And if you're not so blinded by partisanship, I'd love to hear a different interpretation of Bernie's words that are accurate AND different from my interpretation.

This whole discussion is just another rehashing of why Kamala lost and we have Trump as president. The overly powerful for their actual representation of their party pushed a candidate and an agenda that doesn't resonate with the majority and they lost. Bernie is warning those that are in the Party and see it to stop being silent and take the party back.

Didn't vote for Trump, and those that get closer to the far end of the right are just as blinded by their partisanship too.

The only ones who are obtuse are those that think only the other side does it, and they are the faultless virtuous ones. Again, self reflection...

I never said Hack either, not sure why that'd be quoted unless it was air quotes and you tried to denote a vague summary of my point with the single quotes.

Damn Clown, do you know how to read?

Barney's point is that there is a very vocal minority in the left, specifically consolidated in the very progressive end of the party. They push for things that are not palatable for most of the party, but since they sit in positions of influence the rest of the party sits silent since they don't support it but don't argue against it in fear of failing the litmus test the minority wields.

So ... "But my point is, no, it's not enough ... to be silent. We have to explicitly repudiate it." Speaks to that. The silent majority of the Democratic party has to start pushing back against the overly progressive portion of the party.

If you got anything else from those words, you need to learn to self reflect and realize that your extreme partisanship has truly colored your vision.

Great example.

You're starting from the point that "the police are racist". The numbers don't bear that out(yes, there are racist cops) though, but according to a left leaning media you'd think the police in majority were out hunting black people.

So yes, the protests in 2020 were against the perception of racism. However if reported accurately with an eye on unity and not division to sell clicks and likes we could have probably made real improvements. Instead we moved further apart.

addressing in reverse

#63
You forcing a binary to it. There are no racists, or the racism is so strong they organized and marched.

I Fully believe there are racists in and around Charlottesville. I don't know there are enough that are so entrenched in the mindset to organize this, but with funding it becomes easier. Are there enough without it? Possibly. If SPLC did fund them though, then we really can't know for certain which it was.

I don't believe that any of them were there under a false flag though, If they were there they believed it.

The difference is the funding helping to pull them into a march/protest.

#61 What have Republicans done to end racism?

Off the cuff, nothing. But I also don't think the Democrats have either.

I feel the democrats have suffered from throwing gasoline on a fire under the guise of "well at least we are doing something". The democrats have absolutely taken actions that were said to be helping to reduce racism, I just think they succeeded in creating identity politics instead. Now everyone is in some sub group.

Racism will be beaten with unity not division. The democrats actions, imho, create more division. So while putting a lot of effort in, they have done nothing to help reduce racism.

If the republicans "do nothing" had been the only approach I think we would actually be in a better place. Those further Right and those further Left are not going to improve the state of racism, a neutral moderate mix of right and left leaning people with more in common if allowed to grow would be much more effective by just go existing with no "active" actions targeting racism.

#54 what isn't to understand?

without buying into this fully or not, The supposition is that it DID happen but ONLY because SPLC paid them to do it.

it's the whole point of this thread. If you don't grok that what are you commenting on?

#44 has to be the best trolling line in while here.

Make a statement, pseudo assign me that position, and along with it assign me a lack of facts to even have the opinion.

#39 snoofy,

"will be driven"

future tense, I didn't say has been.

When your business is fighting racism, and the demand outstrips the supply... you gotta manufacture it.

That doesn't mean there isn't racism, but at some point if we are successful in growing as people and a society it will be driven into the shadows. That isn't good for those that have made combating it their livelihood. So we have to keep an eye on the watchers, as money does interesting things to those that once had good intentions.

You say I support the republicans... I don't.

You disagree that both sides are the same. They are the same to me that they both have glaring flaws. The flaws are different, but how they treat and act on them are very similar to me. This would be one of those glaring flaws on that side of the aisle.

I register independent, and I truly do not support either party.

I get it, the impasse arises with the rabid disagreement on this outside of this judge. Much like abortion the sides are far apart on key foundational issues, and we have had that wedge issue for decades.

The quote alone juggles sex and gender...

"the transgender Montanan is prevented, based on their sex". Can't make it through a sentence without conflating the two.

This is always going to cause an impasse in this topic.

on the abortion issue as to be on the record.

I think abortions aren't for me, but should be available. I think the earlier the better, and where the specific line is I struggle with. Late stage shouldn't be allowed. Any circumstance of risk to the mother should allow one.

I think that covers the majority of the discussion you see on the issue.

and it's laughable that I'm a coward... give me a ------- break you self congratulating troll

You throw advocating for abstinence at me like a gotcha.

1. I never preached it, and thought it was foolish at the time
2. I never said that anyone is right or wrong on this topic, just that it would be an interesting discussion to have.

Why such adversarial reaction to me pointing out that the topic was being used as a cudgel to beat the other party rather than discuss why different demographics are swinging so wildly away from each other?

#20 one is a woman.

There is actually fodder here for a real discussion about the birthrate, and young people who skew towards being more liberal are not dating or engaging in sex nearly as much as in the past. But no one here can resist the urge to just sling insults at the others party.

I've said it before, and I don't know why I continue to hope it can be like it used to, but this site used to actually have meaningful discussions about the topics of the day. Now it's just a cesspool of trolls and insults.

Look at tools built into webex to summarize meetings and action items. Tools like Granola that aren't built in. There is a whole industry of AI listeners to meetings that summarize, not Transcribe.

That's what is in use here, the AI listens to the conversation and pulls out the pertinent information the doctor cares about for notes and throws away the part where you discussed the weather for the first minute of the conversation.

These tools can be built in very HIPAA secure ways, and used against models that aren't training on the data taken in or keeping a history of that session past the output of the notes.

reading further on this guy, seems he was censured in the past for a lewd gesture in the classroom... So the likelihood of unfathomably bad judgement is more likely the case and the 'on a roll' excuse is BS.

The amount of absolute stupidity it would take to say this on an open mic, not a hot mic that he thought was off I can't even imagine. I would love more of the meeting context and if she was truly on a roll. Even then I would expect something more like "you're on fire" as opposed to You're Hot... but him trying to compliment how good a job she did makes more sense than the epic level of stupidity it would take to state that outright in the middle of a meeting.