Eric Holder to resign as Attorney General

[The Human Q-Tip]

If it happens it's gonna have to happen sooner rather than later. I have my doubts about the Democrats holding a majority in the Senate for much longer.

I don't see any way it could happen before the new Congress. He'd have to be nominated, then they'd have to schedule hearings, hold the hearings, etc.. Given that he hasn't even resigned yet, that'd mean less than three months from nomination to confirmation.

I think he'll probably go into private practice for a few years to make shitloads of money, and then maybe take it easy for awhile. I'm not a fan, but that job had wear the hell out of him.

 

[Marcus]

Yeah, Gowdy is an extremely sharp guy with a lot of prosecutorial experience. Some lawyers I know in SC are in awe of the guy.

The Fast and Furious claim of Executive Privilege is ridiculous. The AG is claiming Executive Privilege when they're already on record saying that the President didn't know anything about it. So...how can there be a privilege?

Holder is a sharp guy, but the whole "nation of cowards" speech pissed me off. It's a pet peeve when people accuse others of "not listening", "not paying attention", or "ignoring", when what they're really complaining about is that other people don't agree with them. Attitudes like that come from a circle-jerk groupthink of only truly conversing with like minded-people.

That's just it. If you don't agree then you're behind in the times, thick headed, and flat out wrong. I shake my head whenever I hear about how he was so great for the civil rights movement and race relations. Maybe I'm reading different news headlines, but racial tensions aren't exactly great right now in this country, and it's further enflamed by ridiculous bullshit like wasting time and money to look into the police department of a town that most people hadn't even heard of up until a few months ago.

He is a very polarizing figure, and for good reason - he spent six years injecting racism and politics where they didn't belong. I can't wait to see what comes out now that he can't hide behind Executive Privilege. Hopefully some justice will finally be served in that case. I'm not optimistic (like I said, wishful thinking that this guy actually gets what he deserves) but there you have it.

 

[gourimoko]

Holder is a sharp guy, but the whole "nation of cowards" speech pissed me off. It's a pet peeve when people accuse others of "not listening", "not paying attention", or "ignoring", when what they're really complaining about is that other people don't agree with them. Attitudes like that come from a circle-jerk groupthink of only truly conversing with like minded-people.

Bullshit.

You didn't even address what he said; you actually outright ignore Holder's point about addressing race in this country and instead attack him. You proved his point in a single paragraph.

 

[AZ_]

Maybe I'm reading different news headlines,

I think this has a ton of validity, honestly.

And the stoking of race relations in this country is probably thanks in part to some of those headlines.

 

[gourimoko]

That's just it. If you don't agree then you're behind in the times, thick headed, and flat out wrong. I shake my head whenever I hear about how he was so great for the civil rights movement and race relations. Maybe I'm reading different news headlines, but racial tensions aren't exactly great right now in this country, and it's further enflamed by ridiculous bullshit like wasting time and money to look into the police department of a town that most people hadn't even heard of up until a few months ago.

So we shouldn't investigate local PD's where there are riots in the streets due to potentially racially motivated incidents of police brutality? Why? How does this investigation negatively affect you?

It's easy to understand why so many liberals love Eric Holder. Easy if you actually are open to the idea that he's actually doing the things liberals want him to do, at least half of the time.

Don't you get it, that there are millions of Americans who WANT an investigation into what's going on in Ferguson? Who WANT an AG who is a civil rights advocate? Who will at least TRY to protect the voting rights of minorities?

It's amazing to me that people think he is so radical. Some of the posters here would nail Robert Kennedy to the fucking cross.

He is a very polarizing figure, and for good reason

Yep, there are a lot of racists in America.

he spent six years injecting racism and politics where they didn't belong.

From your own quote above, because looking for racist cops in Ferguson isn't appropriate right?

I can't wait to see what comes out now that he can't hide behind Executive Privilege. Hopefully some justice will finally be served in that case. I'm not optimistic (like I said, wishful thinking that this guy actually gets what he deserves) but there you have it.

I wouldn't hold my breath man...

 

[Soda]

Yep, there are a lot of racists in America.

Yup. And it's a universal problem regardless of what cultural background/race you're from. Hope you're not pointing to one faction of the population.

 

[gourimoko]

Yup. And it's a universal problem regardless of what cultural background/race you're from. Hope you're not pointing to one faction of the population.

I don't think I did that... However, it is not universally and equally important or have a universal or equal effect to/on all races.

There is no need for false equivalence where none exists. Whites do not suffer from discrimination in the same way others races, particularly African-Americans, and Latinos do. So it's important not to pretend like they do.

Hope that's not what you're trying to do.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Bullshit.

You didn't even address what he said; you actually outright ignore Holder's point about addressing race in this country and instead attack him. You proved his point in a single paragraph.

Right back at you. Holder sees race in almost everything, and if you don't agree with him on that, you're a coward for not discussing it. Maybe a lot of people don't believe that race is the constant driver he believes it is.

Do I seem like a person who is afraid to discuss issues? That I'm a "coward" when it comes to discussing race? I don't mind you thinking I'm ignorant or a racist, but the idea that my response proves I'm too cowardly to discuss racial issues is just strange. I'll discuss whatever you want.

Actually, you just proved my point in your response to Marcus. He says Holder is polarizing, and you responded "there's a lot of racists in America". Bingo. Your assumption that people can only dislike Holder because of race is exactly the type of race-based worldview that I think is bullshit.

Other AG's haven't been disliked, and accused of overreach? Remember John Ashcroft? Was he only criticized by people on the left because he was white? Why did the left so hate Rumsfeld and Cheney? Because they were white?

I couldn't give two shits what color Holder is. Same with Obama. "Oh, all those evil conservatives are only opposing him because he's black." Gee, then why did we not like "Slick Wilie", or Hilary? Why was John Kerry blasted? Why did Republicans so oppose Jimmy Carter's foreign policy, and still refer to him as one of the worst Presidents ever? Is it because they were all black too?

I've always found the "you didn't like Obama because he was black" argument particularly humorous in Ohio, where white conservative Republicans were just about the only people who backed Ken Blackwell's run for governor. Did all those Democrats vote against him because he was black? And did all of us conservatives who voted for the black guy for governor in 2006 becomes racists over the course of the next two years and refuse to vote for Obama because he was black in 2008?

 

[Marcus]

So we shouldn't investigate local PD's where there are riots in the streets due to potentially racially motivated incidents of police brutality? Why? How does this investigation negatively affect you?

What makes Ferguson so special, then? There's alleged police corruption and abuse of authority in all corners of this country, but Ferguson gets a special investigation because the media took another case of white on black violence and beat us to death with it? Because there was rioting and looting? Bullshit. If you're going to investigate one then you damn well better be prepared to do it elsewhere as well, even if it doesn't involve white on black crime.

It's easy to understand why so many liberals love Eric Holder. Easy if you actually are open to the idea that he's actually doing the things liberals want him to do, at least half of the time.

I just think the guy's a prick, in case you couldn't tell.

Don't you get it, that there are millions of Americans who WANT an investigation into what's going on in Ferguson?

First question: on the flip side of how does the investigation negatively affect me, how does an investigation positively impact the so-called millions of Americans? Is one DOJ investigation all of a sudden going to scare off the would-be abusers of their police authority? Nothing but fodder to appease an emotional American public.

Who WANT an AG who is a civil rights advocate? Who will at least TRY to protect the voting rights of minorities?

Ah, the champion of voting rights. So much so that he dropped all charges against Black Panthers who were openly intimidating white voters in Philadelphia. And who is opposed to laws designed to combat voter fraud, because they might "disenfranchise" minorities. I'm all for everyone getting a fair shake in regards to casting a ballot, but fuck, man...


Is that not just a bit concerning?

It's amazing to me that people think he is so radical. Some of the posters here would nail Robert Kennedy to the fucking cross.

Again, I really think the guy is just a jerkoff in general. You've also got:

Fast and Furious
Wanting to try terrorists IN New York (in essence, not treating them as enemy combatants, but criminals)
Spying on the AP
Targeting James Rosen
Purging all references to "Radical Islam" from the FBI training manuals, as well as trying to change the definition of "jihad" and changing or removing anything that stated the Muslim Brotherhood's purpose as one of establishing Islam's dominion all over the world

Yep, there are a lot of racists in America.

Lots of racists everywhere. And I sure as hell don't condone it. But some of the very worst ones are the ones that are supposedly raising the banner for equal rights. And, of course, the media.

I'm all for equal rights, don't get me wrong on that. I think racism in general is stupid and pointless (not that you asked for or probably even want my personal opinion on the matter, of course). Let's judge someone's merits based on their skin tone... fucking brilliant.

We're not exactly living in the Jim Crow South anymore, but there is evidently still work to be done. I just don't think Holder's the right guy for the job. Maybe somebody else will be.

From your own quote above, because looking for racist cops in Ferguson isn't appropriate right?

See above. But again, for the record, fuck racism and anybody who perpetuates it. Especially those in a position of authority, whether it's a politician or a police officer.

I wouldn't hold my breath man...

Oh trust me, I'm not. Wishful thinking on my part. The guy's gonna have a cozy retirement somewhere nice, I'm sure. Hopefully his successor has some measure of competence.

 

[gourimoko]

Right back at you. Holder sees race in almost everything, and if you don't agree with him on that, you're a coward for not discussing it. Maybe a lot of people don't believe that race is the constant driver he believes it is.

Instead of assuming he "sees race in almost everything" why not address the issues he brings up?

You go on at length about Holder's personal views, views you know nothing about because you don't know him personally; you say he "sees race in almost everything" -- how the fuck would you know that? These types of comments say more about the person saying them than they do about the person they are directed at.

Do I seem like a person who is afraid to discuss issues?

Honestly, yes.

You routinely cast aspersions at people you disagree with, without actually addressing their arguments logically. It's something you do all the time. Rather than talking about race in America as Holder is, you attack Holder himself. Why? Leave his personal views out of it, and instead make your case.

That I'm a "coward" when it comes to discussing race?

Holder made a general comment about a large group of people in America. You decided to (obviously) think he was referencing you personally. Why? Does the shoe fit?

I don't mind you thinking I'm ignorant or a racist,

I don't think you're a racist.

but the idea that my response proves I'm too cowardly to discuss racial issues is just strange. I'll discuss whatever you want.

I wouldn't call a man a coward over the internet. Don't conflate my words with his.

Actually, you just proved my point in your response to Marcus. He says Holder is polarizing, and you responded "there's a lot of racists in America". Bingo. Your assumption that people can only dislike Holder because of race is exactly the type of race-based worldview that I think is bullshit.

Q-Tip, this will be the millionth time I've said this, but you really need to learn logic. I'm all hyped on logic because I'm designing an FPGA so I might be going a bit overboard.. actually let me dial it back.. EDIT: Instead, look at what you said: "Your assumption that people can only dislike Holder because of race..."
..but.. I never said that. I didn't say anything like that. I made the factual assertion that there are a lot of racists in America. That's all I said. You might find that statement a bit vague; but I do believe a great deal of the "polarizing" nature of Eric Holder is his focus on Civil Rights, and the fact that he's a Black liberal in a position of authority.

But your point fails because you are sneaking (transparently I might add) the "only" predicate into your paraphrasing (inaccurate) of what I said. You do this often, and again, it is intellectually dishonest.

Other AG's haven't been disliked, and accused of overreach?

Who said anything about this? I didn't..

I couldn't give two shits what color Holder is. Same with Obama. "Oh, all those evil conservatives are only opposing him because he's black."

Who said the quoted line? Who are you arguing with?

Maybe you've had this conversation with someone else before, maybe yourself, maybe in your head.. But I didn't say any of those things.

Gee, then why did we not like "Slick Wilie", or Hilary? Why was John Kerry blasted? Why did Republicans so oppose Jimmy Carter's foreign policy, and still refer to him as one of the worst Presidents ever? Is it because they were all black too?

Who is we? Is this a rhetorical question, or one you'd like answered?

Trust me, I can give you a long list of bullshit reasons Republicans disliked those politicians, but none would compare to the pure vitriol that this President and Administration have had to endure. Nothing like this has happened in the last 50 years. Not since Kennedy has a President and an Attorney General evoked such hatred.

I've always found the "you didn't like Obama because he was black" argument particularly humorous in Ohio, where white conservative Republicans were just about the only people who backed Ken Blackwell's run for governor. Did all those Democrats vote against him because he was black?

Ugh.. Worst argument ever. Especially referencing Ohio of all places..

I was a canvasser throughout Northest Ohio. I was on the exit polling statistics team for the Barack Obama campaign in both the primary and the general election in 2008. I went door-to-door, trained teams of volunteers and paid staffers, and spoke to literally thousands of people in person, on the phones, and over the internet -- in Ohio, during both the primary and the general.

Democrats. Democrats in Ohio.. Democrats in Ohio refused to vote for Obama due to race. I will never forget that. 25% of the Democratic electorate during the 2008 Primary preferred Hilary Clinton on the primary basis of her being White.

Obama lost Ohio to Hilary solely due to race. He lost West Virginia due to race. He lost Indiana, Texas, and Massachusetts due to race. The data doesn't back this up completely, but Obama lost New Hampshire due to gender.

Those are facts, when correlating the exit polling and crosstabs from the almost daily survey reports, in those states particularly, Obama was most set back due to his race.

And before someone says "well race helped him against Hillary," that's bullshit, and we can have that conversation if you'd like.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Is that not just a bit concerning?

And then you have people saying that there's no proof that in-person voter fraud does exists....

Of course, if nobody is checking I.D.'s, you're preventing poll workers from having the evidence to know when fraud is occurring.

 

[Soda]

I don't think I did that... However, it is not universally and equally important or have a universal or equal effect to/on all races.

There is no need for false equivalence where none exists. Whites do not suffer from discrimination in the same way others races, particularly African-Americans, and Latinos do. So it's important not to pretend like they do.

Hope that's not what you're trying to do.

I can only agree to an extent. Yes, more white people (not necessarily by ratio) are racist. I do think that it's indefensible to say "whites are racist" while not acknowledging the undue hardship some non-racist white people have to face at the hands of black/minority people who have vitriol towards them in the first place for the racist past of this country. Because there isn't a threshold where racism is acceptable towards anyone. And that isn't me ignoring the lingering effect racism has had on minorities (namely black people) as time has gone on. The process of "catching up" as some people like to put it is not finished and society is not entirely equal at this time. I do know and empathize with that problem.

 

[gourimoko]

What makes Ferguson so special, then?

I really need to inform you about the recent murder of a Black teenager there?

There's alleged police corruption and abuse of authority in all corners of this country, but Ferguson gets a special investigation because the media took another case of white on black violence and beat us to death with it?

Would you think differently if I told you that _I_ think the story isn't covered enough? You think the media is serving an agenda, when instead they are serving their audience. Liberals want more information, more action, not less. You think the way you do, which is fine, but don't assume everyone agrees.

Because there was rioting and looting? Bullshit. If you're going to investigate one then you damn well better be prepared to do it elsewhere as well, even if it doesn't involve white on black crime.

So we should have investigations into every police department? That's fine by me. But I don't think that's realistic, it's also not logical (generalization) but okay.

I just think the guy's a prick, in case you couldn't tell.

But why? I don't think he's a "prick," why would I?

First question: on the flip side of how does the investigation negatively affect me, how does an investigation positively impact the so-called millions of Americans?

Easy question. An investigation and hopefully prosecution of those involved could act as a deterrent towards future incidents of racially motivated police brutality against young Black youths. That, couldn't be easier to understand I think.

Is one DOJ investigation all of a sudden going to scare off the would-be abusers of their police authority? Nothing but fodder to appease an emotional American public.

If the investigation yields results and convictions, yes. If it doesn't then it's hard to say. We can likely agree that no investigation would have no logical negative or deterrent effect on police brutality, right?

Again, why not investigate someone being gunned down in the street, an enormous number of shots fired, and multiple witnesses claiming it was an execution? Unless you don't give a shit.

Ah, the champion of voting rights. So much so that he dropped all charges against Black Panthers who were openly intimidating white voters in Philadelphia.

I'm very familiar with the case; what do you think should have been done?

Also, why is this important for the DOJ and not local law enforcement? The DOJ decided to seek an injunction against the only person there who was armed. After review, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, and the ACLU all agreed the DOJ's approach was reasonable. I'm sure you disagree.

Was it voter intimidation? Yes. Was it handled? Yes. Was it a minor case? Yes. Where the cops called? Yes. Did they remove the man with the club? Yes.

WTF....

And who is opposed to laws designed to combat voter fraud, because they might "disenfranchise" minorities. I'm all for everyone getting a fair shake in regards to casting a ballot, but fuck, man...

Bullshit. Total bullshit. Those laws are designed to disenfranchise voters. There is no issue with voter fraud in this country, yet conservative local legislatures are pushing this agenda to prevent the poor from voting.

Is that not just a bit concerning?

It would be if there were even a hint of any statistically significant voter fraud in any state in the union. But there isn't.

Everyone should be registered to vote automatically. Should be able to vote via mail, or in person. We should be moving towards allowing people to vote online.

Again, I really think the guy is just a jerkoff in general. You've also got:

Because of this shit you posted? I think you're letting irrational and unreasonable viewpoints cloud your judgement.

Fast and Furious

That is a problem.

Wanting to try terrorists IN New York (in essence, not treating them as enemy combatants, but criminals)

I totally agree with Holder on this. This isn't a scandal, it's a point of view that many liberals, libertarians, and paleoconservatives agree with. In fact, only a slight majority of Americans agree with your position. 37% of Republicans, 51% of Democrats, and 43% of Independents disagree with you, and agree with the Attorney General. Yet -- it's something he was gravely wrong about?

Spying on the AP
Targeting James Rosen

Disgusting, I agree.

Purging all references to "Radical Islam" from the FBI training manuals, as well as trying to change the definition of "jihad" and changing or removing anything that stated the Muslim Brotherhood's purpose as one of establishing Islam's dominion all over the world

Maybe you think this because your facts are fucked?

Dwight Holden, a white prosecutor from Oregon, is the one who brought the issue to Holder's attention and he's the one who made the edits. He stated, numerous times that information in the FBI training materials was not only "false" but patently and egregiously false, offensive, and prejudiced. In his own words:

"“I want to be perfectly clear about this: training materials that portray Islam as a religion of violence or with a tendency towards violence are wrong, they are offensive, and they are contrary to everything that this president, this attorney general and Department of Justice stands for. They will not be tolerated.”

Do you know about the Muslim Brotherhood? I've talked about it many times on RCF. I don't really understand why you're referencing it here though.

Lots of racists everywhere. And I sure as hell don't condone it. But some of the very worst ones are the ones that are supposedly raising the banner for equal rights. And, of course, the media.

The bolded is pure nonsense.

I'm all for equal rights, don't get me wrong on that. I think racism in general is stupid and pointless (not that you asked for or probably even want my personal opinion on the matter, of course). Let's judge someone's merits based on their skin tone... fucking brilliant.

Agreed. But simply because you have this enlightened point of view, doesn't mean that millions of Americans, White Americans who are in positions of authority, would agree with you or me on matters of race. Therein lies the problem. A problem that really needs to be addressed, whether it makes some folks uncomfortable or not.

We're not exactly living in the Jim Crow South anymore, but there is evidently still work to be done. I just don't think Holder's the right guy for the job. Maybe somebody else will be.

I don't think Holder is a great AG, let me just say that now. But that hate he gets is unreal compared to guys like John Ashcroft and even worse, the abysmal Alberto Gonzales -- ho-lee shit...

See above. But again, for the record, fuck racism and anybody who perpetuates it. Especially those in a position of authority, whether it's a politician or a police officer.

Agreed.

Oh trust me, I'm not. Wishful thinking on my part. The guy's gonna have a cozy retirement somewhere nice, I'm sure. Hopefully his successor has some measure of competence.

I'd like to see Holder on the Supreme Court.

 

[gourimoko]

And then you have people saying that there's no proof that in-person voter fraud does exists....

Who said that? Or right, no one. Classic Q-Tip...

Of course, if nobody is checking I.D.'s, you're preventing poll workers from having the evidence to know when fraud is occurring.

I actually just laughed out loud at how logically flawed this statement is.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Instead of assuming he "sees race in almost everything" why not address the issues he brings up?

Because those are two separate things. I was criticizing his blanket statement regarding us being a "nation of cowards" on the issue of race, which I think is not true. If you want to have a discussion on a specific issue, fine. But that's a different point than going after his blanket statement.

You go on at length about Holder's personal views, views you know nothing about because you don't know him personally; you say he "sees race in almost everything" -- how the fuck would you know that? These types of comments say more about the person saying them than they do about the person they are directed at.

I don't have to know him personally to judge his public statements on their own merits.

Honestly, yes.

Okay, what is it about "race" that you want to discuss?

You routinely cast aspersions at people you disagree with, without actually addressing their arguments logically. It's something you do all the time. Rather than talking about race in America as Holder is, you attack Holder himself. Why? Leave his personal views out of it, and instead make your case.

Do you realize that this is the "Eric Holder" thread, not the "racial issue" thread? For you to argue that we should leave Holder's personal views and public statements out of this discussion absurd. It's the entire point of the thread.

Holder made a general comment about a large group of people in America. You decided to (obviously) think he was referencing you personally. Why? Does the shoe fit?

You just told me that you thought I was afraid to discuss racial issues. Remember "Honestly, yes"? As to whether he was referencing me personally, I have no idea and its not relevant. He said we are a "nation of cowards" on that issue, and since all of us are part of that nation, it's fair to assume that most of us are included in that. I think that's essentially a "beer summit" where presumptions are made that everything is about race.

I made the factual assertion that there are a lot of racists in America. That's all I said.

That's disingenuous as hell because it ignores the context in which you made that statement. Someone stated that Holder was polarizing, and the only response you had to that statement was "there's a lot of racists in America." Now why would that be only response you made? Why didn't you mention any other thing he's done, but instead offer racism as the only explanation?

You might find that statement a bit vague; but I do believe a great deal of the "polarizing" nature of Eric Holder is his focus on Civil Rights, and the fact that he's a Black liberal in a position of authority.

I don't think it's vague. But I think it is very telling that the only explanation you offered for why he's polarizing is racism. And if that just means it's the primary reason, and not the only reason, I don't think that changes the point. You are, like Holder IMHO, significantly overstating the role of race.

Trust me, I can give you a long list of bullshit reasons Republicans disliked those politicians, but none would compare to the pure vitriol that this President and Administration have had to endure. Nothing like this has happened in the last 50 years. Not since Kennedy has a President and an Attorney General evoked such hatred.

Not sure how old you are, but I can remember the sheer hatred regarding Nixon and Reagan, despite the latter-day revisionism that sometimes tries to claim Reagan's mantle for the Democrats. Republicans actually impeached Clinton, and the vitriol directed against candidate Kerry (mostly deserved, IMHO) was far stronger than what was directed against candidate Obama.

Democrats.

Democrats in Ohio..

Democrats in Ohio refused to vote for Obama due to race. I will never forget that. 25% of the Democratic electorate during the 2008 Primary preferred Hilary Clinton on the primary basis of her being White.

Out of curiosity, what percentage of the Democratic electorate preferred Barack Obama to HiIary because of his race? Or did the vast majority of black Democrats vote for Obama over Hilary solely because they preferred his policies?

Obama lost Ohio to Hilary solely due to race. He lost West Virginia due to race. He lost Indiana, Texas, and Massachusetts due to race. The data doesn't back this up completely, but Obama lost New Hampshire due to gender.

Well, not only did you ignore the general election, but you completely ducked my Blackwell point, didn't you? Again, there were a lot of accusations in the general election that Republican opposition to Obama was largely based on race. Yet, it was Republican (almost solely) who voted for Blackwell in 2006.

So again, did Democrats vote against Blackwell because of his race, or because they didn't agree with him on the issues? And what's the explanation for the overwhelming majority of Republicans voting for Blackwell in 2006 if they have an aversion to voting for black guys?

It's just amazing to me how the race card gets played. The conservative Republicans who were the strongest supporters of Blackwell in the primary (the moderates didn't like him), are generally the strongest critics of Obama today. The most logical inference is that those voters prefer staunchly conservative canddiates (like Blackwell), and would likewise most strongly oppose candidates that are not conservative, like Obama.

But instead, there persists this odious and offensive insinuation that opposition -- especially strong opposition -- implies racism rather than disagreement with policies. It's simply ridiculous.