Why isn't John Lewis Racist?

[_Jersey Girl]

Here quickly is Steve Harvey meeting with Trump via CNN.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7mClUx6gM4

DL Hughley laying into both Harvey and Trump (There are multiple others calling Steve racial slurs)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ig3v_BI7iOY

So what I was trying to say was Harvey meets with Trump, people rag all over him.

Are they going to rag all over MLK3 as well?

Believe me, I get right to free speech and people needing to voice their opinions. But this is what gets me. MLK3 saw fit to meet with Trump not because he likes him (does anyone?) but because he's the one folks are going to have to work with. Same thing with Harvey, doesn't like the man, but he's going to try to work with him.

And there's John Lewis boycotting basically sitting it out and sitting on his hands, while others (who have similar concerns regarding inner cities, racial issues) are apparently trying to build some kind of bridge to try to create a workable relationship with Trump to get stuff done and be a presence.

I'm sure I've said nothing with clarity here.

[_Res Ipsa]

Here quickly is Steve Harvey meeting with Trump via CNN.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7mClUx6gM4

DL Hughley laying into both Harvey and Trump (There are multiple others calling Steve racial slurs)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ig3v_BI7iOY

So what I was trying to say was Harvey meets with Trump, people rag all over him.

Are they going to rag all over MLK3 as well?

Believe me, I get right to free speech and people needing to voice their opinions. But this is what gets me. MLK3 saw fit to meet with Trump not because he likes him (does anyone?) but because he's the one folks are going to have to work with. Same thing with Harvey, doesn't like the man, but he's going to try to work with him.

And there's John Lewis boycotting basically sitting it out and sitting on his hands, while others (who have similar concerns regarding inner cities, racial issues) are apparently trying to build some kind of bridge to try to create a workable relationship with Trump to get stuff done and be a presence.

I'm sure I've said nothing with clarity here.

I've watched the Hughley clip three times now. He certainly lays into Trump. But I'm having trouble finding the part where he lays into Steve Harvey. Would you mind helping me out here?

[_The CCC]

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.

I said it wasn't nice, politics isn't a nice business(If you want a friend, get a dog, but don't go into politics). However All political candidates do "oppo" research. If for nothing else than to protect themselves from "oppo" research.

Did you read a Study Guide when you studied for your first drivers license?

I agree that it had very little to no effect on the outcome of the Primaries, and I voted for Bernie in them in my state.

[_Some Schmo]

I've watched the Hughley clip three times now. He certainly lays into Trump. But I'm having trouble finding the part where he lays into Steve Harvey. Would you mind helping me out here?

I believe the confusion comes from the title, since it mentions Harvey (I suppose the meeting triggered the rant? That's the the video would lead us to believe). But the entirety of the rant was directed at Drumpf.

I think Harvey's intentions were good, but it sounds like he was conned by Drumpf. Hughley's mistrust is well-placed.

[_Jersey Girl]

RI,

I read the replies here earlier. I'm not really monitoring the thread at this point. You said you didn't see evidence of Hughley laying into Harvey. You are correct. I wrote poorly. Hughley was laying into the meeting itself and Trump in particular.

If you look on youtube or search online for "Steve Harvey Coon" you'll see various pieces where people are heaping heavy criticism on Steve Harvey.

What annoys me, I guess, is that Steve Harvey and MLK 3 (among others on a variety of issues and concerns) are trying to meet with a guy they obviously dislike in order to try to enter into a constructive relationship with him.

And basically I find politics nauseating as an underlying theme.

[_beastie]

RI,

I read the replies here earlier. I'm not really monitoring the thread at this point. You said you didn't see evidence of Hughley laying into Harvey. You are correct. I wrote poorly. Hughley was laying into the meeting itself and Trump in particular.

If you look on youtube or search online for "Steve Harvey Coon" you'll see various pieces where people are heaping heavy criticism on Steve Harvey.

What annoys me, I guess, is that Steve Harvey and MLK 3 (among others on a variety of issues and concerns) are trying to meet with a guy they obviously dislike in order to try to enter into a constructive relationship with him.

And basically I find politics nauseating as an underlying theme.

Your other underlying theme is that this is an example of media manipulation. I don't understand that reasoning.

by the way, I didn't see any of this. I read Huffington Post every day, which has a liberal slant so I try to be skeptical when the news seems too outrageous. I rely most heavily on npr - audio and online - for serious news. I also check snopes for fun. I didn't see this reported on any of those venues.

Is AOL news feed one of those news feeds that tailors itself to what it thinks you want? So maybe you are being shown news that isn't large on the general radar screen, but what AOL thinks you may read, based on your past reading?

[_Jersey Girl]

beastie,

When something like that shows up on AOL, I read the article and then I search related articles online.

[_Res Ipsa]

RI,

I read the replies here earlier. I'm not really monitoring the thread at this point. You said you didn't see evidence of Hughley laying into Harvey. You are correct. I wrote poorly. Hughley was laying into the meeting itself and Trump in particular.

If you look on youtube or search online for "Steve Harvey Coon" you'll see various pieces where people are heaping heavy criticism on Steve Harvey.

What annoys me, I guess, is that Steve Harvey and MLK 3 (among others on a variety of issues and concerns) are trying to meet with a guy they obviously dislike in order to try to enter into a constructive relationship with him.

And basically I find politics nauseating as an underlying theme.

I think it is hard to imagine what it feels like for many of our African-American fellow citizens to see Trump elected. Nothing in his career to date can give them confidence that he will do anything to help with the situation in many African-American communities. He has a past that involved keeping black folks away from his father's properties. He continues to condemn the African-American Central Park five decades after they were shown to be innocent. He reacted to the first African-American president by spearheading a blatantly racist conspiracy theory accusing the elected president of being an illegitimate president. And in getting elected, he cozied up to the racist, right wing fringe in America that views black folks as inferior or subhuman -- people that want to ethnically cleanse the United States of black people. He's appointed Ben Carson, who admitted several weeks ago that he wasn't qualified to serve in a Cabinet post, in one of the Cabinet positions that will likely affect inner city black folks the most. And he appointed Jeff Sessions as attorney general.

It's hard for me to imagine what a guy like Lewis -- who got the crap beat out of him marching for Civil Rights -- feels like right now.

It think there's a genuine discussion to be had as to how to respond to Trump's election. And I think reasonable arguments can be made for trying to work with Trump as contrasted to opposing him. In fact, there may be very good arguments for using both the carrot and the stick. But it seemed to me that you were going beyond I think Steve Harvey's approach is right and Lewis's is wrong. It sounded to me like you were trying to call Lewis out as being hypocritical, when I don't see any good reason for doing so. In the grand scheme of things, attending the inauguration or not won't matter at all, except to Trump's ego.

I get that you like the notion of giving Trump a chance. Maybe we should give Lewis the same chance, and not conclude that he's doing nothing but sitting on his hands just because he skips a ceremony.

[_EAllusion]

I know a fair amount of black Muslims through my line of work. There is a palpable sense of betrayal for those who have talked about the election with me. It's not because they think people voted for Trump because of they agree with his issues with racism or Islamaphobia (though some certainly did), but because this wasn't a big enough deal to stop people from casting their vote for him. Call it the bigotry of indifference. I think of one person in particular who talked about how she now wonders if people she interacts with voted for Trump and what pain that represents. I know right after the election that thought was almost paralyzing to her. Either you can sympathize with this or you can't.

[_Res Ipsa]

I know a fair amount of black Muslims through my line of work. There is a palpable sense of betrayal for those who have talked about the election with me. It's not because they think people voted for Trump because of they agree with his issues with racism or Islamaphobia (though some certainly did), but because this wasn't a big enough deal to stop people from casting their vote for him. Call it the bigotry of indifference. I think of one person in particular who talked about how she now wonders if people she interacts with voted for Trump and what pain that represents. I know right after the election that thought was almost paralyzing to her. Either you can sympathize with this or you can't.

Your last sentence depressed me more than I already was.