Do you think we had to have a black (latino/asian) president to uncover how much a belief in white supremacy still governs us? You need to watch the video.

Scroll down to the video entitled "Lest We Forget."

"The Big Lie worked for Trump because it had been sown in the fertile soil of slavery and segregation, and he knew that after eight years of a black president, white supremacy was ripe for harvesting. I talked about the Birther Lie with four noted historians in this video, which we posted on Jan. 20 — the day Trump was inaugurated as Barack Obama’s successor."

http://www.alternet.org/media/all-donald-trumps-lies?akid=15802.39325.rb_W74&rd=1&src=newsletter1078991&t=14
0

Scroll down to the video entitled "Lest We Forget."

"The Big Lie worked for Trump because it had been sown in the fertile soil of slavery and segregation, and he knew that after eight years of a black president, white supremacy was ripe for harvesting. I talked about the Birther Lie with four noted historians in this video, which we posted on Jan. 20 — the day Trump was inaugurated as Barack Obama’s successor."

http://www.alternet.org/media/all-donald-trumps-lies?akid=15802.39325.rb_W74&rd=1&src=newsletter1078991&t=14

Be sure to scroll down. Top list is just on vote "to proceed."

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/22/us/politics/senate-health-care-whip-count.html?_r=0

I can NEVER find it from newyorktimes.com. I always have to ask here. I want to see what's happening in Georgia.

TIA
LAS

Note - I'm not asking which position is right. (Would that constitute re-fighting the primary???? I hope not.) I'm asking if people agree that this is the primary division in our party.
P.S. Neither blockquote nor excerpt seem to be working. Any advice about why???

Clinton supporters were fundamentally happy with the United States of America, the American political system, and the trajectory for people like themselves within it. Sanders supporters, by contrast, were not, and Clinton’s various leftward feints on policy could not address that gap.

That difference makes it much harder to bridge a divide, since it’s hard to split the difference around the question of whether or not establishment politics is fundamentally corrupt. A left-wing economic message can be co-opted by more moderate politicians and can have its rough edges sanded off in pragmatic pursuit of electoral victory. But it doesn’t address the fundamental divide, which is less about concrete policies than about abstract ideas like corruption of politics.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/6/20/15830316/clinton-sanders-issues-rigged

And I'm just tickled pink that he's the one that Donny thought he could co-opt. They are absolute polar opposites. Comey may be self-righteous, but he's also pretty righteous. GO JIM!!!

Is there a conservative website where you might find a thread like this one where we compliment Comey for being nice to McCain?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029176925

... already? Please cite.

The line we probably all agree on when it comes to "free speech," as promulgated in the Bill of Rights is that it stops at crying "Fire!" in a crowded room.

But we make a mistake if we frame the Harvard discussion in terms of re-drawing that line. Harvard is not a governmental body. No organization except a government is required to defend the most offensive manifestations of free speech. I'd be surprised if anyone is making the argument that the offensive posts at the center of the Harvard controversy were actually punishable in some legal way. We can tell the difference. They weren't crying Fire in a crowded theater. But all individuals and their non-governmental associations have the right, indeed, the responsibility to draw lines in very different places. They have a right/responsibility to promulgate the values of civil society. We are headed down a very dark road if our universities can't say "stop", this is not the behavior we condone.

She sounded pretty perky. Surely they have access to that sort of cutting edge technology????