Clinton said the former first lady, who died on Sunday, "started a national conversation" on AIDS that "penetrated the public conscience and people began to say, 'Hey, we have to do something about this, too,'" during an interview with the network at Reagan's funeral.
Chad Griffin, the president of the Human Rights Campaign and a former Clinton White House aide, knocked the Clinton on Friday for incorrectly holding Reagan up as an activist.
He tweeted, "Nancy Reagan was, sadly, no hero in the fight against HIV/AIDS."
it's not the end of the world.
This video from NYT offers some pretty damning evidence that Trump not only doesn't go far enough in discouraging violence at his rallies, but actively encourages it.The "Trump incites violence" is a false narrative playing the game against him. I'm not a fan, personally, but these "protesters" are carrying their "stop the hate" posters while antagonizing people in a multitude of ways. Just as in all professional sports, it's the guy that retaliates that gets caught.
Why isn't Clinton and Sanders coming out against their operatives causing problems? Oh, cuz it plays into their favor.
Not like Obama supporters never threatened violence against anyone.It's not just about the Chicago rally. Trump has been on this rhetorical track for months.
Like this? Hillary Clinton on Twitter
Look, we are all in agreement that using violence to disrupt free speech, as we saw in Chicago, is not the answer. I said as much earlier on this page. But protestors at Trump rallies have been assaulted for much less than that, and I argue that Trump actively encourages it.
Sure, but Obama never did.Not like Obama supporters never threatened violence against anyone.
His Justice Department condoned it, and he never condemned it.Sure, but Obama never did.
What are you even talking about? You'll have to forgive me, because I'm not understanding your reference. I followed both of his campaigns fairly closely and off of the top of my head I can't think of any instances of protestors being beaten at Obama rallies.His Justice Department condoned it, and he never condemned it.
Silence=approval in this case.
I'm not so sure that Trump's reaction to protesters brings more protesters; the protesters bring more protesters. I think there is a message from active protest groups to Mr. Trump, that, if needed, people will be brought in to cause a disturbance. Obama had people fainting in front of him so he could act the hero, no other candidate ever had to do that; you'll have trouble convincing me that they were not staged. As with many protestors that get physical, some have come from outside the area, to take part in the protest. We have seen it is so many places, so many times, over a wide range of causes, and it looks the same every time. Mr Trump, IMHO has been targeted by protest groups. The message is, that where ever he goes, the picture will look the same; possibly worse if the protesters have their way. I have an awful lot of trouble believing that Trump is, all by himself, causing these violent, ugly protests. It is exposing the ugly thinking, and acting that has been our eyesore ever since the Viet Nam anti war protests. Mr. Trump is not behind the protests, protesters are. Mr. Trump is expressing his opinion regarding those who try to shut down his rallies, and disrupt his speeches. It is my belief that there is a concerted effort being made to deny Mr. Trump his right to free speech, and he is not having any it. The NYT has not been a fan of the GOP, and the NYT coverage of the protests is predictable as well.
I agree that ultimate responsibility lies with the old guy, but it's irresponsible to say that Trump doesn't bear any sort of culpability in these incidents.Was Trump responsible for this assault? Nope, the old guy is. Did the protester have some responsibility in the incident? Anytime you decide to disrupt events, incite a crowd or disrespect other people, you run the risk of being assaulted.