Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I don't know about anything else, but unless he just happened to accidentally stumble into a Klan meeting one time in his life and never attended another one...it is hard to swallow the "it was a youthful indiscretion" excuse. I don't even know what an "exalted Cyclops" is, but it sounds like a title you can't just walk in off the street and earn.

Personally I feel people who belonged to hate groups should be forbidden from holding any type of political office. They can't do the best job possible if they feel a certain race is inferior to others.

So your issue isn't that he was a Klan member, racist **** or even that he was a Democrat but rather the media wasn't interested because he was a Democrat?

Odd stance.

Probably because any Democrat sympathetic media wouldn't want to damage him and that the other side, namely Fox News, don't actually condemn the racism so never ran an in depth story on him either.

It is generally true that, regardless of party, if you were something but split from it and actively stand against it, you get forgiveness.

It's not like he merely quit, he quit and significantly changed his stance and followed through on that.


It's not that he's getting a 'free ride' and Republicans who get accused don't, it's that he had to spend a significant amount of effort proving his change of heart- and anyone who does the same should get similar consideration, and those who don't, shouldn't.

"I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times ... and I don't mind apologizing over and over again. I can't erase what happened." -Robert Byrd

Everyone knows he was a racist- early Byrd was, without a doubt, horrible- but at the same time, it's past tense and demonstrated to be so. He went from opposing the voting rights act in '65 to voting for it in '68, and he continued to change during his life and tenure. I mean, heck, the guy was a huge Obama supporter and the NAACP rated his voting record as 100% in line with their positions by '03, that's a pretty big sign his views on race has changed.




I can definitely see where you're coming from there and I don't think we're far off in stance, but I do think there's room for forgiveness if a person has demonstrated their change with action, and done so for a significant period.

If someone just doesn't talk about something and wants to brush it under the table, but doesn't actually repudiate or work against what they once did (i.e. they don't want to be held accountable but don't seem to have actually changed their mind), then heck yea, toss 'em out on their ear.

But if a former follower of a bad stance switches to outright anti-that stance and speaks against them, and talks about it as a huge mistake even time it's brought up and backs that word with action, then I


I mean, Ted Cruz used to fight for Fidel Castro- literally, he joined Fidel Castro's guerrilla groups as a teen, but we don't hold that against him currently. He obviously, totally is not a pro-Castro Communist, and hasn't been for most of his life, and if someone calls Ted Cruz a communist or names it as a reason not to support him, I will laugh.



---

It's not a double standard to be against something now but not hold it against someone when they *used* to hold an opinion but now clearly don't. It's just accepting that people can change.

My problem also comes from the fact he categorized it as a "youthful indiscretion". When I hear that phrase it usually conjures up images of someone who did some kind of crazy one time thing when they were young.

Originally posted by Surtur
My problem also comes from the fact he categorized it as a "youthful indiscretion". When I hear that phrase it usually conjures up images of someone who did some kind of crazy one time thing when they were young.


Yeaaaa, that's not the phrase I'd use either. And if it was *just* that, well, that's not remotely sufficient.


He also did call it his greatest mistake, though, and did a complete 180 on it.