Bizarre, Politics

Bernie Sanders Attacked For Calling On Candidates To Be Judged On The Merits Not Their Identity Groups

It seems increasingly common for me to find myself utterly confused by American politics. I have admittedly always liked Bernie Sanders and I liked his interview on Vermont Public Radio where addressed the upcoming presidential campaign. He said “We have got to look at candidates, you know, not by the color of their skin, not by their sexual orientation or their gender and not by their age. I mean, I think we have got to try to move us toward a nondiscriminatory society, which looks at people based on their abilities, based on what they stand for.” If that would seem like an unassailable and uncontroversial statement, guess again.

Advocates of identity politics responded with outrage that Sanders would want candidates judged entirely by the merits and not their race, gender or sexual orientation. Neera Tanden of the Center for American Progress was apoplectic on Twitter, “At a time where folks feel under attack because of who they are, saying race or gender or sexual orientation or identity doesn’t matter is not off, it’s simply wrong.”

The New York Post also quotes former Clinton aide Jess McIntosh chimed in, “This is usually an argument made by people who don’t enjoy outsized respect and credibility because of their race, gender, age and sexual orientation.” Then there is Stephen Colbert snarked, “Yes, like Dr. King, I have a dream—a dream where this diverse nation can come together and be led by an old white guy.”

So instead Colbert believes D.r King would want people to judge leaders on the basis for their skin? Indeed, Colbert would presumably mock Dr. King for saying something so facially absurd as “I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”

The Democrats are clearly all-in on identity politics despite the fact that it is viewed by many as inherently discriminatory and divisive.

It is a reminder that the best thing going for Trump in the 2020 election remains the Democratic establishment.

199 thoughts on “Bernie Sanders Attacked For Calling On Candidates To Be Judged On The Merits Not Their Identity Groups”

    1. Linda, I suppose you like the idea of the rich (who were powerful and partly in charge of Venezuela) living in luxury and safety today while the poor die of starvation. Why don’t you send money to the Maduro government so it can abuse and starve its people even more. Isn’t that a great idea?

  2. I don’t think that it’s too much to suspect that a person who wants to redirect issue AWAY from the character standard and TOWARDS the identity standard, might not be able to compete in the first category. To suggest that MLK’s target is outdated, from what I can see..it’s definitely still higher ground.

  3. Speaking about the insanity of the Left, white ultra rich millionaires and hypocritical megalomaniacs, Pelosi just ignited yet another raging dumpster fire to her beloved party. 2020 cant come soon enough.

    ###

    https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/emily-ward/pelosis-chief-staff-speaker-will-release-tax-returns-if-and-when-she-runs

    Pelosi’s Chief of Staff: Speaker Will Release Tax Returns ‘If and When She Runs for President

    (CNSNews.com) — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) “will gladly release her tax returns if and when she runs for president,” said her Chief of Staff Drew Hammill, apparently indicating that, in Pelosi’s current position as speaker, she will not release her tax returns.

    When CNSNews.com repeatedly followed-up and asked Hammill to directly confirm that Pelosi, as speaker, would not release her tax returns, Hammill did not respond.

    Pelosi, who was born on March 26, 1940, will turn 79 next month–and has not announced that she is running for president in 2020.

    CNSNews.com has been trying for two weeks by email and telephone to get a direct answer from Speaker Pelosi on this tax-return question because she has co-sponsored legislation (H.R. 1) that would require the president and vice president to release their tax returns. Under 3 U.S. Code 19 (enacted under Article II, Section 1, Clause 6 of the Constitution), the Speaker of the House is third in line to the presidency.

    Specifically, CNSNews.com asked Speaker Pelosi’s Press Spokesperson Taylor Griffin and Communications Director Ashley Etienne these questions:

    H.R. 1, which Speaker Nancy Pelosi supports, would require the president and vice president to release their current tax return and their tax returns from the last 9 years. It states: “With respect to each taxable year for an individual who is the President or Vice President, not later than the due date for the return of tax for the taxable year, such individual shall submit to the Federal Election Commission a copy of the individual’s income tax returns for the taxable year and for the 9 preceding taxable years.”

    Here are my questions:

    1. Does Speaker Pelosi support legally requiring the speaker of the House to release his or her tax returns?

    2. Will Speaker Pelosi release her tax returns for this year and the previous 9 years? Yes or no?

    At a Feb. 13 press briefing, CNSNews.com was able to ask Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) this question: “H.R. 1 would legally require the president and vice president to release their tax returns. Should House Speaker Pelosi be required to release her tax returns? Yes or no?”

    Jeffries said: “Well, that’s a question that I think you should direct to Speaker Pelosi.”

    That same day, Politico posted the exchange in a tweet and Hammill replied to Politico, tweeting, “The Speaker will gladly release her tax returns if and when she runs for president.”

    Hammill also sent a link to that reply to CNSNews.com. Hammill’s implication appears to be that Pelosi, as the Speaker, will not release her tax returns. CNSNews.com repeatedly followed up by asking Hammill–by email and telephone–to specifically clarify that that was the case. However, Hammill did not respond.

    H.R. 1, which is co-sponsored by Pelosi, would force President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence, but not members of Congress, to make their tax returns public.

    Known as the “For the People Act of 2019,” it was introduced by Rep. John Sarbanes (D-Md.) on Jan. 3, the first day of the 116th Congress. The act aims to “expand Americans’ access to the ballot box,” “reduce the influence of big money in politics” and “strengthen ethics rules for public servants.”

    Section 10001 of the act, entitled Presidential and Vice Presidential Tax Transparency, states that the sitting president and vice president must submit copies of their income tax returns “for the taxable year and for the 9 preceding taxable years” to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), and that the FEC must make the returns “publicly available.”

    In addition, the act would require presidential and vice presidential candidates from a “major party” to submit copies of their income tax returns for the “10 most recent taxable years.”

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Vice President Mike Pence, President Donald Trump,
    and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). (Getty Images)
    The Speaker of the House, who presides over a body responsible for all legislation enacted by the federal government, would not be required to disclose his or her tax returns under H.R. 1.

    Pelosi has repeatedly voiced her support for H.R. 1. For example, she and Rep. Jim McGovern (D.-Mass.), who is also a co-sponsor of the bill, co-authored a Jan. 3 op-ed for USA Today. In it, they wrote: “Transparency, ethics and unity will be the guiding light of the Democratic Congress.”

    “HR 1 will allow us to clean up Congress to give confidence to the American people that we can and will deliver results for the people,” they added.

  4. Disappointing post by Turley.

    Bernie’s quote was in answer to a question about his age. Mortality and declining abilities are universal, not identity politics, just as reaching maturity – or the age of 35 as required by the Constitution – are not matters of identity politics. That Bernie tried to flip the question into that self serving meme was dishonest. I otherwise admire Bernie and voted for him in the last primary, but he’ll be 79 on 1/20/2021, Biden will be 77 – I think, check me – and Trump will be 74. All of them – like me – are on the edge of serious concerns about declining health, abilities, and even, like John Cleese’s parrot, death. I think it is in some ways good that they – like Pelosi – are demonstrating the benefits and powers of our elongated lives, but let’s not be fools about it. The Presidency is demanding and exhausting, that is if you don;t spend half the day in your PJs watching TV and tweeting.

    1. Our newest blithering troll Jan taps: “elongated lives, but let’s not be fools about it. ”

      Lives are not enlongated and only fools would make such an embarrassing English grammatical error unless if you meant to reference “elongated toilets” and Pelosi

      http://tinyurl.com/yx8rq5yu

      1. Estovir, Jan’s comments read like they were written by an adult. Whereas your comments typically read like those of a nerdy 7th Grader. And it’s funny because Republicans are always wondering why they have a nerdy image.

        1. “they have a nerdy image”

          Nerdy? youre 15 to 18 yrs of age max, +/- 30 points on the WAIS

          1. Estovir,…
            – Do not be so quick to dismiss the voluminous contributions of our man on the ground from America’s heartland, Hollywood.
            Without the non-stop guidance of Hollywood Hill and his spectacular HHHNN Media Empire, we would not know what is cool and what is nerdy, what is Good😇( Democrats) and the Evil 😈 ( Republicans), and who are the smartest of us all. (hint, their symbol is a jackass, sometimes viewed as a donkey).
            Hollywood Hill works very hard to present himself as the former, and those efforts should not go unrecognized.
            Now, wait for a brilliant retort from Hollywood Hill involving Fox News and the right-wing media.
            If he neglects to use that oh– so–devastating debating tool, just review his last few hundred comments for a refresher course.

            1. Tom, your efforts to denounce me look more desperate all the time.

              You should know I spend a lot time on canyon trails ‘above’ Hollywood. How many Americans have such amenities in their backyards? I’m grateful these diversions are in my backyard. It keeps me highly fit. And western scenery is beautiful.

              So only a fool would apologize for living in Hollywood. Almost anyone would love the views from my canyons.

    2. If you think Bernie’s scam is bad, the communist party has ordered the lazy, greedy, thug teachers union to go on strike again. This

      time it’s that hideout for treasonous, anti-American, radical extremist anarchists and parasites, Oakland, CA.

      The communist party’s strategy is to deploy the ridiculous teachers unions to raise the standard through excessive, irrational and

      undeserved wage hikes then obtain “comparable pay” for every other public worker in America, including the allied elected

      officials.

      Ain’t “fake,” fraudulent and insidious communistic schemes beautiful?

      Why aren’t these charlatans in prison?

      1. Well said, they hid out in Academia, and taught their hateful ideology to America’s students, with impunity.

    3. If he has good mental acuity then his age is not a problem.

      Bernie has some or perhaps many bad polices but I don’t hold it against him that he’s white. Nor male. Nor Jewish. If I’m correct about that.

      In my current thinking, this things probably weigh in his favor.

  5. When I was a kid back in the’60s and ’50s and living in St. Louis (well, Ferguson), we had a show on TV called The Howdy Doody Show. They sang a song and we changed the words:

    It’s Howdy Doody time!
    The show ain’t worth a dime!
    So turn on Channel 9…
    And we will see Turpentine!

    It’s time for Berny day!
    He is a skinny gay!
    He lives in Brooklin Bay!

  6. Why did Obama fail to rename the White House? It should be neutral house. Or kings palace. Not “White” house.

  7. Jan F you don’t have to listen to me on what identify politics is. You can listen to the quotes of various people in this blog of Turley’s

    Neera Tanden: “At a time where folks feel under attack because of who they are, saying race or gender or sexual orientation or identity doesn’t matter is not off, it’s simply wrong.”

    Stephen Colbert: “Yes, like Dr. King, I have a dream—a dream where this diverse nation can come together and be led by an old white guy.”

    Dr. King must be rolling in his grave.

    The question of identity politics is up to you Jan F. Do you judge a man by his character or the color of his skin?

    1. I judge a man by the sound of his voice. If he talks like a Yorkie I call him a dorkie.

    2. I’m sorry, but I already won this argument. To recap, anyone in the lily white GOP is the one with some ‘splainin’ to do about identity politics and since I’m not, I won’t. Thanks for playing.

      1. “I already won this argument … Thanks for playing.

        Jan F., the only thing you proved is that it doesn’t pay to explain ideas or be nice. Your respone demonstrates you to be totally ignorant and unable to expand what you know. That you don’t understand identity politics or intersectionality is obvious. You don’t even bother to think about where many of your ideas come from. You sound like a total bore who repeats the same things over and over again never checking the facts and most definitely never thinks.

        You didn’t know who Mancuse was. That is fine. Many people don’t, but there was an explanation attached and shows why you are so ignorant. You have no curiosity, but you do have simple slogans and answers generally containing 5 words or less. That is one of the problems conservatives have. Most conservatives that discuss their viewpoints are relatively educated and well read. Some Liberals are as well but most are like you that prefer to live off the slogans created by others.

          1. “At least Jan F doesn’t demean herself by attacking others who post comments.”

            Listen to all the comments about Trump and his followers and note the lack of non personal attacks against what he has done.

            That is your problem Samantha you can only attack a personality and by doing so attack everyone that agrees with that personality. You are too much of a coward to attack ideas because your own all too frequently lack substance and at times are insufferable.

            I made an attempt to discuss the actual issues with Jan and the only response she could provide was a stupid one.

            1. I’m admittedly new to this forum, but do the same 4 guys always post the same s..t no matter what the topic?

              Kind of hard to converse with the uncle who within 2 minutes always gets it back to the black guy who borrowed his lawn mower in 1967 and never returned it. I think the guy’s name was Marcuse.

              1. “I’m admittedly new to this forum”

                Lets guess: Peter, Enigma, Fishbreath, L4B, et al are breathless in putting out the flames their political heroes have ignited to their own “Big Tent”, and you were summoned to add gasoline to the leftwing dumpster fire raging out of control

                With trolls “articulating” arguments like you, we may never be rid of Trump

              2. Jan F.,
                – When you say you’re new to this forum, do you mean as one who comments here?
                Or have you also just recently started to read the JT columns and the comments as well?
                Some are longer-term readers who then comment for the first time(s), and some are also new to both the columns and and the comments sections, too.

                1. Both as reader and commentator. Of course I’ve seen him on the talking head shows so I know who he is. I thought and hoped he was independent and thoughtful, and he may be, but this web site has lowered my opinion of him a little as he covers some ridiculous stuff, and in the posts I’ve read completely missed the point on this one – Bernie was defending himself against being old – a completely valid concern for someone who will be 79 in 2021 and having nothing to do with “identity politics” – and the one on Trump’s National Emergency – in that one Mr Turley made it all about himself and his previous legal involvement in opposition to Obama executive actions while voicing no opinion about this much more egregious example of a presidential power grab.

              3. I spent time Jan on a potential newbie explaining a few things including things not stated on this blog as long as I have been on it. Now I listen to you saying it is all the “same s..t” so obviously your mind isn’t open to reasonable dialogue. Have it your way. Act like Peter and be treated like Peter. Ignorant and intollerant of any ideas that are different from your own.

                1. We’ve both expressed our opinions on “identity politics” and you have only repeated the same argument without addressing the obvious racial make up of the two major parties voters and office holders. That is not “explaining” anything and I don’t need or desire to hear the same s..t over and over.

                  If you have something new to say I’ll respectfully listen and respond. .

                  1. “We’ve both expressed our opinions on “identity politics”

                    Jan, you didn’t know what identity politics was and to the present it seems you don’t understand what identity politics is. When I first opened a discussion with you I explained what I believed and you decided to throw a lawnmower into the discussion. That demonstrates your inability to respond and your propensity to not be respectful. That is fine with me. I can have either type of discussion but the former type of discussion with you seems out of the question.

                    1. Dude, I know what “identity politics” is. It’s the use of race as a political weapon, which is how the GOP won the south, lost blacks and other minority groups, and is now the white party.

                    2. “Dude, I know what “identity politics” is. ”

                      Jan, apparently you think you know but you really don’t nor do you seem to understand what Trump has accomplished. He doesn’t play to race. His policies are good for the working man and for the nation. He wants to build a wall, not to prevent legal immigration but to prevent illegal immigration. Sometimes his words cause you angst along with many of his supporters, but his actions have led to lower unemployment and increased income for the middle class. He has brought some industry back and is striving to make America more competitive so that the American worker can increase his standard of living as the American worker deserves. The American worker is a citizen of any color, race, religion, sex, etc. The specific minority you seem to worry most about has benefited under Trump.

                      ” which is how the GOP won the south,”

                      That demonstrates a tremendous amount of ignorance both historically and presently. You do realize it was the Democrats that enslaved blacks and a Republican President that freed them and Republicans that passed the Civil Rights Laws and Republicans like Eisenhower who quietly threatened to send the troops in. You realize it was the Democratic hero Wilson that segregated the US and who was a segregationist. You realize that the 1924 Democratic convention was known as the Klanbake because of the KKK involvement.

                      I’ve taken you back in history because at the time the Democrats thought they were doing nothing wrong just like you think you are doing nothing wrong today. We can go forward in time if you wish but that requires you not throwing lawnmowers into a discussion.

                  2. Anonymous, all you have done is once again prove yourself to be an idiot. I think it would be very difficult to search for another with such a low intellect and such an inability to be original.

              4. Jan, if your views are critical of Trump you will be smeared as a ‘liar’ by every Trumper on this thread.

                Alan will call you ‘stupid’. Tom Nash will be outraged. Absurd will craft a snooty put-down. And Estovir will try to bring you down to his 7th Grade level.

                1. “Jan, if your views are critical of Trump you will be smeared as a ‘liar’ by every Trumper on this thread.”

                  That is not true. When you attack a person that represents a group and do not use ideas instead of personalities then you open your own personality to attack. With all the time Peter has spent on the net he hasn’t yet learned that simple fact.

                  “Alan will call you ‘stupid’. ”

                  Peter, I am blunt and honest and yes, you are stupid, but as Jan knows from our earliest discussions I am perfectly willing to discuss ideas intelligently even if the other person differs but openly deals in discussion. You, Peter, are a liar so we have all given up on you. Jan can make an about face if she wishes to and be better off for it.

                  1. Allan says: “I am perfectly willing to discuss ideas intelligently…”

                    Allan is most certainly willing to run his mouth — all the time. As for “intelligently?” Now that’s laughable.

                  1. That’s a fact, not an opinion.

                    At this point I can’f figure if this remark is indicative of camp or stupidity.

                    2. It is stupidity compounded by arrogance. I think those qualities should be recognized, regardless of which alias the person us using.

                  2. It always makes it easier to know which way to go when someone draws a line in the sand like Jan F. just did with her “fact”.

                  3. “That’s a fact, not an opinion.”

                    Apparently, Jan, you don’t know what identity politics is, what intersectionality is, what fascism is, who Marcuse is and you don’t know the difference between fact and opinion. Your statement ” No informed, sane, and decent person can defend Trump.” is opinion not fact and such a statement demontrates a high level of ignorance and arrogance.

                  4. Jan,
                    “No informed, sane, and decent person can defend Trump.”

                    Not a fair comment at all. And not one designed for a meeting of minds over differences. You just demonized people. That is not a decent thing to do.

                  5. Dr t,
                    This may explain where JanF/ now anon is coming from, and what shapes virtually EVERY comment he/she has made since day 1. I’m not going to bother cutting and pasting her orevious ( initial) comments here c. 4 months ago, since these are still open for replies.
                    Nor am I going to bother trying to sign in below when there’s no space provided to sign in; there actually aren’t enough “anonymouses” here as it is, so let’s add some more.

              5. Jan F said, ” . . . the black guy who borrowed his lawn mower in 1967 and never returned it. I think the guy’s name was Marcuse.”

                Marcuse claims it was Adorno whodunit.

                1. Diane, if Jan doesn’t know who Marcuse is, how would she know Adorno? Jan knows about lawnmowers but I am afraid not much else.

                  Did you ever meet or read Marcuse?

                  1. Diane, Deleted is what WordPress did to my name. Hopefully this will set it straight.

                    —Allan

              6. Jan F:
                I’ve read some of you rants and screeds. After some consideration of your witless writing style, let me offer a slight modification to your moniker. Try our “Jan F U” for size. Has the right feel to it and all newcomers certainly need a descriptive nickname.

                1. mespo………..I was thinking the same thing. “Jan F U” just rolls off the tongue, doesn’t it?

                    1. Mrspo,
                      Another good variation is the place the F U, before the name JanF. I think that could serve as an appropriate reply to most of the comments she makes here.

                  2. I have some additional words/ phrases that I could add as an appropriate welcome for Janef, but I’m trying to be polite….
                    and there are the civility rule restrictions that prevent me from really unloading on that fool.

        2. “Jan F., the only thing you proved is that it doesn’t pay to explain ideas or be nice“

          I give Jan F until March 4 (to quote another departure date from a user here) until they depart these forums. Jan Cant hack it on the boards with such tripe as genuflecting to NyT and WahPuh, and pounding of chest to decry rhey are the winner.

          1. I offered to Jan some of what I know. I don’t expect her to agree, but she couldn’t even disagree. All she could do was make a silly comment “pounding of chest to decry rhey are the winner”. It’s sad that the intellectual state of this nation is falling to such lows.

            1. Allan,
              You were trying to have a discussion with an apparent postmodernist:

              Jordan Peterson:
              “They believe that logic is part of the process by which the patriarchal institutions of the West continue to dominate and to justify their dominance. They don’t believe in dialogue. The root word of dialogue is logos — again, they don’t believe that people of good will can come to consensus through the exchange of ideas. They believe that that notion is part of the philosophical substructure and practices of the dominant culture. ”

              https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=MPojltjv4M0

              1. Prairie Rose, thank you for one of the best short videos. I would not credit Jan with being postmodernist as she is ignorant with regard to philosophy and what we hear from her is nothing more than slogans pumped into her head that make her believe she knows something and counts. She is merely part of a wall of disposable people that protect the inner core of the post modernist movement who are unable to come into the sunlight and debate their thoughts.

                Peterson is talking about people like Marcuse and Adorna. Jan simply throws a lawnmower in to prevent discussion. Jordan Peterson reveals the truth and I quote a portion of the video. Resentment, arrogance and deceit, don’t they represent Peter Shill and others like him on this blog?

                “There is something pathologically wrong with a person who doesn’t have any gratitude espcially when they live in what so far is the best of all possible worlds. If you are not greatfull you are driven by resentment. Resentment is about the worst emotion you can possibly experience apart from arogance. Resentment, arrogance and deceit, there is an evil triad for you.”

                1. Allan,
                  Though Jan may not have the philosophical background, this is apropos from Peterson (same video):

                  “It’s not like any given person is absolutely possessed by the spirit of postmodernism, because often they’re not educated enough to know all the details about what it is that has them in their grip, but if you get 20 of them together and they’re all 5% influenced by the postmodernist ethos, you basically have the spirit of the mob. It’s a mouthpiece for that particular philosophical doctrine.”

                  1. I’m glad I have provided you all with so much entertainment imagining who I am and how dumb I must be. Perhaps this forum of philosophy majors is unaware that the definitive characteristic of post modernism is it’s conviction that there is no truth, but only “texts” written and voiced by imperfect humans. This is an unsettling thought for most, and one I don’t agree with, but as Trump followers join him in denouncing the various social institutions that strive for truth by confusing editorial positions with reporting facts, they are devolving into post modern men convinced that they can read and watch whatever confirms their bias while their leader pumps them with the lies which they depend on – and apparently need..

                    1. Jan,
                      I do not think you are dumb. What I see is you reflecting the worst elements of radical postmodernism. Characterizing the GOP as “lily white” and then declaring yourself the winner of a debate that didn’t even get off the ground seems to show you think “group” (e.g., racial) identity is preeminent, and, that there is no need to debate anyone potentially in the wrong group because by they are obviously wrong and have nothing you need to hear. I would be happy to be wrong on these observations. I would prefer a fruitful discussion that attempts to unravel real problems and find workable solutions. If you and others continue to throw out comments that insinuates individuals are incapable of anything more than groupthink based on shallow group identities, then no conversation is actually possible, which is a shame and a lost opportunity.

                    2. For some reason there is no “reply” under Prairie’s comment.

                      I find it more than difficult to have rational discussions with someone who doesn’t admit that when the sun is out the sky is blue and the GOP is almost completely white in both voters and office holders. The same type person is often the one lecturing others on “identity politics”, as if it’s just an accident that this true. If race is not important to you, why is your party so clearly defined by the race of its members?

                      Maybe if we can past this obvious fact we might have a meeting of the minds.

                    3. “I’m glad I have provided you all with so much entertainment imagining who I am and how dumb I must be.”

                      Jan, one can’t tell how dumb you are from the few statements you have made but you certainly have demonstrated an ignorance that does provide entertainment. For that I thank you.

                      “denouncing the various social institutions that strive for truth by confusing editorial positions with reporting facts”

                      Most of the time the denouncing you hear of social institution is the denouncing of the media. They are supposed to be experts in fact finding and should know the difference betwen facts and opinion so one should denounce the so-called experts to force them to live up to the standards they pledge to live up to.

                      Most of us that you are at odds with have no problem with the truth, but we do have problems with fake news either the commission of fake news or the omission of real news. That you can’t understand the existence of such a problem in the media is your problem.

                    4. Jan,
                      “For some reason there is no “reply” under Prairie’s comment.”

                      Yeah, I’m not sure why that’s the case either.

                      “I find it more than difficult to have rational discussions with someone who doesn’t admit that when the sun is out the sky is blue”

                      The word ‘admit’ is problematic. It assumes that “your side” is correct. It may be, but it is unfair to assume. It is a word associated with ‘winning’ or defeating one’s ‘opponent’. No fruitful conversation can come of that.

                      “GOP is almost completely white in both voters and office holders.”

                      So? It is not for any attempt to keep people out. Perhaps there are not enough ‘minorities’ who are sufficiently competent for Trump’s liking. Why does Kanye West agree with Trump on some things? Why does Caitlyn Jenner vote Republican? Why is Clarence Thomas conservative?

                      “The same type person is often the one lecturing others on “identity politics”, as if it’s just an accident that this true.”

                      How are ‘identity politics’ true? Maybe we do not mean the same thing. As far as I can see, identity politics negate the individual by ascribing ‘group’ ideology to all people in a gerrymandered ‘group’. What does a person’s skin color, for example, have to do with his or her personally held beliefs? There are far and away more factors than a shallow criterion like skin color that go into the development of one’s beliefs.

                      “If race is not important to you, why is your party so clearly defined by the race of its members?”

                      An assumption. It is not my party. I am an Independent. I did not vote for Trump. In fact, I could not vote for anyone this last round. I wrote in “None of the above.”

                      I do not see how the GOP is ‘clearly defined by the race of its members’. A majority of Republicans are white, this is true. That is not the defining element of the party. What defines the party is the platform and the legislation they support or not (of which I have various and sundry disagreements).

                      “Maybe if we can past this obvious fact we might have a meeting of the minds.”

                      You have not presented any obvious ‘facts’. You have presented assertions of ideologically-driven opinion.

                      A real discussion comprised of steel-manning arguments, avoidance of assumptions as best as possible, and curiousity about other perspectives would be great.

                    5. Jan,
                      “Perhaps there are not enough ‘minorities’ who are sufficiently competent for Trump’s liking.”

                      I say this from the perspective that MERIT should come first. Diversity for diversity’s sake does not strive for the right metric for effectively running a complex organization.

                      People who are highly competent and can think for themselves–who are chosen on their merit–should be chosen, without discrimination against their race, religion, sexual orientation or other ‘identity politics’ markers. Being selected based on one of those shallow markers, rather than on one’s merit, is insulting.

                  2. Right, Prairie and that is why there is a need for the left to stop any discussion even if one requires violent action. Discussion requires thinking and the leaders of the left don’t want to promote the idea of thinking. The activist left of today isn’t all that different from the brownshirts of years past.

          2. Estovir,…
            I mentioned this once before, but it is one of many gems and quips that Bob Dole is under-appreciated for.
            After he became Speaker, Newt Gingrich asked Dole why people took such an “instant dislike” to him.
            Dole was not overly fond of Gingrich, and said ” They do it to save time, Newt”.😉☺😂
            Every now and then we get a “time-saver” like Janef, and it reminds me of that classic “Bob Dole-ism”.

      2. I’m sorry, but I already won this argument. To recap, anyone in the lily white GOP is the one with some ‘splainin’ to do about identity politics and since I’m not, I won’t. Thanks for playing.

        You’re going to break the Dunning-Kruger Geiger counter if you’re not careful.

      3. “anyone in the lily white GOP”

        Blind and racist.

        Why are you so hung up on people’s skin color?

        Playing identity politics is vicious and negates the individual.

        1. Prairie, I don’t understand what has happened to my Liberal friends who used to believe in Dr. King’s view of character rather than race. We have developed a bunch of intollerant ignorant racists that believe in self destruction.

          1. MLK was a firm advocate for Affirmative Action. Where does that lead you in your convenient promoting of one quote made when race was the deciding factor used against blacks?

            1. MLK was a firm advocate for Affirmative Action.

              I take it you’re a firm advocate for uttering witless anachronisms.

            2. I am not necessarily against helping those in need to get a leg up. I just don’t believe it should based on the color of one’s skin. Dr. King had certain principles and character over color was one of them. Affirmative action is a policy not a principle so one might agree with an individual’s principles but not agree in how to accomplish the goal.

              I do ask myself why should a child from a rich black family suddenly deserve admission to a university when a poor kid that is Asian and deprived, but with superior abilities, be denied acceptance when the former is accepted. Should poor but very academically inclined Asian kids be denied admission to Ivy League Schools?

      4. Can we assume that Jan F doesn’t have to reply because the non-white players have been promised a time when they can simply have their way by the sheer bulk of their numbers?

      5. By “lily white,” do you mean American?

        In a strange coincidence, the American Founders thrice required citizens to be “…free white person(s)…” in the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795 and 1802, within the year of the adoption of the Constitution and as “original intent.”

        As a sober corollary, “Crazy Abe” Lincoln planned to compassionately repatriate the freed slaves for their own benefit, a sense of nationhood and their self-esteem, which they have obviously been lacking since “Crazy Abe’s” unconstitutional confiscation of private property in 1863.

        To wit,

        “If all earthly power were given me,” said Lincoln in a speech delivered in Peoria, Illinois, on October 16, 1854, “I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution [of slavery]. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia, to their own native land.” After acknowledging that this plan’s “sudden execution is impossible,” he asked whether freed blacks should be made “politically and socially our equals?” “My own feelings will not admit of this,” he said, “and [even] if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not … We can not, then, make them equals.”

      6. dr,
        There might actually be a login space provided where I can sign in…..otherwise, it’ll post as “anonymous”. Anyway, when someone comes to a comment forum like this and immediately displays this level of partisanship and stupidity, it doesn’t change by post under a new alias like “Anon” or “anon1” – Tom Nash ( it may or may not take a sign-in)

    3. Personally i use a lot of stereotypes and profiles – only until there is data to say otherwise. That’s what most sane folks do even if they don’t admit it.

  8. “I have admittedly always liked Bernie Sanders”

    Anyone who thought Jonathan Turley is conservative should rethink what they believe because Bernie Sanders is a Socialist and was to the left of the Democratic Party.

    1. I like Sanders too. I just wouldn’t vote for him unless the other candidate was Hellary or upChuck Schumer or Kamala BJ Harris or Amy Klobberherworkers If the Democratic Party is going to be a proper competitor, it’s going to have to have to be like Sanders, or, rather, Sanders taking counsel from Dershowitz.

      1. Many of the stated goals of Sanders rings with both sides of the aisle but his way of getting there is like going down an expressway riding the wrong way on a bicycle.

    3. I voted for Bernie because he was a personal friend 40+ years ago and I felt that in a sense I owed him that. I didn’t want him to win and favored Hillary who I thought the much stronger candidate, which she was. In fact she won the vote by a margin greater than 11 past presidents.

      1. Jan, unfortunately Trump won the election. He concentrated on the electoral vote. Had the popular vote been needed to win it is reasonable to believe that he could have won.

        Many think Bernie would have won and frankly I believe that quite a few Bernie supporters voted for Trump rather than Hillary. I don’t think Hillary was a good candidate nor did she deserve the Presidency. What many do not realize is that FBI General Counsel James Baker, initially believed Clinton deserved to face criminal charges, but was talked out of it “pretty late in the process.” I will place that editorial in a new comment.

        I hate to admit this, but in this type of matter I don’t vote for my friends or any specific party. I vote for who I think can do the best job and in this election it was my opinion that Trump was the better of the two and in my opinion (note the word opinion instead of fact) Trump has exceeded my expectations. I will also admit I didn’t vote for him in the primaries.

  9. Tom Brokaw says Americans don’t want brown grand babies.

    Tom Brokaw first disingenuously establishes his own plausible deniability.

    It seems Tom was actually “pushing” himself.
    _____________________

    “Also, I hear, when I push people a little harder, (people who say) ‘well, I don’t know whether I want brown grandbabies,'” he said. “I mean, that’s also a part of it. It’s the intermarriage that is going on and the cultures that are conflicting with each other.”

    – Tom Brokaw
    ___________

    Understanding freedom of speech, thought, belief, religion, socialization, assembly, publishing, press and every other natural and God-given right and freedom per the 9th Amendment, Americans have the right and freedom to generate the criteria and decide for themselves whom they accept and whom they reject.

    Those freedoms and the right to private property make affirmative action, quotas, rent control, forced busing, unfair “Fair Housing” laws, discriminatory “Non-Discrimination” laws and every other form of communistic “social engineering” irrefutably unconstitutional.
    _________________

    9th Amendment

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
    _____________________________________________________________________________________________________

    The American thesis is Freedom and Self-Reliance.

    Subjugation of the wealthy and the dependence of parasites is communism.

    People must adapt to the outcomes of freedom.

    Freedom does not adapt to People…

    dictatorship does.

  10. Very good post, Professor Turley!
    It’s been at least 25 years since I have heard a Democrat publicly utter Dr. King’s “content of character” quote.
    For Liberals and Dems “I have a Dream” has been replaced with “I have a scheme”.

    1. …and for Americans, it has been replaced with

      “I have a nightmare”

      of endless caterwauling, generational welfare and affirmative action privilege.

    2. Martin Luther King was not a legitimate PhD and did not legitimately earn and obtain a doctoral degree as proven by a committee appointed by Boston University which “conducted the investigation with scholarly thoroughness, scrupulous attention to detail and a determination not to be influenced by non-scholarly consideration.”
      _____________________________________________________________________________________________________

      “A committee of scholars appointed by Boston University concluded today that the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. plagiarized passages in his dissertation for a doctoral degree at the university 36 years ago.

      “There is no question,” the committee said in a report to the university’s provost, “but that Dr. King plagiarized in the dissertation by appropriating material from sources not explicitly credited in notes, or mistakenly credited, or credited generally and at some distance in the text from a close paraphrase or verbatim quotation.”
      …

      But the committee did recommend that a letter stating its finding be placed with the official copy of Dr. King’s dissertation in the university’s library.

      The four-member committee was appointed by the university a year ago to determine whether plagiarism charges against Dr. King that had recently surfaced were in fact true. Today the university’s provost, Jon Westling, accepted the committee’s recommendations and said its members had “conducted the investigation with scholarly thoroughness, scrupulous attention to detail and a determination not to be influenced by non-scholarly consideration.”

      The dissertation at issue is “A Comparison of the Conceptions of God in the Thinking of Paul Tillich and Henry Nelson Wieman.” Dr. King wrote it in 1955 as part of his requirements for a doctor of philosophy degree, which he subsequently received from the university’s Division of Religious and Theological Studies.”

      – New York Times, October 11, 1991

      1. Ah yes, Boston University, the same place that brilliantly judged 0casio-Cortez worthy of her economics degree.

        1. Where do young people in America learn communist economic principles and communism in general?

          Public school and leftist universities.

          BTW,

          The communist party has ordered the lazy, greedy, thug teachers union to go on strike again. This time it’s that hideout for treasonous, anti-American, radical extremist anarchists and parasites, Oakland, CA. The communist party’s strategy is to deploy the ridiculous teachers unions to raise the standard through excessive, irrational and undeserved wage hikes then obtain “comparable pay” for every other public worker in America, including the allied elected officials. Ain’t “fake,” fraudulent and insidious communistic schemes beautiful? Why aren’t these collectivist charlatans in prison instead of indoctrinating and brainwashing young people in America?

    3. “For Liberals and Dems “I have a Dream” has been replaced with “I have a scheme”.”

      Cindy that is a great quote. It is particularly good for the likes of Peter Shill.

    4. King was an advocate for Affirmative Action. You’re kidding yourself and the other right wingers who pretend he’d be on their side today. No, he wouldn’t be.

      1. King was an advocate for Affirmative Action.

        I don’t know how to break it to you, but it really wasn’t a thing in April 1968.

      1. Aside from Bernie and the chap from Maryland, perfectly gruesome line-up. The intramural culture of the Democratic Party seems to get grosser every year.

  12. TURLEY IS RAISING MULTIPLE ISSUES BUT..

    BERNIE WILL BE 79 YEARS OLD ON ELECTION DAY 2020

    America can’t possibly elect a president who enters office at age 79. I don’t care how fit or sharp Bernie seems to be. We’ve all known that senior who seemed fit and sharp at 79 then surprised us by suffering a health emergency. The White House shouldn’t be a laboratory to see how much stress an octogenarian can take.

    Ideally new presidents should be in their late 40’s to mid 50’s. In that age range politicians are old enough to have sufficient experience for the presidency, yet young enough to handle huge amounts of stress. The presidency is, of course, as stressful of a job as anyone could hold. Just the responsibility of committing troops to trouble spots is highly stressful in itself. Yet presidents are subject to endless personal attacks on not just themselves, but family and close associates.

    Regarding Identity Politics, Republicans can laugh, for now, at the complexities of this issue and how it bedevils Democrats. Democrats are the ‘big tent’ party which draws its ‘strength’ from a diverse assortment of constituencies. Women, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians and LGBT voters all compete for the party’s attention. Keeping them all on-script is very, very difficult. Each group naturally thinks their interests should come first.

    Republicans have the luxury, for now, of a homogenous voter base. Their constituents are overwhelmingly White and largely based in small towns and outer suburbs. Keeping them all on-script is relatively easy. These same dynamics explain the power of right-wing media. Talking points are easy to craft for narrow constituencies.

    But the United States is becoming an ethnically diverse nation. The ratio of White people is dropping steadily in relation to Hispanics, Blacks and Asians. Whites can blame themselves for that. The empowerment of women combined with economic forces has greatly diminished birth rates. This phenomenon, however, has played-out in ‘all’ developed nations. Japan, more than anywhere, has seen these trends wreck havoc.

    Therefore Republicans can laugh, for now, at the perils Democrats suffer in trying to be a ‘big tent’ party. But in the not-so-distant future Republicans will be forced to make some very uncomfortable adjustments to accommodate non-White, non-Christian voters.

    1. Ideally new presidents should be in their late 40’s to mid 50’s.

      That’s a silly idea. Over the last 90 years, you’ve had one satisfactory President who was under the age of 60 when he took office. The younger a president, the less time he is likely to have spent in occupations other than electoral politics and the more oriented he is to simply gaining and holding office for the hell of it. Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Lyndon Johnson, and John Kennedy all provide graphic examples of why you do not want younger men in the Presidency (as does Richard Nixon in a more attenuated way).

      1. Right, Tabby, this conforms to your ‘experience is bad for presidents’ mentality. Instead we should want aging ‘businessmen’ who have years of experience at screwing people and collecting tax subsidies.

        1. Peter has no accomplishments in the business world, so disparages others. Juvenile and shabby.

          That aside, the problem with your complaint, Peter, is that your idea of an ‘experienced’ politician is Barack Obama. Obama’s a shallow ticket-puncher who had not one thing to show for his dozen years in conciliar bodies other than the boffo raises his wife kept getting co-incident with his committee assignments. And, of course, his experience as an executive was his time as chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Project. It says something about your mentality that Obama’s 18 years worth of underperforming matters more than Trump’s 40 years of building a substantial business.

          1. Shrub was not satisfactory. You’re giving far too much credit to Shrub’s babysitters. And precious few of those were satisfactory, either.

    2. Pete Shills “Talking points are easy to craft for narrow constituencies.”

      This

      Considering Pete copies/pastes on this forum nothing but talking points from the party of LBJ / Hillary Clinton / Jussie Mullett and the party that kept Blacks as slaves, America has breathlessly waited for an original message from Democrats, other than “blacks are victims and need gubernments help”

      “the Clintons are caricature Republicans: old, white, southern, and very rich – ….Obama’s eight year war on the middle classes has left black Americans significantly worse off financially, socially, and psychologically than they were in 2007.”

      https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/08/democrats_slavery_and_the_american_record.html

      1. Estovir, you are, without a doubt, the nerdiest of creeps. ‘Obama’s eight year war on the middle class’..???

        Get back to me when you’ve got a serious argument. And don’t bother with worthless source like American Thinker.

    3. Petrified Pete H “Democrats are the ‘big tent’ party which draws its ‘strength’ from a diverse assortment of constituencies.”

      As long as you enslave them, if thats what you call a Big Tent, ….definitely not a strength….Jussie Mullett just showed Americans how people who seek to advance their career use race and lots of lying

      “The Thirteenth Amendment (Amendment XIII) to the United States Constitution abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime…
      …..the vote split largely along party lines, with Republicans supporting and Democrats opposing”

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

    4. “Democrats are the ‘big tent’ party which draws its ‘strength’ from a diverse assortment of constituencies.”

      Peter, I think in answer to that I will plagiarize and use Cindy’s very apt statement.

      ““For Liberals and Dems “I have a Dream” has been replaced with “I have a scheme”.”

      I believe most blacks were loyal Republicans until the Democrats bribed and brainwashed them into believing they should follow lock-step together. So far I have seen nothing good come out of the Democratic Party for blacks except those blacks that suddenly gain great status and riches off the backs of other blacks.

      The Party of slavery, the Democratic Party, hasn’t really changed its tune. They have converted slaves into voters but left the people behind.

      1. Alan, Republican policies don’t sell to Blacks. Period. Blacks congregate under the Democratic tent because they don’t feel they have a choice.

        This idea that Blacks are ‘brainwashed’ by Democrats requires brainwashing to accept. 25 years of Fox News will make viewers ‘think’ Blacks are brainwashed. Like poor, working people should really care about tax cuts for the rich!

        1. “Alan, Republican policies don’t sell to Blacks. Period. Blacks congregate under the Democratic tent because they don’t feel they have a choice.”

          Look at what happens to blacks that are conservative. They are verbally and sometimes violently attacked. Look at those dependent on welfare and entitlements or those that have learned not to work. They, when they vote, will generally vote Democrat. Today more and more frequently their votes are harvested so they will vote Democrat. In other words you, Peter, don’t believe in democracy with one person, one vote.

          I think we are starting to see a shift. in minority thinking. A black should ask himself what the Democratic Party has done for him? Outside of entitlements the Democratic Party is mostly supporting the black that doesn’t need support or the black that works for government. I wonder how long the Democratic Party can play identity politics and intersectionality until the Party is bitten in the backside.

          1. Alan, to think that Blacks are ‘brainwashed’ by Democrats is a presumption that Blacks are childlike in their knowledge of politics. ‘Therefore they don’t know who their real friends are’. That’s how dumb it gets!

            1. No, blacks vote their preferences. The question is why their preferences are their preferences.

              The Republican Party has never been antagonistic to the interests of blacks qua blacks and was generally more congenial to them prior to 1964. During the period running from 1940 to 1960, the best evidence indicates a large minority of black voters cast their ballots for Republican candidates, 30% or so). Barry Goldwater excepted, there wasn’t a whole lot of daylight between the policy stances of the two parties on race matters during the period running from 1963 to 1973 (and Goldwater was never hostile to blacks, he just thought that certain measures were bad policy). Gerald Ford, a Republican with no baggage on racial questions, lost to Jimmy Carter, who did have such baggage. Depending on which source you consult, Carter’s margin among black voters was somewhere between 5-1 and 11-1. There was a very abrupt ecosystem flip among black voters during the period running from 1960 to 1964, and nothing in the intervening decades has eroded the advantage the Democratic Party acquired during those four years.

              Democrats are too crude to unpack this phenomenon, even when they’re not lying to themselves and others.

              1. Tabby, ‘I’ grew up Republican. I might still be Republican if they were the same party now as they were in the 1960’s. They aren’t. Republicans have moved so far to the right that Gerald Ford would feel like an outsider now.

                1. We had this same discussion a few months ago Peter where I compared JFK to the present leadership. I dealt with ideas and left personalities out of the discussion. You couldn’t hold up your end of the discussion so you ran away only to do what you always do, repeat the same BS.

                  See August 10, 2018 at 9:33 AM
                  https://jonathanturley.org/2018/08/09/criminal-tweets-trump-critics-should-not-respond-to-acts-of-fake-news-with-fake-law/comment-page-2/#comments

                  Or see August 10, 2018 at 7:28 PM
                  https://jonathanturley.org/2018/08/10/poll-43-percent-of-republicans-agreed-that-president-trump-should-have-the-power-to-shutdown-news-organizations/comment-page-2/#comment-1769530

                  Just search for JFK to see how Peter runs and hides. He is no better than a hit and run driver.

                2. Tabby, ‘I’ grew up Republican. I might still be Republican if they were the same party now as they were in the 1960’s. They aren’t. Republicans have moved so far to the right that Gerald Ford would feel like an outsider now.

                  Gerald Ford was a Rotary Club type who was in politics because for him it was for him a more agreeable way of making a living than law practice or retail trade. He had certain dispositions and prejudices and allegiances, but there weren’t many hills on which he’d have cared to die. Policy was the sum of mundane deals and he showed little evidence of caring to ponder matters systematically.

                  The Republican Party on Capitol Hill differs from its counterpart 50 years ago in having a passably uniform disposition on policy matters and a more consistent set of rhetorical points. The actual black-letter policies it will endorse (much less those it accedes to) contain quite a menu of items which were … controversial 50 years ago. The notion it is ‘far to the right’ doesn’t pass a chuckle test.

                  It is true that it is less reactive and less deferential. Its indicative of the mentality at large in the Democratic Party that you’d say with a straight face that the Republican Party was ‘better’ when they let others set the policy agenda and apologized for what they were advocating.

            2. “is a presumption that Blacks are childlike in their knowledge of politics.”

              No, many have been convinced that Democrats butter their bread and in many ways that is what has happened. Peter, the Democrats recognize an important fact, once given a benefit people are very reluctant to rid themselves of it even when doing so would likely make them better off. Even Hillary Clinton noted that many years ago in a suprisingly candid remark.

              The Democrats use this trait of most humans and have managed to trap a lot of blacks on their plantations. They augment that by making sure that a good number are on their payroll while getting rich off their brethren. It’s a dirty deal but that is where you come from.

              I believe blacks can make it on their own like the many blacks that have already but are despised by Democrats. Just like the left uses violence to prevent conservative speakers on college campuses they do similar things to blacks that leave the plantation. A lot of disgusting hateful people exist on the left.

              1. Allan, every social stratum in the black population votes Democratic by lopsided margins. You really cannot attribute the phenomenon to welfare spending.

                1. I don’t, but perception leads the way. When a welfare state is proposed many jump on the bandwagon. How about college enrollments providing the perception of something for nothing, government jobs etc. What affects one effects an entire family and can last past the generation so I don’t know that you are correct. What is the perception Jews have that keep them voting Democratic when only Trump kept his words and moved the embassy to Jerusulem?

    6. Great post Peter, and we agree except on the idea that we should mainly be looking at candidates in their 40s and 50s. Optimally you might say 60s and maybe early 70s though the latter is getting into the danger zone for dementia and suddenly failing health. The Presidency is a demanding position if you take it seriously, which neither the current occupant or his cult followers do.

    7. Republicans will get smart and start making better inroads into the Asian vote. It’s inevitable. Blacks are a lost cause for Republicans. Total waste of effort to pander yo them at all. Hispanics ? If they assimilate they see the light soon enough.

  14. The problem with being a liberal is that you can never be liberal enough in the minds of other liberals.

    So, it is pointless for others to try to accommodate them. They are perpetually outraged and offended whether you say something good or bad, it is evil in their minds. Just think and behave as you wish. At least you will be the one enjoying life while they are wantonly miserable.

    1. Darren, I half agree. But Republicans are subject to even ‘more’ purity tests.

      Republican candidates for high office are strongly pressured to be pro-gun, anti-abortion and anti-taxes. And if they want any money from the Koch Bros Network, Republicans must deny Climate Change.

      All these requirement are rendering Republicans dinosaurs to anyone under 40.

      1. Republican candidates for high office are strongly pressured to be pro-gun, anti-abortion and anti-taxes.

        No, Peter. The Republicans are an omnibus of people dissatisfied with the regnant fashions in certain social strata. Which means that status games gliberals and leftoids play with each other do not matter much to them.

        1. Tabby, ‘an omnibus of dissatisfied people’ pretty much describes Republicans.

          They are Evangelicals ‘dissatisfied’ with secular trends.

          They are ‘dissatisfied’ businessmen wanting to gut health and safety regulations.

          They are ‘dissatisfied’ gun enthusiasts seeking the ‘right’ to buy military weapons.

          And most certainly they are ‘dissatisfied’ Whites who can’t figure out their share of the population is slipping.

          1. “Tabby, ‘an omnibus of ***dissatisfied people***’ pretty much describes Republicans.”

            In a way, Peter, you are correct. I am a dissatisfied person, dissatisfied with the Democratic Party and its fealty to the state rather than the individual and its abrogation of property rights which are what fascism and socialism are all about.

      2. “Republican candidates for high office are strongly pressured to be pro-gun, anti-abortion and anti-taxes.”

        Peter, I wonder what is wrong with those things.

        *Pro-gun: 2nd Amendment.
        *anti-taxes: You mean anti-taxes for programs that shouldn’t exist. On the other hand they are far more charitable than the people in your group both with time and money.
        *anti-abortion: The vast majority of Republicans aren’t anti-abortion rather they are anti the use of abortion as birth control. Many find that while abortion at any time might be repulsive to them they would not stop abortion certainly for medical reasons, rape or early term abortion.

        The abortion debate and how the left never stops has demonstrated to those that believe in gun rights that one has to be careful to compromise with the left for the left isn’t honest or sincere. They went from trying to affirm a woman’s rights when she learned she was pregnant to outright infanticide where they now are at the point of killing healthy infants after they are separated from the mother.

        1. Alan, when you start up with that ‘infanticide’ sh*t, I tune-out completely. Only the most aggressively ignorant use that talking point.

          1. It is well presumed on these forums that you lack a cerebral cortex probably because the doctor (Ralph Northam?) delivered you, then had a sincere private discussion with your mother about whether anyone wanted you post-delivery, and just left you on the table anoxic, though “comfortable”

            Northam continues breaking heads and evacuating brains.

            😉

            Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam’s apology tour got off to a really bad start
            https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/bjqy78/virginia-gov-ralph-northams-apology-tour-got-off-to-a-really-bad-start

            1. Wrong, Estovir. You’re reading the wrong sources. Northam is pulling through with strong support from Blacks. He’s going to serve out his term.

          2. Can’t help it Peter. Infanticide was what was being discussed. If the right had stayed silent infanticide would soon be law and suddenly you would be chanting infanticide. You tune out because you have no answers.

            1. You expect poor women to give birth to severely deformed infants. Then you expect them to perform 20 hours of public service each week to pay for the deformed infant’s Medicaid. Get real, Alan.

              1. ” Get real, Alan.”

                Deformed? Is that the new talking point with Pro-Aborts Democrats?
                It used to be “abortions are necessary for women who were raped”. Hmmmmm. that didn’t work well for you so now you’re killing babies who are not deformed in the slightest since no partial birth abortions are ever done on genetically impaired babies.

                “Based on published interviews with numerous abortionists, and interviews with Fitzsimmons in 1997, the “vast majority” of partial-birth abortions are performed in the fifth and sixth months of pregnancy, on healthy babies of healthy mothers.”
                https://www.nrlc.org/archive/abortion/facts/pbafacts.html

                Partial Birth abortions, and the babies NY Gov Cuomo and VA Gov Northam want to slaughter ala Black Genocide (since Blacks account for a disproportionate number of abortions), are merely an “inconvenience” for the parents, and a widget for greedy capitalists like millionaire Cecile Richards of Planned Barrenhood to make a buck. “In 2014, 36% of all abortions were performed on black women, who are just 13% of the female population” (WSJ).
                https://www.wsj.com/articles/lets-talk-about-the-black-abortion-rate-1531263697

                No wonder Democrats love abortions….to once again keep blacks enslaved and dependent on them as their masters

                youtu.be/ESlYQyNmlc8

                Trump is going to win in 2020 with the likes of you beating Americans over the head with your spit for science mantra

                1. Estovir, Peter thinks pregnancy is an illness and that infants can be considered malignant growths or replacement parts. He follows the leadership and the slogans of a bunch of leftist racist unintelligent loud mouths without which he would be recognized as a nihilist.

                  I was going to include a price list for fetal body parts but apparently there are delays at Planned Parenthood so that list won’t be available for awhile.

              2. Peter, we are talking about the rhetoric making it possible for healthy new borns to be killed even after being separated from their mother’s bodies. It appears even you, a devout leftist and baby killer are repulsed by the idea of infanticide. Wait until you have the protection of a bigger crowd and you will be saying the same thing. You have no principles, morals or ethics.

      3. I care very little about abortion because it is not up to us. No democratic rule on that. Nor gay marriage or a lot of other stuff. SCOTUS takes these issues off the table.

  16. Dr. King said it all, judged by the content of their character. Let that be our only guide and the color of your skin and the sexual orientation will not matter, it is what you are as a human that is to be judged and any grievance monger arguing with that rejects and insults MLK.

  17. There is no longer a democrat party, that party is gone. Why don’t they just say they are socialist and many communists. The leaders will say anything and promise everything to retain power. Now they all have the same mantra “free this free that, fair share, more tax, race, gender”. Those who believe them are delusional. Looks like the lie “The Russians are coming” has been revealed so now it’s on to more BS for the delusional.

    1. Why don’t they just say they are socialist and many communists.

      Because they know nothing of Marxism or any program or institutional architecture inspired by it.

      What they really are is a mess of bourgeois who set up patron-client relationships reflexively and despise the non-exotic working class when they cannot just ignore them.

      1. Tabby, one suspects that a ‘communist’ is anyone who believes the wealthiest can pay more in taxes. Republicans use that label at their own peril. The more they throw it around, the more of a joke it becomes.

        1. @PeteHTabby, I think communists, socialist and the democrats are far more dangerous to my nation then just the wealthiest. Do I think the wealthiest should pay more, lets ask all the wealthy democrats, silicon valley or the Hollywood elites if they want to give up 70% their wealth. I mean after all they keep pushing the narrative, they should lead by example. I’m sure the IRS must have a window marked “Give Freely In This Line” I can guarantee you the line is short no waiting. I wonder how they all react when their darling AOC says “isn’t ten million enough”. I guess I’m right about the delusional and the “Russians are Coming”.

          1. Zambini, it so happens I have spent a great deal of time around the rich and famous. Beverly Hills, in fact, is only a 15 minute drive from here.

            I can assure you, Zambini, the rich are doing just fine. Better than you think! Much better than you think!! This idea that the rich are having to pawn their silverware is totally overblown.

            1. Well PeterH, I live with the regular working guys not minutes away but with them and we don’t think anyone should have to pay 70% of their earnings regardless who they are. Sorry to hear you live on the Left Coast with all those left wing socialist democrats. In the event you move due to sanctuary and cost of living, please leave your left wing ideas behind.

              1. Zambini, a lot those ‘Left Wing Socialists’ are pretty good at earning money. And you seem to even note that in your comments.

        2. Spas is right. They don’t know squat about Marxism or any sort of economics at all. In general. Nor history nor much of anything serious.

          I just call them pinkos now. They’re not really fit to wear the badge if communist. Socialist is above them too. Just racketeers.

  18. Colbert is a comedian. He has common sense views which in an America where the right holds fast to a president who ridicules foes and allies at rallies and online, spends half his time playing golf after berating the former president for doing far less, and chastises war heroes after they’re dead, would lead anyone with common sense to be considered liberal (unless of course you’re super wealthy and want your 1% status protected by any means necessary).

    A tweet from a non profit outside group and a former presidential aide hardly count as “the democrats”. If we counted the increasingly mainstream conservative views of the likes of Limbaugh, the prattling of a former Bush aide like Joe Watkins or the ravings of Ted Nugent as representative of republicans as a whole, the march-in-line republicans like Ted Cruz (who once had enough backbone to call Trump a sniveling coward for belittling his wife), Marco Rubio (aka former hand wars with trump), and Mitch McConnell would take issue. If the article cited one current house member (and there are many), Senator, or any presidential candidate I’d think the dems could have a problem. As it is Colbert is liable to pick at straws to find something to joke about the dems on (it can’t all be about the crazy right), and there isn’t much on the left.

    2. Colbert was hilarious in The Colbert Report, doing a parody of a superior political gasbag.
      When he took his act to CBS, he changed his act in that he actually became a superior partisan political gasbag, rather than do a satirical rendition of one.
      He is to the left what Rush Limbaugh is to the right.

      1. Tom….I thought Colbert was his funniest and at his best when he was still working with Jon Stewart and Steve Carell on the Daily Show.
        He was a sensitive South Carolinian, whose father and twin brothers had been killed in a plane crash. He became very devoted to his mother and remaining siblings. I heard him talk about his strong Catholic faith once, also.
        Anyway, he’s not the same guy today. Pity.

  19. Dear Mr. Turley,

    You seldom miss a beat and although I am a devout liberal-turned-conservative these days, I almost never disagree with what you say. Kudos for that! However, on this you missed the boat. By saying this, Bernie is TRADING on racial identity politics. How? By implying that we’re not already living in a country that is, for the most part, color blind. Bernie’s old enough to know what things were like 30 years ago and how incredibly far we’ve come in racial equity. We just got done having a black president for 8 years! Under Trump blacks & hispanics are a historic highs for economic wellbeing. Sanders persists in using what was once jokingly called “insinuendo” to smear everyone who’s not in his radical socialist camp. And it’s all just a cynical bid for votes & campaign money. I’m surprised you fell for it!

    1. By implying that we’re not already living in a country that is, for the most part, color blind. Bernie’s old enough to know what things were like 30 years ago and how incredibly far we’ve come in racial equity.

      Life wasn’t much different 30 years ago.

      We just got done having a black president for 8 years!

      Obama’s connection to the domestic black population has been that he married into it. When Gov. Blagojevich said ‘I’m blacker than Obama’, he was telling the truth.

      1. You kidding? In 1988, few blacks in starring TV or cinema roles. Today many. In 1988 few to no blacks seen in commercials. Today many. One black NFL coach. Today there are 8. Blacks in Congress numbered 23 in 1988, and 52 now (more than doubled).

        I agree with you 100% that Obama was not an authentic African-American. I’d much prefer Jesse Jackson & I voted for him TWICE in the 1980s. But that doesn’t change the fact that Obama pretended to be AA and sold himself as AA and was hailed by Oprah as “the One” because he was perceived as AA.

        2. I’d much prefer Jesse Jackson & I voted for him TWICE in the 1980s.

          Jackson’s entire life up to 1988 had been as a functionary first of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and then his own organization, which was famous for mismanagement and shake-down schemes.

          You kidding? In 1988, few blacks in starring TV or cinema roles. Today many. In 1988 few to no blacks seen in commercials. Today many. One black NFL coach. Today there are 8. Blacks in Congress numbered 23 in 1988, and 52 now (more than doubled).

          That’s a matter of no interest to me. A tiny minority are employed as elected officials or entertainers. (And you’ve mischaracterized the era, btw).

          1. Things would have been so much different by now if the Dixiecrats hadn’t had their way with the Jim Crow laws and set the blacks off their trajectory for decades. Today they are able to assume their interrupted ascent in America.

Comments are closed.