DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Sessions rips campus culture for creating generation of 'sanctimonious' snowflakes

The article also revealed text messages sent by Crystal Clanton – who was a leading figure in the organization and served as the group’s national field director for five years – to another Turning Point employee saying "i hate black people. Like [expletive] them all I hate blacks. End of story." Kirk responded to the revelations by saying that "Turning Point assessed the situation and took decisive action within 72 hours of being made aware of the issue." The article also noted that Kirk had explicitly praised Clanton in his book Time for a Turning Point, saying that she had been "the best hire we ever could have made," and that "Turning Point needs more Crystals; so does America."

Sometime after Clanton's firing, HuffPost reported that the woman hired to replace her had a history of using racial slurs, particularly against African-Americans, on Twitter before deleting her account. In response to the reports, Kirk referred to the individual in question as "a former employee" in his official statement (without clarifying when she had been fired), and Turning Point issued an internal memo announcing that all current and new staff would face social media background checks.

In May 2018, a leaked internal memo written by the conservative Young America's Foundation (YAF) accused Turning Point USA of "lack of integrity, honesty, experience, and judgment" and said that "the long-term damage TPUSA could inflict on conservative students and the Conservative Movement can no longer be ignored". The memo also accused Turning Point USA of increasing attendance at its events by "boosting numbers with racists & Nazi sympathizers." In response Turning Point USA criticized YAF for breaking the informal "Reagan Rule" that "Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican."

“Too many schools are coddling students,” Sessions said. “There was a ‘cry-in’ at Cornell after the 2016 election, therapy dogs at the University of Kansas. … I hope they had plenty of tissues.”

From there, the founder and executive director of Turning Point USA didn’t stop groveling. Kirk thanked and flattered and sweet-talked throughout the 20-minute interview, teeing up fat softball after fat softball for the president.

But with that deference, Kirk may have hamstrung his entire organization and undercut the cause celebre of conservatives across the country. Turns out, Trump doesn’t really care about free speech on campus.

Trump said that the vast majority of students at some colleges “want free speech.” Trump said that violent protesters “get a lot of publicity” but aren’t that big of a deal. And Trump said that far away from the liberal coasts, “We have a tremendous support.”

But then the president, perhaps tripping over his own ego, slammed a dagger straight into the jugular of the movement to restore free speech on college campuses. “I think it is highly overblown,” Trump said of the administrative threat to speech. “Highly overblown.”

Grinning and falling in line, Kirk “totally agreed.” Except no, Kirk doesn’t agree, and Kirk knows better. Kirk's organization boasts a membership of 350 chapters nationally and a budget of $8 million, all based on the notion that what Trump said minimizes a very serious problem.

I'm against this.
They should have their platform.
How else will they get the ridicule they so richly deserve?

I say let'em talk all they want.

Looks like you have come out of the closet.

I liked it the other way better. You and Old Cold can have at it.

Looks like you have come out of the closet.

I liked it the other way better. You and Old Cold can have at it.

Cracks in the Consensus

By 1970, the great American ride had stalled. Even more troubling, the dominant liberal consensus had started to crumble. White backlash against civil rights and taxes revealed mounting resentment among previously loyal members of the liberal Democratic party coalition. For years, urban white ethnics had expressed discontent with the changing faces of their neighborhoods — the seeming encroachment of minority communities, the construction of housing projects and garbage dumps, the rising crime rates and disrespect for police. Often they had punished liberal politicians in local elections, gravitating toward law-and-order candidates who combined a conservative social agenda with a working-class touch. Still, they had remained loyal soldiers of the liberal coalition in state and national elections, supporting the Democratic party's stance on civil rights in the South and social spending in northern cities. By the end of the Sixties, many such voters had grown disaffected with national liberalism. Ready to abandon their old champions, they drifted unmoored through the currents, unwilling to hitch themselves to a conservatism many still found elitist or extremist.

In the wings a renascent conservative movement waited to make the most of that discontent. Still, conservatism remained weak, neither well organized nor well respected by ordinary voters. In the Sixties, the most potent attacks on the liberal consensus came not from the right but from the political left — from radicals who assailed the liberal establishment. Young radicals, members of a self-described New Left, dismissed liberal reform and asserted the necessity of direct action. Liberals believed the political system gave voice to individuals; they just needed to vote, participate, stand up and make themselves heard. New Leftists bristled at the naiveté of that faith. Bureaucracy, corporate power, and the inhumane machine-like operations of American institutions, they asserted, stifled creativity and the expressive potential of individuals and groups. Liberals assisted the poor through paternalistic aid programs; radicals wanted to empower poor communities to reform themselves. While liberals had supported the war in Vietnam as a noble and necessary fight for freedom against tyranny, radicals increasingly saw it as an act of imperialist domination and repression.


https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/first/s/schulman-01seventies.html

translation: i liked you better when you knew your place, boy.

Looks like you have come out of the closet.

I liked it the other way better. You and Old Cold can have at it.

Hey.................did any of you even bother to read the excerpt of the article I posted? Do you see any parallels?

Or, do y'all just wanna keep on w/the childish insults?

i'm pretty baked right now, so im going with childish insults for tonight.

It would seem that on this subject, we are not of like mind.

I find it interesting that you seem to have taken personally something I said to 40cent, even though you and I have never crossed words with anything but mutual respect. Did you write this to me because you felt I had insulted you? Why would that be, since you were not named, either directly or by inference?

When I'm advocating taking to task "prominent Republican figures" in a Twitter war with ridicule, why would you take offense at that? I've never taken personally anything people have said about 'Dirty Harry Reid' or 'Mad Maxine Waters.' They're public figures: fair game.

You can answer these questions or not. I've never been in the closet, Russ. I've always been here. You've know me for more than 10 years.

Why now? and why over this?

I'm confused.

I laughed at PDF's comment, it was funny and to a degree, I agree.



Your's isn't. Shut-up! You seem to say that a lot.



I have always held Clem in high esteem. He has always been a moderate poster. One, who even with opinions to the left, that was never in doubt, always presented his cause with respect and a open mind.


I am just saddened to see he has been sucked in by you guys..



I know you think of me as a right wing nut.. I am telling you I am not. I have always been a centrist.....so again, just zip it. You know not of what you speak when it comes to your last comment to me.

Shame on you.