CDZ Could Martin Luther King Jr. have become President had he lived?

[JakeStarkey]

JQ, cognitive dissonance trips you up.

Believe as you wish, but if you try in a class on an actual exam, you would fail.

What cognitive dissonance? give me an example of my cognitive dissonance.
It is easy to accuse someone of something but proving it is tougher.I don't think you are up to the task!

BTW, I have two degrees... I did pretty well in my classes on ALL subjects.

Good for you. You did not do well here. Your shortcomings were pointed several times. The evidence clearly reveals that MLK leaned left of center all of his care and more so beginning in the JFK years until his death.

So, no, you don't get "just once more."

 

[JQPublic1]

JQ, cognitive dissonance trips you up.

Believe as you wish, but if you try in a class on an actual exam, you would fail.

What cognitive dissonance? give me an example of my cognitive dissonance.
It is easy to accuse someone of something but proving it is tougher.I don't think you are up to the task!

BTW, I have two degrees... I did pretty well in my classes on ALL subjects.

Good for you. You did not do well here. Your shortcomings were pointed several times. The evidence clearly reveals that MLK leaned left of center all of his care and more so beginning in the JFK years until his death.

So, no, you don't get "just once more."

Since I don't put much faith in your judgement, your assessment of me has NO effect. don't make me laugh...My shortcomings were pointed out? I dont think this op is bout my shortcomings and I haven't seen any of those I know about identified here at all. You are delusional. More evidence that you are just as delusional about King being a liberal democrat by TODAY's standards when he died more than 45 years ago when republicans were liberals. That political label doesn't apply to the Christian ethics of King who was neither a dem or repub.
He was apolitical. Get over it!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sure. Not. Your opinion is immaterial, JQ.

 

[JQPublic1]

JQ, cognitive dissonance trips you up.

Believe as you wish, but if you try in a class on an actual exam, you would fail.

What cognitive dissonance? give me an example of my cognitive dissonance.
It is easy to accuse someone of something but proving it is tougher.I don't think you are up to the task!

BTW, I have two degrees... I did pretty well in my classes on ALL subjects.

Good for you. You did not do well here. Your shortcomings were pointed several times. The evidence clearly reveals that MLK leaned left of center all of his care and more so beginning in the JFK years until his death.

So, no, you don't get "just once more."

Since I don't put much faith in your judgement, your assessment of me has NO effect. don't make me laugh...My shortcomings were pointed out? I dont think this op is bout my shortcomings and I haven't seen any of those I know about identified here at all. You are delusional. More evidence that you are just as delusional about King being a liberal democrat by TODAY's standards when he died more than 45 years ago when republicans were liberals. That political label doesn't apply to the Christian ethics of King who was neither a dem or repub.
He was apolitical. Get over it!

I know you will take umbrage at the idea that republicans were once liberals. So, consider this: SCOTUS overturned Plessy vs Ferguson in 1954. That set the stage for MLK and the Civil Right;s movement. The chief Justice of that court was a Republican liberal: Earl Warren. Still with me? Now, MLK knew what party Earl Warren was affiliated with and he knew first hand how southern democratic conservatism was the target of that ruling. If you arbitrarily declare the fight for civil rights to exemplify liberalism then the basis for those rights, as outlined the COnstitution, is liberalism. There is nothing radical there except to those who don't believe in freedom for all. MLK could not possibly over look the nexus between his cause and the Ruling of the Warren Court. That video I posted where MLK conjoins liberalism with republicans is quite telling. I am also aware of his changing viewpoints that coincide with the transformation of both parties
that gained momentum when Kennedy and then Johnson showed support for Civil Rights. Liberalism ,as defined by you and others who seem to object to civil rights for blacks, was, after the signing of the CR bill, now destined to become a staple of the democratic platform. MLK just followed the flow of liberalism from the dwindling republican source to the new democratic aquifer of liberalism.
If that isn't clear enough for you... you cannot be reached...you are ineducable.

In either case, MLK has never professed a party affiliation. He just used the liberal elements of both to further his successful campaign for equal rights.

Now Go away.. you cant TOUCH THIS.....

 

[LoneLaugher]

I personally believe that, Had he lived, MLK would have been one of the greatest presidents US history as well as the youngest.
King had that kind of fearless determination at such a young age that most men never achieve. What man of any race would have been so bold as to champion Civil Right for minorities in the late 1950s and early 1960s...especially in the heart of Dixie where the KKK was still very active? Dr. King was that man.

That courage alone brought favor in the eyes of all who were drawn by his magnetic charisma. But if that wasn't quite enough to qualify him for the presidency, consider these attributes as well. King was a good public speaker with a maturity that belied his young age. Considering what he had accomplished before his 39th birthday is astounding given that he had few resources, little money and , in the beginning, no support from liberals OR conservatives. HIs strategy of passive resistance was ingenious and especially courageous since he had no secret service protection nor did he surround himself with armed guards. King was a rare phenomenon imbued with what can only be called fearless determination.

As minorities and women began to take note of King's charisma and daring, he was raised to legendary status. Few leaders in US history had shown such unmitigated courage and accomplished so much with so little.

Now, we see Dr. King is in class by himself. A leader that risks imprisonment, beatings and defies potential death over and over again to achieve his goals. WHAT MANNER OF MAN IS THIS? Providence, it seems, is one viable answer. King was born to do what he did...he had no choice.

Dr. King was more qualified to be president than some who won the office. But could he overcome his public image as a prominent theologian and minister? HIs enemies, including J Edgar Hoover, would certainly bring that up. Hoover had already declared King to be the most dangerous man in America and had used the infamously illegal instrument , COINTELPRO, in an attempt to discredit him. It didn't work. Had he lived, King's work would have overshadowed any of the accusations launched against him by the far right and Hoover.


Some will argue that MLK had never held public office and that would be enough to disqualify him. To that I say, let the public decide... let the millions who held him in highest esteem decide. IMHO many who have held public office were unfit to be president so that "qualifier" is bogus.

Well.....we can get an idea by seeing how well Sanders does. King was pretty much a Democratic Socialist. If Sanders can win the office....then the nation is mature enough to elect a man like King. Not sure the title of Reverend helps, though.

 

[JQPublic1]

What makes you think King was a Democratic Socialist? Since many republicans were liberal at the time, like Earl Warren,, were they Republican Socialists? And you have yet to explain the
obvious paradox that forms in conservative's minds that preclude Christians from being socialists or communists.

of course I don't agree with that...I believe that liberal socialism is the essence Christian doctrine and faith. You don't!

 

[320 Years of History]

What makes you think King was a Democratic Socialist? Since many republicans were liberal at the time, like Earl Warren,, were they Republican Socialists? And you have yet to explain the
obvious paradox that forms in conservative's minds that preclude Christians from being socialists or communists.

of course I don't agree with that...I believe that liberal socialism is the essence Christian doctrine and faith. You don't!

Is it possible that one might think that quite simply because one hasn't made an effort to fully understand the bulk of the history of the Republican and Democratic parties and is instead using only the ruler of current popular propaganda on which to base such an assertion?

Might it be, however, that the history of either party has nothing do with determining whether Dr. King might have favored Democratic Socialism?

"Something is wrong with capitalism...There must be a better distribution of wealth, and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism."
-- MLK quote from a 1966 speech documented by Franklin, Robert Michael. Liberating Visions: Human Fulfillment and Social Justice in African-American Thought. Fortress Press. p. 125.​

I'm not of a mind that Dr. King held either party in the highest esteem. Instead, I think he wanted to achieve a set of outcomes for black folks and he was indifferent about whether he did so allied with Republicans or Democrats.

"Actually, the Negro has been betrayed by both the Republican and the Democratic party... This coalition of southern Dixiecrats and right wing reactionary northern Republicans defeats every bill and every move towards liberal legislation in the area of civil rights."
-- Jan 1 1957, in The Papers of Martin Luther King, Jr.: Symbol of the Movement​

All the same, I believe it's safe to say that Dr. King was keener on the economics of socialism than he was on those of capitalism. Whether he would identify as a democratic socialist, despite the anti-capitalist remarks he made in his lifetime, is a whole different matter. I am pretty confident that Dr. King was not politically a socialist.