Governor of Virginia allegedly turns up in old black face photo.

[The Romulan Republic]

I never said lockstep or excuse all wrongdoing. I'm saying control the message, find common ground, and protect one another when the wolves start to circle.

Well, how far do you take the "protect one another" part? Because protecting Democrats against Republican frame-jobs? Absolutely. Protecting them when they seriously fuck up, just because they're Democrats? That's how you end up with your party taken over by the worst actors.

Once, three and a half decades ago, never again since. He dressed up as a popular artist that was black, made a poor choice, and likely wore all the egg you could ask for on his face at the time. He then proceeded to forget about it to the point of being surprised when it was brought up.

Even if he was a racist back then and didn't just make a single very poor choice, if he's learned from it and moved on isn't that a good thing?

I mean, I'm a bit of a sucker for redemption stories, but his clumsy apology doesn't really suggest that he gets the severity of his mistake, and in any case, he's a liability to the party right now. The honourable thing to do would be to fall on his metaphorical sword for the good of the party, spend the next few years doing good works in the community, and then maybe try a comeback if people are willing to give him a second chance.

Those groups have understandable reasons to be skeptical about a man who dressed in blackface and his apology was less than stellar. However, given the 'crime' and his record since I wouldn't say that he's a racist let alone that anybody supporting him staying in office is.

You may not, but a lot of people will. For reasons that are quite understandable, given the history of racism, and turning a blind eye to racism, in America.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'll add that if we want a message, an identity for the Democratic Party to stand for, we could do a lot worse than being the party that stands with the oppressed, and refuses to make excuses for racism and sexism. Sure, we'll lose (most of) the white male vote, but we're losing most of it anyway, and have been for a long time, and it is an increasingly small percentage of the American electorate (hence the fanatical terror and resentment of the Trumpers, who wrongly view society as a zero-sum game along demographic lines, and cannot comprehend a world in which they are equals in a diverse society, rather than belonging to the master race/gender). Let us be the party that stands for accountability, and for the equality and dignity of all people. With luck, we will be able to convince enough voters of all demographics to stand with us. And if not... well frankly, there are worse hills to die on.

[Oscar Wilde]

What does 'accountability' have to include 'fuck your career over a 30 year old shitpost?'

[The Romulan Republic]

What does 'accountability' have to include 'fuck your career over a 30 year old shitpost?'

Because its more than a "shitpost", its a blatantly racist action which has connotations comparable in this day and age to using the N-word, because he handled it really badly, and because if we make excuses for Democrats over stuff like this, the Republicans will use it for "Both Sides" rhetoric and to provide cover for the racism in their party.

[Oscar Wilde]

What does 'accountability' have to include 'fuck your career over a 30 year old shitpost?'

Because its more than a "shitpost", its a blatantly racist action which has connotations comparable in this day and age to using the N-word, because he handled it really badly, and because if we make excuses for Democrats over stuff like this, the Republicans will use it for "Both Sides" rhetoric and to provide cover for the racism in their party.

I'm not sure that you understand what shitposting is.
He apologized for it. You can say he apologized poorly, which hey,

And its not making excuses to say 'hey yeah that was fucked up but you're not a racist prick now'
Thats a standard of decency and dignity that should be afforded to anyone, regardless of their party.

[The Romulan Republic]

What does 'accountability' have to include 'fuck your career over a 30 year old shitpost?'

Because its more than a "shitpost", its a blatantly racist action which has connotations comparable in this day and age to using the N-word, because he handled it really badly, and because if we make excuses for Democrats over stuff like this, the Republicans will use it for "Both Sides" rhetoric and to provide cover for the racism in their party.

I'm not sure that you understand what shitposting is.
He apologized for it. You can say he apologized poorly, which hey,

My, what an insightful and thoughtful rebuttal.

There is also real reason to question the sincerity and truthfulness of his response, given that he initially admitted to the first photo, then backtracked and said "no actually it was a different black face".

And its not making excuses to say 'hey yeah that was fucked up but you're not a racist prick now'
Thats a standard of decency and dignity that should be afforded to anyone, regardless of their party.

If he had handled it better, maybe. But the political realities of the situation would still make him a liability to the party, and the honourable thing to do would be to step aside for the good of the cause.

[Oscar Wilde]

The political realities of the situation are ones that are being manufactured for the situation. He's a liability if its treated as no big deal, instead of saying 'yeah that was fucked up, but you're not racist now.'

There is no honor to being run out by insanity.

[The Romulan Republic]

If you don't think that Democrats supporting him would be played on an endless loop by Republicans for Whataboutism and to depress progressive and black turnout, you don't know the Republicans. And Virginia is a very large swing-trending-blue state which the Democrats absolutely need to hold in 2020.

Edit: Let's simplify things- Is your sympathy for this man and desire to protect his career worth four more years of Trump?

[Oscar Wilde]

Its not any particular sympathy for Northam that drives me to hold this viewpoint: Its a desire to not set an awful precedent for the future.


I'm not doubting the ability for this to be drawn upon for whataboutism. You could even say that this is ALREADY a case of that, in fact. Which is why I'm saying 'condemn the action then, but don't condemn the man now unless the person he is TODAY is worth condemning.'

If you're considering 'the game that republicans will play' (and Democrats aren't above them either, don't try that) then legitimizing a smear tactic like this is just as much giving them ammunition, isn't it?

[Jub]

If the Dems lose because of this one small insignificant fart into a hurricane, they never had what it takes to win. If the Dems manage to lose to dickless Don Jr. twice in a row, they'll have proven that a new party needs to step into their spot because clearly they can't win hearts and minds and they've already proven many times that they can't work together with their own well enough to get laws passed at the same rate the GoP does when they hold power.

They may not be Nazi's, but are useless muppets who couldn't even beat dickless Don a worthy party?

[The Romulan Republic]

If the Dems lose because of this one small insignificant fart into a hurricane, they never had what it takes to win. If the Dems manage to lose to dickless Don Jr. twice in a row, they'll have proven that a new party needs to step into their spot because clearly they can't win hearts and minds and they've already proven many times that they can't work together with their own well enough to get laws passed at the same rate the GoP does when they hold power.

They may not be Nazi's, but are useless muppets who couldn't even beat dickless Don a worthy party?

You and I both know that this won't be a fair election, just like 2016 wasn't a fair election. People blame the Democrats for not being more effective, but that's disingenuous, because we are always fighting uphill against a systematic campaign of voter suppression (and increasingly outright fraud) by Republicans, coupled with a gerrymandered map and an Electoral College that tends to give Republican-leaning states greater power. And that's not even considering the possibility of another orchestrated campaign by the Kremlin or another foreign power on Trump's behalf. So it could very easily be decided by one relatively little thing. If any of half a dozen things had been different in 2016, Trump probably wouldn't be President right now.

Remember: We got millions more votes than Dickless in 2016. That is a fact that is too often forgotten, and the significance of which is too often overlooked. We won the hearts and minds of more voters than Trump. But winning the hearts and minds of the voters isn't always enough. We need to scrounge for every little advantage we can get, because we are playing against a stacked deck.

But no, let's blame Democrats for not consistently beating a rigged system. Third Party! Bernie or Bust!

Edit: I'll remind you as well that just last November, we probably lost at least two Senate seats to overt campaigns of voter suppression/fraud, conducted by Republicans with the support of the sitting President (and in the case of Georgia, overseen by a Republican candidate in one of the most blatant cases of conflict of interest I have ever seen).

So yeah, we need high turnout anywhere we can get it. We are going to need enthusiastic turnout from the Left. We are sure as hell going to need enthusiastic turnout from the black vote if we want to take either Florida or Virginia- and it is very unlikely that we win the Presidency and lose both those states. Because thanks to the EC, it doesn't matter how high we run up the numbers in New England and on the West Coast if we can't take at least some major states in the Midwest and either the Southwest or the South.

[Jub]

You and I both know that this won't be a fair election, just like 2016 wasn't a fair election. People blame the Democrats for not being more effective, but that's disingenuous, because we are always fighting uphill against a systematic campaign of voter suppression (and increasingly outright fraud) by Republicans, coupled with a gerrymandered map and an Electoral College that tends to give Republican-leaning states greater power. And that's not even considering the possibility of another orchestrated campaign by the Kremlin or another foreign power on Trump's behalf. So it could very easily be decided by one relatively little thing. If any of half a dozen things had been different in 2016, Trump probably wouldn't be President right now.

Remember: We got millions more votes than Dickless in 2016. That is a fact that is too often forgotten, and the significance of which is too often overlooked. We won the hearts and minds of more voters than Trump. But winning the hearts and minds of the voters isn't always enough. We need to scrounge for every little advantage we can get, because we are playing against a stacked deck.

Or you could start playing the game smarter. If you get rid of one person for a manufactured scandal then that just means that manufacturing scandals against Dems works. You need to push against this attack, not allow it to push you over, the Dems are already seen as pushovers by the middle so try not to live down to that.

Also, try to pass laws at the same rate as the GoP does when you do have power. Make it look like you can get things done because even with the surge of power under Obama how much last change actually happened? Now compare that to Bush and Trump. Which party do you have more faith in getting things done when they do gain power?

[The Romulan Republic]

You and I both know that this won't be a fair election, just like 2016 wasn't a fair election. People blame the Democrats for not being more effective, but that's disingenuous, because we are always fighting uphill against a systematic campaign of voter suppression (and increasingly outright fraud) by Republicans, coupled with a gerrymandered map and an Electoral College that tends to give Republican-leaning states greater power. And that's not even considering the possibility of another orchestrated campaign by the Kremlin or another foreign power on Trump's behalf. So it could very easily be decided by one relatively little thing. If any of half a dozen things had been different in 2016, Trump probably wouldn't be President right now.

Remember: We got millions more votes than Dickless in 2016. That is a fact that is too often forgotten, and the significance of which is too often overlooked. We won the hearts and minds of more voters than Trump. But winning the hearts and minds of the voters isn't always enough. We need to scrounge for every little advantage we can get, because we are playing against a stacked deck.

Or you could start playing the game smarter. If you get rid of one person for a manufactured scandal then that just means that manufacturing scandals against Dems works. You need to push against this attack, not allow it to push you over, the Dems are already seen as pushovers by the middle so try not to live down to that.

Except its not a "manufactured scandal". As I noted before, this is not like the Mueller or Avenatti abuse allegations, where we had scandals that appeared to be purely fabricated by Right wing operatives- and in which cases I ended up supporting the accused. This was an actual racist act, and an actual subsequent fuck-up in how the Governor handled the fallout of it coming to light. I do not think that it is fair or accurate to call that a "manufactured scandal", implicitly putting it in the same category as Republican lies like Mueller the sexual predator, Benghazi-gate, or Birtherism. THOSE are manufactured scandals. This is real- the only question is how seriously we should take it.

Also, try to pass laws at the same rate as the GoP does when you do have power. Make it look like you can get things done because even with the surge of power under Obama how much last change actually happened? Now compare that to Bush and Trump. Which party do you have more faith in getting things done when they do gain power?

First of all, how many laws you pass is not the only or the most meaningful measure of accomplishment. While its not something I am particularly supportive of, a lot of what is done in government these days is done by executive order. The content of those laws also matters- a single Affordable Care Act is arguably a much more profound accomplishment than a dozen minor bills of limited effect. And the appointment of judges (especially Supreme Court Justices) and the conduct of our foreign policy will have greater impact than almost any legislation.

Of course, another problem is that the US system is set up in such a way that if the other party is prepared to be ruthlessly obstructionist, you can't really pass anything unless you control both houses of Congress and the Presidency at minimum AND maintain a high degree of party unity. The Republicans probably pass more (I'd actually like to see the source for those stats, though I don't really doubt that they're correct), but that's probably largely due to their being more willing to obstruct everything their opponents do (well, until recently- I commend Pelosi for holding her ground in the Shutdown, and finally figuring out that you can't compromise with people who have no interest in compromise and won't deal in good faith).

Also, Obama actually accomplished quite a lot. Just listing the big things that come immediately to mind:

-Repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell.

-Helped achieve legalized Gay Marriage.

-Improved diplomatic relations with Iran and Cuba.

-DACA.

-Obamacare (imperfect as it is, it represented a real improvement on an issue that Presidents had been trying and failing to address for several decades).

Not all legislative accomplishments, but that is some major changes. Some of it Trump has subsequently trashed (though not all), but that is not something you can just blame on the Democrats. Its not like we sat there and let Trump do those things, but until we took the House, our means to oppose him were limited.

And I have to ask- why does that always seem to be the reaction? Blame the Democrats when they get it wrong... and blame the Democrats when the Republicans do something wrong. It seems like whoever's in power, everything that goes wrong is on the Democrats. Well, I guess that's the price you pay for being the responsible ones in the room.

[Jub]

Except its not a "manufactured scandal". As I noted before, this is not like the Mueller or Avenatti abuse allegations, where we had scandals that appeared to be purely fabricated by Right wing operatives- and in which cases I ended up supporting the accused. This was an actual racist act, and an actual subsequent fuck-up in how the Governor handled the fallout of it coming to light. I do not think that it is fair or accurate to call that a "manufactured scandal", implicitly putting it in the same category as Republican lies like Mueller the sexual predator, Benghazi-gate, or Birtherism. THOSE are manufactured scandals. This is real- the only question is how seriously we should take it.

Dug up 35 year old dirt is pretty fucking manufactured.

First of all, how many laws you pass is not the only or the most meaningful measure of accomplishment. While its not something I am particularly supportive of, a lot of what is done in government these days is done by executive order. The content of those laws also matters- a single Affordable Care Act is arguably a much more profound accomplishment than a dozen minor bills of limited effect. And the appointment of judges (especially Supreme Court Justices) and the conduct of our foreign policy will have greater impact than almost any legislation.

Yeah, and what's the Dems record like on those?

Of course, another problem is that the US system is set up in such a way that if the other party is prepared to be ruthlessly obstructionist, you can't really pass anything unless you control both houses of Congress and the Presidency at minimum AND maintain a high degree of party unity. The Republicans probably pass more (I'd actually like to see the source for those stats, though I don't really doubt that they're correct), but that's probably largely due to their being more willing to obstruct everything their opponents do (well, until recently- I commend Pelosi for holding her ground in the Shutdown, and finally figuring out that you can't compromise with people who have no interest in compromise and won't deal in good faith).

They might be learning, but it never feels like they make an impact while in power.

Also, Obama actually accomplished quite a lot. Just listing the big things that come immediately to mind:

-Repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell. -- (Good, but it's already been rolled back.)

-Helped achieve legalized Gay Marriage. -- (Very good, should be a lasting legacy)

-Improved diplomatic relations with Iran and Cuba. -- (Good, but not really something to entice new voters)

-DACA.-- (Good, but rolled back near instantly)

-Obamacare (imperfect as it is, it represented a real improvement on an issue that Presidents had been trying and failing to address for several decades). -- (Better than nothing but a shit compromise deal, also possibly responsible for further increases in health care cosst)

Not all legislative accomplishments, but that is some major changes. Some of it Trump has subsequently trashed (though not all), but that is not something you can just blame on the Democrats. Its not like we sat there and let Trump do those things, but until we took the House, our means to oppose him were limited.

So like two big things and a bunch of small stuff that's already been washed away. It doesn't feel like enough good compared to the bad the GoP causes when they get power. It's like when the Dems win they spend so much effort just to get back to square one that when they lose power after their two term run none of it matters. That isn't purely on them, but it doesn't exactly engender them to the middle ground voters.

And I have to ask- why does that always seem to be the reaction? Blame the Democrats when they get it wrong... and blame the Democrats when the Republicans do something wrong. It seems like whoever's in power, everything that goes wrong is on the Democrats. Well, I guess that's the price you pay for being the responsible ones in the room.

I just want them to run with the damned ball when they get it next time. It feels like they always play safe and make small changes like it never FEELS like they do enough. When the GoP does something it's all you hear about, when the Dems make a change it's crickets. That may not be on them but is has an effect, it shows that they don't create their own narrative the way the GoP does.

[FireNexus]

Its not any particular sympathy for Northam that drives me to hold this viewpoint: Its a desire to not set an awful precedent for the future.


I'm not doubting the ability for this to be drawn upon for whataboutism. You could even say that this is ALREADY a case of that, in fact. Which is why I'm saying 'condemn the action then, but don't condemn the man now unless the person he is TODAY is worth condemning.'

If you're considering 'the game that republicans will play' (and Democrats aren't above them either, don't try that) then legitimizing a smear tactic like this is just as much giving them ammunition, isn't it?

He made a pretty fucking stupid play in his response and he alienated the single most important demographic in the Dem coalition in a critical state by his very existence now. I’d be far less apt to condemn him if he resigned gracefully and tried to build himself back up. You don’t get out of admitting to dressing up in black face with someone dressed in klan robes by reversing on your admission but admitting to dressing up in blackface some other time. That is so completely fucking stupid as to be worthy of condemnation, and suggestive of clear dishonesty.

To say nothing of the fact that “moonwalking to win a dance contest while pretending to be a black guy” is the plot of an episode of Future Man. And I have trouble believing that is a coincidence.

[The Romulan Republic]

Dug up 35 year old dirt is pretty fucking manufactured.

It happened. His botched and possibly dishonest handling of the response to it also happened, much more recently.

If nothing else, I'm tempted to say that he should resign for political incompetence. We need ABLE men and women in office, if nothing else.

Also, if you are suggesting that the story was "dug up" by Republicans, I'd like you to source that, because its the first I've heard of it beyond speculation.

Yeah, and what's the Dems record like on those?

Big laws... the Affordable Care Act is the stand out example in recent history, as already noted. Supreme Court Justices... Obama appointed one or two IIRC before the Republicans engaged in an unprecedented abrogation of their Constitutional duty to prevent him from appointing another. Obama also engaged in significant actions via executive authority, including DACA, negotiations with various nations and various military actions, and IIRC Don't Ask Don't Tell.

They might be learning, but it never feels like they make an impact while in power.

Considering the mindless obstructionism he was up against, Obama did a lot (though I do fault him on not fully grasping the danger of the radical Right and Russia until it was too late).

Pelosi's change in tone is quite encouraging as well. I remember how just a couple of months ago, progressives were all sure she was going to cave to Trump again and again. I don't think anyone expected her to show the steel she did during the shutdown. I sure as hell didn't. If that is the tack she takes going forward, I honestly wouldn't mind her in the White House (which just might happen if Mueller's report turns up something really damning on Trump and Pence).

So like two big things and a bunch of small stuff that's already been washed away. It doesn't feel like enough good compared to the bad the GoP causes when they get power. It's like when the Dems win they spend so much effort just to get back to square one that when they lose power after their two term run none of it matters. That isn't purely on them, but it doesn't exactly engender them to the middle ground voters.

I would consider every action I listed to be a major accomplishment. And again, it is not fair to constantly put the blame on Democrats for Republican sabotage of the country (some of which is borderline treasonous). It is also, in my opinion, contradictory to blame Democrats for not getting enough done, and then blame them for not appealing to moderates (who by definition will be more likely to reject major, bold changes to the status quo). These twin, contradictory stereotypes- that the Democrats are to blame when the Republicans wreck the country, and that the only thing that matters in politics is sucking up to an ill-defined middle, hold a lot of responsibility for the country's current predicament, in my opinion.

There are no permanent outcomes in history. Life is change. That doesn't mean that our actions don't matter. What matters is that we make the world better today, or if we can't, do what we can to limit the damage.

I just want them to run with the damned ball when they get it next time. It feels like they always play safe and make small changes like it never FEELS like they do enough. When the GoP does something it's all you hear about, when the Dems make a change it's crickets. That may not be on them but is has an effect, it shows that they don't create their own narrative the way the GoP does.

Again, Obamacare and the progress on gay rights were absolutely massive accomplishments. As was thawing relations with Cuba.

I will agree that our PR game has not been up to matching the Republicans' in recent decades.

[The Romulan Republic]

Frankly, I think we need a Left-wing counterpart to Fox News- not in terms of the lying and inciting violence and covering for sexual predators, but in terms of a major news network that is willing to consistently and aggressively and unapologetically back progressive and democratic socialist positions. And above all, we need to stop running to the center, and away from the Left. The public doesn't like weakness. They don't like cowardice. If the Republicans try to smear us for being "socialists" and "SJWs" we shouldn't run away and apologize for it and promise that we'll be good Centrists when we know they'll just keep attacking us with the same lines anyway. We should fucking OWN those labels, and wear them as a badge of honour.

Edit: But if we're going to do that, then we need to walk the walk, not just talk the talk. And that means when we find our one of our own has crossed a line, we need to call them out. Maybe not shun them for all time, if they've shown the capacity to show remorse and change and try to be better. But we can't just circle the wagons. Because then we're just Republicans with a different coat of paint. It was wrong when we did it for Bill. It was wrong when we did it for Franken. And it would be wrong to do it for Northrop.

[Jub]

It happened. His botched and possibly dishonest handling of the response to it also happened, much more recently.

If nothing else, I'm tempted to say that he should resign for political incompetence. We need ABLE men and women in office, if nothing else.

Also, if you are suggesting that the story was "dug up" by Republicans, I'd like you to source that, because its the first I've heard of it beyond speculation.

I don't really care who dug up what, the GoP will use any and all ammo. You can either run a good man out of office for a past mistake and an apology some people don't like, or you can grow a spine and push back and say we won't be bullied today. One makes you look stronger and the other (caving under pressure) is what people expect the Dems to do.

Big laws... the Affordable Care Act is the stand out example in recent history, as already noted.

The ACA is an abomination that was compromised to hell and back which means it's not going to be strong enough to stand and create lasting change. No sane western nation would stand to downgrade their medical system into that fucking mess and it's hardly an accomplishment to get to something that the rest of the west looks at, shakes their collective heads, and sighs at.

So no, I don't count ACA as a major step forward.

Supreme Court Justices... Obama appointed one or two IIRC before the Republicans engaged in an unprecedented abrogation of their Constitutional duty to prevent him from appointing another.

So, Trump in under 4 years has done more on that front than Obama did in 8...

Obama also engaged in significant actions via executive authority, including DACA, negotiations with various nations and various military actions, and IIRC Don't Ask Don't Tell.

DACA was a bandaid at best and has created no lasting change.

Every president will strengthen ties with some nations and weaken them with others. Yes the Cuba thing was historic and trying to foster something with Iran was laudable, but what tangible lasting benefits have come from either of those things?

DADT's repeal was pretty nice but is ultimately a feel-good move unless the military wants to continue the trend. I guess we'll see how they react to Trumps anti-trans agenda to see if it did any real lasting good.

Considering the mindless obstructionism he was up against, Obama did a lot (though I do fault him on not fully grasping the danger of the radical Right and Russia until it was too late).

He also continued a lot of wars and was a fan of the drone strike to an unprecedented degree. He could have done a lot more even in the face of obstruction but didn't.

I would consider every action I listed to be a major accomplishment. And again, it is not fair to constantly put the blame on Democrats for Republican sabotage of the country (some of which is borderline treasonous).

I blame the GOP plenty, but in a two party system, you have to look at how much each party manages to do while they have power. The GOP just seems to get their goals done more quickly than the Dems do when they get control and they're also better at stopping the Dems when they're the opposition. They simply play the game better at every stage.

It is also, in my opinion, contradictory to blame Democrats for not getting enough done, and then blame them for not appealing to moderates (who by definition will be more likely to reject major, bold changes to the status quo).

I think the middle is attracted to a winner who gets things done and prevents their opposition from doing whatever they want in years they don't have power. When was the last time that lable applied to the Dems?

There are no permanent outcomes in history. Life is change. That doesn't mean that our actions don't matter. What matters is that we make the world better today, or if we can't, do what we can to limit the damage.

False, you get judged on if you can make lasting changes or not. It doesn't matter if you make a small push left when you have power if the other guys is always able to take a large step right every time they get a chance. Politics in the US is a zero-sum tug-of-war and the GOP just pulls harder. It's entirely fair to hold the Dems accountable for this if you get to whine about how the GOP is easily able to prevent Dem's ability to make lasting change then it's fair to ask why the Dems don't do the same to the GOP.

Again, Obamacare and the progress on gay rights were absolutely massive accomplishments. As was thawing relations with Cuba.

Obamacare is shit compared to pretty much anything a comparable nation has and isn't going to hold up because of all the holes compromise shot into it.

The gay rights thing wasn't exactly a cause the Dems pushed either, they just saw which way the wind was blowing and went along for the ride. It's not exactly a high bar to clear.

Canada decriminalized homosexuality in 1969, blew away DADT in 1992, and was all over gay marriage in 2005. It's not hard to not be a dick to LGBT people. The Dems shouldn't get props just for not being assholes, they need to actually make progress at a not glacial pace if they want any kudos from me.

When they actually manage to push something that the rest of the west would consider left-wing I might respect them a little. Until then, they're just a shitty centrist party that wouldn't be considered left-wing or radical in any other western nation.

[TimothyC]

The show continues:

Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring (D) on Wednesday said he had worn blackface to a party while he was an undergraduate in college, deepening a political crisis that has now ensnared the three top officials in the Commonwealth’s government.

In a statement released Wednesday, minutes after Herring held an emergency meeting with the state legislative black caucus, the attorney general took responsibility for appearing in blackface.

“In 1980, when I was a 19-year old undergraduate in college, some friends suggested we attend a party dressed like rappers we listened to at the time, like Kurtis Blow, and perform a song,” Herring said in a statement.

“It sounds ridiculous even now writing it. But because of our ignorance and glib attitudes — and because we did not have an appreciation for the experiences and perspectives of others — we dressed up and put on wigs and brown makeup,” he said.

“This was a onetime occurrence and I accept full responsibility for my conduct.”

Herring’s statement came just days after he called on Gov. Ralph Northam (D) to resign after a photo from Northam’s 1984 medical school yearbook showed a man in blackface standing next to a man in a Ku Klux Klan hood and robe.

Northam has since said he does not believe he is either of the two people in the photo. On Tuesday, nine others who went to medical school with Northam released a letter supporting Northam.

If Northam were to resign, as various Democrats nationally and in Virginia have called on him to do, he would be replaced by Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax (D) — though Fairfax is weathering his own political storm.

At virtually the same moment Herring released his statement Wednesday, Fairfax issued his own, pushing back against allegations this week that he sexually assaulted a woman during the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston.

Fairfax said the sexual encounter with the woman was consensual.

“At no time did she express to me any discomfort or concern about our interactions, neither during that encounter nor doing the months following it, when she stayed in touch with me, nor the past fifteen years,” Fairfax said. “She in no way indicated that anything that had happened between us made her uncomfortable.”

[Bob the Gunslinger]

What does 'accountability' have to include 'fuck your career over a 30 year old shitpost?'

Because its more than a "shitpost", its a blatantly racist action which has connotations comparable in this day and age to using the N-word, because he handled it really badly, and because if we make excuses for Democrats over stuff like this, the Republicans will use it for "Both Sides" rhetoric and to provide cover for the racism in their party.

The Republicans will use literally any story to Both Sides and Whatabout. If there isn't a story, they'll make one up. Don't let fear of Republicans reacting badly dictate any of your actions or you've already lost.

[The Romulan Republic]

So the consensus is "Republicans will use any story, so we should just ignore any wrongdoing on our side and close ranks?" How far do we take that? Should we close ranks around Bill Clinton's sexual harassment? Hell, Harvey Weinstein was a Democratic donor.

Now, obviously those are more significant transgressions than Northrop's as they deal with actual violations of the law. But I guess I'm wondering where we draw the line, if we start thinking that way. Keeping in mind also that there are people who will not be taken in by a made up story from Republicans, but who will care about and potentially be alienated by a story like this which is actually real.

Jub, I feel your posts are starting to veer into "Attack the Democrats if they don't fix everything instantly, even if it means the objectively worse Republicans win" Bernie or Bust-style territory, and I'm really not interested in having that argument again right now. I will simply say that I do not see how major progress is irrelevant because it doesn't instantly reach the standard of some other nations. If North Korea opened the DMZ tomorrow, that would be major progress, even though they'd still be a dirt poor country ruled by an autocrat.

[Jub]

Now, obviously those are more significant transgressions than Northrop's as they deal with actual violations of the law. But I guess I'm wondering where we draw the line, if we start thinking that way. Keeping in mind also that there are people who will not be taken in by a made up story from Republicans, but who will care about and potentially be alienated by a story like this which is actually real.

Have you read his most recent apology? It seems like he was blindsided by this story, did his due diligence to make sure he didn't misremember events, and has released a more complete statement about what actually happened. He wasn't even a postgraduate at the time, he was a dumb 19-year-old kid who made a one time mistake due to ignorance and peer pressure. If this is what the Dems will condemn a man for fuck them with the horse they rode in on.

Jub, I feel your posts are starting to veer into "Attack the Democrats if they don't fix everything instantly, even if it means the objectively worse Republicans win" Bernie or Bust-style territory, and I'm really not interested in having that argument again right now. I will simply say that I do not see how major progress is irrelevant because it doesn't instantly reach the standard of some other nations. If North Korea opened the DMZ tomorrow, that would be major progress, even though they'd still be a dirt poor country ruled by an autocrat.

I don't give a fuck about your feelings. As your own signature says fuck civility, you love to dish and call people Nazis our Alt Reich but when it comes to taking the abuse you whine and claim harassment and vendetta. So yeah, you debate and answer my points or concede to me and fuck off. You don't get to whine and bluster and then retreat whenever you feel like it. You don't get to whine without putting forward ways to make things better, not if you want to be considered intellectually honest.

The party you show blind loyalty towards are a pack of losers and cowards, unwilling to take risks for major gains, unwilling to put forth a strong united front to push for lasting change. They try to court everything center or near left while being too afraid to actually be a left-wing party in more than just name. They're centrist losers who will always be pushed back by the right because they have no core identity besides being basic decent humans. That's fine for a private citizen but is nowhere near enough for a supposed left-wing political party.

Claim that I'm attacking them unfairly or using unjust standards but don't forget to admit that on both offense and defense the GOP does a better job getting what they want every damned time. The Dems always fold, always compromise, while the GOP marches on and gets shit done. Give the people a winner who gets shit done and maybe you wouldn't lose power every 8 years.

[Bob the Gunslinger]

So the consensus is "Republicans will use any story, so we should just ignore any wrongdoing on our side and close ranks?" How far do we take that? Should we close ranks around Bill Clinton's sexual harassment? Hell, Harvey Weinstein was a Democratic donor.

Now, obviously those are more significant transgressions than Northrop's as they deal with actual violations of the law. But I guess I'm wondering where we draw the line, if we start thinking that way. Keeping in mind also that there are people who will not be taken in by a made up story from Republicans, but who will care about and potentially be alienated by a story like this which is actually real.

Jub, I feel your posts are starting to veer into "Attack the Democrats if they don't fix everything instantly, even if it means the objectively worse Republicans win" Bernie or Bust-style territory, and I'm really not interested in having that argument again right now. I will simply say that I do not see how major progress is irrelevant because it doesn't instantly reach the standard of some other nations. If North Korea opened the DMZ tomorrow, that would be major progress, even though they'd still be a dirt poor country ruled by an autocrat.

That wasn't what I was saying. I was saying don't make potential Republican outrage a part of your decision making process.

[The Romulan Republic]

Have you read his most recent apology? It seems like he was blindsided by this story, did his due diligence to make sure he didn't misremember events, and has released a more complete statement about what actually happened. He wasn't even a postgraduate at the time, he was a dumb 19-year-old kid who made a one time mistake due to ignorance and peer pressure. If this is what the Dems will condemn a man for fuck them with the horse they rode in on.

If you would rather have four more years of Trump because the Democrats were mean to a rich white man who dressed in blackface, then that says everything about where your sympathies and priorities really lie, and I don't think how the Democrats handle this one issue will make one jot of difference to you.

Frankly, you are increasingly coming off as someone who just hates the Democratic Party on principle, and is just using this as an excuse to attack them.

I don't give a fuck about your feelings. As your own signature says fuck civility, you love to dish and call people Nazis our Alt Reich but when it comes to taking the abuse you whine and claim harassment and vendetta. So yeah, you debate and answer my points or concede to me and fuck off. You don't get to whine and bluster and then retreat whenever you feel like it. You don't get to whine without putting forward ways to make things better, not if you want to be considered intellectually honest.

I haven't called you a Nazi or Alt. Reich or insulted you in any way in this discussion thus far that I can recall, but if you want to do it that way I can't stop you, and I really don't much care one way or the other.

I have no wish to let you derail yet another thread into "Why we hate TRR", because, and I know this is a difficult concept for a lot of people on this board to grasp, I am not the subject of this thread. But I have never been one to take misrepresentations lying down. I do not claim harassment or vendetta because people are mean to me. If I did that, I would be reporting people virtually every day. I do it when they follow me around, turning every thread I dare participate in into a shit-flinging contest where the focus is on my character and personality (or a straw man of them) rather than the topic of the thread, and dredging up off-topic issues from other threads to attack me. That I have had to do so as often as I have is frankly a negative reflection on this board, not on me.

I am not unwilling to debate your points, if you insist on needlessly rehashing a tired, divisive old argument. Although honestly, I'm not sure what I can say that I have not already said. If I cite numerous examples of Democratic accomplishments and you handwave them as not counting because they were subsequently undone or just because you didn't like them or decided they didn't matter, then I'm not sure what more I can do. It is neither a concession nor a refusal to concede or defend my arguments if I post my arguments and you then choose to ignore them.

The party you show blind loyalty towards are a pack of losers and cowards, unwilling to take risks for major gains, unwilling to put forth a strong united front to push for lasting change. They try to court everything center or near left while being too afraid to actually be a left-wing party in more than just name. They're centrist losers who will always be pushed back by the right because they have no core identity besides being basic decent humans. That's fine for a private citizen but is nowhere near enough for a supposed left-wing political party.

Ah, I show "blind loyalty" to the Democrats, do I? Go back and read some of my posts criticizing the Democratic Party during the 2016 primary. I'm not going to go after the Democrats on everything now because I believe we need a united front to stop the rise of literal Neo-Fascism, but apparently you think condemning them for not being nice enough to the rich white guy in black face is more important. Well, I guess we all have our own priorities.

Claim that I'm attacking them unfairly or using unjust standards but don't forget to admit that on both offense and defense the GOP does a better job getting what they want every damned time. The Dems always fold, always compromise, while the GOP marches on and gets shit done. Give the people a winner who gets shit done and maybe you wouldn't lose power every 8 years.

You are simply repeating an oversimplistic cliche. It doesn't matter what the Democrats do, some people will say that they "always fold" or "always compromise", whether because the Democrats didn't pass the entire socialist agenda in the space of a week, or simply because its been drilled into their heads so often that to them Democrats by definition fold.

Show me where Pelosi "caved" on the shutdown again? I have yet to see one cent go to that fucking wall.

[Oscar Wilde]

If you would rather have four more years of Trump because the Democrats were mean to a rich white man who dressed in blackface, then that says everything about where your sympathies and priorities really lie, and I don't think how the Democrats handle this one issue will make one jot of difference to you.

Excuse you. Mean to a rich white man who dressed in blackface 30 years ago. I'm not sure what him being rich or white has to do with anything either, but whatever. Being mean in this context is also running him out of office. Saying its only 'honorable' if he resigns. If that is the standards of accountability and morality that the democratic party considers to be just and right, then yes. Trump is a better alternative. Again.

And if you're going to claim that defending Northam will only enable what-aboutism, are you considering that condemning him will only turn the game into 'dig for old dirt because the dems will eat their own over shitposts?'

So the consensus is "Republicans will use any story, so we should just ignore any wrongdoing on our side and close ranks?" How far do we take that? Should we close ranks around Bill Clinton's sexual harassment? Hell, Harvey Weinstein was a Democratic donor.

Do you think that you have to condemn the man when you condemn the old act? You can't compare actions done while in office (in the case of Bill) or an ongoing pattern actions (Weinstein) to something from 30 years ago. Not unless acting disingenuous is something that doesn't bother you, anyway.