Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[PassedOut]

More on the fake news front: As fake news takes over Facebook feeds, many are taking satire as fact

 

Robert thought hard about the exact number of Syrian refugees he wanted to place in Native American reservations.

 

He originally had decided on 50,000 but thought that sounded too believable. It needed to be more ridiculous. So he wrote his headline:

 

US to House 250,000 Syrian Refugees at Navajo, Standing Rock Indian Reservations

 

Of course, that isn’t true in the slightest. But on Facebook, a lie can go around the world before the truth has even been posted.

 

Robert – who asked that his last name not be used – considers himself a satirist. A glance through his site, Real News Right Now, indeed shows a light, if perhaps too subtle, touch of humor.

 

Of course, that means not everyone got the joke. Fox News’s Sean Hannity was soon parroting the 250,000 refugees claim. Soon, so was Donald Trump.

 

Robert was shocked. “That was very unsettling,” he said. “I was, like, this is incredible.”

I looked at the Real News Right Now site and it does provide very funny satire. It would be a shame to lose that just to prevent political hacks from using preposterous stories to dupe the gullible.

[diana_eva]

 

I looked at the Real News Right Now site and it does provide very funny satire. It would be a shame to lose that just to prevent political hacks from using preposterous stories to dupe the gullible.

 

That's a very funny site :) The comments to their articles are even funnier.

[barmar]

The Oxford Online Dictionary's definition of "racism" is:

1 Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior

 

1.1 The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races

So racism doesn't necessarily include every activity or belief that distinguishes people by their race, it's mainly those that treat them as superior or inferior.

 

For instance, if I consider white women generally more attractive than black women, I don't think that makes me racist. Attraction is based on looks, and race is obviously included in that. It's not much different from whether I prefer blondes or brunettes. As to why I have this preference, it could be because I grew up in a racially segregated environment -- there were almost no black families in the town where I grew up (I think it was mostly Jewish families that moved out to the suburbs from Brooklyn and Queens in the 60's). And most of the people on TV when I was growing up were white, and that influenced what was portrayed as attractive.

 

So racism may be the root cause of my preferences, but does that make me racist?

 

What about affirmative action? It distinguishes people based on race. But it's not giving special benefits to minorities because they're inferior, it's trying to make up for past policies that were based on racism, which is the reason why they're likely to be living in a community with a poor school system.

[mikeh]

Just to be clear, I am NOT calling Mike a racist. I am saying that Mike, if he were being intellectually honest and consistent, would call HIMSELF a racist. :P

You and Kaitlyn do enjoy supporting each other, don't you?

 

It has become a typical right-wing meme to portray themselves as victims when their views are challenged. Transference is a powerful psychological defence mechanism and you and Kaitlyn are prototypical examples.

 

Let's see:

 

my postings show that I believe that one should judge people on how they behave and their character (which we infer from behaviour) and not their 'race'. Hmmmm...not quite sure how that makes me racist, but apparently it does in your mind

 

my postings show that I think that many conservatives are unaware of the extent of their biases. I have pointed to passages written by Kaitlyn. She in fact has admitted that at least some of her beliefs are not merely unsupported by evidence but in fact contradicted by evidence, yet she still defends those beliefs. She likes to cite anecdotes as facts. Strangely, given that she is so sure she is not racist, such anecdotes are consistent in that blacks and muslims are portrayed as problems.Pointing that out has been described as mounting a virulent attack on her. Odd.

 

As it happens, I go further in terms of race than I have previously posted. I agree with those biologists and geneticists who say that race is largely a societal construct.

 

Skin colour, hair texture and appearance, facial appearance are of course the product of genes but there is no scientific basis for inferring that the complexes of genes that govern such superficial traits play any role in such traits as intelligence. 'Races' interbreed readily, much to the horror of many bigots (and not all of those bigots are white: mixed race people are often discriminated against in other cultures). Someone whose ancestors were all from Zambia will look quite differently from someone whose ancestors were all from Kenya, just as someone whose ancestry is entirely Norwegian will look much different from a Spaniard of similar 'pure' descent.

 

Yet go back far enough, and we all came from a single, small population the descendants of which escaped a 'bottleneck' event that almost led to species extinction. Random variation mediated by natural selection, and geographical/cultural isolation of breeding populations led to the appearance of what we call racial characteristics.

 

Any attempt to analyze intelligence on a genetic level is confounded by the 'noise' that arises from cultural and socio-economic factors. This has been clearly demonstrated by studies that, for example, show that how well black college students do on math tests in the US is influenced by whether they believe that their scores are being compared only to other blacks or whether whites are also writing the same test. It may seem odd to those of us who have privileged backgrounds (ie most of white North Americans or Western Europeans) but the data is clear: when tested under the former conditions, black students score better than under the latter. It is, I understand, a consequence of systemic prejudice that is so universal that it affects the perceptions of the victims as well as of the perpetrators.

 

That isn't all that surprising. Victims of many forms of pressure often adapt to and accept the pressure as normal. Witness the Stockholm Syndrome. Witness rape victims blaming themselves. Witness abuse victims staying in the relationship, and so on.

 

In any event, even if I were to be provided with evidence that race did have some effect on such matters as intelligence or character, it would still be inappropriate to judge any individual or group based on that effect. Similarly with gender or sexual orientation, which are markers that seem to have great significance to many conservatives.

 

Intelligence is a fuzzy concept. I have scored rather well on IQ tests, LSAT exams and the old 11+ in the UK. I read far faster than anyone I know, as one example of how that manifests in life. But I can't draw or paint to save my life, and I was, to put it kindly, a mediocre athlete. Artistic ability is a form of intelligence and I am well below average in that field. Athletic ability requires significant subconscious brain power. Think about the act of catching a deep fly ball in baseball....the processing that allows a fielder to go to the right spot as soon as the ball is hit. Think about the special awareness of a Wayne Gretzky when he made passes to other players, or found open ice to take a pass.

 

So no single scale of intelligence is appropriate, but even if it were, and even if one could show that skin colour or race played any role, individual variation far exceeds any group effect, to the point that when assessing any individual, his or her race is statistically insignificant. My own view is that there is no valid basis for concluding that there is ANY effect, but my point is that even if I am mistaken (and in theory it is obviously possible that there is some interrelationship between skin colour or eye shape, etc, and brain efficiency), such cannot be detected due to the enormous impact of such items as socio-economic status, maternal diet and health care, access to education, quality of early childhood home life, etc.

 

Just as I see no basis for inferring that a black or latino's worth or intelligence or character is influenced in any meaningful way by the genes that create those attributes, I see no basis for inferring that a white person's worth, etc, is influenced by such factors either.

 

In the face of this, I confess that I am amused and bemused by being called a racist.

 

Btw, I don't live in China. I don't read or post on Chinese websites. Indeed, I have zero aptitude at different languages (another form of intelligence at which I suck), so am unlikely to do so. However, if I were able to do so, and if a Chinese bigot were to post that whites were inherently inferior due to their race, I would respond to them as I respond to bigots here.

 

As it is, the only bigots with whom I have interaction are on this forum.

 

I look forward to learning why it is that an attitude that assumes that 'race' is an irrelevant factor in how one deals with others is evidence of racism. I infer, from what I have read here, that jon and maybe Kaitlyn are of the view that if one denies that whites are superior, or if one alleges that a white person is a bigot, then one is (as Trump's proposed AG once described a white civil rights lawyer) a 'disgrace to my race'.

[hrothgar]

What a great choice. America will be a nation of laws again in only ~2 months!!!

 

If there is one thing that the Watercooler has taught me, its that Canada has its fair share of racist assholes.

 

Its almost comforting when you discover that folks who you despise for one reason turn out to be complete pieces of ***** on so many other axes...

[Kaitlyn S]

That's a very funny site :) The comments to their articles are even funnier.

It looks like someone went through a lot of work to put up that site, with several categories of "news" stories. And as gullible as I am made out to be, I didn't find one headline that looked remotely credible. This is an example for those that don't want to visit the site:

 

 

Israel to Resettle 1 Million Palestinians on the Great Pacific Garbage Patch

 

 

 

It's hard to believe that he replaces all that content daily.

[Zelandakh]

Attraction is an interesting area Barry and there is more to it than you write. You are right that if you find people of one race or another more or less attractive, it is not necessarily a sign of racism. However, if you find women of a particular race unattractive because you believe they are untruthful, well that is racist. The point is whether you are judging the other person based on their being an individual on the same criteria as you would anyone else or if you are ascribing to them characteristics based on racial stereotyping. This is one more example of racism that is almost impossible to prove but can nonetheless be very deep-rooted and is difficult to address.

[PassedOut]

It looks like someone went through a lot of work to put up that site, with several categories of "news" stories. And as gullible as I am made out to be, I didn't find one headline that looked remotely credible. This is an example for those that don't want to visit the site:

 

Israel to Resettle 1 Million Palestinians on the Great Pacific Garbage Patch

 

It's hard to believe that he replaces all that content daily.

He doesn't. The content is dated and accumulates.

 

Taking Diana_Eva's suggestion, I read the comments to this article from August 15: Police Shoot Department Store Mannequin 67 Times After Mistaking it for Gunman and they were indeed hilarious.

 

Have to say, though, that the author has a very impressive bio: R. Hobbus J.D.

[jonottawa]

Mike reminds me of the joke about the guy who lost his keys:

 

A police officer sees a drunken man intently searching the ground near a lamppost and asks him the goal of his quest. The inebriate replies that he is looking for his car keys, and the officer helps for a few minutes without success then he asks whether the man is certain that he dropped the keys near the lamppost.

 

“No,” is the reply, “I lost the keys somewhere across the street.” “Why look here?” asks the surprised and irritated officer. “The light is much better here,” the intoxicated man responds with aplomb.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

[jonottawa]

"Kaitlyn, it's also worth noting that by Mike's own definition, he is a racist. I'm confident that he favors discriminating against whites in hiring or in university applications. I'm confident that he supports racially/religiously polarizing organizations like La Raza & Black Lives Matter & the Muslim Brotherhood. I'm confident that he hasn't spent a minute of his life advocating for more 'diversity' in China, or in Africa, or in India, or in Japan, or in Israel, or in Vietnam, or in Afghanistan, or in Bangladesh, or in South Korea."

 

"Just to be clear, I am NOT calling Mike a racist. I am saying that Mike, if he were being intellectually honest and consistent, would call HIMSELF a racist. :P"

 

Now Mike, here's how an intellectually honest person would reply to my argument:

 

Either deny that you favor/support the things that I say I'm confident you favor/support.

 

OR

 

Explain how favoring/supporting those things doesn't constitute having "opinions of or behaviours towards people [that] are influenced by the race of such people."

 

Here's how YOU replied:

 

IQ differences!

I'm amused at being called a racist!

I'm going to keep misusing the word bigot no matter how many times you post its definition!

You're a white supremacist!

 

Shame on you, sir.

 

[Kaitlyn S]

You and Kaitlyn do enjoy supporting each other, don't you?

Quite honestly, I don't think I've been all that supportive of JonOttowa and I wouldn't be surprised if he feels the same way. Even though he has been quite supportive of me, I have disagreed with him at least twice.

 

The main difference is that Jon is more convinced that I was right than I was. An in any conversation, I am stating what I think, but many life experiences have told me that my thoughts have been based on incomplete or incorrect information and I am willing to have my mind changed when someone can convince me that I am either wrong or that I need to look more deeply into the situation. The message I am getting from Jon is that I should not let the rest of you talk me out of what I believe. I am of the opinion that it is okay to let me be talked out of what I believe if what I believe isn't right. However, I should not let myself get talked out of my current beliefs due to peer pressure or because most of the others in the forum believe something different.

 

However, those who look down on Jon for being extremely confident in his beliefs should look at yourselves as well. I've been here for about 40 pages now and as far as I can tell, the only person who could be convinced to change their opinion about something is me. Now I don't really think that's true, most of us are somewhat open-minded, but I have no evidence to show that it is not true. I've seen many things said that disagree with others, and to date the only one I've noticed bend toward another person's opinion is me.

 

Your biggest problem with Jon is that his beliefs are different than yours. If he was on a different forum, perhaps half of the people would agree with him. Lord knows that America has very many people that agree with Jon on just about every point. Trump did win the election, after all. On the boardgamegeek equivalent of the Water Cooler, it's probably about 1/3 conservatives, and Jon's points would be quite popular among the conservative posters there. Of course, the other 2/3 would be ripping him apart similar to what you do here.

 

However, his points aren't even discussed. As soon as he posts, you all jump on him as an uninformed racist. Has anybody really responded to him with anything besides "you aren't worth listening to"? I felt that way myself for a bit but I realized that people have been much kinder in responding to me than to him, actually discussing the points which I bring up. I can understand your reluctance to discuss things with Jon, he has a "I'm right and you're wrong" style and you don't think a discussion will be of any use. However, I have noticed the same "I'm right and you're wrong" style among most of Jon's detractors also. I would like to break that attitude because it stifles truthful conversation. I have tried for about a year on BGG and have found a few posters that it's wroth discussing issues with. Most were of the "I'm right and you're wrong" type there too but a few other reasonable posters and I are making inroads. I have learned a lot and I find it somewhat enjoyable.

 

Now, put yourself in Jon's shoes for a minute. He's looking at this forum as a way to discuss ideas and nobody will even discuss them with him, preferring to just make a snarky comment or two each time he posts. What is he supposed to think? What I am saying to you is, if he is so obviously wrong to you, discuss with him civilly why you think he is wrong. He may be shocked at first but a real conversation might ensue and perhaps you will find some common ground. I presume there cannot be a total meeting of the minds because there are some fundamental differences in philosophies - the Constitution as written as opposed to a living breathing document for example.

[diana_eva]

It looks like someone went through a lot of work to put up that site, with several categories of "news" stories. And as gullible as I am made out to be, I didn't find one headline that looked remotely credible. This is an example for those that don't want to visit the site:

 

 

Israel to Resettle 1 Million Palestinians on the Great Pacific Garbage Patch

 

 

 

It's hard to believe that he replaces all that content daily.

 

You realize that this is a humour site, right?

[PassedOut]

It looks like someone went through a lot of work to put up that site, with several categories of "news" stories. And as gullible as I am made out to be, I didn't find one headline that looked remotely credible.

Good. Except for complete cynics, I don't think that anyone is completely free of gullibility -- me included. There's not time to fact-check everything, and one tends to take at face value material that matches one's own experience when it comes from a source that hasn't let one down in the past.

 

Much of business is conducted on trust, and I can say that if I find out another business person has lied to me, that's my last dealing with him or her. Barring a fast retraction and apology, I feel the same way about a news organization that puts out a false story.

 

Of course, satire is in a different category, and so are opinion shows like Hannity's, the show that repeated out the false story about refugees. No one should expect those shows -- on the right or the left -- to be reliable sources in the first place.

[cherdano]

Are you celebrating his appointment despite the fact that he has made racist comments, or because of it?

Just curious.

Still waiting for a reply to this one. If you are unable to use Google to find the quotes, I am happy to provide them.

[Kaitlyn S]

One of the highlights of a successful conversation is mutual respect. I happen to believe all of you are somewhat decent bridge players and therefore capable of some logical thought. That is my starting premise. Given that, I'm going to respect your opinion whether I agree with it or not. When it differs greatly from mine, and it's not based on some fundamental belief, I feel like there should be a reasonable chance of figuring out why we think differently, and come to some resolution which may be agreeing to disagree, or one side or the other coming closer to the other side's position.

 

Now, while I am giving you my respect, I also expect you to respect me in turn. There is no point in engaging when I am not respected because the other side's argument is going to be condescending at best. In most cases, I think I have some degree of respect.

 

This might be where the discussions with the left-leaning posters and Jon are breaking down. I think there is a mutual lack of respect which needs to be removed before real conversation can happen. Jon - I'm going to appear to not support you a third time now, but "mutual" means both ways. You need to respect them too. I realize this is hard to do when all they do is call you an uninformed bigot, but right now some of them aren't even reading your posts. Both sides would do much better to be less confrontational.

[Kaitlyn S]

You realize that this is a humour site, right?

Of course. It's funnier than Saturday Night Live.

[hrothgar]

FWIW, The New Republic has a good (although somewhat dated) description why it was that a Republican dominated judiciary committee refused to appoint Sessions to a federal judgeship because he was considered to be too racist.

 

https://newrepublic.com/article/61363/closed-sessions

[jonottawa]

Quite honestly, I don't think I've been all that supportive of JonOttowa and I wouldn't be surprised if he feels the same way. Even though he has been quite supportive of me, I have disagreed with him at least twice.

 

The main difference is that Jon is more convinced that I was right than I was.

 

I agree, you haven't been particularly supportive, but I'm a big boy. B-)

 

I'm actually not convinced at all that you're right fwiw. You've said some things I disagree with. But my sense of you is that you're a fundamentally decent person trying to carry on an honest conversation & to figure out what the right thing is. I AM convinced that you shouldn't back down from bullies, and that the behavior of (most of?) the folks on the other side has been shameful. But it's like with the Soros riots, I think their behavior just turns off anyone who hasn't already made up their minds, so in that sense it's helpful.

 

[jonottawa]

Of course. It's funnier than Saturday Night Live.

That's a pretty low bar. Is that like being more moral than Anthony Weiner? Or less corrupt than Hillary?

 

Good quote partially explaining (but not excusing) the incoherent rage directed at us:

 

[Kaitlyn S]

FWIW, The New Republic has a good (although somewhat dated) description why it was that a Republican dominated judiciary committee refused to appoint Sessions to a federal judgeship because he was considered to be too racist.

 

https://newrepublic....closed-sessions

Wow, the employees in the DOJ are going to be quite confused when they worked for Holder (blacks good, police bad) and now they're working for Sessions.

[PassedOut]

But it's like with the Soros riots, I think their behavior just turns off anyone who hasn't already made up their minds, so in that sense it's helpful.

Probably shouldn't ask, but this piqued my curiosity. Just what are the "Soros riots?"

[mikeh]

"Kaitlyn, it's also worth noting that by Mike's own definition, he is a racist. I'm confident that he favors discriminating against whites in hiring or in university applications. I'm confident that he supports racially/religiously polarizing organizations like La Raza & Black Lives Matter & the Muslim Brotherhood. I'm confident that he hasn't spent a minute of his life advocating for more 'diversity' in China, or in Africa, or in India, or in Japan, or in Israel, or in Vietnam, or in Afghanistan, or in Bangladesh, or in South Korea."

 

"Just to be clear, I am NOT calling Mike a racist. I am saying that Mike, if he were being intellectually honest and consistent, would call HIMSELF a racist. :P"

 

Now Mike, here's how an intellectually honest person would reply to my argument:

 

Either deny that you favor/support the things that I say I'm confident you favor/support.

 

OR

 

Explain how favoring/supporting those things doesn't constitute having "opinions of or behaviours towards people [that] are influenced by the race of such people."

 

Here's how YOU replied:

 

IQ differences!

I'm amused at being called a racist!

I'm going to keep misusing the word bigot no matter how many times you post its definition!

You're a white supremacist!

 

Shame on you, sir.

 

Ok.

 

Favouring affirmative action is a complex issue, and not prone to simple binary views, in which favouring it is seen as racial discrimination against whites or men.

 

Understanding the arguments for affirmative action requires more than knee-jerk name-calling.

 

The arguments that I would advance include:

 

Cultural values evolve slowly

 

role models are important

 

For virtually all of recorded history various forms of prejudice influence life in all cultures. I happen to have an interest in the history of science as well as the evolution of life in general and human life in particular, so I have read extensively, albeit as a layperson with no particular training.

 

Read anything written 100 years ago...or 150...or....and you will see discrimination that forms part of the background to the story. It is so omnipresent that it seems that the writer and intended audience weren't even aware of the biases, in much the same fashion that allows Kaitlyn to repeatedly protest that she isn't at all racist.

 

Thus how many female astronomers had doctorates 80 years ago? How many women were medical doctors in the 1950's. How many were lawyers?

 

Ask the same question about blacks, or latinos. Look back at history and find when the first Jewish member of Parliament was elected in the UK. Heck, I belong to a club here in Victoria that only voted to admit women some 20 years ago....fwiw, I refused invitations to join until that was rescinded.

 

When I was in Engineering, more than 40 years ago, there were no more than one or two women, and the undergraduate society was openly sexist: at one 'smoker' the class president screwed a hired hooker on stage.

 

So as a young woman, back in the 1950s or 60s or earlier, when deciding what career to choose...it took a lot of independence even to think of a career other than finding a husband.

 

As a young black, whether male or female, but of course twice as difficult for a female, what career could one look towards?

 

It wasn't and isn't merely the resistance that some professions put in the way. It is also about the examples in one's life.

 

I do a lot of work that involves the assessment of possible career paths that would have been followed by young people who have now been disabled by accidents. So I deal with experts in this area all the time, and myy understanding is that children generally, though by now means always, tend towards careers similar to thise followed by older family members. I stress that this is only a generalization and by no means even close to being 'more likely than not'.

 

However, I know many lawyers who have at least one parent as a lawyer, and the same for doctors, accountants, carpenters, electrcians and so on.

 

We rely on role models.

 

So imagine that as a society we have decided that the prejudices of the past are unfair, and we want or professions to more accurately reflect a fair and just society?

 

We could take the long road and not touch the old boys prejudices....let the old boys die off, and hope that as the generations pass, we see a slow increase in the participation of women or blacks or...

 

 

Or we could say: one good way to make young people realize that they can in fact hope to become a lawyer or a doctor or an engineer, is to confer advantages on those people, until such time as it becomes as easy for a woman or for a black man to aspire to become a lawyer, etc as it has been for a white.

 

Bear in mind that the oppressed (and I know that term will drive jon nuts), continue, usually, to suffer from ongoing discrimination. Affirmative action isn't imposed on a level playing field. Were it to be so imposed, then I would be opposed to it. It would be unjustifiable.

 

But despite the mistaken beliefs earlier espoused by Kaitlyn, discrimination is rampant, and so too are the effects of socio-economic disparities, that are themselves both causes and results of generations of systemic discrimination.

 

The playing field remains tilted against those favoured by affirmative action, so the discrimination created by affirmative action serves to offset, and only partially offset, the background bias.

 

Affirmative action is a form of discrimination as a response to a problem, and not a goal of its own. That is the difference between supporting affirmative action on the one hand, and engaging in voter suppression (as did many Republican States) on the other, or of electing only white males to office.

 

Btw, for anyone interested in how racial prejudice impacts bright African-americans, read Neil deGrasse Tyson's stories about the obstacles he had to overcome to be an astrophysicist.

 

I don't 'support' La Raza, altho the limited information I have on that suggests that it is not engaged in promoting race divisions or hatreds. Whether I would endorse amy of it aims would depend on what they were. BLM: from what I have heard, it seems to have some fairly cogent things to say about the state of race relations in the US. I don't know much about it, and it may or may not be that I would approve some, all or none of its stated agenda.

 

Do I think that there is compelling evidence that blacks are disproportionally wrongly shot by police in the US? Yes, I do.

 

Do I also accept that the proportion of citizen-police interactions that result in the police killing an unarmed or surrendering or fleeing suspect is roughly the same for whites and blacks? I am uncertain because I haven't read the paper that apparently suggests this to be the case, and I know, from having looked into internet references to 'sources' that not all sources are reliable and not all papers are valid. However, I am willing to entertain the notion, while still noting that blacks are proportionately far more likely to be confronted by armed police than are whites, thus generating a far higher per capita rate of shootings.

 

The problem, iow, isn't that police kill blacks who they have stopped far more frequently than they kill whites they have stopped. It is that they stop, and thus create high risk encounters, blacks far more often than whites, based on population statistics.

 

As for the Muslim Brotherhood: again I have limited knowledge. I do not 'support' entities whose beliefs or practices are unknown to me. If they advocate, for example, the peaceful interaction of peoples without regard to religion, then I'd likely support them, but I have a sneaking hunch that at least some of the members don't think that way. In addition, and as a general but nout universal bias, I think that anyone whose prime identifier is their religious belief is delusional. Organized religion, in my opinion, is on balance, a terrible force for evil. There are notable exceptions: Mycroft, as one example, and I have profound differences about religion but I have great admiration for what I know of Mycroft's character. So, I suspect I would not support the MB were I to be bothered to learn more about it.

 

I have already addressed the silly points about my lack of advocacy on issues arising in and affecting other areas of the world. I tend to form and express opinions about subjects where I have some understanding of the issues. Unlike many right wingers, I am very comfortable with acknowledging that opinions should be based on evidence, not belief. Belief flows from considering the facts. The facts are not the result of the belief. Had Kaitlyn understood that, many of her more offensive posts would not have been written.

[cherdano]

Jon, I am still waiting for your answer. Are you excited for Sessions' appointment because of his past of racist comments, or despite them? I should say, from your posts it is easy to get the impression that it is the former - so I wanted to give you the opportunity to clear up a possible unfortunate misunderstanding.

FWIW, The New Republic has a good (although somewhat dated) description why it was that a Republican dominated judiciary committee refused to appoint Sessions to a federal judgeship because he was considered to be too racist.

 

https://newrepublic.com/article/61363/closed-sessions

[Kaitlyn S]

Had Kaitlyn understood that, many of her more offensive posts would not have been written.

While many of my posts were based on incomplete information, I thought of my posts as an intellectual exchange of ideas and would only be offensive to someone so sensitive that they don't belong in the Water Cooler. If I had any idea that someone who thinks they belong here would be offended by my posts, I wouldn't have posted them. Being intentionally hurtful is evil and I try to avoid that when possible.

[jonottawa]

Good news. This makes confirmation a virtual lock.http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/key-republican-throws-support-behind-sessions/article/2607811http://cdn.washingtonexaminer.biz/cache/730x420-67705309434f1c99257ec76c449ffeec.jpg