Hillary Clinton is Done

Status
Not open for further replies.
Skeptic Ginger said:
My only gripe with that speech is her claim, people are saying "change" is too hard. That's dishonest. People are saying Sanders' approach to change won't work, not that change can't happen.
Click to expand...

That's because to those actually listening, and paying attention, Sanders is the only REAL change! HRC is status quo!
 
16.5 said:
:eye-poppi

She is equating the Reconstruction and implementation of the 13th-15th amendments to the Jim Crow era....

that is absolutely ridiculous.
Click to expand...

How is that ridiculous? How do you think the Jim Crow laws came to be?
 
Travis said:
How is that ridiculous? How do you think the Jim Crow laws came to be?
Click to expand...

Yes. There was a comma in her statement. We had reconstruction, we had the era of Jim Crow laws where individual states were allowed to re-instate all the restrictions prior to the 14th, except actual slavery. They were not simultaneous. Radical reconstruction was partly just plain old policy of the elected, partly a reaction to the radical hands-off policy of Johnson, when the southern states established the "Black Codes" in the aftermath of their defeat.

Reconstruction didn't last all that long. Jim Crow certainly did. To be more historically accurate, she should have said "We had slavery, a Civil War, Black Codes, Reconstruction and Jim Crow. She chose to mention two conflicting periods (conflicting with each other), Reconstruction and Jim Crow.

Only if you're looking for offense or have a particular hobby horse (as I do - I'm particularly fond of insisting that the Johnson era Black Codes be included in discussions of the era) can you take much exception to her statement.
 
Foolmewunz said:
Yes. There was a comma in her statement. We had reconstruction, we had the era of Jim Crow laws where individual states were allowed to re-instate all the restrictions prior to the 14th, except actual slavery. They were not simultaneous. Radical reconstruction was partly just plain old policy of the elected, partly a reaction to the radical hands-off policy of Johnson, when the southern states established the "Black Codes" in the aftermath of their defeat.

Reconstruction didn't last all that long. Jim Crow certainly did. To be more historically accurate, she should have said "We had slavery, a Civil War, Black Codes, Reconstruction and Jim Crow. She chose to mention two conflicting periods (conflicting with each other), Reconstruction and Jim Crow.

Only if you're looking for offense or have a particular hobby horse (as I do - I'm particularly fond of insisting that the Johnson era Black Codes be included in discussions of the era) can you take much exception to her statement.
Click to expand...

No there wasn't, cripes that spin is utterly ridiculous too. She said "but instead we had reconstruction.... People in the south feeling totally discouraged and defiant."

Typical Hillary apologist spin... How silly.
 
16.5 said:
No there wasn't, cripes that spin is utterly ridiculous too. She said "but instead we had reconstruction.... People in the south feeling totally discouraged and defiant."

Typical Hillary apologist spin... How silly.
Click to expand...

Typical HDS spin. How typical.

Are you denying that the Jim Crow era was in part natural intransigence by the vanquished and was given justification by Reconstruction? This conversation probably belongs in History, but is germane to the topic as you seem to be unaware of the history or intentionally ignoring it.

In the immediate aftermath of the war, Johnson allowed the states previously in rebellion complete freedom to elect state legislatures and pass laws grievously restricting blacks and making them subject to ad hoc arrest if even transiting a given location. Would that have been allowed if Lincoln was still alive and serving until '68? "But instead..." refers back to the preceding statement, which was that she believes he (Lincoln) would have found a way to address the issues and avoid the pitfalls that Johnson allowed.

The excesses of Jim Crow were in reaction to the excesses of Reconstruction which were, in turn, in reaction to the excesses of 1865-66 and the Black Codes. Using ten years of Reconstruction as an excuse for a hundred years of Jim Crow is popular among the Heritage Not Hate crowd. I don't know anyone who doesn't acknowledge that there were some stupid actions allowed under Reconstruction. But that's mostly just an excuse for doin' what comes natcherly... returning to the old order, which is what was not only allowed but was codified during Jim Crow.
 
Foolmewunz said:
Typical HDS spin. How typical.

.
Click to expand...

Head Desk. Literally ignores everything she said, and actual non-spin analysis from people who know better:

Ta-Nehisi Coates is a national correspondent at The Atlantic, where he writes about culture, politics, and social issues. He is the author of The Beautiful Struggle and Between the World and Me. His view: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/hillary-clinton-reconstruction/427095/:

And the fact that a presidential candidate would imply that Jim Crow and Reconstruction were equal, that the era of lynching and white supremacist violence would have been prevented had that same violence not killed Lincoln, and that the violence was simply the result of rancor, the absence of a forgiving spirit, and an understandably “discouraged” South is chilling.
Click to expand...

Huff Po: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-reconstruction_us_56a7f9c3e4b04936c0e8a6c9

Slate: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...ns_stop_saying_lincoln_wasn_t_polarizing.html

The Root: http://www.theroot.com/articles/pol...eel_about_blacklivesmatter_let_s_look_at.html

Vox: http://www.vox.com/2016/1/26/10835262/hillary-clinton-reconstruction

I assume you did not read any of these before treating us to more Hillary spin....
 
Last edited:
16.5 said:
Head Desk. Literally ignores everything she said, and actual non-spin analysis from people who know better:

Ta-Nehisi Coates is a national correspondent at The Atlantic, where he writes about culture, politics, and social issues. He is the author of The Beautiful Struggle and Between the World and Me. His view: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/hillary-clinton-reconstruction/427095/:



Huff Po: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-reconstruction_us_56a7f9c3e4b04936c0e8a6c9

Slate: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...ns_stop_saying_lincoln_wasn_t_polarizing.html

The Root: http://www.theroot.com/articles/pol...eel_about_blacklivesmatter_let_s_look_at.html

Vox: http://www.vox.com/2016/1/26/10835262/hillary-clinton-reconstruction

I assume you did not read any of these before treating us to more Hillary spin....
Click to expand...

While I'd read some of them, I'll proceed to read all if it makes you happy. Don't want you hurting your head on your desk, after all. (Is that the same desk? Seems you've been banging your head against a desk when anyone refuses to see things through your HDS fog, for quite some time, now.)

Notwithstanding arguments from authority (unlike "Rule of So", an actual fallacy), I don't need to know what others spin this to read. I have her statement. And I have my own knowledge of the history of the country; I don't need to have it re-spun for me.

Agenda politics will do that. Writers/Columnists will pick their own issues. The objection seems to be that she didn't pause when she referred to the Jim Crow era and say, "which was much worse, much much worse". I read it as referring to the string of action/reaction/reaction/reaction/reaction. Does my mention of the sequence being Black Codes to Reconstruction to Jim Crow mean that I think any of them is better? Or to take up Coates' point, "less bad"?

In order... the Black Codes were the product of a misguided vision by an idiot, Andrew Johnson. "Well, we forgive you, so all you leaders of the Confederacy, tomorrow morning yer Merkins agin and can take charge of your states. Welcome home." And when they passed laws that showed what they would do with control of those states, he did nothing. He should've jailed the lot of them. I think Hillary's saying that Abe (since his term would've been until '68(Mar. of '69) would not have made the "mistakes" Johnson made. Lincoln was a conciliator who carried a big stick. He had the army on the ground in '65 and '66 and I don't think he would've allowed that two year era to occur.

Personally, that's what I believe Hillary was referring to, and where I draw the link to from Black Codes to Reconstruction and thence to Jim Crow.

You are (as are several of the articles linked) arguing that "what she didn't say is more important than what she said". It's a reach.
 
Last edited:
Foolmewunz said:
Personally, that's what I believe Hillary was referring to....
Click to expand...

'k.

all those african american writers and others on the left with their agendas, and their HDS. Thank GOD they have white folk like Hillary to explain things to them, and folk like you to natter on about "black codes" that, curiously, Hillary never remotely mentioned.

But that is what you personally believe, that and accusing people of HDS... oh yeah, and Hillary 2016.

:thumbsup:
 
16.5 said:
'k.

all those african american writers and others on the left with their agendas, and their HDS. Thank GOD they have white folk like Hillary to explain things to them, and folk like you to natter on about "black codes" that, curiously, Hillary never remotely mentioned.

But that is what you personally believe, that and accusing people of HDS... oh yeah, and Hillary 2016.

:thumbsup:
Click to expand...

It's what I believe too. It was the first thing that popped in my head when I heard her say that. I was astonished to later find out people had issues with what she said since none of it is factually incorrect.

The Jim Crow laws were a reaction. Her statement is therefore correct.
 
Travis said:
It's what I believe too. It was the first thing that popped in my head when I heard her say that. I was astonished to later find out people had issues with what she said since none of it is factually incorrect.

The Jim Crow laws were a reaction. Her statement is therefore correct.
Click to expand...

hey, feel free to say that all you want, scream it from the mountaintop, you are entitled to your opinion.

And I can link several authors who flat out say that she is totally wrong.

And numerous left wing writers and historians are entitled to point out that Hillary's statement is wrong and awful.
 
16.5 said:
hey, feel free to say that all you want, scream it from the mountaintop, you are entitled to your opinion.

And I can link several authors who flat out say that she is totally wrong.

And numerous left wing writers and historians are entitled to point out that Hillary's statement is wrong and awful.
Click to expand...

Any port in a storm, eh?
 
Foolmewunz said:
Any port in a storm, eh?
Click to expand...

Yep! Port Coates, leading left wing and African American intellectual.

According to you he has HDS and an "agenda" (the irony of which was fantastic)

Honestly, did you not google the issue before you went into full Shillaries attack mode?

Seriously, the entire left is busting her chops and you are embarrassing yourself sticking up for her.

Acknowledge she made a mistake, pivot and move on. Two days later and we are still talking about her Arkansas understanding of reconstruction.
 
16.5 said:
Acknowledge she made a mistake, pivot and move on. Two days later and we are still talking about her Arkansas understanding of reconstruction.
Click to expand...

Seems even the main endorsement from Iowa, feels the same about HRC!
"The Des Moines Register, as we said earlier, gave you an endorsement," Cuomo said. "Did it question your judgment, though, when it came to the email issue?" he asked.

According to the newspaper, Hillary "is not a perfect candidate, as evidenced the way she has handled the furor over her private email server. In our endorsement of her 2008 campaign for president, we wrote that 'when she makes a mistake, she should just say so.' That appears to be a lesson she has yet to fully embrace."
Click to expand...

Apple/Tree.:D
 
16.5 said:
Yep! Port Coates, leading left wing and African American intellectual.

According to you he has HDS and an "agenda" (the irony of which was fantastic)

Honestly, did you not google the issue before you went into full Shillaries attack mode?

Seriously, the entire left is busting her chops and you are embarrassing yourself sticking up for her.

Acknowledge she made a mistake, pivot and move on. Two days later and we are still talking about her Arkansas understanding of reconstruction.
Click to expand...

If the entire left jumped off a bridge, would you jump off of one (and can I choose the bridge)?

You seriously don't see the distinction that this is in-fighting in the middle/left about controlling the language of the discussion. The embarrassment is the HDS sufferers hunting the press pages for anything that you think will harm Clinton. Doesn't matter if it's rabid right wing frothing at the mouth, measured and oblique criticism from Warren, or the monomaniacs arguing that their particular hobby horse is not being given enough attention.

You are citing other people's objections/criticisms because they read as "against Hillary". You wanted to know if I'd read the articles. I probably read them and as I read for content rather than sound bytes, probably understood them for what they are.

Her strangely worded statement does not support the criticism. Coates' idea that this is what she learned in school does not hold with the area she went to school (it works well where I did). I think in an effort to be all things to all people (something that's hurt her politically in the past) she made a broad brush statement, the key to which is that she believes that St. Abraham of Illinois would've found ways around the pitfalls and traps that Reconstruction was bound to have. I don't necessarily agree with her that Honest Abe was guaranteed to have figured out a solution, but I don't see her claiming equal problems with Reconstruction and Jim Crow. I see her making a list and trying to include comments on all views.
 
Foolmewunz said:
If the entire left jumped off a bridge, would you jump off of one (and can I choose the bridge)?

You seriously don't see the distinction that this is in-fighting in the middle/left about controlling the language of the discussion. The embarrassment is the HDS sufferers hunting the press pages for anything that you think will harm Clinton. Doesn't matter if it's rabid right wing frothing at the mouth, measured and oblique criticism from Warren, or the monomaniacs arguing that their particular hobby horse is not being given enough attention.

You are citing other people's objections/criticisms because they read as "against Hillary". You wanted to know if I'd read the articles. I probably read them and as I read for content rather than sound bytes, probably understood them for what they are.

Her strangely worded statement does not support the criticism. Coates' idea that this is what she learned in school does not hold with the area she went to school (it works well where I did). I think in an effort to be all things to all people (something that's hurt her politically in the past) she made a broad brush statement, the key to which is that she believes that St. Abraham of Illinois would've found ways around the pitfalls and traps that Reconstruction was bound to have. I don't necessarily agree with her that Honest Abe was guaranteed to have figured out a solution, but I don't see her claiming equal problems with Reconstruction and Jim Crow. I see her making a list and trying to include comments on all views.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: he typed HDS again!

Someone has a bit of HDS, and it ain't me.

She said something stupid, suck it up and move on. You can't really think that all that bull **** you just typed is making a point, do you? I cited it because it is the type of tone deaf garbage that Hillary is famous for, and her fans immediately rose to the bait and made fools of themselves in a misguided attempt to spin it for her.

Coates has an "agenda". Can I quote you on that? Lolz.
 
16.5 said:
:rolleyes: he typed HDS again!

Someone has a bit of HDS, and it ain't me.
Click to expand...

I love when you teach by example. A perfect example of attempts at controlling the language of the debate. One (as in everyone) knows what HDS is, and can readily identify the sufferers(for which, you're the poster boy). You've been trying for months to re-frame it in sophisticated I Know You Are But What Am I tactics, but it's not working.

She said something stupid, suck it up and move on. You can't really think that all that bull **** you just typed is making a point, do you? I cited it because it is the type of tone deaf garbage that Hillary is famous for, and her fans immediately rose to the bait and made fools of themselves in a misguided attempt to spin it for her.
Click to expand...

Actually, I already said it was poorly worded and a lousy attempt at being all things to all people. So we've got some common ground. My argument is with the interpretation of her comments as agreeing with the Reb-Symp revisionist history of the 19th and 20th century. That may be a topic you have no knowledge of, so you're falling back on "Lookie, here! Found someone else who doesn't like Hillary."

Coates has an "agenda". Can I quote you on that? Lolz.
Click to expand...

You don't think Coates has an agenda? Have you read his books? Have you followed the discussions on his concept of reparations? Do you know anything about Coates other than that you found him saying bad stuff against (take a deep breath) OMG Hillary Witch! "Agenda" doesn't mean "bad", although to those with limited vocabularies it has that connotation. I happen to agree with Coates' agenda. As I do with the agenda of #blacklivesmatter. It doesn't mean it's not an agenda. And it doesn't mean that I'm going to agree with them on every topic. Sometimes they err.

As you well know, I'm not a Hillary supporter. She's my fallback position to beat the GOP, which is my "agenda".
 
Foolmewunz said:
I love when you teach by example. A perfect example of attempts at controlling the language of the debate. One (as in everyone) knows what HDS is, and can readily identify the sufferers(for which, you're the poster boy). You've been trying for months to re-frame it in sophisticated I Know You Are But What Am I tactics, but it's not working.



Actually, I already said it was poorly worded and a lousy attempt at being all things to all people. So we've got some common ground. My argument is with the interpretation of her comments as agreeing with the Reb-Symp revisionist history of the 19th and 20th century. That may be a topic you have no knowledge of, so you're falling back on "Lookie, here! Found someone else who doesn't like Hillary."



You don't think Coates has an agenda? Have you read his books? Have you followed the discussions on his concept of reparations? Do you know anything about Coates other than that you found him saying bad stuff against (take a deep breath) OMG Hillary Witch! "Agenda" doesn't mean "bad", although to those with limited vocabularies it has that connotation. I happen to agree with Coates' agenda. As I do with the agenda of #blacklivesmatter. It doesn't mean it's not an agenda. And it doesn't mean that I'm going to agree with them on every topic. Sometimes they err.

As you well know, I'm not a Hillary supporter. She's my fallback position to beat the GOP, which is my "agenda".
Click to expand...

'K.

:rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom