The Biden Cabinet and Transition Thread (4 Viewers)

Users who are viewing this thread

    GrandAdmiral

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Nov 20, 2019
    Messages
    3,124
    Reaction score
    4,217
    Location
    Center of the Universe
    Offline
    Ok the rules:
    • Your post can only contain one department and guess.
    • You may post more than once for different departments.
    • Post can contain comments about previous guesses.
    • Guesses for one department can be used for other departments.
    • Minds can, of course, be changed.
    I will kick things off first...

    Secretary of State: Susan Rice

    Susan_Rice_official_photo.jpg


    This is as clear a choice as there can be. She has all of the credentials and rep to begin healing as relationships with our allies.
     
    About 5 years too late...


    I'm trying to decide how I feel about the 70-30 vote. Relief that 20 Republicans voted for him, or frustration that 30 voted no. Smh.
     
    i think this goes here


    There isn't evidence the article she wrote was satire.

    As I noted yesterday, if her contentions were Swiftian, it was certainly odd that Clarke not only invited notorious anti-Semite and black supremacist quack Anthony Martin — whose racist theories happen to comport perfectly with the ones she presented in her letter — to speak at Harvard, but also praised his intelligence and the veracity of his work. In her letter, Clarke specifically points to a doctor named Carol Barnes to claim “melanin theory” is what gives “Blacks their superior physical and mental abilities.” In those days, bigoted pseudo-intellectuals such as Martin and Leonard Jeffries were quite popular on campuses.

    Indeed, there is not a single shred of contemporaneous evidence that the letter was satire. Quite the opposite. Subsequent pieces in the Crimson specifically point out that Clarke refused to concede that she wasn’t serious. The Harvard Crimson staff, in fact, demanded a retraction and noted that it had “searched in vain for a hint of irony in Clarke’s letter.” In another response, a columnist argued that “Clarke refuses to explicitly deny the theories” and accused her of “disseminating racist theories.”

     
    There isn't evidence the article she wrote was satire.

    As I noted yesterday, if her contentions were Swiftian, it was certainly odd that Clarke not only invited notorious anti-Semite and black supremacist quack Anthony Martin — whose racist theories happen to comport perfectly with the ones she presented in her letter — to speak at Harvard, but also praised his intelligence and the veracity of his work. In her letter, Clarke specifically points to a doctor named Carol Barnes to claim “melanin theory” is what gives “Blacks their superior physical and mental abilities.” In those days, bigoted pseudo-intellectuals such as Martin and Leonard Jeffries were quite popular on campuses.

    Indeed, there is not a single shred of contemporaneous evidence that the letter was satire. Quite the opposite. Subsequent pieces in the Crimson specifically point out that Clarke refused to concede that she wasn’t serious. The Harvard Crimson staff, in fact, demanded a retraction and noted that it had “searched in vain for a hint of irony in Clarke’s letter.” In another response, a columnist argued that “Clarke refuses to explicitly deny the theories” and accused her of “disseminating racist theories.”

    It's amazing how often, when someone asserts that there's "not a single shred of evidence", they really mean, "I ignored that evidence." But I'm sure that's not the case here, and that there really isn't contemporaneous evidence showing that Kristen Clarke didn't hold those views, and was using satire to expose double-standards and hypocrisy. I'll just take a few seconds to Google and check though.

    Oh.


    And seriously, finding people who didn't get satire in 1994 does not show that something isn't satire. It shows that satire whooshed over people's heads back then as well.
     
    It's amazing how often, when someone asserts that there's "not a single shred of evidence", they really mean, "I ignored that evidence." But I'm sure that's not the case here, and that there really isn't contemporaneous evidence showing that Kristen Clarke didn't hold those views, and was using satire to expose double-standards and hypocrisy. I'll just take a few seconds to Google and check though.

    Oh.


    And seriously, finding people who didn't get satire in 1994 does not show that something isn't satire. It shows that satire whooshed over people's heads back then as well.

    You must be come kind of expert on googling to find that. Maybe you could give classes to conservatives.
     
    There isn't evidence the article she wrote was satire.

    As I noted yesterday, if her contentions were Swiftian, it was certainly odd that Clarke not only invited notorious anti-Semite and black supremacist quack Anthony Martin — whose racist theories happen to comport perfectly with the ones she presented in her letter — to speak at Harvard, but also praised his intelligence and the veracity of his work. In her letter, Clarke specifically points to a doctor named Carol Barnes to claim “melanin theory” is what gives “Blacks their superior physical and mental abilities.” In those days, bigoted pseudo-intellectuals such as Martin and Leonard Jeffries were quite popular on campuses.

    Indeed, there is not a single shred of contemporaneous evidence that the letter was satire. Quite the opposite. Subsequent pieces in the Crimson specifically point out that Clarke refused to concede that she wasn’t serious. The Harvard Crimson staff, in fact, demanded a retraction and noted that it had “searched in vain for a hint of irony in Clarke’s letter.” In another response, a columnist argued that “Clarke refuses to explicitly deny the theories” and accused her of “disseminating racist theories.”


    Didn’t you argue that it was terrible to go into Kavanaugh’s past to dig up dirt on him?
     
    Oh, and I am absolutely going to say “I told you so” about using the National Review as a source without fact checking.
     


    what makes his statement a “crackpot conspiracy theory”?

    At most, it is a slight exaggeration. Just going to the Reddit link contained in your post shows that the Branch Davidians did fire on two National Guard helicopters with the specified weapon. They hit both, both were disabled and had to land immediately. So, were they shot down? They were shot, hit and disabled and had to land.

    He was actually involved in the Waco legal case, so he would be pretty familiar.

    But I await your explanation.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom