Alt-righter plows into crowd of anti-racists in Charlottesville

[drbrumley]

So as a "conservative", I am responsible to figure out why left wing groups feel at home and in sympathetic union with us "conservatives?"

 

[Lon]

Anna posted this toward the end of the now locked and Hitler sealed thread on the topic. I can't run the link because of that so there's the attribution and here's the post:


President Trump’s false claim that counter-demonstrators lacked a permit

“You had a group on the other side that came charging in without a permit, and they were very, very violent. . . . You had a lot of people in that [white nationalist] group that were there to innocently protest and very legally protest, because you know — I don’t know if you know — they had a permit. The other group didn’t have a permit.”

— President Trump, remarks during a news conference on infrastructure, Aug. 15, 2017
In blaming both sides for the violence in Charlottesville that left one person dead, President Trump twice asserted that the people protesting white supremacists and neo-Nazis lacked a permit, unlike the groups that gathered to protest the possible removal of a statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee.

But that’s turned out to be false, according to documents and interviews obtained by our Washington Post colleague Justin Moyer.

The Facts

Walt Heinecke, a professor at the University of Virginia, told Moyer that he received a “special events certificate of approval” for events at McGuffey Park and Justice Park — sites blocks from Emancipation Park, where white nationalists had a permit for a Saturday rally. A car allegedly driven by James Alex Fields Jr. rammed into counter-protesters, killing a 32-year-old woman, on Fourth Street, which runs adjacent to Justice Park.

The document is below, with Heinecke’s address and cellphone number removed.

2017 Public Demonstration Unity and Love Free Speech August 12 2017Certificate of Approvalby GlennKesslerWP on Scribd

Charlottesville spokeswoman Miriam I. Dickler told Moyer that only one permit was issued for Emancipation Park — the one received by white nationalists staging the “Unite the Right” rally. However, counter-protesters did not need permits to protest that rally, she said.

“Please bear in mind that people do not need a permit to enter a public park, even when another event is scheduled to take place there, nor are they required to have one to be on streets or sidewalks adjacent to or outside the park,” Dickler said in an email.

On Friday night, 250 white nationalists carrying torches marched and chanted anti-Semitic slogans on the U-Va. campus, where they encountered about 30 students who had locked arms around the base of a statue of Thomas Jefferson, according to a Washington Post timeline. Brief clashes took place, resulting in some injuries. U-Va. allows access to open spaces and so permits were not required for such marches, according to a statement by U-Va. President Teresa A. Sullivan condemning the “intimidating and abhorrent behavior displayed by the alt-right protestors.”

On Saturday, when the major violence occurred, people started gathering in Emancipation Park. Charlottesville Police Chief Al S. Thomas Jr. told The Post the white-nationalist groups went back on a plan that would have kept them separated from the counter-protesters. The two sides started clashing, and by 11:22 a.m. police had declared an unlawful assembly.

“I think what the president is trying to say is that counter-protesters did not have a permit to be in Emancipation Park,” Heinicke said. “That’s irrelevant.” He added: “Either way you cut it, the president got it wrong.”

The White House declined to comment.

Imho? Hogwash. If "one" group needed a permit, so did the other. Rather this is poor politics, judgement, and bias. Trump was correct, the supposed 'spokeswoman,' wrong. They may have had a certificate of approval, but such was fueling a political fire, on purpose. The department that issued such should be culpable for it. At any rate, Trump is and was correct. One group had a permit, the other did not.

 

[drbrumley]

Rather, if crackhead after crackhead keeps stepping around other cars to come after yours, you might want to figure out what it is about yours they find so attractive.

Because maybe he has a nicer car?

 

[Town Heretic]

So as a "conservative", I am responsible to figure out why left wing groups feel at home and in sympathetic union with us "conservatives?"

I don't care if you think they're left wing groups. They don't agree. They like and support you. They don't like and support the left. So leave your speculative fantasy, the right wing state of perpetual denial on the point and figure out why.

Because maybe he has a nicer car?

In what sense? Or, the question remains. That no one on the right will grapple with it speaks volumes.

 

[Lon]

You can call them anything you like....it's the actions that demonstrate Christ in their lives.....Christianity 101

Christians do not generally condone vigilantism of Abortion doctors and clinics. I think, each of us is somewhat correct to say any particular belongs to a certain group. On this, calling these 'fundamental Christians' is about like saying all KKK are Baptists. :nono: Even this thread, imho, is about being 'guilty by association.' In the same way most of us conservative fundamental Christians felt Obama was VERY partisan against us (let alone white-male), it is equally true, I think, Trump is partisan to some degree. Guilty for these demonstrations? :nono: Not at all. It is silly to think so and I'm a bit surprised. I did not vote for Trump simply because others espoused my ideals better and I voted for another. Bush was worse than Trump. Obama was worse than Trump. A lot of people will opinionate, but there is no way according to statistic after statistic to argue with any fortitude. Obama is known as the 'Great Divider' by partisan and fringe interest. He will NEVER escape that label. Trump will not run close, so there is no sense in a thread like this. What we ARE seeing, is Obama's 8 year legacy in aftermath. After that, regarding extremism, it makes not a lot of sense, to me, to carry a thread about what inept city officials have done and allowed to happen. Blame? Surely neither the Alt-left or the Alt-right. They were rather willing dupes in a tragedy bought into by those who foster this kind of news. Willingly or ineptly? To me, there is not much excuse. There 'should' have been no inept handling. That's the real tragedy to me. If we are going to blame anyone, I think "The Great Divider" must take a bit of blame. He didn't unify us at all. He 'may' have brought some odd kind of unity to Democrats but AGAINST the rest of the country. He was no gift to humanity and hurt this nation. Irreparably? I don't think so, but he will always be called "The Great Divider" because he was, and a worse racist than any president I've known. In history? Perhaps not, but that hardly matters.

 

[Town Heretic]

Even this thread, imho, is about being 'guilty by association.'

The reason for the thread was Nick closing his to conversation with a Hitler bit, of all things. The reason for the title was to tweak the bias filtered title of the original thread.

In the same way most of us conservative fundamental Christians felt Obama was VERY partisan against us (let alone white-male),

I don't know entirely what you mean. First, how do you define "fundamental Christians" because I believe, fundamentally, in Christ and his church and I don't begin to share your opinion on the former president, certainly not in some of the particulars you'll advance here. What did Obama do to fundamentalist Christians, in particular, let alone white males?

it is equally true, I think, Trump is partisan to some degree.

I think Trump's partisanship is for Trump and to the same degree that the sun is hot.

Guilty for these demonstrations? Not at all. It is silly to think so and I'm a bit surprised.

I'd say he's greatly contributed to the problem. I've said so and set out why in this very thread. He has encouraged the worst of the fringe, which is why we have such a public problem with emboldened elements of them moving into the public square.

I did not vote for Trump simply because others espoused my ideals better and I voted for another. Bush was worse than Trump. Obama was worse than Trump.

Worse in what way (for either)?

A lot of people will opinionate, but there is no way according to statistic after statistic to argue with any fortitude.

Statistics about what?

Obama is known as the 'Great Divider' by partisan and fringe interest.

But who takes them seriously? I mean outside of Congress.

He will NEVER escape that label.

I don't know anyone who calls him that. So maybe a qualified, "He'll never escape that label among the few who use it that most don't take seriously outside of Congress" would be in order.

Trump will not run close, so there is no sense in a thread like this.

This thread is about the Charlottesville killing first. Or it was...Trump played his part in making it possible, and there's no sense in protesting the point, though I'm happy to engage on it.

What we ARE seeing, is Obama's 8 year legacy in aftermath.

I think there's some truth to it. The election of a black man drove the fringe right crazy. Anyone who threw them a crumb was going to whip that into an even frothier lather. . .The concerted effort of "no" in lieu of ideas from the beltway Republicans meant to end his administration in one go failed, and that embittered a lot of people who invested a great deal of energy, time, and money into the effort, along with Fox News, who doubled down on the rhetorical siege machinery.

After that, regarding extremism, it makes not a lot of sense, to me, to carry a thread about what inept city officials have done and allowed to happen

Me either, which is why I didn't do it (and I started the thread). Though there was certainly more than a little mishandling by the powers that be in the city, some of it possibly reducing to political maneuvering.

Blame? Surely neither the Alt-left or the Alt-right. They were rather willing dupes in a tragedy bought into by those who foster this kind of news.

If the racists don't co-op or begin (depending on who you believe) the sad memorial business and parlay it into a chance for publicity for their malice there's nothing to report. A quick story on local news about a small group of people who disagree with any effort to do away with an ill considered habit.

If we are going to blame anyone, I think "The Great Divider" must take a bit of blame.

I don't think you're crazy, but if you're going to say things like that I'm going to start drawing up the papers.

He didn't unify us at all.

He brought a lot of people together in his first run. Then the opposition, handed a bitter defeat, set about the business of "No" as a response while their PR machine beat the steady Muslim/birther/socialist drum even harder to stir up that very division. Don't mistake me, I think he bought into the whole professorial shtick those in the media who loved him crafted and I think it cooled his approach...I'm not sure it would have mattered but it didn't help. And that's one of the reasons he lost my vote in his second bid. But you can't unify a couple when one of them has already hired a divorce attorney and has someone on the side.

He 'may' have brought some odd kind of unity to Democrats but AGAINST the rest of the country.

Democrats aren't against the rest of the country. They're opposed to the Republicans, as the Republicans are opposed to the Democrats.

He was no gift to humanity and hurt this nation.

He did some genuinely good and important things. And he missed opportunities that were within his grasp. I think he also could have done more for the spirit of the country if he'd had fire side chats, told the nation about what he was running into and assured us more. He had great handling in his run and appreciably less skilled thereafter...or maybe he'd had enough and went back to being who he was comfortable with... Hurt the nation? I think he saved it from economic collapse. He just wasn't up for what came next. Unfortunately, no one else arrived who appeared to be any better prepared.

Irreparably? I don't think so, but he will always be called "The Great Divider" because he was,

Only to that fringe, again. I think you can make up all the t-shirts you want, but it's not going to catch on. I suspect history will be much kinder to him than the sheer volume of largely inaccurate noise generated by the hard right's efforts to drown out any other narrative allow at present.

and a worse racist than any president I've known.

Racist in what expression?

In history? Perhaps not, but that hardly matters.

I think you first have to establish a truth before you can compare it, so it won't matter in that regard, because I don't think you can make the case.

That said, no dogs locally so far and I hope you and yours are doing well. :cheers:

 

[drbrumley]

Charles Barkley Labeled ‘White Supremacist’
By Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
August 26, 2017

For telling black people to stop worrying about statues, get an education, and stop killing each other.

 

[drbrumley]

I don't care if you think they're left wing groups. They don't agree. They like and support you. They don't like and support the left. So leave your speculative fantasy, the right wing state of perpetual denial on the point and figure out why.

My your a sensitive one....

This is what is wrong....I ask what makes a leftist a leftist, or a rightest a rightest. all you can answer is well, they like you, they gravitate to you....SO WHAT!!!!! I am asking YOU Town for your opinion....

I know why they gravitate to so called "conservatives"....Obviously you don't and you just call em right wingers....

Left or right, it doesn't matter....they are two sides of the same coin....I have said that before...because it's true....

 

[Town Heretic]

Charles Barkley Labeled ‘White Supremacist’

No, he was called a black white supremacist in an interesting piece in The Root. I'd post the more of the article, but there's a needless profanity in it that doesn't belong here. Understand that if you want to follow the link.

A snippet on point:

And this is the difference between independent thinkers and black white supremacists. Most independent thinkers sometimes have legitimate disagreements with the accepted opinions of black America, but black white supremacists never find fault with white America, which means that everything ailing black people is black people’s fault. For them, nothing—not even the monuments of white supremacy—is the fault of racism. We’re just doing it wrong.​

For telling black people to stop worrying about statues, get an education, and stop killing each other.

Not exactly. The article is here.

Charles was a great basketball player. He's a very entertaining commentator and he's entitled to his opinion, as is the author of the piece I noted.

 

[drbrumley]

No, he was called a black white supremacist in an interesting piece in The Root. I'd post the more of the article, but there's a needless profanity in it that doesn't belong here. Understand that if you want to follow the link.

A snippet on point:

And this is the difference between independent thinkers and black white supremacists. Most independent thinkers sometimes have legitimate disagreements with the accepted opinions of black America, but black white supremacists never find fault with white America, which means that everything ailing black people is black people’s fault. For them, nothing—not even the monuments of white supremacy—is the fault of racism. We’re just doing it wrong.​

Not exactly. The article is here.

Charles was a great basketball player. He's a very entertaining commentator and he's entitled to his opinion, as is the author of the piece I noted.

Leftists, I tell ya...

 

[drbrumley]

Charles better be careful, he will be out of a job if he keeps speaking like that..

 

[Town Heretic]

Leftists, I tell ya...

It's an interesting article. Don't let the difference in political perspective keep you from it.

Charles better be careful, he will be out of a job if he keeps speaking like that..

Nah. He doesn't really care and the author of that piece wasn't going after Charles in that spirit. You should read it. Do you good, if only by expanding your understanding of the other side.

 

[annabenedetti]

I don't know anyone who calls him that. So maybe a qualified, "He'll never escape that label among the few who use it that most don't take seriously outside of Congress" would be in order.

I don't know anyone who calls him that either. Not in my real life circle of conservative friends and family, and not on liberal websites I visit. There's a lot of affection, respect and nostalgia for the Obama presidency (amongst the liberals), which is probably why he had two terms in office, and his two GOP opponents didn't.

I think there's some truth to it. The election of a black man drove the fringe right crazy. Anyone who threw them a crumb was going to whip that into an even frothier lather. . .The concerted effort of "no" in lieu of ideas from the beltway Republicans meant to end his administration in one go failed, and that embittered a lot of people who invested a great deal of energy, time, and money into the effort, along with Fox News, who doubled down on the rhetorical siege machinery.

They're still frothing over it.

They're still frothing over Hillary. They'll be on their deathbeds and still find the strength to lift their heads and tell their children one more time:

 

[Ktoyou]

It is somewhere in here???

Surly not the white nationalist :nono:

 

[patrick jane]

It is somewhere in here???

Surly not the white nationalist :nono:

Young Turks? I don't watch that left wing stuff

 

[Town Heretic]

My your a sensitive one....

No, that's in your head...or your need.

This is what is wrong....I ask what makes a leftist a leftist, or a rightest a rightest. all you can answer is well, they like you, they gravitate to you....SO WHAT!!!!! I am asking YOU Town for your opinion....

It's a side bar, dr. A way out. Whatever I say to you isn't going to impact how you see it or alter what I'm noting here, what none of you on the right appear ready to grapple with.

I know why they gravitate to so called "conservatives"

No, you're just going to run to the "no true" fallacy. That's not an answer. It's just another way of not seeing what's right in front of your party.

 

[Lon]

The reason for the thread was Nick closing his to conversation with a Hitler bit, of all things. The reason for the title was to tweak the bias filtered title of the original thread.

:Z Seems to fan the partisan flame. I suppose it could be said that it is to put out that fire with a backfire, I just hope you've had enough volunteer fire-fighter hours.

I don't know entirely what you mean. First, how do you define "fundamental Christians" because I believe, fundamentally, in Christ and his church and I don't begin to share your opinion on the former president, certainly not in some of the particulars you'll advance here. What did Obama do to fundamentalist Christians, in particular, let alone white males?

I define it as you. He is the first president I know of, who left missionaries and pastors in prison in Muslim countries with nothing said, not even a sympathetic mention. Silence alone is bad enough. I walked out of a racist church. Obama? :nono: Attended a racist pastor's church regularly.

I think Trump's partisanship is for Trump and to the same degree that the sun is hot.

The media dug dirt, and lots of it. Trump has consistently said good things about Christians, has spoken to Christian groups including Pat Robertson (not touting him). Obama? :nono: His Thanksgiving messages? Not Christian. Our words mean something, including our lack thereof. Both men 'seem' to be consistent with their rhetoric. Trump is arrogant. I'm not sure arrogance is a presidency disqualifier. Obama certainly wasn't 'as' arrogant as Trump, but close.

I'd say he's greatly contributed to the problem. I've said so and set out why in this very thread. He has encouraged the worst of the fringe, which is why we have such a public problem with emboldened elements of them moving into the public square.

:nono: He has nothing to do with issuing a permit to one group and then left-handedly issuing 'permission' to an opposing group. Seattle issued one similar and 'allowed' the other group BUT kept the two groups apart and protected the group with the permit. If anything, we are seeing Charlottesville doesn't pay attention and fans their own flames. This was all happening before Trump was even in office and even protesting him in office (Probably different groups, but hard to say with George S' hand in everything political). It clearly began and proceeded from Obama's time in office. At best, imho, 'negligible.'

Worse in what way (for either)?

Score sheets. Even Democrats that 'liked' him set him lower than Regan, for instance. I've posted a few now. Obama's score sheet is not high on most counts. Even he acknowledged the great divide caused by his presidency and I quote him further down.

Statistics about what?

Again, presidential score-cards. Republicans, no surprise, score him as one of the worst presidents in history. Regardless of partisan sentiment, to be scored lower than Clinton, Carter, etc. should have due attention.

But who takes them seriously? I mean outside of Congress.

Or going the other route, beside you, who else doesn't?

I don't know anyone who calls him that. So maybe a qualified, "He'll never escape that label among the few who use it that most don't take seriously outside of Congress" would be in order.

Well considering I linked it? And yet again?
"It's one of the few regrets of my presidency - that the rancor and suspicion between the parties has gotten worse instead of better," Mr. Obama said. When even he admits such under his own leadership, you can't plead ignorance or practice deniability.

This thread is about the Charlottesville killing first. Or it was...Trump played his part in making it possible, and there's no sense in protesting the point, though I'm happy to engage on it.

I see little evidence other than perhaps a deep desire to connect dots so far apart. Granted I watch less news these days, but to me, it looks like Charlottesville's inept officials are to receive the bulk of blame. If anything, you have to attribute such to a president, it has to be to one where such started in the first place.

I think there's some truth to it. The election of a black man drove the fringe right crazy. Anyone who threw them a crumb was going to whip that into an even frothier lather. . .The concerted effort of "no" in lieu of ideas from the beltway Republicans meant to end his administration in one go failed, and that embittered a lot of people who invested a great deal of energy, time, and money into the effort, along with Fox News, who doubled down on the rhetorical siege machinery.

Agreed on such, then.

Me either, which is why I didn't do it (and I started the thread). Though there was certainly more than a little mishandling by the powers that be in the city, some of it possibly reducing to political maneuvering.

That makes sense too, I don't have a lot of experience with fire-breaks :think:

If the racists don't co-op or begin (depending on who you believe) the sad memorial business and parlay it into a chance for publicity for their malice there's nothing to report. A quick story on local news about a small group of people who disagree with any effort to do away with an ill considered habit.

You have a horse in this race. I see both sides, I think, fairly well. Your suggestion to sell to a private party seemed the best idea to me. I wonder if one can vote two people into a presidency? I think between us, most of this would be handled well 'before' it became a wreck

I don't think you're crazy, but if you're going to say things like that I'm going to start drawing up the papers.

Probably goes the same for Trump as well. One would think Obama is to blame for financial collapse being that it didn't hit until he came into office.

He brought a lot of people together in his first run. Then the opposition, handed a bitter defeat, set about the business of "No" as a response while their PR machine beat the steady Muslim/birther/socialist drum even harder to stir up that very division. Don't mistake me, I think he bought into the whole professorial shtick those in the media who loved him crafted and I think it cooled his approach...I'm not sure it would have mattered but it didn't help. And that's one of the reasons he lost my vote in his second bid. But you can't unify a couple when one of them has already hired a divorce attorney and has someone on the side.

:think: it would seem, by vote, that you too saw some of the division? There is no doubt by anyone, but you, that I've seen that the country was greatly divided under his watch, even by his own reckoning.

Democrats aren't against the rest of the country. They're opposed to the Republicans, as the Republicans are opposed to the Democrats.

I 'think' libertarians would disagree with you, by example. I also think you have some obvious Democratic interests and sympathies, so think that has to come into play for the color of our glasses.

He did some genuinely good and important things. And he missed opportunities that were within his grasp. I think he also could have done more for the spirit of the country if he'd had fire side chats, told the nation about what he was running into and assured us more. He had great handling in his run and appreciably less skilled thereafter...or maybe he'd had enough and went back to being who he was comfortable with... Hurt the nation? I think he saved it from economic collapse. He just wasn't up for what came next. Unfortunately, no one else arrived who appeared to be any better prepared.

Other than Bush, GW, perhaps Carter, I'd be hard pressed to find a president that hadn't done some genuinely good and important things and would be hard pressed to say there was none in even these.

Only to that fringe, again. I think you can make up all the t-shirts you want, but it's not going to catch on. I suspect history will be much kinder to him than the sheer volume of largely inaccurate noise generated by the hard right's efforts to drown out any other narrative allow at present.

No, even by his own admission, he knew the divide in the country was great. I think, at least on this, you'll have to rethink and recant eventually. There are many of these articles.

Racist in what expression?

To me, he seemed to carry MLK's agenda to office. That is partisan, and unfortunately, racist. He didn't do a thing about black panthers during his election, and he allowed police to be blamed for shootings of 'black' individuals under his watch. A president, has to represent ALL colors of his/her country. He may have tried in some respects, and I don't want to lambast him too hard, but he definitely carried a racial agenda, as well as a sexual preference agenda.

I think you first have to establish a truth before you can compare it, so it won't matter in that regard, because I don't think you can make the case.

I disagree. We are talking so there is no burden of proof. We are responsible, rather, for our own research as to what discussion brings up, especially those things we were unaware of or denying prior.

That said, no dogs locally so far and I hope you and yours are doing well. :cheers:

Thanks. Besides politics, we share love for almost everything else. Found this one:View attachment 25912 Much love and thank you for looking and prayers! In Him -Lon

 

[annabenedetti]

An Ohio alt-righter has been arrested in the beating of Deandre Harris:

PD: Former Mason High School student charged in Charlottesville attack

 

[Town Heretic]

:Z Seems to fan the partisan flame. I suppose it could be said that it is to put out that fire with a backfire, I just hope you've had enough volunteer fire-fighter hours.

:chuckle:

I define it as you.

I wasn't feeling challenged on the point but thanks. That said, I am curious as to the reason for your impression, it being so alien from my own.

The media dug dirt, and lots of it. Trump has consistently said good things about Christians

I'd rather see a reflection in him of the principles, but good rhetoric then. I've heard him say he was in big with evangelicals.

, has spoken to Christian groups including Pat Robertson (not touting him). Obama? His Thanksgiving messages? Not Christian. Our words mean something, including our lack thereof. Both men 'seem' to be consistent with their rhetoric. Trump is arrogant. I'm not sure arrogance is a presidency disqualifier. Obama certainly wasn't 'as' arrogant as Trump, but close.

Obama spoke to his Christian faith and how he valued it. Trump has said he doesn't recall asking for forgiveness. I'm not seeing the edge there.

He has nothing to do with issuing a permit to one group and then left-handedly issuing 'permission' to an opposing group. Seattle issued one similar and 'allowed' the other group BUT kept the two groups apart and protected the group with the permit. If anything, we are seeing Charlottesville doesn't pay attention and fans their own flames. This was all happening before Trump was even in office and even protesting him in office (Probably different groups, but hard to say with George S' hand in everything political). It clearly began and proceeded from Obama's time in office. At best, imho, 'negligible.'

I'm not a fan of how the powers that be handled it and have been up front on the point. But I think a lot of the racial divisiveness, as I noted, came from the success of Obama. It was fingernails on a racist chalkboard.

Score sheets. Even Democrats that 'liked' him set him lower than Regan, for instance. I've posted a few now. Obama's score sheet is not high on most counts. Even he acknowledged the great divide caused by his presidency and I quote him further down.

Score sheets of what? I'm not tracking it. And I noted that divides can be inherent when race is involved. That doesn't make him the divider. It makes him the issue for people who divide over race.

Again, presidential score-cards. Republicans, no surprise, score him as one of the worst presidents in history.

They also elected Trump. So...

Regardless of partisan sentiment, to be scored lower than Clinton, Carter, etc. should have due attention.

Scored lower than one of the more popular and effective presidents in the modern era on what particular? What are these "sheets" speaking to? I've read historians putting him 12th best. From the CSpan survey:

1. Abraham Lincoln
2. George Washington
3. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
4. Teddy Roosevelt
5. Dwight Eisenhower
6. Harry Truman
7. Thomas Jefferson
8. John F. Kennedy
9. Ronald Reagan
10. Lyndon Johnson
11. Woodrow Wilson
12. Barack Obama
13. James Monroe
14. James Polk
15. Bill Clinton

Or going the other route, beside you, who else doesn't?

Everyone outside of their clique. Which is most people.

Well considering I linked it? And yet again?

I'm almost entirely color blind. If you don't put (link) out beside it or make a note I'm usually not going to see it.

"It's one of the few regrets of my presidency - that the rancor and suspicion between the parties has gotten worse instead of better," Mr. Obama said. When even he admits such under his own leadership, you can't plead ignorance or practice deniability.

That doesn't mean he thinks the caused it, Lon. Or that he did. I don't think he mitigated what he could have, but I think it was largely out of his hands and in the game plan of his opponents and their media outlet.

You have a horse in this race.

How so?

Probably goes the same for Trump as well. One would think Obama is to blame for financial collapse being that it didn't hit until he came into office.

Well, no. I've never seen any economist blame Obama for the collapse. How could they? Your timeline is wrong. The collapse started well before he was elected.

it would seem, by vote, that you too saw some of the division? There is no doubt by anyone, but you, that I've seen that the country was greatly divided under his watch, even by his own reckoning.

I thought he and his party did good work, but he let me down on a few things that mattered and I could see what was happening with the Republicans. I thought it would be better to end the division, that we were at a critical juncture where we needed decisive action to really spur growth and stop a potential back slide into the thing we'd just narrowly avoided. I'm still surprised that didn't happen.

I 'think' libertarians would disagree with you, by example. I also think you have some obvious Democratic interests and sympathies, so think that has to come into play for the color of our glasses.

No, I have some liberal notions and some conservative notions. I've taken the libertarians test. I come out just left of center in the Centrist square. You could as easily (if we have to make it a party statement) look from the left and say I have some Republican interests in terms of guns, market, abortion. Neither would be accurate reflections of my approach or position.

No, even by his own admission, he knew the divide in the country was great

Again, that can be misleading. I'm pretty sure your reading and his aren't on the same page.

I think, at least on this, you'll have to rethink and recant eventually. There are many of these articles.

Time will tell if history is against your notion. Historians already appear to be.

To me, he seemed to carry MLK's agenda to office. That is partisan, and unfortunately, racist.

I don't think anyone can reasonably call MLK a racist or his "dream" a racist one.

I said, I think you have to establish a truth before you can compare it.

I disagree.

It's not an argument. It's a position. You obviously can say anything you like, but if you want it to be meaningful to me you'll have to establish a thing before you can build on it. I think that's just bedrock rational necessity in any debate on points.

Thanks. Besides politics, we share love for almost everything else. Found this one: Much love and thank you for looking and prayers! In Him -Lon

Ah, that's great the. Good news.

 

[patrick jane]

How does Town see the "success" of Obama? :idunno: