Biden pick for AG for Civil Rights is a "Black Supremacist" and anti-Semite

[Cow Poke]

Billy Graham held some anti-semitic beliefs as recorded in Nixon's white house tapes and later apologized, I believe. One could question the motivation of his later change of heart/apology.

From Billy Graham's Troubling, Nasty Nixon Moment:



In fact, there are many democrats and republicans still serving who said racist things but still hold office.

It's the left that launched the cancel culture.

[whag]

It's the left that launched the cancel culture.

I don’t know what that means in the context of Billy Graham’s antisemitism.

[CivilDiscourse]

I don’t know what that means in the context of Billy Graham’s antisemitism.

I'll re-iterate the main part you seem to be missing:
Do you want a person with a history of racist remarks being head of the DOJ civil rights division?

[Cow Poke]

I don’t know what that means in the context of Billy Graham’s antisemitism.

He didn't run for any office. He was appointed by God.

[rogue06]

Billy Graham held some anti-semitic beliefs as recorded in Nixon's white house tapes and later apologized, I believe. One could question the motivation of his later change of heart/apology.

From Billy Graham's Troubling, Nasty Nixon Moment:



In fact, there are many democrats and republicans still serving who said racist things but still hold office.

For Graham such beliefs were essentially incidental and a product of the times he grew up in, but for Clarke they seem to be a part of her core beliefs and are much more noxious than what Graham once thought. Could you imagine Graham ever stepping forward and inviting a diehard fanatical KKK member to speak and then defending him and his views in the same way that she did with Martin? Yeah, me neither.

Graham changed his views as society at large started to realize that such thinking was wrong. Clarke came to hers in spite of society having changed which is why I I can say they are more of a central principle for her. Those sort of people don't change short of a full on life changing epiphany -- and I don't think that wanting a job qualifies as such.

So yeah. Nice try but, as they used to say, that dog won't hunt

[Littlejoe]

Billy Graham held some anti-semitic beliefs as recorded in Nixon's white house tapes and later apologized, I believe. One could question the motivation of his later change of heart/apology.

From Billy Graham's Troubling, Nasty Nixon Moment:



In fact, there are many democrats and republicans still serving who said racist things but still hold office.

Really Whag? Whataboutism?

[whag]

For Graham such beliefs were essentially incidental and a product of the times he grew up in,

I have plenty of relatives from Graham’s generation, and none of them ever voiced suspicion of Jews like Graham.

Could you imagine Graham ever stepping forward and inviting a diehard fanatical KKK member to speak and then defending him and his views in the same way that she did with Martin? Yeah, me neither.

I can’t imagine Graham voicing suspicion of Jews. What I can imagine is immaterial.

Graham changed his views as society at large started to realize that such thinking was wrong. Clarke came to hers in spite of society having changed which is why I I can say they are more of a central principle for her. Those sort of people don't change short of a full on life changing epiphany -- and I don't think that wanting a job qualifies as such.

So yeah. Nice try but, as they used to say, that dog won't hunt

“Society at large” made Billy Graham not racist. Got it.

Part of Graham’s job was to save Jews and continue making an evangelistic living. Obviously, he could only express his racist views in what he thought was a private setting with another racist man.

[whag]

Really Whag? Whataboutism?

Is it? I thought it was just a reminder that racism transcends ideology. I didn’t want you to start saying “lefties” originated racism.

[rogue06]

I have plenty of relatives from Graham’s generation, and none of them ever voiced suspicion of Jews like Graham.

I'm sure they're quite proud of such behavior now and would tell you all about it if they did.

Most of my older relatives weren't racist but every once in awhile I can remember an offhand joke told by an uncle or two that would not be acceptable today. And my father was definitely racist. Something I never understood about him.

I can’t imagine Graham voicing suspicion of Jews. What I can imagine is immaterial.

I'm not denying that what Graham voiced back then was wrong but it pales in comparison to the sort of vile hatred spewed by Clarke and the one's she defends for doing so now

“Society at large” made Billy Graham not racist. Got it.

Then you're willfully ignorant if that's what you "got." Back then such views were not just tolerated but common and accepted. Now, OTOH, they most certainly aren't and yet Clarke chose to go down that path.

It's sort of like how back then DUI wasn't considered a big deal if nobody got hurt. You might not even get arrested for it then but rather just spend the night sleeping it off with a lecture in the morning to be more careful in the future. Even after multiple offenses you could still get just a token fine as a result.

But now everyone realizes (or should realize) that it is wrong regardless of whether or not someone got hurt. To ignore that now and to continue with that sort of behavior makes it much worse.

The same with spewing racism and anti-Semitic rhetoric.

Part of Graham’s job was to save Jews and continue making an evangelistic living. Obviously, he could only express his racist views in what he thought was a private setting with another racist man.

If you reject that Graham was able to change they why are you claiming that Clarke, who held far more racist views has changed?

It might have taken him a decade to come around and completely change but Clarke was still defending the likes of Mallory (who's views got her booted from the Women's March) just two years ago and she said this year she would still defend her. And given that Mallory's views are nearly identical to those of Martin's (who she now says she was wrong to have so vigorously defended) it is fair to ask just how true is her supposed rejection of the views that they espouse especially since it looks like it is based on nothing other than her desire to obtain a position of power where she can spread her venom unchecked.

[CivilDiscourse]

I'll re-iterate the main part you seem to be missing:
Do you want a person with a history of racist remarks being head of the DOJ civil rights division?

whag, Starlight, @kccd?

None of you have responded to this point when asked, instead deflecting to the other side.

[Starlight]

Do you want a person with a history of racist remarks being head of the DOJ civil rights division?

I think it's mildly good in this case because clearly in the US there has been discrimination against blacks by white supremacists for centuries, and demanding absolute neutrality from now on would be all well and good except that it wouldn't do anything to address entrenched inequality due to historical causes.

[CivilDiscourse]

I think it's mildly good in this case because clearly in the US there has been discrimination against blacks by white supremacists for centuries, and demanding absolute neutrality from now on would be all well and good except that it wouldn't do anything to address entrenched inequality due to historical causes.

So you are in favor of putting a racist in charge of the civil rights division.

Seems like putting a known inside trader in charge of the SEC.

Perhaps you can explain how someone who believes one race is superior to another is a good fit for enforcing laws that say that people should not be treated differently based on race...

[Cow Poke]

I think it's mildly good in this case because clearly in the US there has been discrimination against blacks by white supremacists for centuries, and demanding absolute neutrality from now on would be all well and good except that it wouldn't do anything to address entrenched inequality due to historical causes.

"Absolute neutrality"? How bout a teeny margin of balance!

[rogue06]

I think it's mildly good in this case because clearly in the US there has been discrimination against blacks by white supremacists for centuries, and demanding absolute neutrality from now on would be all well and good except that it wouldn't do anything to address entrenched inequality due to historical causes.

1. Sooo. Two wrongs make a right?

B) Punish people around now for what took place a couple generations ago. Got it.

III- Good to see that you're pro racism and discrimination just as long as it's against groups you don't like and "deserve" it

[Cow Poke]

1. Sooo. Two wrongs make a right?

B) Punish people around now for what took place a couple generations ago. Got it.

III- Good to see that you're pro racism and discrimination just as long as it's against groups you don't like and "deserve" it

THAT, sir, is pretty much it! What's behind it is the REVENGE mentality of the left.