I was watching an interview with Condi Rice on NBC this morning, and couldn’t help but wondering why she isn’t and hasn’t been a presidential candidate.
Then I remembered how African Americans and women are treated when the do anything but toe the liberal line.
24 comments:
As opposed to how women and people of color are treated treated when they don't hoe the conservative line? You aren't naive enough to think the GOP is respectful towards black folk and women who disagree with them, are you? If so, really, get out there and talk to real people in the world. Or, just look at your comment and what it suggests about liberals, women and people of color. No doubt, you still won't understand.
Yes, as opposed to how POC are treated by conservatives. I've posted plenty of examples, and see no reason to do so again. But you can start with checking out the Twitter feed of Dana Loesch and the Twitter feed of CJ Pearson.
The "C" word is one of the nicest things that tolerant liberals throw at Loesch, and Pearson is referred to as a N word by the tolerant left on a regular basis. Not to mention he throwing around of the "Uncle Tom" label with regularity.
The fact that you choose to ignore the public face of the progressive movement on social media, and with the violence of BLM and ANTIFA doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
So to be clear, I can totally see Rice being referred to as a "N""C" on social media with regularity based on what I see daily.
I'm not suggesting that "the right" is 100% innocent, but I am suggesting that the vast majority of people on the right have learned to watch what they say on social media.
Maybe, you should stick your head out of your small town southern commune and look at what folx on your side are actually doing, not what you imagine a perfect progressive utopia to be like.
Personally, I'd be willing to bet that you'd find some excuse to unload on Rice if she ever ran, and that it wouldn't be particularly gentle.
Those who don't swing conservative are more often than not attacked on the basis of the substance of their positions, not on anything to do with their sex or race. While there will always be those who aren't civil in their response (like dropping f-bombs on an opponent's blog when typing nicer words are just as easy and more appropriate). One simply doesn't see the level of vitriol toward opponents as one does from the left, the progressive, the "tolerant" and "inclusive".
Your FUCKING PRESIDENT is calling the media an enemy of the people and saying that liberals hate the US, but you're worried about John Q Smith in NYC is using abusive language about your favorite black conservatives on some blog forum?
First, take the plank from your own eye. THEN, maybe, maybe, maybe, you would be able to see to help with the speck in your neighbor's eye.
Good Lord.
Ahhhh, the faux expletive driven outrage ploy. It’s always good for avoiding the truth about those who share one’s political views.
Here’s the difference between us. I’ve criticized Trump, don’t support him, won’t vote for him. You make up excuses not to criticize those on your own side who engage in scurrilous behavior.
You just aren’t wired to criticize your fellow travelers, other than the occasional vague, general, minimal criticism.
FYI, Twitter isn’t a “blog forum”, I’m not only talking about “John Q Smith”, I’m talking about public figures, if you don’t investigate you’ll be able to keep pretending. I understand that it’s valuable to you to keep your rose colored, idealized view of progressives and that you’ll ignore virtually anything to do so.
Your doing so is your very own log.
You do realize that you’ve just excused calling women “c$$$s” and blacks “N#####s” as a “speck”. I guess your more comfortable with racism and misogyny than you let on.
The thing is, people and variety of public formats, conservatives and liberals, say awful things. Of course, I condemn them. I condemn the ugly racist and sexist comments coming from conservatives, and I would do it as well when it comes from liberals.
For my part, I see it more from conservatives, but I'm sure it happens with liberals too. The thing is, I am consistently opposed to such language. But you, you continue to defend this jackass con man of the president, even when you give faint criticism.
But here's your chance, right now, right here. Condemn the president in no uncertain terms for his constant attacks on liberals and the Press. These are dangerous words from a person in power. As opposed to the typical online rants of angry people. Remove the plank from your eye.
1. Your words betray you. “I would do it as well when it comes to liberals.” You “would”, but you don’t. Thanks for the help.
2. You keep claiming that I “defend” Trump yet cNt provide any instance where I’ve defended his character or his actions. It’s possible that I’ve “defended” some of his policies but I did the same for P-BO. It’s how rational adults operate, They support what the agree with, they criticize what they don’t.
3. You keep pulling out this idiotic trope that I must “ condemn the president in no uncertain terms”, I play along and do so, then you ignore that reality and pretend that it didn’t happen. Just on the face of it it’s a ridiculous demand, no one is 100% good or 100% bad, so it’s absurd to judge someone that way. (I guess you’re exempt from the whole “judge not” thing). I treat all politicians the same, I’ll praise them when they’ve done something I agree with, or that is good. I’ll criticize them when I disagree or when they do something bad. Again, it’s how rational adults treat people.
I’ve already and repeatedly condemned Trump for his numerous moral failures and for his inability to admit his moral and ethical failings. I’ve condemned Trump for his narcissism and for his inability to exert self control.
Beyond that, I’ll give him the same grace I give everyone else I disagree with.
Ultimately we’re back to your double standards. You insist that I do something you won’t do. I’ll freely admit that I have “logs” in my eye, it’s how most believers operate. I’m much more worried about folx who pretend that their eyes are free from any obstruction.
No double standards. I don't/haven't posted about idiot random liberals OR conservatives making rude or racist comments on Twitter or in comments. OF COURSE, any who do so are wrong. But I'm less concerned about random civilians doing that than I am about elected officials.
And, no, I have not condemned supposed liberals making these comments when I haven't read them and am not aware of them because - and follow me closely here - BECAUSE I HAVE NOT READ THEM AND AM NOT AWARE OF THEM.
I generally avoid talking about alleged comments made where I have not read them or their context. I am a rational adult, that way.
Once again thank you for both making my point and contradicting yourself in one comment.
I understand that you choose not to see the vileness that comes from the left (including elected officials), so that you can pretend that it doesn’t exist.
The double standard is that you demand that others do what you won’t do. Of course it’s a double standard, that’s your thing.
You’ve made much of Trump and his stupid lies, while ignoring the stupid lies from current DFL presidential candidates. I guess stupid lies get a pass under a certain threshold.
You keep hiding from those on your side and keep living in your fantasy world. It’s alright with me.
Of course you're both goofy regarding Trump and his moral failings...Dan way the hell more so than most because he's a hateful lefty. I'm still waiting for someone like Dan to provide me an example of a Trump "lie" that's worse than any of the many Dems and "progressives" tell as a matter of routine ideological belief. What passes for lies from Trump are insignificant at worst. Indeed, Dan's lies about Trump are worse than any I've heard from Trump...and certainly worse than any lie any lefty has been able to produce from Trump.
So regarding Trump's moral failings, which has manifested in the slightest during his presidency? His punching back at those who attack him...even when there are times it would have been better to say nothing? Oh the horror. How will we ever survive?
Dan calls him a con man. What con has he run since he was elected? Where has he done any harm at all? Oh, yeah...he upheld established law regarding illegal aliens.
The fact is that the good he's accomplished far outweighs any false concerns of those like Dan, as well as any possibly legitimate concerns by those like Craig and Stan. He's done enough thus far to assuage most concerns I originally had.
Art,
I know it’s strange, but I believe that the most important factor in a president is character. The same reason I couldn’t vote for either Clinton, is why I can’t support Trump. Just because someone with low character can do things I agree with doesn’t change my position on the importance of character.
That Trump's character is less than desirable (see what I did there?), is hardly a legitimate reason when the worst aspects of his character haven't come in to play during his presidency. All we see thus far are the most insignificant of flaws no worse than that of others before him, or simply just different than the flaws of those others. You and Stan are thus placing WAY TOO MUCH importance on his character when it is weighed against all the good things he has done, is doing and will likely continue to do. Worse is to continue to hold out given the very real possibility that the loonies will do all they can to insure one of their own...all with character far worse than Trump's on his worst day...will supplant him. Now, with his proven record as president, I am far less concerned with his past indiscretions as I can ignore them totally and support that record, if not him personally. I took a chance on him the first time around and he's more than rewarded my gamble. That should be glaringly obvious for anyone who cares about future generations. Said another way, it's the wrong hill to die on spiritually, morally or any other way. His record has earned everyone's support. Give yours.
That’s where we disagree. I can’t think of anything more important than character when deciding who to support for elective office.
To be sure there are instances of lesser of two evils, but that doesn’t diminish the value and importance on character.
I have no desire to be like those we see on the left who approach everything political as if the ends justify the means. Where they’ll accept anything no matter how poorly vetted as long as it hurts their opponents and who’ll ignore all manner of failings of their own as long as they win.
So how much good must an imperfect man do in order to overcome the great flaws you perceive? Which flaws are so grievous that there is no amount of good that can ever make up for them? Do we hear of womanizing? Adultery? Criminal acts? Or are we simply dealing with more petty and relatively insignificant transgressions?
I say the latter, which pale when laid against his good work as president. This isn't an end justifying means situation. It's putting the nation at risk because Trump is imperfect. Yet he doesn't promote his imperfections...he promotes the nation and seems legitimately devoted to its betterment in just the way we expect a president ought.
In Trump’s case I’d like to see some genuine humility and admission that he’s done things that are wrong. His quote about not needing forgiveness, or words to that effect, is an example of this. I’d like to see even the smallest bit of repentance, for someone who claims to be s Christian he doesn’t act like one.
I can certainly acknowledge that he’s done things I think are good, but I’m not an ends justify the means guy for the most part.
I’m not even arguing that his character isn’t better than Clinton. Just that I highly value character in public officials. I’m simply applying the same standards to people on both sides of the aisle.
Art,
One additional thought. When Clinton ran back in the day, I realized that I have a hard time believing that someone who would treat their wedding vows cavalierly would hold their oath of office in any higher esteem.
I can’t hold DFL candidates to one standard and GOP to another. It makes me just like those why decry Trump for his lies, while extolling the virtues of Hillary.
It’s as much about me as it is about Trump. It doesn’t mean I can’t support things he does or that I’m pulling the “He’s not my president.” Idiocy. It means that we live in a world where someone like Rice will probably never run, and that’s a shame.
I still wonder how much the liberal mantra that every single GOP candidate was, “evil, corrupt, stupid, lying, etc.”, benefited Trump. He was the only one that pushed back and people respected that. It’s interesting to consider the possibility that if the libs had acknowledged the fact that Cruz or Rubio weren’t the spawn of Satan, that we could have had someone of higher character.
"In Trump’s case I’d like to see some genuine humility and admission that he’s done things that are wrong."
Yeah, that would be swell. But it wouldn't have any more benefit than to improve your willingness to support his re-election. It wouldn't have any effect on his job performance regardless of how sincere he is. His job performance has been more than good enough to compel my vote, and should be good enough to compel anyone who cares about the nation. There's no justification to primary the guy, and the risk in doing so is too great. In 2024 we can go back to seeking an angel from among hopefully a more conservative pool of candidates. Until then, this guy needs to be re-elected. I prefer people of character, too, but I'm not willing to see the nation suffer over principle when the greater principle of a strong and thriving nation is at stake.
I’m not saying the he should be primaried, I’m just saying that I won’t support him. I’ll admit that it might be different if I lived somewhere else. But Hitler would win here if he ran DFL.
I live in a Dem state myself. That's no excuse, as there's no way to know how many who would vote GOP would make a difference if they didn't sit out. There's also no way to know how many are sitting out in the first place. Further, voting for Trump is supporting his policies, or the better party, not necessarily supporting Donald Trump himself.
Said another way, I support his presidency because it's been a good one, even if not absolutely perfect. As such, his presidency needs to continue for a second term, in which time I would hope we could find a more pleasing conservative to support afterwards. Just saw a piece backing up how much better the economy is doing in the face of all this hope for a recession, as well as compared to the rest of the world. Should this continue, we'd be in a better position to have his second term followed by another Republican victory. Should he be beaten by a Dem, the damage caused by the Dem's destructive policies will be blamed on Trump, and a second Dem term would follow, along with increased damage. Principle won't mean jack at that point.
Look, I understand your position. A good friend of mine did the whole “hold my nose” and voted for Trump thing as well. I’m not saying I’d never go that route, but at this point I value my integrity more.
I have to say that I don't find my integrity at all tarnished by my vote for Trump. I voted for Cruz in the primary, and I wonder if we'd be better off had he won the whole thing. In some ways, I think not, because much of what we've realized beneficially had to be the result of Trump's unique...uh..."style". He does things differently, if you'll allow a gross understatement.
But when he won the primary, my course was clear. Hillary could not win. My integrity as one who claims concern for the nation, and the future my children and grandchildren will inhabit, demanded I act in the only way that would prevent the worst possible outcome. Vote for Trump, even though my state is filled with idiots who would no doubt vote for Clinton and overwhelm those of us who voted for Trump. Despite that reality, we got lucky and my integrity remains unstained by virtue of doing the right thing with two seemingly bad options. Integrity, honor and virtue does not always have the luxury of black/white decisions (though I found this to be one nonetheless), and to do nothing can be the worse choice of all and make a mockery of those character traits.
Now, as president, and one who stills makes one cringe all to often, he has proven himself in the job and it is THAT which demands support, not his character. THAT ship has sailed and he's done nothing that justifies continued withholding of support. I don't care about his tweets, except as they sometimes take the focus off of more serious stuff, and I don't care that he says things in a clumsy manner. I care about results that have not been so many and so effective from any previous president for far too long. It's why we vote for president. In a very real sense, your integrity is more at risk by worrying so much about your integrity.
Personal integrity is by nature a personal thing. What I might feel is necessary, is different from you.
My situation is that I was very vocal about how Clinton’s infidelity raised questions for me. I can’t very well change my standards because it’s someone on “my side”. We see how this works for others, why would I want to go down the road of embracing double standards.
My point is that you made your point the first time around. But now he's been elected anyway and has served well in that regard. Thus, you'd now be supporting his good work, whereas before he had a chance to work, his character and alleged personal life were all we had to go on.
I would also re-iterate the horror of a Hillary win, had that been the case, as a legitimate reason to set aside his character flaws...not "ignore" them or pretend there's a different standard, but set them aside as insignificant compared to the potential danger to the nation of a Hillary win. We're not talking about Trump running against a Democratic Bob Dole, Ross Perot or George H. W. Bush. We're talking about him running against Hillary Clinton, whose own character together with her politics would have been a disaster for America.
What's more, Bubba carried on with his sexual perversions while in office. Trump has not. There is no comparison between the two on that score, nor is there any based on political accomplishments.
I understand you feel differently. I understand personal integrity. I'm trying to make the point that you're taking it to an unfortunate extreme. MY personal integrity won't allow me to permit a Hillary, or now a Harris, Sanders, Biden, Warren, or any of those other losers gain power and further corrupt our nation, both politically and spiritually.
Art, the difference as I see it, is that we have different standards by which we allot our support and votes. Yours is right for you, mine is right for me. I don’t see the problem here.
Post a Comment