and might I add, celebrities who don't know ****. I am NOT Trump's biggest fan, trust me, I'm not. But this divisive **** jerks around the public and detracts with how this guy is attempting to address major issues.

Not only that, the press is simply fixated on Trump being on Twitter. Granted, the man needs to get the hell off Twitter, but why harp on "how much time" he spends on Twitter when it takes scant seconds to tweet out a couple of lines? Read the comments section of Twitter reports, people are obsessed with how much time he spends on Twitter. How much time has he spent meeting with experts in their respective fields?

Do you think you're being manipulated by the media? Because I sure as hell think we are and I find it offensive to the max.

Where was this story being so heavily reported?

[_Jersey Girl]

You guys. I just now remembered this thread. beastie you wanted to know where these things were reported, I saw most of it on my AOL news, major outlets (CBS/NBC, etc), youtube feed, and tabloid-ish type media as well. The Lewis comments regarding Trump, Trump's Twitter criticism of Lewis and the museum cancellation overlapped each other. Steve Harvey was reported separately with folks calling him coon, spit shining Trump's shoes and such as that. Then finally, the meeting with MLK3 emerged earlier this week. I don't have a timeline to offer you.