Slashdot Mirror
BuzzFeed Ends $1.3M Advertising Deal With RNC Over Donald Trump (cnn.com)
An anonymous reader writes: In response to Donald Trump's rhetoric, the "social news and entertainment company" BuzzFeed has decided to terminate an advertising deal with the Republican National Committee. The deal was for $1.3 million, a source close to BuzzFeed told POLITICO. The source said the reason was because of the website's employees. "[BuzzFeed could not countenance] having employees make ads, or working at the company and having our site promoting things, that limit our freedom and make it harder for them to live their lives," they said. The source said in response to whether or not BuzzFeed would rule out any Trump advertising: "In general, we have taken the position that we won't take ads for his presidential campaign." In a CNN article, RNC chief strategist Sean Spicer says, "Space was reserved on many platforms, but we never intended to use BuzzFeed." He added, "It is ironic that they have not ruled out taking money from a candidate currently under investigation by the FBI." The agreement between the RNC and BuzzFeed called for the GOP to "spend a significant amount on political advertisements slated to run during the fall election cycle," BuzzFeed CEO Jonah Peretti wrote in an internal memo.
Instead of taking the $1.3million they've just given Trump some great free advertising here.
It's also interesting how the left are consistently against free speech, both as defined in the constitution and as a general principle. They only believe you should be permitted to say things that agree with their ideology, and will try to silence any descenting voices by using terms such as racist, xenophobic, bigoted and elitist.
They left have become extremely fascist over the last few decades, yet they are unable to recognise this and continue to accuse people on the right of being fascist.
But remember that about half of the voters in the US are going to vote Democrat no matter what, and about half will vote Republican no matter what. That means even the craziest candidate is still in with a shot at winning, simply because he'll have the might of a major political party behind him - and now the infighting is over everyone who supports the party can agree that having a Republican nutjob in office is still better than letting a Democrat win.
To be honest, the Liberal Left has made Mockery (see John Stewart) a viable political commentary tool. If people don't like it with the tables are turned, then they are simply hypocrites.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
currently under investigation by the FBI
What happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?
The first amendment begins "Congress shall make no law..."
Neither buzzfeed nor Facebook are Congress, obviously. Private businesses are free to publish or not publish whatever they wish. And readers are presumably free to read or not read material from said private businesses.
Funny oboma and Hillary are trying to force communities to take welfare blacks because there not enough blacks living in an area and that's bit racist .
Why do you want to vote for him? He's unrepentantly racist, why do you want a guy like that leading the country? He doesn't let any perceived insult go unanswered, you really want a guy like that in control of the most powerful military on the planet? We don't need a would-be strongman trying to run the country like Putin runs Russia. Trump's word doesn't mean anything, he'll say something one day on video and the next day he'll say he never said that. He's a sociopath who will say anything to win or escape that particular moment, with no thought to tomorrow. And casting your vote for him just because there are so many people who hate him is probably the worst reason to vote for someone that I've heard so far. "A strong majority in the country doesn't like that guy? That's my candidate!" How about looking to the smaller parties to find someone who actually represents what you believe instead of some stupid troll protest vote?
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Because the alternatives are green, libertarian or so fucking crooked she really believes she's above the law.
Republicans are truly the party of death.
To be honest, the Liberal Left has made Mockery (see John Stewart) a viable political commentary tool.
Comedians have used mockery, satire, etc as a tool of political and social commentary forever. That's literally what their job is. It's not exactly a new phenomenon. And it's also not limited to any part of the political spectrum, look at people like Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh if you'd like to see conservatives using mockery in political commentary.
It's also not necessary to capitalize "liberal left" (which is also redundant), or mockery, and it's Jon Stewart, not John.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
In what way is it racist to call out people who say they want to kill you?
As far as the traditional minority groups are concerned as far as I can tell Trumps companies hire African-Americans and Latinos in larger percentages than most other U.S. companies. It is well known that Trump has hired more women for executive positions than your standard Tech company. So in what way is Trump racists. (By the way being Muslim is not a race.)
Hmmm. That's funny. I never knew that "illegal" and "Muslim" were races.
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
The tolerance is OVERWHELMING!
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
In what way is it racist to call out people who say they want to kill you?
It's not. I don't think I said "Donald Trump is racist because he calls out people who say they want to kill him", but I'll go ahead and re-read what I wrote just to make sure.
OK, I re-read it, and sure enough, I didn't say that. So I'm not sure why you're asking me. Maybe you replied to the wrong person.
So in what way is Trump racists.
Other than that time when David Duke endorsed Trump, and Trump said he didn't know enough about the KKK to say that he didn't want to be endorsed by them? How about the time when the justice department sued Trump for not renting to black people? What about the second time the justice department sued him for not renting to black people? Or maybe you're looking for some other examples. If you'd like to do your own research also, feel free.
By the way being Muslim is not a race.
You're right, that's just standard xenophobia. I like how you threw that in, though. "So, how is he racist? And don't mention the Muslim thing."
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Scott Adams has an interesting take on things.
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/145309172876/the-risks-of-a-trump-presidency
My only question is---if Trump is so racist, sexist, and prone to violent reactions--why hasn't that popped up in his past? Discrimination lawsuits? Sexual harassment cases? Workplace violence or intimidation? Anything like that? I mean everything that comes out about him basically makes him seem like a mild-mannered Steve Jobs or Zuckerberg... As far a celebrity children, his don't seem particularly bad nor attention-seeking (which IMHO speaks well for him).
Why do you want to vote for him? He's
exactly like Hillary, and every other candidate, except for one thing: He's honest about it.
You don't get it. The Republican is always conveniently unabashedly racist. As long as that is the case, it is not necessary to argue substance or look at the faults of any of the other candidates. Also, if the guy you oppose is racist, it automatically makes you morally superior and just a good all around person. No need to use reason or actually objectively look at the candidates.
Black people say white juries, cops, and judges, can't be impartial all the time. I don't see any inconsistency here.
Black people say white juries, cops, and judges, can't be impartial all the time. I don't see any inconsistency here.
How many of those black people are running for President of the United States?
Why do you want to vote for him? He's unrepentantly racist, why do you want a guy like that leading the country
Way to prove the GP's point.
Trump has said some stupid and insensitive shit, but can you point to something that was actually racist? Keep in mind that racism entails an overall declaration that some race is inherently better than some other race. Racism does not apply to nationality. Racism does not apply to religion. Racism does not apply to class. Has Trump actually said something truly racist, or did you just label him a racist because that's the go-to label for people you find disagreeable?
To be clear, I don't support Trump, and there is no conceivable way I'll vote for him. His policies (for example, the trillions in debt his tax plan would incur even over Hillary's) are are idiotic, and I find his demagoguery to be repugnant, and a poor fit for the office. Equally repugnant, though, is when someone spews out a hackneyed "racist!" label because, y'know, reasons.
"Is not a sentence" is not a sentence. Well damn.
But please remember. "illegal Mexican immigrant" is not a race or ethnic group.
Except the judge was a native born American citizen, and was not illegal, or Mexican, or an immigrant. When Trump attacked him, and called him a "Mexican", he was clearly referring to his ethnicity.
Why do you want to vote for him?
Because he has 7 clear positions with a plan to fix each, while Hillary has 31 nebulous "issues" and a vague attitude on each.
In an attempt to learn about a non-hot-potato issue, I checked out Trump's position on tax reform.
Basically, it says any individual earning under $25,000 pays no tax, couples under $50,000 pay no tax, and it gets rid of the marriage penalty and the estate tax. It's also revenue neutral(*).
That sounds pretty good to me: this would help out a lot of poor and underprivileged, and it would eliminate the huge chunk of bureaucratic effort low earners have to do each year. The amount of revenue from a poor person is negligible, so it makes sense not to expend the effort (on both sides) trying to collect it.
I couldn't find anything in Clinton's issues specifically about tax reform (let me know if I missed it), but her "economy" issue mentions a couple of tax 'gimmes such as this one:
Hillary will cut taxes for hard-working families to increase their take-home pay as they face rising costs from child care, health care, and sending their kids to college. She is calling for extending a tax cut of up to $2,500 per student to help deal with college costs as part of her New College Compact, and for cutting taxes for businesses that share profits with their employees.
Her position is nebulous ("Hillary will cut taxes for hard-working families") and makes you feel like she's on your side without anything concrete. She's adding yet another rule to an overly-complicated tax code, and it only helps families with college-bound students.
All her positions are like that: feel-good appeals to emotional problems, and a vague sense that she'll do something about it.
Donald Trump has 7 positions listed, each of which are high priority problems that should be fixed such as the current backlog of Veterans benefits. Clinton has a looooong list of issues, such as campus sexual assault. I'm not entirely certain that campus sexual assault rises to the same level as tax reform or Veteran's benefits, but I'm pretty certain it should not be dealt with at the federal level. It's there for emotional impact.
Trump notes 7 problems and has a plan to fix them.
Clinton lists all the problems she can find, and asks "won't someone think of the $whatever-gets-me-the-vote"?
(*) Whether you believe that it is actually revenue neutral makes no difference. You can always *make* it revenue neutral by adjusting the numbers as needed, and the government thinks nothing of going into debt by twice its revenue anyway, so they could make up the shortfall that way.
(**) I had to correct myself from typing "Clinton has issues".
Clearly, so racist he never learned much about the KKK
Should be modded hilarious.
It is a common trait among ostensibly intelligent, successful people to not know what the KKK is about. "I just never thought to look" LOL
The first amendment begins "Congress shall make no law..."
Neither buzzfeed nor Facebook are Congress, obviously. Private businesses are free to publish or not publish whatever they wish. .
So I, as the owner of a private business, could post messages on the website of my place of business about the inferiority of various races, and the fact that women don't belong in the work place taking jobs away from men who have families to feed.
Thanks for letting me know about this. I'll get right on it.
Actually I don't think there is much legislation that would prohibit you from doing so. If you are found to be making hiring decisions based on those ideas, or vetting your clientel in that way, you may be in contravention of a variety of statues. Perhaps creating a hostile work environment by way of your website postings might also be a problem.
The DNC ran HUAC. McCarthy was in the Senate.
Once again the DNC is the party of slavery, racism, keeping blacks down, and prosecuting citizens. You are blaming the people that freed the slaves, ended Jim Crow laws, and passed the Civil Rights act giving blacks equal rights and the right to vote.
You ever wonder why things are getting so bad in the US? Because you attack those FIXING it while giving a pass to those who run the KKK.
No, the problem "3rd parties" is that we have first-past-the-post instead of instant runoff elections. With instant runoff, you could vote for who you want, without having to hope that the other people who think like you don't decide to "game" the system by voting for the red/blue they hate the least, because the red/blue could be your second or third choice if your top choice doesn't have the votes.
You shouldn't be shocked by that. Progressives over the last 10 years have showing that the only tolerance they accept, is the one that echos their own voice. And yet they wonder why liberals and non-affiliated leftists are running towards independents and the right.
Om, nomnomnom...
I'm going to agree with you but only in the hopes we can become friends and you connect me with whoever sold you what you were smoking.
Neither party is who they were in twenty years ago. If you look at the degree of polarization, even then, there were some who could work across the aisles.
Go back as far as St Ronald and you get someone with more in common with current democrats than republicans.
Go twenty years further back and you have broadly un recognizable parties pivoting on some of their traditional issues as other of their traditional issues drove them to do so.
Go back half a century more and you've got parties no modern zealot could agree with as each held political territory that deeply appeals and deeply disgusts each of the current parties.
Just because a party once did something the better part of a century or two ago really means nothing in a world where 20-30 years can make a party unrecognizable to many of its old stalwarts.
Or, you know, whatever your talk radio of choice tells you.
Now can I get some of that weed?
Are we honestly supposed to believe he never heard of the KKK and David Duke until he was 70 years old?
Further, I would contend that if he is that sheltered, then it's simply even more evidence that he is not qualified for office.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.