Speaking Monday at a press conference following a weekend of racially charged violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, Boston Mayor Marty Walsh told members of the alt-right planning an upcoming free speech rally in his city that they were categorically unwelcome.

"Boston does not want you here," Mayor Walsh said, addressing those organizing and planning on attending the Free Speech Rally on Aug. 19. "We're going to do everything we can to make sure that this demonstration does not happen here."

Though Walsh did not clarify at his press conference what those actions might entail, the Boston Herald previously reported that the mayor was exploring "legal and tactical options" to prevent the rally following the violence in Charlottesville.

Three speakers backed out of a far-right rally planned for this weekend on Boston Common, casting doubt on the event amid strong opposition from city and state officials fearful about a repeat of the bloodshed in Charlottesville, Va.

In a show of resolve, Mayor Martin J. Walsh joined Governor Charlie Baker, other elected officials, and civil rights leaders on City Hall Plaza Monday afternoon to denounce the hate and white nationalism that authorities said fueled the violence in Charlottesville, where a woman died Saturday after an Ohio man allegedly drove his car into the crowd.

The groups backed by Onward Together include Swing Left, which offers its support to Democratic candidates in swing states with the goal of taking back the House in 2018; Emerge America, which works to inspire and train Democratic women to run for office; Color of Change, an organization that fights criminal justice reform, voter freedom, and other critical issues of racial justice; Indivisible, an organization led by former Congressional staffers who work to help ordinary people reach members of Congress; and Run for Something, which two former campaigners started on Inauguration Day to recruit and support young people running for office.

Tracy you're being about as rational as when you said Maradona was overrated because he did one thing once that pissed you off.

Of course, if she did, they'd say they don't want to hear from her (like her book) and she should just get off the stage and make room for someone they prefer.

Pretty much every time she opens her mouth she's told to shut up and go away.

You've seen the headlines, begging Joe Biden to just give it up and get out of our faces already. "Dems want Joe Biden to leave spotlight," says The Hill. "Dear Joe Biden, please stop talking about 2016," says a USA Today columnist. "Joe Biden is back. Should Democrats be worried?" asks The New Republic. "Can Joe Biden please go quietly into the night?" asks a column in Vanity Fair. A Daily News columnist begins his missive with, "Hey, Joe Biden, shut the f―- up and go away already." Folks sure do hate that guy. And all he did was give a couple of commencement speeches and an interview or two.

Okay, you've probably guessed: Joe Biden wasn't the subject of all those headlines. In fact, when the former vice president has made noises suggesting he still yearns to sit in the Oval Office, reporters treat it as at worst the understandable desires of a beloved uncle who may have lost a step or two, and at best a tantalizing possibility--despite the fact that Biden ran for president twice, and could barely have performed worse if he had punched out the mayors of Des Moines and Dixville Notch on national television.

No, the target of all that anger and contempt is Hillary Clinton, who has dared to be seen in public on a few occasions since last November, violating some unwritten rule that says that unsuccessful presidential candidates must never be heard from again.

Or to be more precise, it was a rule that didn't exist until Hillary Clinton came along.

The problem isn't just that Clinton has the temerity to show her face, it's also what she says. One writer after another has been incensed that when Clinton is asked about why the 2016 election came out the way it did, she fails to perform a ritual of self-abasement with sufficient enthusiasm so we can all stand back and enjoy her humiliation. What she does say is that the ultimate responsibility lies with her and she made plenty of mistakes, but she also notes that had James Comey not rushed to publicly declare 11 days before the election that he was examining some emails that might be related to her -- leading to a collective orgasm on the part of the mainstream media -- she would probably be president. That happens to be true, but she's not allowed to say it. Nothing short of her crying out, "Yes, I'm the worst! I deserve every ounce of your hatred!" will do.

If I can, let me just say that I would prefer Hillary over Trump a thousand-fold.  I didn't vote for him, I don't understand why anyone voted for him, and I don't understand why anyone ever would think he would be a better president than she would.

Whatever reservations I had about her, one thing I was sure about: she would not have us simultaneously on the brink of wars on multiple fronts with a nuclear component, she would not have nominated someone like the horrid Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, she would not have named Cabinet Secretaries for the express purpose of destroying the work of the various departments, we would not have white nationalists in the WH, the State Department would be fully-staffed, we would have actual diplomacy - I could go on - the list is endless and I feel sicker with each thing I think about.

You are correct that she is a private citizen, and that she wasn't obligated to immediately head back out into the country to unite people in the fight against Trump and the GOP.  I guess I just don't understand, Yman, how someone who seemed so driven to be president could, in the face of the evil of Donald Trump, just walk away.

The country needed her more than ever.  Those millions of people who voted for her needed her to stand with them, not disappear from view.  Those of her voters who weren't in the Sanders camp needed her to be part of the resistance.

You're right that she would have gotten slammed for not going away - I get that for a great deal of her political life, she's been damned if she did and damned if she didn't.  If people can't admire her for anything else, they could admire her for not seeming to have any quit in her.

She had to do what was best for her - I get that.  As much shock as we were all feeling when it became clear she was going to lose, it had to have been orders of magnitude worse for her.  Trump-as-President felt to me like an all-hands-on-deck, 4-alarm kind of thing, so don't damn me for wanting her to have been another force crowding Trump from the stage.

I think Sanders remembered that, too.

That was the year I didn't vote for anyone for president.  Admittedly, it was a safe decision, living as I do in a reliably blue state where there was never any question that Obama would prevail over McCain.  

I will not apologize for supporting the ideas and agenda that Sanders ran on.  Even as I knew he probably couldn't win the nomination, his presence in the race, the huge following he attracted, the interest and enthusiasm he generated, the activism he inspired, were good for a system that had grown increasingly less responsive to the voters.  You may disagree, but I believe his presence also pushed Hillary more to the left than she had been in a long, long, time.  I think it was a struggle for her, because I don't think she's naturally comfortable in that space.  And I'm not so sure she would have stayed over there closer to Sanders' place on the spectrum, but I was encouraged by the idea that it would provide a basis for holding her accountable after she was elected.  And I never - until the late Comey announcement - ever really believed she wouldn't win.

Is there much point in discussing Trump?  He has proven to be as bad or worse than we all expected.  After yesterday's display, I feel he may be one outburst away from having the 25th Amendment invoked on him.  But, going back to the campaign, he had derogatory nicknames for everyone, as I recall - exept maybe Kasich?  Everyone in the race, in both parties, got labeled.  The dilemma was, do people push back and end up drawn into a sandbox-level argument, or do they take the high road and just push on?  "Lyin' Ted Cruz" finally lost his sh!t when Trump went after his wife's looks and drew his father into the JFK assassination story.  

But then, it was just Trump and Clinton.  And it got worse.  The debate where he held a pre-event presser with all of the Bill Clinton accusers and seated them at the debate in an impossible-to-miss area was a bridge too far, for me.  But Hillary soldiered on - as she always has, never publicly letting anyone see her sweat.  Her failing to take Trump's ugly bait, in my opinion, just made him look like the very small person he is.

For some reason, even the smallest criticism of Clinton is met with outrage that Sanders isn't being painted with the same brush.  I'm fine with people disagreeing with me or giving me some reason why I'm wrong about what I've said about her; I find the "but what about Sanders?" response to be a distraction, a way to move the goal posts.  I've never said that Sanders shouldn't be held accountable for himself, but apparently, every criticism of Clinton is deemed to be an affirmation of Sanders, when that is just not the case - at least not with me.

Mock my words if you must, but I hope you understand that I'm allowed to express disappointment that Clinton has, for the most part, all but vanished from the scene at a time when her intelligence, her knowledge, her belief in the integrity of this nation, would be a welcome addition to help counter the insanity that reigns at the White House these days.  Can you honestly say you don't also want that?

Link 1

Link 2

There's more to the working class than white people.