I am so sick of this political culture that digs ancient dirt. If it is in campaign, I have no problem with digging dirt. This is the period of time that voters make judgement on the candidates and candidates have a chance to explain and earn voters' trust. But once they're elected, can we have a statute of limitations on our elected officials? Can we accept the common sense that people can change and evolve? Or we demand every elected official be born as a saint so that we can trust and even worship? Creating cults in politics is communist practice that I know well. The bottom line, if Northam has to resign, Bernie Sanders has to resign too for his honeymoon in USSR when he was young.
If he owned up and apologized, I'd feel different.
But I do agree with your central point.
Initially, I thought he should apologize and move on. But now he's obviously lying about it which is even worse. The cover up is worse than the crime in this case.
It will undoubtedly reveal two faces behind the blackface, right?
Remember, Northum would never specify which person was him when he admitted to being in the picture.
If he knows that he was the guy in the KKK suit and not the blackface that many are assuming, then he could try to weasel out when the blackface facial recognition comes back with a different result from him.
The key thing here is that he admitted it already. He also then admitted to doing a black face in another instance anyways as Michael Jackson.
I thought that only Bill Clinton could wiggle out of this. I guess Northum is going to give it a go.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
a hatred of Black Americans and not only that but memorializes what should be done about Black Americans - all this in just one photo - truly a photo of a thousand words.
The only thing missing in the photo was a burning cross. The photo telegraphs a belief - a message which should have been abhorrent, especially to a Med Student but he went ahead and created this moment to remember as if it were a good idea. He should step down.
What surprises me most in all this is, it is a year book from a Med School - who were the adults in the room who should have put a stop to the publishing of the photo message (1. it would have saved this embarrassment today and 2. stopped and anti-black or bigoted photo message to be sent to future generations of would be students)? This should tell all those who wish to attend the University that Bigots reside there and are specifically praised there.
racist; Once you're a communist, you're forever a communist; Once you're anti-gay, you're forever anti-gay..... This kind of using someone's young life (actually just a snapshot of his young life) to judge most of his adult life without looking at the track record of 35 years, is Communist logic.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Anyone who would vote for Bernie cannot cite Russia as a problem for Trump. This is interesting, because if they do, then they are exposed in that their "Russia" attacks on Trump are pure partisanism, and not based on substance...otherwise they would be making the same frantic attacks against Bernie when he runs for president.
This should be fun.
Cole posted the vid a few days ago. Guess you aren't clicking on his links?
Or not which is the likeliest scenario.
(no message)
Apparently, he's now universally regarded as a fringe kook and no one will admit to having voted for him. Democratic Socialism? Never heard of it...
(no message)
Or, it could be...
That the people that voted for him in the 2016 primaries were a) fringe kooks of the Democratic Party; b) unaware that he spent his honeymoon in the Soviet Union; c) not opposing Trump because of "Russia", but rather were opposing Trump for the million other reasons to oppose Trump.
We're talking about the primaries which were vs Hillary, not Trump. You're increasingly becoming an embarrassment for your side, a la Chris Matthews at his drunkest.
The only problem is your comprehension.
The only mention of Trump is because NED, not me, said "Interesting that many that oppose Trump b/c Russia would vote for Bernie"
Thus, those 23 states you brought up just might have a lot of people that oppose Trump (and try to follow here), not because of Russia, but rather primarily because of other things.
Now. This is getting really complicated, but here goes.
The core hypocracy of Ned's strawman is that this strawman opposes Trump because of Russia, but would vote for Bernie, who apparently has a Russian controversy of his own. This strawman, apparently, would have voted for Trump if Trump didn't have any Russia controversy. Otherwise, it cannot be hypocracy to vote for Bernie, despite his Russian controversy.
Get it now?
I am not responding to Ned, I am responding to you.
Full disclosure, I didn't even read Ned's post.
But yours was factually wrong and I pointed that out. It's still factually wrong regardless of the post you were responding to.
Do better.
It still doesn't explain why your having trouble comprehending that I never stated or implied that Bernie ran against Trump in the primaries. I'm afraid I can't break it down any further for you.
Best of luck to you!
And I do take my own advice.
(no message)
(no message)
in the current day.
Also, "Your rules" applies here. The Dems bega this crap with Kavanaugh, and unless they are made to feel the other edge of their sword, they will continue their ways, and the GOP will be at the same old disadvantage that allowed for much of the slip we have experienced over the past 3 decades.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Who here is selectively tossing out yearbook rules?
When the Dems did it to Kavanaugh for the FIRST time, of course R's cried foul But then when the Dem candidate only months later turns out to have far worse yearbook info, they of course claim, "Hey, you guys said yearbooks count. You can't argue that it is out of bounds now that it affects your candidate".
That is not actually selectively applying it. That is just reacting to a new set of rules that were newly put forth (with understandable outrage), and then adapting to the new guidelines and using them from then on as well.
If Cole or Eli were to object to some future yearbook claim against a Republican knowing the set of rules the Dems chose to play by, and since they have now paticipated equally in the new rules, then that would be selective,
Kind of sad the Dems opened this can of worms, but the R's will play by their rules now. No more being at the disadvantage of two sets of rules for each party with the assistance of the MSM to the Dems..
I see Dems calling for his resignation.
Who is saying yearbooks are out of bounds? Someone on this board?
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
I am trying to figure out who the Dems are (whether posters, Obama, Tom Kaine or whomever), that said that yearbooks are off limits.
If I look at his body of work over the 35 years since the yearbook, then I doubt that I'll find anything evidencing racism during that span of time. So the yearbook appears to be a one-off.
But let's face it: most Democrats on this Board would want Trump to resign if he had worn blackface at age 25, some 40 years ago. There would be a total media uproar and meltdown of DEFCON 1 proportions. The rules only apply to Republicans, as Baron's post above shows.
Since no one (to my knowledge) has said the yearbooks are off limits, I assume Ned was referring to people that think he should resign merely over the yearbook.
It is, indeed, comical that the Dems are arguing that we shouldn't use yearbook attacks now, because they just used those attacks themselves. If GOPers are arguing that as well, it is not as comical because they didn't use such attacks against Kavanaugh.
DRO said he thought the GOP had learned its lesson with the yearbook attacks on Kavanaugh. He was downplaying yearbook stuff, and was trying to get the GOP to stop making yearbook attacks on Northam because the GOP had argued that the yearbook attacks on Kavanaugh were unfair. I pointed out that it was comical that after using those attacks on Kavanaugh so recently, they could now argue that such attacks were unfair. Dems can use those arguments, but GOP cannot. Comedy. Or sad. Take your pick. The bottom line is that such attacks are now fair for both for the very reason that they were used against Kavanaugh by Dems.
What is your position? Should neither side be able to do this? Or both sides? Or, only Dems?
Howerver, it is 100% hypocritical for conservatives to given their Kavanaugh support. I stand by that statement.
Eli comes on here and says maybe he shouldn't resign because the yearbook is so old. Cole agrees with him.
How did you come up with the premise that "the Dems are arguing that we shouldn't use yearbook attacks now"?
Aren't they calling for his resignation?
I have no problem with Eli or Cole arguing this. They aren't embarrassing themselves by doing so, because they didn't go after Kavanaugh. Just not sure why you are having difficulty with this.
Link: https://forum.uhnd.com/forum/index.php?action=display&forumid=2&msgid=512947
He seems willing to back up his statements.
(no message)
I doubt he resigns. He will only resign if someone promises a "soft landing" to him in the private sector.
Link: https://twitter.com/eyokley/status/1092507265096130560
Name all of the D leaders who still support him and haven’t said he should resign.
If every politician with a purported racist leaning had to resign, there would be a mass exodus right now across the country.
I think the more fascinating part of the story is that he really can't resign because he has no where to go. He has been blacklisted (so to speak) from ever working for a Democratic/liberal group again, and I'm not sure a medical practice group would be interested in him either. The Left does not offer redemption to someone who they think is a racist. He is done.
I was just in the same town where he grew up -- Nassawadox on the Eastern Shore. They are Republicans. He won't receive a parade to say the least.
(no message)
Link: https://twitter.com/johncardillo/status/1092467169974251521
(no message)