Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 1, 2024 20:18:24 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2019 23:20:39 GMT
Can we take a look at one of Hillary Clinton's mentors? Saul Alinsky, a very evil man. *throws self off bridge. cannot take one more “but Hillary”* You have to admit, that if an association is bad for Trump, then it's bad for Hillary. Or if you cut Hillary slack on an issue, then you should understand why someone would for Trump.
|
|
|
Post by busy on Sept 29, 2019 23:24:05 GMT
*throws self off bridge. cannot take one more “but Hillary”* You have to admit, that if an association is bad for Trump, then it's bad for Hillary. Or if you cut Hillary slack on an issue, then you should understand why someone would for Trump. Hillary is not the president.
|
|
Just T
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,547
Jun 26, 2014 1:20:09 GMT
|
Post by Just T on Sept 29, 2019 23:36:58 GMT
Can we take a look at one of Hillary Clinton's mentors? Saul Alinsky, a very evil man. Can you tell me what in particular about Alinsky causes you to consider him to be a very evil man?And, can you tell us why it even matters, since Hillary is not the president???
Good grief. Are you people ever going to stop saying, "Well, what about HILLARY? " It's beyond ridiculous at this point.
ETA: How in the hell can you, or anyone else, continue to condemn anything about Hillary when you continually make excuses for and give your never-ending devotion to Trump? I'm not sure why I'm asking...I'm sure whatever answer you give will frustrate me even more.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 1, 2024 20:18:24 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2019 23:38:28 GMT
Can you tell me what in particular about Alinsky causes you to consider him to be a very evil man? And, can you tell us why it even matters, since Hillary is not the president???
Good grief. Are you people ever going to stop saying, "Well, what about HILLARY? " It's beyond ridiculous at this point. I did tell you why, but I'll repeat myself. You have to admit, that if an association is bad for Trump, then it's bad for Hillary. Or if you cut Hillary slack on an issue, then you should understand why someone would for Trump or someone else you disagree with.
|
|
Just T
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,547
Jun 26, 2014 1:20:09 GMT
|
Post by Just T on Sept 29, 2019 23:43:32 GMT
And, can you tell us why it even matters, since Hillary is not the president???
Good grief. Are you people ever going to stop saying, "Well, what about HILLARY? " It's beyond ridiculous at this point. I did tell you why, but I'll repeat myself. You have to admit, that if an association is bad for Trump, then it's bad for Hillary. Or if you cut Hillary slack on an issue, then you should understand why someone would for Trump or someone else you disagree with. I'm not cutting Hillary slack. I am actually not even a big fan of her's. However, SHE IS NOT THE PRESIDENT. She is absolutely NOTHING right now. She holds NO public office and probably never will again. Trump is the president, so it MATTERS what he does and says. It matters that he calls other countries shitholes. All of the other crap that he does and says matters because he is the president. Hillary is NOT. See the difference???
I have to ask you why you continue to condemn Hillary, when she doesn't even matter at all anymore, yet you continue to support Trump. I would love to hear why you support Trump without the reason being, "But, Hillary..."
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 1, 2024 20:18:24 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2019 23:53:08 GMT
I did tell you why, but I'll repeat myself. You have to admit, that if an association is bad for Trump, then it's bad for Hillary. Or if you cut Hillary slack on an issue, then you should understand why someone would for Trump or someone else you disagree with. I'm not cutting Hillary slack. I am actually not even a big fan of her's. However, SHE IS NOT THE PRESIDENT. She is absolutely NOTHING right now. She holds NO public office and probably never will again. Trump is the president, so it MATTERS what he does and says. It matters that he calls other countries shitholes. All of the other crap that he does and says matters because he is the president. Hillary is NOT. See the difference???
I have to ask you why you continue to condemn Hillary, when she doesn't even matter at all anymore, yet you continue to support Trump. I would love to hear why you support Trump without the reason being, "But, Hillary..."
It isn't a condemnation of Hillary, it's a question of applying your values to one person but not the other. If it didn't matter that Obama called a country a shit hole, why does it suddenly matter that Trump did?
|
|
|
Post by busy on Sept 30, 2019 0:08:04 GMT
I'm not cutting Hillary slack. I am actually not even a big fan of her's. However, SHE IS NOT THE PRESIDENT. She is absolutely NOTHING right now. She holds NO public office and probably never will again. Trump is the president, so it MATTERS what he does and says. It matters that he calls other countries shitholes. All of the other crap that he does and says matters because he is the president. Hillary is NOT. See the difference???
I have to ask you why you continue to condemn Hillary, when she doesn't even matter at all anymore, yet you continue to support Trump. I would love to hear why you support Trump without the reason being, "But, Hillary..."
It isn't a condemnation of Hillary, it's a question of applying your values to one person but not the other. If it didn't matter that Obama called a country a shit hole, why does it suddenly matter that Trump did? Get your facts straight. Shit show and shit hole are not the same and neither were the contexts in which the terms were used.
|
|
Just T
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,547
Jun 26, 2014 1:20:09 GMT
|
Post by Just T on Sept 30, 2019 0:08:43 GMT
I'm not cutting Hillary slack. I am actually not even a big fan of her's. However, SHE IS NOT THE PRESIDENT. She is absolutely NOTHING right now. She holds NO public office and probably never will again. Trump is the president, so it MATTERS what he does and says. It matters that he calls other countries shitholes. All of the other crap that he does and says matters because he is the president. Hillary is NOT. See the difference???
I have to ask you why you continue to condemn Hillary, when she doesn't even matter at all anymore, yet you continue to support Trump. I would love to hear why you support Trump without the reason being, "But, Hillary..."
It isn't a condemnation of Hillary, it's a question of applying your values to one person but not the other. If it didn't matter that Obama called a country a shit hole, why does it suddenly matter that Trump did? I don't know about Obama calling countries shitholes. If I knew, I would have condemned it then, too. I did not vote for Obama, so there is that. I just don't get why you and others like you keep bringing up Hillary. If she was the president, doing the things Trump does and saying the things that he does, I would be critical of her, too. But you haven't answered my question--I would love to hear reasons you support Trump that have ZERO to do with Hillary. Why do you like him so much? What has he done that you agree with? No one ever answers that here. Whenever it is asked, the standard answer is to slam Hillary.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 1, 2024 20:18:24 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2019 0:15:54 GMT
It isn't a condemnation of Hillary, it's a question of applying your values to one person but not the other. If it didn't matter that Obama called a country a shit hole, why does it suddenly matter that Trump did? I don't know about Obama calling countries shitholes. If I knew, I would have condemned it then, too. I did not vote for Obama, so there is that. I just don't get why you and others like you keep bringing up Hillary. If she was the president, doing the things Trump does and saying the things that he does, I would be critical of her, too. But you haven't answered my question--I would love to hear reasons you support Trump that have ZERO to do with Hillary. Why do you like him so much? What has he done that you agree with? No one ever answers that here. Whenever it is asked, the standard answer is to slam Hillary. Read the bolded.
|
|
Just T
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,547
Jun 26, 2014 1:20:09 GMT
|
Post by Just T on Sept 30, 2019 0:22:27 GMT
I don't know about Obama calling countries shitholes. If I knew, I would have condemned it then, too. I did not vote for Obama, so there is that. I just don't get why you and others like you keep bringing up Hillary. If she was the president, doing the things Trump does and saying the things that he does, I would be critical of her, too. But you haven't answered my question--I would love to hear reasons you support Trump that have ZERO to do with Hillary. Why do you like him so much? What has he done that you agree with? No one ever answers that here. Whenever it is asked, the standard answer is to slam Hillary. Read the bolded. I am applying my values to the person who is our president right now. If Hillary were our president, doing and saying the things Trump does, I would be applying my values to her and criticizing her. But she is not. I don't care a rat's ass about her, because right now, she means nothing. I didn't vote for her. I am not a fan of Hillary. But none of that matters because she is not the one representing our country to the world. Trump is. That is who I care about at the moment. Why can you not GET this?? And why are YOU not applying the values to Trump that you hold Hillary to, even though she no longer matters?
I think I shall join Busy in her bridge jumping.
ETA: And, are you ever going to answer the question about what you like about Trump, why you support him? If he is so great, you should be able to answer that question without saying anything about Hillary.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 1, 2024 20:18:24 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2019 0:47:25 GMT
I am applying my values to the person who is our president right now. If Hillary were our president, doing and saying the things Trump does, I would be applying my values to her and criticizing her. But she is not. I don't care a rat's ass about her, because right now, she means nothing. I didn't vote for her. I am not a fan of Hillary. But none of that matters because she is not the one representing our country to the world. Trump is. That is who I care about at the moment. Why can you not GET this?? And why are YOU not applying the values to Trump that you hold Hillary to, even though she no longer matters?
I think I shall join Busy in her bridge jumping.
ETA: And, are you ever going to answer the question about what you like about Trump, why you support him? If he is so great, you should be able to answer that question without saying anything about Hillary.
It doesn't matter that she isn't president or that you didn't vote for her. She was running for president and the people that condemn trump and their friends who support him didn't apply the values to her at the time that they're condemning Trump for, and throwing away their friends for supporting him. I was answering ntsf when she said "anyone who would employ steven miller cannot claim to not be a racist. he looks for ways to be evil" and the topic of the thread is Can a friendship survive differences in politics?
When you can understand what I'm saying about that, then we can move on to your next question.
|
|
Just T
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,547
Jun 26, 2014 1:20:09 GMT
|
Post by Just T on Sept 30, 2019 0:59:34 GMT
I am applying my values to the person who is our president right now. If Hillary were our president, doing and saying the things Trump does, I would be applying my values to her and criticizing her. But she is not. I don't care a rat's ass about her, because right now, she means nothing. I didn't vote for her. I am not a fan of Hillary. But none of that matters because she is not the one representing our country to the world. Trump is. That is who I care about at the moment. Why can you not GET this?? And why are YOU not applying the values to Trump that you hold Hillary to, even though she no longer matters?
I think I shall join Busy in her bridge jumping.
ETA: And, are you ever going to answer the question about what you like about Trump, why you support him? If he is so great, you should be able to answer that question without saying anything about Hillary.
It doesn't matter that she isn't president or that you didn't vote for her. She was running for president and the people that condemn trump and their friends who support him didn't apply the values to her at the time that they're condemning Trump for, and throwing away their friends for supporting him. I was answering ntsf when she said "anyone who would employ steven miller cannot claim to not be a racist. he looks for ways to be evil" and the topic of the thread is Can a friendship survive differences in politics?
When you can understand what I'm saying about that, then we can move on to your next question. It DOES matter that she is not president. If she was, and if she was saying and doing the things Trump does and say, I would be critical of her. That is why it matters. When people in power, like Trump, say and do the things they say and do, it matters. You can talk around this all you want. Defend Trump all you want. We all here get it that you love him and support him, even though you won't tell us why. That is your prerogative. You are the one who is being obtuse, and I am done with conversing with you. You haven't answered my question about why you like Trump, and clearly, you won't. I have said I do not like Hillary and did not vote for her. That is beside the point right now.
Why will you not tell us why you like Trump?? Why do you keep on with the "oh, but Hillary" narrative??
I really am done. You don't have to respond to me because I am done. You are maddening.
|
|
|
Post by ntsf on Sept 30, 2019 1:16:27 GMT
and look at the facts.. hillary wrote a thesis on Alinsky.. she did not take a job with him, she was not "mentored" by him.. she studied his methods as a research topic. you are not your topic. she didn't put him on her advisory boards. she went a different direction.. this is a right wing talking point.. not holding up..
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 1, 2024 20:18:24 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2019 1:24:51 GMT
It doesn't matter that she isn't president or that you didn't vote for her. She was running for president and the people that condemn trump and their friends who support him didn't apply the values to her at the time that they're condemning Trump for, and throwing away their friends for supporting him. I was answering ntsf when she said "anyone who would employ steven miller cannot claim to not be a racist. he looks for ways to be evil" and the topic of the thread is Can a friendship survive differences in politics?
When you can understand what I'm saying about that, then we can move on to your next question. It DOES matter that she is not president. If she was, and if she was saying and doing the things Trump does and say, I would be critical of her. That is why it matters. When people in power, like Trump, say and do the things they say and do, it matters. You can talk around this all you want. Defend Trump all you want. We all here get it that you love him and support him, even though you won't tell us why. That is your prerogative. You are the one who is being obtuse, and I am done with conversing with you. You haven't answered my question about why you like Trump, and clearly, you won't. I have said I do not like Hillary and did not vote for her. That is beside the point right now.
Why will you not tell us why you like Trump?? Why do you keep on with the "oh, but Hillary" narrative??
I really am done. You don't have to respond to me because I am done. You are maddening.
If you really, seriously can't understand the very simple point of condemning your friends for reasons that didn't bother you when anyone on the Left did or said (not just Hillary), then how will you possibly understand anything anyone has to say about what they might like about what Trump IS accomplishing and why they like it? As a matter of fact, people have answered it numerous times and the response is always anything good happening under Trump is something Obama put in place before he left, all while maintaining that anything bad happening under Trump, even things Obama bad things put in place, are Trump's fault. So what could I possibly say that you (or others) wouldn't find some convoluted way to dismiss?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 1, 2024 20:18:24 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2019 1:29:10 GMT
and look at the facts.. hillary wrote a thesis on Alinsky.. she did not take a job with him, she was not "mentored" by him.. she studied his methods as a research topic. you are not your topic. she didn't put him on her advisory boards. she went a different direction.. this is a right wing talking point.. not holding up.. He was her mentor and there are letters that show she supported his philosophy and continued her mentor relationship with him for years.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 1, 2024 20:18:24 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2019 2:00:55 GMT
and look at the facts.. hillary wrote a thesis on Alinsky.. she did not take a job with him, she was not "mentored" by him.. she studied his methods as a research topic. you are not your topic. she didn't put him on her advisory boards. she went a different direction.. this is a right wing talking point.. not holding up.. He was her mentor and there are letters that show she supported his philosophy and continued her mentor relationship with him for years. Where Is the proof he was her mentor? Where are the letters? “ Continued her mentor relationship with him for years”. The paper was written in 1969 and he died in 1972. I also think you are repeating the right wing talking points without knowing all the facts. What I just read about her paper.. “Rodham researched the thesis by interviewing Alinsky and others, and by conducting visits to low-income areas of Chicago (nearby to her hometown, Park Ridge, Illinois) and observing Community Action Programs in those areas.[2] Her thesis adviser was Wellesley professor of political science Alan Schechter.[3]
The thesis was sympathetic to Alinsky's critiques of government antipoverty programs, but criticized Alinsky's methods as largely ineffective, all the while describing Alinsky's personality as appealing.[4] The thesis sought to fit Alinsky into a line of American social activists, including Eugene V. Debs, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Walt Whitman. Written in formal academic language, the thesis concluded that "[Alinsky's] power/conflict model is rendered inapplicable by existing social conflicts" and that Alinsky's model had not expanded nationally due to "the anachronistic nature of small autonomous conflict".[4]
A 2007 New York Times review of Rodham's thesis summarized her views as follows: "Ms. Rodham endorsed Mr. Alinsky's central critique of government antipoverty programs — that they tended to be too top-down and removed from the wishes of individuals. But the student leader split with Mr. Alinsky over a central point. He vowed to 'rub raw the sores of discontent' and compel action through agitation. This, she believed, ran counter to the notion of change within the system."[5] In 2016, reporter Michael Kruse quotes the thesis and describes a centrist theme:
"Alinsky's conclusion that the 'ventilation' of hostilities is healthy in certain situations is valid, but across-the-board 'social catharsis' cannot be prescribed," she wrote. "Catharsis has a way of perpetuating itself so that it becomes an end in itself." She continued: "Interestingly, this society seems to be in a transition period, caught between conflict and consensus." It was clear where this 21-year-old stood: "... as our 'two societies'—the establishment, the anti-establishment—"move further apart contrived conflict serves to exacerbate the polarization.[1]
In the acknowledgements and end notes of the thesis, Rodham thanked Alinsky for two interviews and a job offer. She declined the latter, saying that "after spending a year trying to make sense out of [Alinsky's] inconsistency, I need three years of legal rigor." The thesis was praised by all four of its reviewers[6] and Rodham, an honors student at Wellesley, received an A grade on it.[4.
|
|
PLurker
Prolific Pea
Posts: 9,749
Location: Behind the Cheddar Curtain
Jun 28, 2014 3:48:49 GMT
|
Post by PLurker on Sept 30, 2019 2:04:56 GMT
Re: condemning trump but not Hillary IF they were equal in lies, unkindness and destruction AND the place of power to matter.
I would not support anyone that is or does as trump. I promise I will never vote for her and neither probably will anyone else. She hasn't the power SO SHE IS NO THREAT to people. The one in power most definately is.
trump, unfortunately, is in power and needs to be the focus to save ourselves.
Hillary could be still wandering around in the woods for all it matters. She's over. done. Not at the reigns of the out of control horse and buggy show that it is headed for and about to take us over the frickin' cliff.
his bad far outweighs his good and is not worth it in any way to me.
IF equally "bad" he has all the ammunition right now. Power. She has none. I'd be afraid of him not her.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Sept 30, 2019 2:07:17 GMT
*throws self off bridge. cannot take one more “but Hillary”* You have to admit, that if an association is bad for Trump, then it's bad for Hillary. Or if you cut Hillary slack on an issue, then you should understand why someone would for Trump. This has GIA written all over it.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Sept 30, 2019 2:08:17 GMT
He was her mentor and there are letters that show she supported his philosophy and continued her mentor relationship with him for years. Where Is the proof he was her mentor? Where are the letters? “ Continued her mentor relationship with him for years”. The paper was written in 1969 and he died in 1972. I also think you are repeating the right wing talking points without knowing all the facts. What I just read about her paper.. “Rodham researched the thesis by interviewing Alinsky and others, and by conducting visits to low-income areas of Chicago (nearby to her hometown, Park Ridge, Illinois) and observing Community Action Programs in those areas.[2] Her thesis adviser was Wellesley professor of political science Alan Schechter.[3]
The thesis was sympathetic to Alinsky's critiques of government antipoverty programs, but criticized Alinsky's methods as largely ineffective, all the while describing Alinsky's personality as appealing.[4] The thesis sought to fit Alinsky into a line of American social activists, including Eugene V. Debs, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Walt Whitman. Written in formal academic language, the thesis concluded that "[Alinsky's] power/conflict model is rendered inapplicable by existing social conflicts" and that Alinsky's model had not expanded nationally due to "the anachronistic nature of small autonomous conflict".[4]
A 2007 New York Times review of Rodham's thesis summarized her views as follows: "Ms. Rodham endorsed Mr. Alinsky's central critique of government antipoverty programs — that they tended to be too top-down and removed from the wishes of individuals. But the student leader split with Mr. Alinsky over a central point. He vowed to 'rub raw the sores of discontent' and compel action through agitation. This, she believed, ran counter to the notion of change within the system."[5] In 2016, reporter Michael Kruse quotes the thesis and describes a centrist theme:
"Alinsky's conclusion that the 'ventilation' of hostilities is healthy in certain situations is valid, but across-the-board 'social catharsis' cannot be prescribed," she wrote. "Catharsis has a way of perpetuating itself so that it becomes an end in itself." She continued: "Interestingly, this society seems to be in a transition period, caught between conflict and consensus." It was clear where this 21-year-old stood: "... as our 'two societies'—the establishment, the anti-establishment—"move further apart contrived conflict serves to exacerbate the polarization.[1]
In the acknowledgements and end notes of the thesis, Rodham thanked Alinsky for two interviews and a job offer. She declined the latter, saying that "after spending a year trying to make sense out of [Alinsky's] inconsistency, I need three years of legal rigor." The thesis was praised by all four of its reviewers[6] and Rodham, an honors student at Wellesley, received an A grade on it.[4.
I think that you are engaging with Gia.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Sept 30, 2019 2:10:31 GMT
More futile attempts to bring HRC back into anything when trump fucks up.
redirect of the topic. (sound familiar?) always bring up HRC as a defection or explanation or justification for trumps fuckery (sound familiar?)
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 1, 2024 20:18:24 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2019 2:15:40 GMT
Where Is the proof he was her mentor? Where are the letters? “ Continued her mentor relationship with him for years”. The paper was written in 1969 and he died in 1972. I also think you are repeating the right wing talking points without knowing all the facts. The letters are part of the archives for the Industrial Areas Foundation, a training center for community organizers founded by Alinsky, which are housed at the University of Texas at Austin.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 1, 2024 20:18:24 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2019 3:08:35 GMT
linkThe link, if I did it right, is for the one letter she wrote in 1971 and a reply from a secretary or someone since Alinsky was someplace else. Apparently that’s it. From American Interest.. link“Clinton’s Alinsky Problem—and Ours”
By DAVID BLANKENHORN
”Saul Alinsky wasn’t a Marxist, and Hillary Clinton wasn’t his acolyte—though you wouldn’t know if from today’s political discourse.”
From the article. It is long.. ”Recently I read a college honors thesis about Saul Alinsky, the famous community organizer, written in 1969 by a Wellesley College senior named Hillary Rodham.1 I read it for three reasons. The first is my interest in the real Saul Alinsky. I never met the man, but for six years in the late 1970s and early 1980s I worked as an Alinsky-inspired community organizer. My comrades and I figuratively, and in some cases literally, carried around copies of Rules for Radicals, Alinsky’s most important book, in our back pockets. The second reason is my interest in the real Hillary Rodham Clinton. I realize that for a quarter-century she’s been under intense public scrutiny as a political celebrity, but, partly for that reason, I’m not sure we know or remember who she really is—at least, I’m not sure I do. So I wanted to try to understand her as a college student, just coming into her own and as her political views were congealing—before she met Bill, before she began a career, and before she became an outsized political symbol for friends and enemies alike. A final reason is my interest in political polarization and, with it, the political uses of demonization.2 Alinsky died in 1972, and for many years afterwards, outside of a small circle of community organizers, very few Americans heard anything about him. That changed in 2008, when Barack Obama, who had worked for three years as an Alinsky-style community organizer in Chicago, ran for President. Since then, thousands and perhaps millions of words have been spoken and written about the alleged influence of Saul Alinsky on American life. Some of them have been true, but most of them have been wildly false, mainly because crudely caricaturizing Alinsky has proven useful in the larger project of crudely caricaturizing first one, and now two, contenders for the presidency. In short, Alinsky, Rodham-Clinton, and their acolytes and detractors all play roles in this tangled tale of how America in recent decades has come to love, or at least ardently practice, polarization. Let’s begin the tale in 1969 at Wellesley College.” In her paper there were some things she agreed with Alinsky on and a lot she disagreed with him on. You can like a person and disagree with their position on certain issues and in spite of the differences enjoy a good discussion voicing their views on the subject. And it does not make one a mentor for the other. What is clear, that even when going to law school, she was interested in helping those less fortunate. And one way was through community organization. And IMO no way can you make the comparison of trump/Miller & Clinton/Alinsky as being equal or the same or even a true comparison for that matter. I believe one would call it “grasping for straws”.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Sept 30, 2019 3:55:13 GMT
“implication that Hillary Clinton’s reputation is tainted by anything Alinsky said or wrote because he is, according to Carson, “one of her heroes, her mentors … someone she greatly admired and that affected all of her philosophies subsequently,” all of that appears to be based on hyperbole. It’s true that Clinton interviewed Alinsky and wrote her undergraduate thesis on his political views, but that doesn’t make him a “hero” or “mentor.” A New York Times review characterized her thesis as follows:
Ms. Rodham endorsed Mr. Alinsky’s central critique of government antipoverty programs — that they tended to be too top-down and removed from the wishes of individuals.
But the student leader split with Mr. Alinsky over a central point. He vowed to “rub raw the sores of discontent” and compel action through agitation. This, she believed, ran counter to the notion of change within the system. Similarly, in a passage about Alinsky in her 2003 memoir, Living History, Clinton wrote:
Alinsky was a colorful and controversial figure who managed to offend almost everyone during his long career. His prescription for social change required grassroots organizing that taught people to help themselves by confronting government and corporations to obtain the resources and power to improve their lives. I agreed with some of Alinsky’s ideas, particularly the value of empowering people to help themselves. But we had a fundamental disagreement. He believed you could change the system only from the outside. I didn’t. Later, he offered me the chance to work with him when I graduated from college, and he was disappointed that I decided instead to go to law school. Alinsky said I would be wasting my time, but my decision was an expression of my belief that the system could be changed from within. Based on what she has actually said and written about Saul Alinsky, to characterize Hillary Clinton as a starry-eyed acolyte of the Rules for Radicals author is a stretch. “
Snopes
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Sept 30, 2019 12:33:50 GMT
“implication that Hillary Clinton’s reputation is tainted by anything Alinsky said or wrote because he is, according to Carson, “one of her heroes, her mentors … someone she greatly admired and that affected all of her philosophies subsequently,” all of that appears to be based on hyperbole. It’s true that Clinton interviewed Alinsky and wrote her undergraduate thesis on his political views, but that doesn’t make him a “hero” or “mentor.” A New York Times review characterized her thesis as follows: Ms. Rodham endorsed Mr. Alinsky’s central critique of government antipoverty programs — that they tended to be too top-down and removed from the wishes of individuals. But the student leader split with Mr. Alinsky over a central point. He vowed to “rub raw the sores of discontent” and compel action through agitation. This, she believed, ran counter to the notion of change within the system. Similarly, in a passage about Alinsky in her 2003 memoir, Living History, Clinton wrote: Alinsky was a colorful and controversial figure who managed to offend almost everyone during his long career. His prescription for social change required grassroots organizing that taught people to help themselves by confronting government and corporations to obtain the resources and power to improve their lives. I agreed with some of Alinsky’s ideas, particularly the value of empowering people to help themselves. But we had a fundamental disagreement. He believed you could change the system only from the outside. I didn’t. Later, he offered me the chance to work with him when I graduated from college, and he was disappointed that I decided instead to go to law school. Alinsky said I would be wasting my time, but my decision was an expression of my belief that the system could be changed from within. Based on what she has actually said and written about Saul Alinsky, to characterize Hillary Clinton as a starry-eyed acolyte of the Rules for Radicals author is a stretch. “ Snopes How very unsurprising that our resident Trump troll is unable to differentiate academic study of an individual (Saul Alinsky) from actually making that person one of your chief advisors (Stephen Miller).
|
|
|
Post by ladytrisha on Sept 30, 2019 15:26:31 GMT
Back to the original question - this morning we received an invite to a dinner next week for a couple moving out of state. While I adore the person inviting us, the people moving out of state are solid Trumpers as are the rest of the invited.
Easiest invite refusal we've made. While I had to put up with them when they joined our Scout troop, I certainly don't have to give them my time now.
|
|
|
Post by femalebusiness on Sept 30, 2019 17:50:13 GMT
You have to admit, that if an association is bad for Trump, then it's bad for Hillary. Or if you cut Hillary slack on an issue, then you should understand why someone would for Trump. This has GIA written all over it. And why anyone takes the time to argue with her is way beyond my comprehension. Because of the thinking skills that I see on this thread I'd lay odds she also falls for the IRS scams and sends gift cards to get her grandson out of jail too. 😂🤣😂🤣
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 1, 2024 20:18:24 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2019 17:58:13 GMT
I don’t think it’s a matter of arguing, as more of a matter of calling someone out for spreading misinformation.
|
|
|
Post by LiLi on Sept 30, 2019 18:07:26 GMT
If you really, seriously can't understand the very simple point of condemning your friends for reasons that didn't bother you when anyone on the Left did or said (not just Hillary), then how will you possibly understand anything anyone has to say about what they might like about what Trump IS accomplishing and why they like it? I could go on forever. Anyone who supports someone who is disgusting enough to say a single one of these things, doesn't have the same morality as I do. Therefore, I would not want to be their friend no matter what their political beliefs are. Politics has nothing to do with it. Oh yeah, and before you go there, I am not okay with Bill Clinton being a creeper, either.
|
|
|
Post by gar on Sept 30, 2019 20:32:31 GMT
You have to admit, that if an association is bad for Trump, then it's bad for Hillary. Or if you cut Hillary slack on an issue, then you should understand why someone would for Trump. This has GIA written all over it. I knew I'd seen/recognised that avatar before
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 1, 2024 20:18:24 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2019 0:19:16 GMT
How very unsurprising that our resident Trump troll is unable to differentiate academic study of an individual (Saul Alinsky) from actually making that person one of your chief advisors (Stephen Miller). Her thesis shows what is clearly a reverence for Alinsky and his views. And as First Lady she lent her name, raised funds for, and attended events for Alinksy's foundation, so she did not reject him and his ideas. From her letters to him: "When is that new book [Rules for Radicals] coming out — or has it come and I somehow missed the fulfillment of Revelation? I have just had my one-thousandth conversation about Reveille [for Radicals] and need some new material to throw at people." "She also asked if they could meet the next time he was in California. “I am living in Berkeley and working in Oakland for the summer and would love to see you,” Clinton wrote. “Let me know if there is any chance of our getting together.” She added: "Hopefully we can have a good argument sometime in the future." Response from his secretary: Alinsky's longtime secretary, Georgia Harper, sent Clinton a letter in reply informing her that he was away on a six-week trip to Southeast Asia, but that she had opened the letter anyway. “Since I know his feelings about you I took the liberty of opening your letter because I didn’t want something urgent to wait for two weeks,” Harper wrote in the July 13, 1971, letter. “And I’m glad I did.” “Mr. Alinsky will be in San Francisco, staying at the Hilton Inn at the airport on Monday and Tuesday, July 26 and 27,” Harper added. “I know he would like to have you call him so that if there is a chance in his schedule maybe you can get together.” linkThat shows he was much more than just an "academic study" to her. Also, if you can't refrain from dismissing opposing views as trolls, then you're not discussing honestly.
|
|