Someguys Viewpoint: Selective liberal outrage

[Sigfried]

Either way, I guess you are technically correct. It doesnt belay the point.

I'm pointing out what I see as factual error in your supposition. Together they equal (there really isn't much outrage about his long ago alleged statements.

Im sorry, maybe Im not reading this correctly, but how does this comment not affirm my position here?

Not in this context, it shows that the articles aren't really expressing outrage about the subject in the way you claim they do. They point out the same thing you do.

Fair enough, but we are specifically speaking about the selective outrage towards him concerning this alleged racial incident.

Of which there really isn't that much. They are far more outraged about other Trump associeates, and their outrage at Sessions is not foucused on accusations of racism but on his policy possitions.

This justifies selective outrage?

No, it explains it.

You have to be guilty of something to repent. He hasnt been proven guilty of this accusation, why repent?

You asked why they acept one politician and not the other, I explained one of the reasons. You can try to change the context by saying Sessions doesn't need to repent, but that was not the question you asked. You asked why they would support one of these politicians and not the other. You seem to think they should hate Byrd, by I have told you why they don't, he has repented his troubling past and put his votes where his mouth is.

Since they arn't actually outraged aobut Sessions they probably don't care, but if they did feel he was a racist, then him voting in a way that substantiated that would be a good step to earn forgiveness.




Infinite to be sure.

Can you demonstrate his "anti-minority" voting record? I dont take claims like this very seriously

He voted to ban same sex marriage, he voted against bills to protect women against domestic violence, voted agaisnt extending hate crimes to gays, voted to end support for minority and women owned businesses, voted agaisnt affirmative action. The NAACP rates him 7%, the ACLU rates him 20%, the HRC rates him 0%. These are all issues minorities care about.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/...vil_Rights.htm

[mican333]

Who gets to decide when "by all evidence" someone is no longer a racist?

It's up to the individual. And I'm saying that it's reasonable for a person who has apologized and behaved for 30 years to be considered no longer a racist.

If we found video of Trump using racial slurs 30 years ago, do you think it would get swept under the rug and forgiven like Democrats did with Byrd's KKK membership? Somehow I doubt it.

If that person had a good record on civil rights for thirty years, I think the person would be forgiven. Regardless, your scenario is hypothetical so you can't support your assumptions so it's rather irrelevant to the debate.

---------- Post added at 10:35 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:23 AM ----------

This is exactly the issue. Liberals create arbitrary standards that apply differently to ppl dependent on their political ideology and have a selective memory towards individuals past based on that same standard.

Actually, the issue is that you keep making over-generalized and unsupported claims regarding liberals.

So I that you SUPPORT OR RETRACT this claim.

This, ofc, is simply par for the course for Liberals in America. It's a tried and true method of demonizing the opposition and appeals to emotions because liberalism can't win in the arena of ideas. The liberal playbook has been effective for decades and because of its effectiveness, they haven't evolved their tactics. Luckily, ppl are starting to see the playbook for what it is and its effect is getting weaker as demonstrated by this last election.

Again, more unsupported and unsupportable liberal-bashing.

[CliveStaples]

It's up to the individual. And I'm saying that it's reasonable for a person who has apologized and behaved for 30 years to be considered no longer a racist.

Absolutely, but it seems like a marvelous coincidence that Byrd is no longer considered a racist but people like Strom Thurmond (and any Republican remotely connected to him or who spoke well of him) are considered permanently racist. What random happenstance that only Republicans are irredeemable!

[mican333]

Absolutely, but it seems like a marvelous coincidence that Byrd is no longer considered a racist but people like Strom Thurmond (and any Republican remotely connected to him or who spoke well of him) are considered permanently racist. What random happenstance that only Republicans are irredeemable!

Well, I do think one has to fully disavow one's prior racism in order to be seen as redeemed and Strom never fully disavowed his prior beliefs in segregation.

But really, even if one does find a valid example the overall argument that liberals are hypocrites does not follow.

To say that liberals are hypocrites means that:

1. ALL liberals are hypocrites
2. The hypocrisy is unique to liberals which means that one will not find similar examples of hypocrisy amongst conservatives.

So finding one valid example of some liberals being hypocritical does not mean that liberals are hypocrites unless one can show that this applies to liberals in general. Just saying that one liberal's hypocrisy means all liberals are hypocrites is to engage in the hasty generalization fallacy and therefore is an invalid argument (btw, I can provide a doozy of an example of a Democrat state prosecutor being strongly against prostitution and then getting busted for pandering so THAT dude is a huge hypocrite). And if one does show some general liberal hypocrisy but not showing that it doesn't apply to conservatives as well, then they are just setting the bar to wherever it helps their argument as opposed to taking an balanced look at the issue (just like if I were to use the example of prosecutor to argue that liberals in general are hypocrites while ignoring the gay sex scandals that some anti-gay conservatives have been caught in).

That's why I generally hold that these arguments that Someguy forwards bashing liberals are unsupported. Even if he finds a valid example of liberals engaging in hypocrisy, it does not follow that there is a unique and overarching hypocrisy in liberalism.

Now, if one can find some kind of hypocrisy that necessarily flows from liberal ideology, that might have some traction. But I'm sure such an attempt will have one comparing two things that have significant differences.

[CliveStaples]

But really, even if one does find a valid example the overall argument that liberals are hypocrites does not follow.

To say that liberals are hypocrites means that:

1. ALL liberals are hypocrites
2. The hypocrisy is unique to liberals which means that one will not find similar examples of hypocrisy amongst conservatives.

(1) and (2) are unreasonable interpretations of my statements.

When people say things like, "Republicans have bad policies", they don't mean anything like "ALL Republicans have bad policies" or "Bad policies are unique to Republicans" or anything like this.

Likewise, in this case, I mean only that liberal (or Leftist or Democrat or however you want to parse it) commentators have been inconsistent or unprincipled in their analysis of these cases, whether in the form of news articles, comments on webpages, etc.

This should be shocking to precisely nobody, since basically everyone does it. Everyone only talks about how bad the other side is, so generally Democrats will criticize Republicans and Republicans will criticize Democrats. This adverserial tribalism helps to explain why you can't just admit that Byrd has a problematic history that is cause for concern in any legislation he puts his name on, and instead shift the goalposts by demanding proof that literally every liberal is a hypocrite, or that hypocrisy is somehow a uniquely liberal property or some such nonsense.

Can't we just agree that Byrd's history sucks, that history shouldn't be whitewashed or ignored, and that racism (whether on an individual or systemic level) sucks? Is it that hard to be reasonable on this topic? Can you stop kneejerk defending the notion of being a liberal and admit that maybe some liberals are racists or hypocrites?

[Sigfried]

Absolutely, but it seems like a marvelous coincidence that Byrd is no longer considered a racist but people like Strom Thurmond (and any Republican remotely connected to him or who spoke well of him) are considered permanently racist. What random happenstance that only Republicans are irredeemable!

But there is a substantive difference between the two men. Byrd openly and repeatedly repudiated his old possitions and views. Strom Thurmond continued to justify and defend his. Byrd put his votes where his mouth was and supported civil rights legislation and bills aimed at helping minorities. Strom Thurmond routinely opposed those kinds of laws and policies.

It's not just about how long ago it was, its about what you have done and said in the interum.

[CliveStaples]

But there is a substantive difference between the two men. Byrd openly and repeatedly repudiated his old possitions and views. Strom Thurmond continued to justify and defend his. Byrd put his votes where his mouth was and supported civil rights legislation and bills aimed at helping minorities. Strom Thurmond routinely opposed those kinds of laws and policies.

It's not just about how long ago it was, its about what you have done and said in the interum.

I don't know enough about Thurmond's positions to say whether his position was a result of prejudice or just some sort of extreme federalism / states' rights philosophy. So I'm not going to engage in a defense on that point.

How is Sessions a racist, again?

[mican333]

(1) and (2) are unreasonable interpretations of my statements.

They are addressing the general point of the OP, not your statement.

When people say things like, "Republicans have bad policies", they don't mean anything like "ALL Republicans have bad policies" or "Bad policies are unique to Republicans" or anything like this.

Likewise, in this case, I mean only that liberal (or Leftist or Democrat or however you want to parse it) commentators have been inconsistent or unprincipled in their analysis of these cases, whether in the form of news articles, comments on webpages, etc.

I don't think the Sessions-Byrd comparison effectively makes that case considering the relevant differences between the two. But I don't actually challenge your assertion that there's not some hypocrisy amongst liberal commentators because hypocrisy is always part of a biased media and that applies to both left-wing bias and right-wing bias.

I won't put words in your mouth and pretend that you hold that political bias is something only practiced by liberals. I'd guess that you agree with me that all biased media sources, both left and right, engage in a certain level of hypocrisy (John Stewart constantly pointed out hypocrisy in Fox News' reporting) so the hypocrisy does not come from being liberal but from being a biased media pundit. If I'm wrong on that assumption, let me know.

I just don't see any comparisons that are accurate enough to make this case. But I think that bias for either side in unavoidable in newscasting, especially when the media source has a clear bias (such as Fox is biased towards the right and MSNBC are biased towards the left).

This should be shocking to precisely nobody, since basically everyone does it. Everyone only talks about how bad the other side is, so generally Democrats will criticize Republicans and Republicans will criticize Democrats. This adverserial tribalism helps to explain why you can't just admit that Byrd has a problematic history that is cause for concern in any legislation he puts his name on, and instead shift the goalposts by demanding proof that literally every liberal is a hypocrite, or that hypocrisy is somehow a uniquely liberal property or some such nonsense.

Can't we just agree that Byrd's history sucks, that history shouldn't be whitewashed or ignored, and that racism (whether on an individual or systemic level) sucks? Is it that hard to be reasonable on this topic? Can you stop kneejerk defending the notion of being a liberal and admit that maybe some liberals are racists or hypocrites?

I never said that liberals are never hypocritical. I'm rebutting the OP, which forwards that liberals are uniquely hypocritical.

If one wants to say that there is some hypocrisy amongst liberals because hypocrisy is part of the human condition, I don't challenge that one iota. Of course that position must concede that conservatives are just as likely to be hypocritical as well.

But if one is arguing that ALL liberals are hypocrites as if hypocrisy is part and parcel of the liberal ideology or that liberals are more hypocritical than conservatives, I directly challenge that statement and forward that it is likely unsupportable. I mean finding ONE example of liberal hypocrisy does not show that liberals are more hypocritical than conservatives so even if the Byrd-Sessions comparison was valid, it still doesn't really mean anything about liberals as compared to conservatives.

So Clive, I would say that you and I probably don't disagree with much on this issue. Beyond a few details, I don't really disagree with much that you said.

My challenge is to the OP and its position that liberals are uniquely hypocritical.

[Sigfried]

I don't know enough about Thurmond's positions to say whether his position was a result of prejudice or just some sort of extreme federalism / states' rights philosophy. So I'm not going to engage in a defense on that point.

How is Sessions a racist, again?

Sessions isn't a racist so far as I know. I covered that in an earlier post detailing that there wasn't really much outrage on that account as the OP implies there is.

[Ibelsd]

Because you say so?

You must be basing that on a premise that no racist would ever seek the death penalty for a murderer if that murderer is a member of the klan. I see no reason to accept that premise. Just because a person may have a bit of common ground with a convicted murderer does not mean that they absolutely will not seek the death penalty for that person.

But really, getting into a debate on whether he is indeed a racist is not exactly the point here. The issue is, according to the OP:

Given that liberals think that Sessions is a racist, are they holding a double-standard in not condemning other racists who happen to be democrat/liberal? If one holds that liberals should not think that Sessions is a racist, then Sessions is a poor example to make the argument regarding this alleged doubt-standard and a different example of someone liberals hold as racist should have been chosen for the OP. But then I've supported that SG hasn't even picked a good example of a "liberal" racist either, just someone who used to be racist but by all evidence no longer is (or wasn't since he's been dead for several years).

I offered three distinct points rebutting the idea that Sessions is a racist. For you to focus on a specific sub-point and then circumnavigate the rest is intellectually dishonest. Sessions, by almost all evidence is simply no more or less of a racist than anyone else, and is not a racist in any manner implied by liberals who have insisted he is an overt, KKK supporting racist. This debate is a canard. It is playing into the liberal mythology that conservatives must defend themselves whenever called a racist as the null hypothesis is that they are racist. It is not that Sessions is a better or worse candidate than anyone else since there is nothing inherently racist about 97% of the population. The idea that Thurmond is a racist is based on his views during the 1960's when he was a clansman and 1/3 of the white population felt strongly that they would not want a black family living next to them is also ridiculous. You agree with me that SG is a poor liberal example. Just as likely, there is not a good example to be found in either of the major parties. Again, being racist, and I mean overtly, KKK, white power racist, is a fringe concept.

The OP is basically stating the obvious, the Democratic party lives and dies with identity politics. It is not a double standard. It is a strategy.

[mican333]

I offered three distinct points rebutting the idea that Sessions is a racist. For you to focus on a specific sub-point and then circumnavigate the rest is intellectually dishonest.

My rebuttal to your first point applies to all of them. To be clear, if one accepts the premise that a racist will never do anything non-racists, then pointing out something that a alleged racist did that qualifies as non-racist would indeed support that the person is not a racist. But that premise does not hold up as a racist is capable of occasionally doing something that is non-racist.

And the issue is not even whether Sessions is indeed a racist. The issue is whether liberals are justified in thinking that he is and therefore have concerns with him attaining a prominent position in the Trump administration and I've amply supported that this perception is justified. To repeat:

He said he thought the KKK was okay until he learned that they smoked pot. The said the NAACP and ACLU are un-american.

Then there's this:

"Gerald Hebert also testified that Sessions had called a white civil rights lawyer a disgrace to his race for working on a voting rights case.

“I mentioned to Mr. Sessions that, you know, this had been said that a lawyer who handled civil rights cases in Mobile was either a traitor to his race or a disgrace to his race…as I recall, [Jeff Sessions] said, well, he probably is,” Herbert said"

And this:

“It is suggested that you stated to Mr. Wiley at the conclusion of a particularly contentious hearing back in 1981, ‘Do not worry,’ or ‘do not be too happy’…’John,’ meaning Archer, ‘will be watching you and the n*gger,’ referring to the only black commissioner in Mobile,” Senator Joe Biden said in the hearing.

And this:

"He has opposed hate-crime laws and supported an effort to end affirmative action programs, according to The New Republic. He also was firmly against the removal of the Confederate flag last year."

http://heavy.com/news/2016/11/jeff-s...orney-general/



If the perception oF Session's racism is inaccurate, then the issue is not selective outrage but misinformation which is a different debate entirely.

Sessions, by almost all evidence is simply no more or less of a racist than anyone else, and is not a racist in any manner implied by liberals who have insisted he is an overt, KKK supporting racist.

Then I forward this:

"Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) last faced the Senate Judiciary Committee for a confirmation hearing in 1986, when he was President Ronald Reagan’s nominee for federal judge. Senators grilled Sessions over charges of racial insensitivity and prejudice, and heard testimony from 21 witnesses over 19 hours.

The Republican-controlled committee blocked Sessions’s nomination on a 10-to-8 vote; he was the second federal judicial nominee to be rejected by the Senate in 48 years."


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...r-a-judgeship/

That hardly sounds like "no more racist than anyone else". Being the second federal judicial nominee to be rejected by the Senate in 48 years is a pretty unique distinction.

I'm sorry but the notion that liberals have no reason to think this guy might really be a racist is pretty much a non-starter. Saying "oh look, he wasn't racist that time" is hardly a valid counter.

It is playing into the liberal mythology that conservatives must defend themselves whenever called a racist as the null hypothesis is that they are racist.

That might apply if there is little or no evidence that the person is indeed racist. This is not one of those situations.

The idea that Thurmond is a racist is based on his views during the 1960's when he was a clansman and 1/3 of the white population felt strongly that they would not want a black family living next to them is also ridiculous. You agree with me that SG is a poor liberal example. Just as likely, there is not a good example to be found in either of the major parties. Again, being racist, and I mean overtly, KKK, white power racist, is a fringe concept.

That level of racism, sure. But there are lower levels of racism that is still too high for comfort. I mean I think EVERYONE, excluding young children, are at least a little racist. But when there is plenty of evidence that one is unacceptably racist (so racist that they are denied a judgeship by a republican committee which almost never denies someone), it's reasonable for someone to think "that's too racist".

The OP is basically stating the obvious, the Democratic party lives and dies with identity politics. It is not a double standard. It is a strategy.

No. The OP states that liberals are engaging in selective outrage and a double-standard.

[CowboyX]

That level of racism, sure. But there are lower levels of racism that is still too high for comfort. I mean I think EVERYONE, excluding young children, are at least a little racist. But when there is plenty of evidence that one is unacceptably racist (so racist that they are denied a judgeship by a republican committee which almost never denies someone), it's reasonable for someone to think "that's too racist".

Also that he is being put in charge of a department that was specifically created to combat racism elevates the amount of concern over something that has been characterized as "joking".

[Ibelsd]

My rebuttal to your first point applies to all of them. To be clear, if one accepts the premise that a racist will never do anything non-racists, then pointing out something that a alleged racist did that qualifies as non-racist would indeed support that the person is not a racist. But that premise does not hold up as a racist is capable of occasionally doing something that is non-racist.

And the issue is not even whether Sessions is indeed a racist. The issue is whether liberals are justified in thinking that he is and therefore have concerns with him attaining a prominent position in the Trump administration and I've amply supported that this perception is justified. To repeat:

He said he thought the KKK was okay until he learned that they smoked pot. The said the NAACP and ACLU are un-american.

Then there's this:

"Gerald Hebert also testified that Sessions had called a white civil rights lawyer a disgrace to his race for working on a voting rights case.

“I mentioned to Mr. Sessions that, you know, this had been said that a lawyer who handled civil rights cases in Mobile was either a traitor to his race or a disgrace to his race…as I recall, [Jeff Sessions] said, well, he probably is,” Herbert said"

And this:

“It is suggested that you stated to Mr. Wiley at the conclusion of a particularly contentious hearing back in 1981, ‘Do not worry,’ or ‘do not be too happy’…’John,’ meaning Archer, ‘will be watching you and the n*gger,’ referring to the only black commissioner in Mobile,” Senator Joe Biden said in the hearing.

And this:

"He has opposed hate-crime laws and supported an effort to end affirmative action programs, according to The New Republic. He also was firmly against the removal of the Confederate flag last year."

http://heavy.com/news/2016/11/jeff-s...orney-general/



If the perception oF Session's racism is inaccurate, then the issue is not selective outrage but misinformation which is a different debate entirely.




Then I forward this:

"Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) last faced the Senate Judiciary Committee for a confirmation hearing in 1986, when he was President Ronald Reagan’s nominee for federal judge. Senators grilled Sessions over charges of racial insensitivity and prejudice, and heard testimony from 21 witnesses over 19 hours.

The Republican-controlled committee blocked Sessions’s nomination on a 10-to-8 vote; he was the second federal judicial nominee to be rejected by the Senate in 48 years."


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...r-a-judgeship/

That hardly sounds like "no more racist than anyone else". Being the second federal judicial nominee to be rejected by the Senate in 48 years is a pretty unique distinction.

I'm sorry but the notion that liberals have no reason to think this guy might really be a racist is pretty much a non-starter. Saying "oh look, he wasn't racist that time" is hardly a valid counter.






That might apply if there is little or no evidence that the person is indeed racist. This is not one of those situations.





That level of racism, sure. But there are lower levels of racism that is still too high for comfort. I mean I think EVERYONE, excluding young children, are at least a little racist. But when there is plenty of evidence that one is unacceptably racist (so racist that they are denied a judgeship by a republican committee which almost never denies someone), it's reasonable for someone to think "that's too racist".




No. The OP states that liberals are engaging in selective outrage and a double-standard.

I have rebutted your arguments regarding Sessions' supposed statements. I rebutted the fact he was rejected by the Senate which you ignored and repeated the talking point. I rebutted the accusations which were out of context and when asked point blank, one of the accusers said he didn't think Sessions was a racist. Really, all you've offered to support the premise is some old statements he supposedly made over a decade or more ago. However, when confronted with his actual actions, you have reverted to the standard that as a Conservative, the null hypothesis is that he's a racist so he must offer proof to deny it. Note, I didn't offer a single instance where he took a non-racist position. I offered several. In one instance, he stood apart from his party and voted in favor of Eric Holder. It seems an actual racist would not have done this, no? Furthermore, calling some a couple of left-wing groups un-American is not support for racism. I've called the ACLU un-American and the NAACP is hardly a non-partisan group even though they claim to represent black folks.

The level of racism is unsubstantiated. It is more identity politics by a the DNC which is rooted in identity. The misinformation is directly tied into the sort of politics endeared by the left and the Democrats. That is why I am not calling this hypocrisy or a double standard. This is their standard. Republican conservative is equivalent to racist per the DNC playbook. Calling it anything else ignored the actual motives behind the accusations.

[mican333]

I have rebutted your arguments regarding Sessions' supposed statements. I rebutted the fact he was rejected by the Senate which you ignored and repeated the talking point.

No. You did not rebut the rejection. Your rebuttal was just insinuation that there was bias on Kennedy's part. Again, a republican committee rejected him and he was the second person rejected by the senate in over 40 years.

I rebutted the accusations which were out of context and when asked point blank, one of the accusers said he didn't think Sessions was a racist.

And that means he's not a racist and therefore we should ignore all of the racist things he's said? Rather ridiculous assertion IMO.

Really, all you've offered to support the premise is some old statements he supposedly made over a decade or more ago.

Right. In other words, I've offered support.

However, when confronted with his actual actions, you have reverted to the standard that as a Conservative, the null hypothesis is that he's a racist so he must offer proof to deny it.

Bullpucky. I didn't start with a null hypothesis. I started with evidence that he's racist.

Note, I didn't offer a single instance where he took a non-racist position. I offered several. In one instance, he stood apart from his party and voted in favor of Eric Holder. It seems an actual racist would not have done this, no?

Only if we accept the premise that a racist will NEVER do anything non-racist. That's not an accepted or even reasonable premise.

Furthermore, calling some a couple of left-wing groups un-American is not support for racism. I've called the ACLU un-American and the NAACP is hardly a non-partisan group even though they claim to represent black folks.

He didn't say the NAACP was non-partisan. He said they were un-American. Do you agree with that, btw? Do you agree that the NAACP is un-American?


And your rebuttals, even if accepted, kind of miss the point. The point isn't whether Sessions is indeed racist. The point is whether liberals have reason to believe that he is. And I've provided plenty of evidence that they do have reason to think that. I mean if he's rejected as being too racist for a judgeship in the past and has said that someone is a "disgrace to his race" and said the n-word, one has reason to believe that he is racist. If there is a reasonable explanation for all of this but the person is not made aware of the explanation, they still have reason to think he is racist. So one not only needs to agree with your rebuttals before they have reason to reverse themselves, they have to be aware of them and the only people who are now aware of them are me and whoever else might read this thread or hear about your thoughts some other way. So trying to convince me is really not that pertinent. Even if you do convince me, it doesn't apply to all of the other people who are concerned about his racism.

The level of racism is unsubstantiated. It is more identity politics by a the DNC which is rooted in identity. The misinformation is directly tied into the sort of politics endeared by the left and the Democrats. That is why I am not calling this hypocrisy or a double standard. This is their standard. Republican conservative is equivalent to racist per the DNC playbook. Calling it anything else ignored the actual motives behind the accusations.

Well, you are going to have to support that before I give it any credibility. On the surface it sound ridiculous IMO. That's not to say that it never, ever happens but if it were at all a standard play, we would be seeing practically all republicans called racist all of the time. Beyond those that are clearly racist, I don't see it happening much and I don't see it happening without cause ever. Maybe one can explain away Sessions past comments but one can't ignore them and therefore hold that the notion that he's racist is generated from thin air. If not fire, there's definitely smoke.

[Ibelsd]

No. You did not rebut the rejection. Your rebuttal was just insinuation that there was bias on Kennedy's part. Again, a republican committee rejected him and he was the second person rejected by the senate in over 40 years.

Let's look at the facts:
1) Most of the accusations towards Sessions was by one man, Figures, Sessions' former deputy. When asked if Figures thought Sessions was a racist, he said, "no."
2) The committee was controlled by Republicans. However, only two Republicans voted with the Democrats. Six voted to confirm Sessions. The Democrats voted unanimously against. Soon after, the Democrats pushed back and defeated Bork. There was a clear intention, at the time, for Democrats to block those they considered too conservative from receiving seats on the bench.

And that means he's not a racist and therefore we should ignore all of the racist things he's said? Rather ridiculous assertion IMO.

So, you'll take the unsubstantiated claims of someone as proof, but ignore their analysis? I think it should be used to draw the big picture. Just because Sessions may have said something, and we do not know the context here, does not mean he's racist. Have you not made an off-color joke before? Does that make you a racist/sexist etc?

Right. In other words, I've offered support.



Bullpucky. I didn't start with a null hypothesis. I started with evidence that he's racist.

Only if we accept the premise that a racist will NEVER do anything non-racist. That's not an accepted or even reasonable premise.

Except that when we note that a man like Strom Thurmond, a former Klansman, was redeemed by his more recent actions in support of civil rights, you defend Thurmond and note he is no longer a racist. On the other hand, your default position for Sessions is that racists can do non-racist things. OK. So, outside of some words, is there anything Sessions has been accused of DOING which would be considered racist? Has he attended a Klan meeting? Was he caught writing blogs for Stormfront? I mean, where is the positive evidence he is racist? He made a joke about the KKK and believes the ACLU and NAACP are Communist leaning organizations? This is your smoke that indicates a fire? If you didn't start with the null hypothesis, it sure didn't take much to get you to the racist calling card.

And your rebuttals, even if accepted, kind of miss the point. The point isn't whether Sessions is indeed racist. The point is whether liberals have reason to believe that he is. And I've provided plenty of evidence that they do have reason to think that. I mean if he's rejected as being too racist for a judgeship in the past and has said that someone is a "disgrace to his race" and said the n-word, one has reason to believe that he is racist. If there is a reasonable explanation for all of this but the person is not made aware of the explanation, they still have reason to think he is racist. So one not only needs to agree with your rebuttals before they have reason to reverse themselves, they have to be aware of them and the only people who are now aware of them are me and whoever else might read this thread or hear about your thoughts some other way. So trying to convince me is really not that pertinent. Even if you do convince me, it doesn't apply to all of the other people who are concerned about his racism.

Except the standard used by liberals to determine whether someone is racist is heavily weighted by the political party they belong to. Hence, the former Klansman's actions redeem him while Sessions' actions are seen as a mere cloak to his obviously racist beliefs. We are talking about things he supposedly said 30+ years ago. Since then, the preponderance of evidence shows he treats people fairly and is no more or less racist than anyone else.

Well, you are going to have to support that before I give it any credibility. On the surface it sound ridiculous IMO. That's not to say that it never, ever happens but if it were at all a standard play, we would be seeing practically all republicans called racist all of the time. Beyond those that are clearly racist, I don't see it happening much and I don't see it happening without cause ever. Maybe one can explain away Sessions past comments but one can't ignore them and therefore hold that the notion that he's racist is generated from thin air. If not fire, there's definitely smoke.

Today, Trump is racist, although, it is not clear exactly what he's done that would qualify him. I hear things about not allowing blacks in some of his buildings, but this was back in the 70's when such restrictions were common and 1/3 of white Americans would move if a black family were to move in next door.

In 2012, the liberals were calling Romney a racist:
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/02/0...ncession-call/

How about the Tea Party which was dismissed by most Democrats as racist?

Did Kanye West tell the truth when he called Bush a racist? Mike Myers thinks so.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...t-spoke-706420

Reagan was called a racist too. When was the last time a Republican ran for public office where he was not called a racist? If this is not part of a political strategy, then what is it? Every Republican who runs for a prominent position is called a racist. From Nixon to Trump and everyone in between. Are all these men racists? More racist than Bill Clinton? How about when Biden said Obama was a well-spoken black man? Is he a racist? People say stuff and sometimes really stupid stuff. And most often, that stuff is meaningless. Saying something that is insensitive isn't a form of racism. I don't think any of the men listed believed blacks are an inferior sub-group which would be the definition of racist. However, the Democrats will use this stupid stuff to create a picture where Republican candidates are always racist/sexist/phobic/etc. It is not an issue of being two-faced. It is simply the strategy they employ. It is the reason Hillary lost. She and her party went exclusively to the gender and race cards and totally forgot about appealing to white Americans on issues that matter, like jobs.

[mican333]

Let's look at the facts:
1) Most of the accusations towards Sessions was by one man, Figures, Sessions' former deputy. When asked if Figures thought Sessions was a racist, he said, "no."

And that means that one should ignore all of the evidence that he is racist? Nope.

2) The committee was controlled by Republicans. However, only two Republicans voted with the Democrats. Six voted to confirm Sessions. The Democrats voted unanimously against. Soon after, the Democrats pushed back and defeated Bork. There was a clear intention, at the time, for Democrats to block those they considered too conservative from receiving seats on the bench.

Again, Sessions was the second federal judicial nominee to be rejected by the Senate in 48 years. If there was a clear pattern of Democrats rejecting any and all conservative nominees on the flimsy excuse of racism, I think there would be more than just two nominees rejected in 50 years.

So, you'll take the unsubstantiated claims of someone as proof, but ignore their analysis? I think it should be used to draw the big picture. Just because Sessions may have said something, and we do not know the context here, does not mean he's racist. Have you not made an off-color joke before? Does that make you a racist/sexist etc?

I'm not saying that I know for a fact that is racist. I'm saying that he has said things that give people reason to believe that he's racist. When called out on it, I would expect that someone who wants to deny his racism would say "Hey, I was just joking". Joking that the NAACP is un-American? Joking that someone is a disgrace to his race?

Except that when we note that a man like Strom Thurmond, a former Klansman, was redeemed by his more recent actions in support of civil rights, you defend Thurmond and note he is no longer a racist.

I assume you mean Byrd, not Thurmond. And again, I'm saying that people have reason to think he's no longer a racist when he has firmly disavowed his prior racism and his words and actions have been consistently anti-racist for decades. More on that below.

On the other hand, your default position for Sessions is that racists can do non-racist things. OK. So, outside of some words, is there anything Sessions has been accused of DOING which would be considered racist? Has he attended a Klan meeting? Was he caught writing blogs for Stormfront? I mean, where is the positive evidence he is racist? He made a joke about the KKK and believes the ACLU and NAACP are Communist leaning organizations? This is your smoke that indicates a fire? If you didn't start with the null hypothesis, it sure didn't take much to get you to the racist calling card.

My null hypothesis is that if someone has made racist comments, it gives one reason to think that he is racist.

You have provided no basis to hold that my null hypothesis is if someone is conservative they must be racist and I ask that you retract that assertion unless you intend to support it. I will directly challenge that in the future if it is repeated without support.

Except the standard used by liberals to determine whether someone is racist is heavily weighted by the political party they belong to. Hence, the former Klansman's actions redeem him while Sessions' actions are seen as a mere cloak to his obviously racist beliefs. We are talking about things he supposedly said 30+ years ago. Since then, the preponderance of evidence shows he treats people fairly and is no more or less racist than anyone else.

Which does not mean that one ignores the prior evidence of racism. The reason Byrd is forgiven is not just because he didn't do anything particular racist "since then" but because he became a champion of civil rights. In support:

For the 2003–2004 session, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)[67] rated Byrd's voting record as being 100% in line with the N.A.A.C.P.'s position on the thirty-three Senate bills they evaluated. Sixteen other senators received that rating. In June 2005, Byrd proposed an additional $10,000,000 in federal funding for the Martin Luther King, Jr. National Memorial in Washington, D.C., remarking that, "With the passage of time, we have come to learn that his Dream was the American Dream, and few ever expressed it more eloquently."[68] Upon news of his death, the NAACP released a statement praising Byrd, saying that he "became a champion for civil rights and liberties" and "came to consistently support the NAACP civil rights agenda".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd#Race

Sessions, on the other hand:

"Sessions' positions on civil rights issues have not won him any fans at the NAACP. He's received consistent "Fs" on the group's legislative report cards for the past decade and a half.
Cornell William Brooks, the group's president, blasted Sessions' nomination, citing what he called a "very disturbing and recurring theme of hostility to and toward civil rights" exhibited over his career."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/18/politi...ons/index.html

And he apparently never fully disavowed his prior support for segregation.

So it's not just an issue of having a "D" or and "R" next to one's name. It's ones actions regarding civil rights that make a significant difference whether people think one has truly changed his stripes. A racist can always choose to not behave in a racist manner so that doesn't really mean that he's changed. But if one becomes a civil rights champion, then it's reasonable to think that they have changed.

Today, Trump is racist, although, it is not clear exactly what he's done that would qualify him. I hear things about not allowing blacks in some of his buildings, but this was back in the 70's when such restrictions were common and 1/3 of white Americans would move if a black family were to move in next door.

I think maybe his campaign rhetoric gives people a reason to think he is.

In 2012, the liberals were calling Romney a racist:
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/02/0...ncession-call/

How about the Tea Party which was dismissed by most Democrats as racist?

Did Kanye West tell the truth when he called Bush a racist? Mike Myers thinks so.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...t-spoke-706420

Reagan was called a racist too. When was the last time a Republican ran for public office where he was not called a racist? If this is not part of a political strategy, then what is it? Every Republican who runs for a prominent position is called a racist. From Nixon to Trump and everyone in between. Are all these men racists? More racist than Bill Clinton? How about when Biden said Obama was a well-spoken black man? Is he a racist? People say stuff and sometimes really stupid stuff. And most often, that stuff is meaningless. Saying something that is insensitive isn't a form of racism. I don't think any of the men listed believed blacks are an inferior sub-group which would be the definition of racist. However, the Democrats will use this stupid stuff to create a picture where Republican candidates are always racist/sexist/phobic/etc. It is not an issue of being two-faced. It is simply the strategy they employ.

And you have not supported that it's a strategy that they employ. There's wide gulf between Kanye West saying Bush is a racist and a intentional strategy from the Democratic party to use racism accusations against Republicans.

So in the past three posts you say that it's a strategy but I've seen no support that it is an intentional strategy. I won't challenge many INDIVIDUAL accusations of racism that some liberal has charged against some conservative but that doesn't show a conspiracy or general strategy. I don't think, nor do I think you are seriously suggesting, that Kanye somehow coordinated with the Democrats to level his racism charges. I'm guessing we will agree that he was just shooting his mouth off again.

So if you are telling me that you THINK it's the case that there is a concerted strategy, message received. Thanks for telling me what you think. But if you are going to make the argument that that is really what's going on, let's see some support for it. And again, individual charges of racism is not support unless you can tie them to the alleged larger strategy.

[Ibelsd]

And that means that one should ignore all of the evidence that he is racist? Nope.



Again, Sessions was the second federal judicial nominee to be rejected by the Senate in 48 years. If there was a clear pattern of Democrats rejecting any and all conservative nominees on the flimsy excuse of racism, I think there would be more than just two nominees rejected in 50 years.




I'm not saying that I know for a fact that is racist. I'm saying that he has said things that give people reason to believe that he's racist. When called out on it, I would expect that someone who wants to deny his racism would say "Hey, I was just joking". Joking that the NAACP is un-American? Joking that someone is a disgrace to his race?




I assume you mean Byrd, not Thurmond. And again, I'm saying that people have reason to think he's no longer a racist when he has firmly disavowed his prior racism and his words and actions have been consistently anti-racist for decades. More on that below.



My null hypothesis is that if someone has made racist comments, it gives one reason to think that he is racist.

You have provided no basis to hold that my null hypothesis is if someone is conservative they must be racist and I ask that you retract that assertion unless you intend to support it. I will directly challenge that in the future if it is repeated without support.





Which does not mean that one ignores the prior evidence of racism. The reason Byrd is forgiven is not just because he didn't do anything particular racist "since then" but because he became a champion of civil rights. In support:

For the 2003–2004 session, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)[67] rated Byrd's voting record as being 100% in line with the N.A.A.C.P.'s position on the thirty-three Senate bills they evaluated. Sixteen other senators received that rating. In June 2005, Byrd proposed an additional $10,000,000 in federal funding for the Martin Luther King, Jr. National Memorial in Washington, D.C., remarking that, "With the passage of time, we have come to learn that his Dream was the American Dream, and few ever expressed it more eloquently."[68] Upon news of his death, the NAACP released a statement praising Byrd, saying that he "became a champion for civil rights and liberties" and "came to consistently support the NAACP civil rights agenda".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd#Race

Sessions, on the other hand:

"Sessions' positions on civil rights issues have not won him any fans at the NAACP. He's received consistent "Fs" on the group's legislative report cards for the past decade and a half.
Cornell William Brooks, the group's president, blasted Sessions' nomination, citing what he called a "very disturbing and recurring theme of hostility to and toward civil rights" exhibited over his career."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/18/politi...ons/index.html

And he apparently never fully disavowed his prior support for segregation.

So it's not just an issue of having a "D" or and "R" next to one's name. It's ones actions regarding civil rights that make a significant difference whether people think one has truly changed his stripes. A racist can always choose to not behave in a racist manner so that doesn't really mean that he's changed. But if one becomes a civil rights champion, then it's reasonable to think that they have changed.



I think maybe his campaign rhetoric gives people a reason to think he is.




And you have not supported that it's a strategy that they employ. There's wide gulf between Kanye West saying Bush is a racist and a intentional strategy from the Democratic party to use racism accusations against Republicans.

So in the past three posts you say that it's a strategy but I've seen no support that it is an intentional strategy. I won't challenge many INDIVIDUAL accusations of racism that some liberal has charged against some conservative but that doesn't show a conspiracy or general strategy. I don't think, nor do I think you are seriously suggesting, that Kanye somehow coordinated with the Democrats to level his racism charges. I'm guessing we will agree that he was just shooting his mouth off again.

So if you are telling me that you THINK it's the case that there is a concerted strategy, message received. Thanks for telling me what you think. But if you are going to make the argument that that is really what's going on, let's see some support for it. And again, individual charges of racism is not support unless you can tie them to the alleged larger strategy.

Sessions may have been the first in 40 odd years, but it was the emerging strategy of the Ted Kennedy led Democrats at the time which is the cause. Again, you conveniently are dismissing that it occurred shortly after with another nominee, David Bork. What happened to sessions may have been a historical anomaly, but it was the beginning of a well-used strategy for years to come. Furthermore, having a nomination blocked is not an indictment. It was political.

While you can certainly choose not to ignore what Figures claimed Sessions said, it is odd that you'd summarily dismiss the conclusion. Figures said, when asked, that he did not believe Sessions was a racist. You don't have to conclude that Sessions isn't a racist from that, but it seems it should be taken into strong consideration. Also, I am unclear where Sessions ever publicly supported segregation. The best I could find regarding Sessions and segregation was the following:
"As a U.S. Attorney he filed several cases to desegregate schools in Alabama."
http://www.weeklystandard.com/in-ala...rticle/2005461

You keep saying Sessions made racist comments, but where is your evidence. One guy, Figures, made the claim and Sessions disputed it. So, you are choosing to ignore the actions I listed in favor of hearsay testimony from 30 years ago. As you noted, though, this thread is not about whether Sessions is a racist. It is about the supposed double standard. You ask for some sort of evidence that the Democrats have consistently employed a strategy of yelling racism and Sessions was merely one recipient in a long line of Republicans who have endured this attack.

Bush didn't just have to respond to calls of racism from Kanye
"Jesse Jackson claimed the Bush campaign had used “Nazi tactics” and his brother Jeb had targeted Holocaust victims (part of a history of Jackson’s Nazi analogies)."

"Sen. John Glenn, acting as a surrogate for Kerry’s 2004 campaign, compared alleged GOP misstatements to the propaganda of Nazi Germany."

" Al Gore accused the Bush administration of working with “digital brownshirts” to suppress dissent from the media."

http://thefederalist.com/2016/09/06/...nt-work-trump/

Is it a coordinated strategy by Democrats or just a reflexive strategy? I don't know. It is certainly a common thread among the Democrat elite. They call their opponents Nazis and racists and attempt to poison the well.

Sure, I guess since the Democrats really couldn't point at anything specific Trump DID that was racist, they fell back on the racist rhetoric card. Come to think of it, kind of the same game plan Ted Kennedy once employed to keep conservatives from getting nominated. Oh, and, by the way, what non-strategic means did Kennedy use to block Bork's appointment?

"Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens.[SUP][URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bork_Supreme_Court_nomination#cite_note-6"]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert...urt_nomination

Yeah, he played the race card. Just like he did with Sessions. Not a strategy you say????

[Squatch347]

Also that he is being put in charge of a department that was specifically created to combat racism elevates the amount of concern over something that has been characterized as "joking".

Please support or retract this. History is important.

[mican333]

Sessions may have been the first in 40 odd years, but it was the emerging strategy of the Ted Kennedy led Democrats at the time which is the cause. Again, you conveniently are dismissing that it occurred shortly after with another nominee, David Bork. What happened to sessions may have been a historical anomaly, but it was the beginning of a well-used strategy for years to come.

If it's a strategy for years to come then I assume we should see a large number of nominees rejected based on charges of racism AFTER Sessions was rejected. So were there?

And the notion that the two rejections are directly linked is not supported. At this point, the notion that they are directly linked is based on nothing more than insinuation because they were both rejections of conservatives by Democrats around the same time. You will need an actual link.

While you can certainly choose not to ignore what Figures claimed Sessions said, it is odd that you'd summarily dismiss the conclusion. Figures said, when asked, that he did not believe Sessions was a racist. You don't have to conclude that Sessions isn't a racist from that, but it seems it should be taken into strong consideration.

I take it into consideration and it does not wipe away all of the evidence that he is racist. I'd say that you dismissing all of the evidence that he is racist just because someone said he wasn't which I find odd.

You keep saying Sessions made racist comments, but where is your evidence.

It's in my prior posts.

One guy, Figures, made the claim and Sessions disputed it. So, you are choosing to ignore the actions I listed in favor of hearsay testimony from 30 years ago.

Considering that at least one of them Sessions admitted to ("it's a joke") and the fact that he was rejected for a judgeship for concerns regarding his racism indicates that it's a bit more than just a bit of hearsay. And again, I'm not saying that Sessions is indeed racist. I'm saying that there is good reason to believe that he is. Even if you can explain it all away and convince me that he is not, I'm the only person who heard your argument and therefore it does not apply to everyone else (who didn't hear your argument). So trying to convince me personally that it's all hot air is not really relevant. OTHERS have reason to believe based on information.

You ask for some sort of evidence that the Democrats have consistently employed a strategy of yelling racism and Sessions was merely one recipient in a long line of Republicans who have endured this attack.

Bush didn't just have to respond to calls of racism from Kanye
"Jesse Jackson claimed the Bush campaign had used “Nazi tactics” and his brother Jeb had targeted Holocaust victims (part of a history of Jackson’s Nazi analogies)."

"Sen. John Glenn, acting as a surrogate for Kerry’s 2004 campaign, compared alleged GOP misstatements to the propaganda of Nazi Germany."

" Al Gore accused the Bush administration of working with “digital brownshirts” to suppress dissent from the media."

http://thefederalist.com/2016/09/06/...nt-work-trump/

Is it a coordinated strategy by Democrats or just a reflexive strategy? I don't know.

Or is it individual examples of Democrats calling out actual racism from Republicans? I think if someone does engage in racism, it should be called out. You seem to be assuming that all of the examples of racism charges are without merit and people are just falsely yelling "racism" as nothing more than a political strategy as if racism no longer exists or it's inconceivable that a politician might engage in a bit of subtle racism to garner favor from whites who are a bit racist. And let's agree that racism can be much more subtle than a cross burning or being a member of the KKK.

It is certainly a common thread among the Democrat elite. They call their opponents Nazis and racists and attempt to poison the well.

Actually, none of the examples you showed above showed anyone being called a Nazi or a racist. Saying that one employs "Nazi tactics" is not the same as saying that they themselves are Nazis. And saying that one employs "Nazi tactics" is about the tactics, not necessarily the person. And even if I accept all of your examples of honest-to-goodness accusations of being a Nazi, that's three examples and you had to go back over a decade for most (all?) of them. I would think that if it was indeed a common strategy, we would be seeing it employed nowadays with some kind of frequency.

I mean I'm sure that kind of thing is employed now and then. It's a dirty trick and politicians on both sides engage in such things regularly. But you have not shown that it's a general strategy, especially if you can't show that a particular charge doesn't have merit. And you are assuming that all of the charges you listed are without merit. If someone is being fairly accurate, or maybe engaging in a bit of hyperbole to bolster their accurate charge (as in the "Nazi tactic" was actually employed in Nazi Germany), then it's not beyond the call to point that out and not necessarily engaging in some continuing pattern of yelling racism in the hopes of smearing one's opponent.

Sure, I guess since the Democrats really couldn't point at anything specific Trump DID that was racist, they fell back on the racist rhetoric card.

That is based on the completely unsupported assumption that one cannot make a reasonable case the Trump said and/or did racist things. Since the premise is not supported, the conclusion is not either. I'm sure if you do a bit of research, you will find specific charges of racist things Trump has said and done.

And before you tell me it's my burden to provide these things, it's not. It's your argument that no one can point to something racist Trump said/did so you can either support your argument or retract it.

Come to think of it, kind of the same game plan Ted Kennedy once employed to keep conservatives from getting nominated. Oh, and, by the way, what non-strategic means did Kennedy use to block Bork's appointment?

"Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens.[SUP][URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bork_Supreme_Court_nomination#cite_note-6"]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert...urt_nomination

Yeah, he played the race card. Just like he did with Sessions.

That is you INTERPRETATION of it. My interpretation is that it's a very valid (although a bit hyperbolic) response to the notion that Bork wanted to reverse the civil rights decisions of the past which would conceivably take us back to segregated lunch counters. So you think it's just a coded message for calling him a racist? Well, your opinion is noted but it's just your opinion.

And btw, SUPPORT OR RETRACT that Kennedy was involved in the decision to reject Sessions. The committee had 18 people and I see no indication that Kennedy was one of them. And also, two Republicans joined the Democrats so it does appear that there were legitimate concerns as opposed to a situation where Democrats were employing a strategy of harming a rival by calling him "racist" (for it if it was nothing more than unfounded slander, I doubt any Republicans would have joined the Democrats in rejecting Sessions). Again, if it were at all a common strategy, it should happen with some frequency. So can you name a prospective judge that was denied a judgeship by Democrats on the accusations of racism since they reject Sessions?

If not, then I really have no reason to even consider that this is some regular strategy when it comes to accepting prospective judges and likewise that this strategy was employed in regards to Sessions. If they don't regularly reject judges for being alleged racists, I think it's reasonable to think that when they do reject someone for that reason, there is a modicum of sincerity in their rejection and the notion that Session's rejection is just part of a wider strategy that is consistently employed can be discarded.

[CowboyX]

Please support or retract this. History is important.

"The exigencies of the Civil War laid bare the deficiencies of this uncoordinated legal structure. In August 1861 Congress finally enacted a law giving the Attorney General control over the United States district attorneys and marshals.(39) Yet much of the significance of that reform was undermined when, four days later, Congress passed another Act providing that the authority of the Solicitor of the Treasury was not to be affected.(40) To complicate matters even further, Congress passed a law in 1867 requiring the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to establish regulations for the guidance of United States district attorneys.(41)

The law giving the Attorney General control over the district attorneys also authorized the Attorney General to retain outside counsel to assist the district attorneys. Due to the immense increase in Civil War-related government litigation, almost immediately the number of outside counsel retained to represent the United States exceeded the number of all commissioned law officers in the federal government.(42)"

https://www.justice.gov/osg/about-office#N_39_