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.

235 of 403 comments (clear)

  1. I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by _xeno_ · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'll say here what I said elsewhere: I'm sure Donald Trump is all torn up about losing access to advertising to all those people who don't vote anyway.

    --
    You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
    1. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Assuming Buzzfeed readers don't vote is why the GOP keeps losing.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by ganjadude · · Score: 5, Interesting

      i mean, do these people really not understand these kinds of things are pushing more and more people to trump? i dont like him, i think he will be about as bad as obama and bush (no worse, no less)....but everyone that hates him, i hate, and their tantrums are pushing me more and more to vote trump. And I know im not the only one in this boat.

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    3. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      What would be interesting is if Buzzfeed still carried ads for the DNC, and if someone could make a legal argument for if that's an illegal campaign contribution...

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    4. Re: I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      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 .

    5. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by amicusNYCL · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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
    6. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because the alternatives are green, libertarian or so fucking crooked she really believes she's above the law.

    7. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.)

    8. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by harrkev · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He's unrepentantly racist

      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."
    9. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by amicusNYCL · · Score: 2

      There are no fewer than 17 other political parties with restricted ballot access. Maybe that's the real problem.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    10. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The tolerance is OVERWHELMING!

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    11. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by danlip · · Score: 4, Informative

      He just said that a judge, who is a natural born US citizen, cannot be impartial in the suit against Trump because of his ethnicity. That's racist.

    12. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by amicusNYCL · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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
    13. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by Moridineas · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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).

    14. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by taustin · · Score: 1, Insightful

      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.

    15. Re: I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by Bartles · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    16. Re: I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by Bartles · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Black people say white juries, cops, and judges, can't be impartial all the time. I don't see any inconsistency here.

    17. Re: I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by DaHat · · Score: 2, Informative

      They keep loosing? Remind me, which party controls both the house and senate? Shall we look at the state by state map with regards to legislatures and governorships? Obama has actually done wonders for the GOP.

    18. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by JediJorgie · · Score: 2, Informative

      Please share some of his racist comments... But please remember. "illegal Mexican immigrant" is not a race or ethnic group. Muslim is not a race or ethnic group.

      Disliking a subgroup within an ethnic group for the actions is not racist.

    19. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by Swave+An+deBwoner · · Score: 1
      Trump has a history, he isn't a tabula rasa who never heard of David Duke or the KKK:

      http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/donald-trump-and-the-ku-klux-klan-a-history

      For example ...

      It should be noted that Trump’s unfamiliarity with Duke is a recent condition. In 2000, Trump issued a statement that he was no longer considering a run for President with the backing of the Reform Party, partly because it “now includes a Klansman, Mr. Duke.”

      Throughout last fall and into the winter, Trump continued to accumulate support among white nationalists. In November, on a weekend in which he said that a black protester, at a rally in Alabama, deserved to be “roughed up,” Trump retweeted a graphic composed of false racist statistics on crime; the graphic, it was discovered, originated from a neo-Nazi account that used as its profile image a variation on the swastika. In January, he retweeted the account “@WhiteGenocideTM,” which identified its location as “Jewmerica.” Shortly before the Iowa caucuses, a pro-Trump robocall featured several white supremacists, including the author Jared Taylor, who told voters, “We don’t need Muslims. We need smart, well-educated white people.” Each time Trump was asked on Twitter about his white nationalist supporters, the candidate, who is ready to respond, day or night, to critics of his debating style or his golf courses, simply ignored the question.

    20. Re: I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Really? He showed you how to spell losing, and you still spelled it "loosing"?

    21. Re: I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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?

    22. Re: I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      RNC tactics bought control at the cost of their party; now they can't use it for anything and are being torn apart by a fake candidate. That's failure.

    23. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

      You mean the judge that's a member of La Raza, the racist organization of Mexicans who hate white people?

      No. He is a member of The Hispanic National Bar Association, which used to be known as La Raza National Lawyers Association, and is a completely separate organization from the National Council of La Raza, a political advocacy group. The organization he belongs to changed their name more than 30 years ago, specifically to avoid confusing people like you, but apparently to no avail.

    24. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by TooManyNames · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.
    25. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    26. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by harrkev · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, at least we KNOW that Hillary has heard of the KKK, since she is good friends with a former KKK member.

      Former Senator Byrd was actually a KKK member, and very cozy with the Clintons -- close enough to give Hillary a big smooch.

      http://www.snopes.com/clinton-...

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    27. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by blogagog · · Score: 4, Informative

      Trump is so awful that the only person on the planet who would be a worse president is Hillary Clinton. Man, we sure know how to pick 'em.

    28. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by Kernel+Kurtz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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

    29. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by footNipple · · Score: 1

      Not sure why you got so many mod points, but actually I think that based on the things you say, do and write, that you may be racist. I'm not sure, but it's possible.

      What do you have to say for yourself?

    30. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by youngone · · Score: 1

      you really want a guy like that in control of the most powerful military on the planet?

      The US Military doesn't just rush off to war because the president gives an order.

      We don't need a would-be strongman trying to run the country like Putin runs Russia.

      The US has balance of powers. No one person can take over the US like Putin has in 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.

      That's true, so what does he stand for? If he doesn't know, you don't either.

      He's a sociopath who will say anything to win or escape that particular moment

      That hardly makes him unique in US politics does it?

    31. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

      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.

      I completely agree. I will now spew out a "jingoistic plutocrat" label because, y'know, reasons.

    32. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by Swave+An+deBwoner · · Score: 2
      Scott Adams' apologia for Trump is reminiscent of what was said about Germany in the run-up to WWII.

      Trump also suggested creating a government list of which residents of the country are Muslim. That’s some scary shit. Until ... you realize the government already has that list. You know they do, right?

      Adams, whose cartoons seemed to find nuance in everything, ignores the nuances of the "Leader" of a country announcing that the government will now create a list of members of a specific religious group. I'm sure that you are familiar with the term "chilling effect". While our intelligence services may know who is what, Trump's suggestion is tantamount to announcing that henceforth Muslims will be required to wear a yellow star-in-crescent on their clothing. I don't think that he is tone deaf on the issue, which leaves the much less savory conclusion.

      As for why his violent reactions haven't previously made the news, I'd be willing to bet (and I am not a gambler) that the victims have been carefully paid off with instructions to remain silent or be financially ruined afterwards. His former wife Ivana accused him of violently attacking and raping her after a "scalp reduction" surgery he had went wrong:

      https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/he-raped-me-when-donald-trump-was-accused-of-sexual-assault

      "Your doctor fucking ruined me!" Donald allegedly yelled, before tearing out Ivana's hair "by the handful, as if he is trying to make her feel the same kind of pain he is feeling." ... He rips off her clothes and unzips his pants. Then he jams his penis inside of her for the first time in more than sixteen months.

      Ivana is terrified. This is not lovemaking. This is not romantic sex. It is a violent assault. She later describes what The Donald is doing to her in no uncertain terms. According to the versions she repeats to some of her closest confidantes, 'He raped me.'

      And then there's that little thing about law and order loving Trump's selection of an array of mob (Mafia) run construction associates:

      http://www.newsweek.com/truth-about-trump-mob-454053

      To help build his first big Manhattan project, the Grand Hyatt New York on East 42nd Street, Trump had chosen a notorious demolition company secretly owned in part, according to the FBI, by a top Philadelphia mobster who doubled as crime lord of Atlantic City.

      To pour concrete for the new hotel, Trump picked a firm run by a man named Biff Halloran who was convicted a few years later for his role in what prosecutors dubbed a mob-run cartel that jacked up construction prices throughout the city.

      For the carpentry contract, Trump settled on a Genovese family–controlled enterprise that was central to another mob price-fixing racket, as found by a subsequent federal probe.

      So, yeah, not that I want to be alarmist, but your "mild-mannered" Trump may turn out to be "so nice, so polite, so quiet" like the next door neighbor who is found to have a freezer filled with human body parts. I hope that's not the case, especially if he becomes our next president, but I don't expect it to turn out well at all.

    33. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Scott Adams has an interesting take on things.

      tl;dr? People suck at predicting the future and are irrational, so people making predictions about a Trump presidency are going to suck and be irrational. Great. I guess Scott Adams wouldn't mind spending a night alone with Charles Manson. Oh, right, there's "not perfectly capable of predicting the future", there's "world events are much more complex than 'and then the US President made X happen'", and then there's "it's not irrational to have an opinion based upon past behavior" (although one could argue that all of the negatives of Trump as a person might be good as Trump as a president, but that's really a side discussion (possibly worth having)).

      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?

      Donald Trump Was Once Sued By Justice Department For Not Renting To Blacks

      Sexual harassment cases?

      Exclusive: Inside The $125 Million Donald Trump Sexual Assault Lawsuit

      Workplace violence or intimidation? Anything like that?

      Employment Lawsuits Have Plagued Donald Trump - "The various lawsuits that have been filed by hundreds of Trump’s employees levy a variety of allegations, including union intimidation, ..." And yea, not likely what you meant but then two out of three ain't bad, right?

      I mean everything that comes out about him basically makes him seem like a mild-mannered Steve Jobs or Zuckerberg...

      Steve Jobs was an asshole. Zuckerberg? Haven't read enough about him, but let's presume he's an asshole too. Neither would be good as US President. Neither would Bill Gates. (Neither would Steve Wozniak for basically the opposite reason.) And just to make it a point, the issue per se that you can't have an asshole as a good US President. But being CEO or similar as a result of being an asshole is NOT the approach to being good at any sort of diplomacy or relations with other countries. But being an asshole to become a Senator? That might actually be the right approach, even if you can't otherwise stand the person. In any case, like I said, it's not per se about being an asshole. It's just that + CEO really tells you what sort of asshole you're dealing with.

      As far a celebrity children, his don't seem particularly bad nor attention-seeking (which IMHO speaks well for him).

      Uh, fuck his children? I mean, unless he's pimping his children out to get votes (more than the rather meek "he'd be good for the job" BS everyone in politics has their kid say)... And I'm tempted to say the same of his really shitty wife-swap-marriage life, since see above about assholes.

    34. Re: I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by acrimonious+howard · · Score: 1

      Since you can't be bothered to read the parent posts, I'll summarize for you: harrkev implied Trump is not racist because he uses the words "illegal" and "Muslim" to identify who he's attacking/insulting. There are many logical issues with that, but danlip ignored most of them, and just mentioned one of the most recent specific things Trump has said that is in fact racist. bartles responded with the logic that [if some random black people supposedly claim specific groups of white people cannot be impartial, then that's the same thing as the guy running for president saying that a person's race prevents them from being able to do a specific job]. ShanghaiBill pointed out that we are talking about the person running for president, that's the biggest difference. That was a relevant, thoughtful response.

    35. Re: I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by Bartles · · Score: 1

      Thanks for illustrating my point so well.

    36. Re: I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by Locando · · Score: 1

      That's because the US has a history of white supremacy, an ideology that was widespread among whites of all social strata and systematically applied by those in power to materially disadvantage blacks, Mexicans, Native Americans, and nonwhite immigrants from anywhere else. While much of its legal force was scrapped in the '60s and most explicit expressions of white supremacy have since become socially unacceptable, a lot of Americans, especially white ones, still have a way of thinking about race that has been strongly influenced by this legacy, if not necessarily explicitly white supremacist. It's not as if that ideology just faded away once the Civil Rights Act was passed.

      There are probably plenty of black people out there who overstate impact of this enduring mentality on jury partiality, but there is certainly some grounding for believing that many whites remain uniquely biased against certain other ethnic groups, African-Americans in particular. The idea that there's some kind of corresponding Mexican or Latino supremacy that has led to similar power dynamics in the US, on the other hand, is not one based in reality. That's one major inconsistency!

    37. Re: I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by Bartles · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I went to college too. It's a lot of bullshit. If one ethnicity who wields power can be biased, then so can another. You have to be deliberately ignorant to not understand that.

    38. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by HiThere · · Score: 1

      That would be an interesting argument to make if the sold the ads and earned a profit on them.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    39. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by HiThere · · Score: 1

      If something like this pushes you to vote for Trump, then you'd already decided to do it anyway. This is just someone saying "You're abusing the staff so get out of my bar.".

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    40. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      He wasn't just "a KKK member", he was an Exalted Cyclops which "According to the original 1867 Prescript of the Ku Klux Klan, the Exalted Cyclops reports to a Grand Giant, or provincial leader; a Grand Dragon, or state director; and the Grand Wizard, or national chair."

    41. Re: I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by Locando · · Score: 1

      If one ethnicity who wields power can be biased, then so can another.

      You're absolutely right. That's why in the context of the United States, what's significant is that there has existed a successful system of white supremacy, while no other race has been able to systematically wield that same kind of power over whites. Where there has existed limited favoritism toward nonwhites (e.g., affirmative action), it has been enacted with the consent of certain groups of powerful whites (liberals who thought such policies would make their power and wealth morally justifiable, as I see it). Black Power, La Raza, and the like haven't had any success of that sort. Thus it's nonsensical to talk about black or Latino supremacy in the US, and so your assertion is irrelevant in this context.

      It's a lot of bullshit.

      You have to be deliberately ignorant to not understand that.

      Does this mean something other than "I'm right and you're not, so I don't have to prove myself"? What is it that magically makes your views so much more inherently correct than those that you supposedly heard in college? How about the bullshit part — can I call your ideas bullshit and be automatically right?

    42. Re: I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by Bartles · · Score: 1

      We're not talking about the system. We're talking about one judge and one defendant. If you take a few minutes to look at the judge's background, there are many things that could lead one to believe that he is not impartial.

    43. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

      Want to bring the issue of race? Bring it on!!

      He's unrepentantly racist

      In the view of an ethnic Chinese I do not find Donald J. Trump of being racist

      I have had many encounters with racism inside America, I know first hand what racism really is

      While Donald J. Trump can be brash, and he acts like an asshole from time to time, he ain't a racist

      He's a sociopath

      So you ran out of your 'racist taunt' and now switch over to the 'sociopath' rant?

      Comparing Donald J. Trump to Hillary Rodham Clinton, Hillary is a much more suitable candidate to be a socialpath than Trump

      We don't need a would-be strongman trying to run the country like Putin runs Russia

      Don't you tell me what Trump would do because he hasn't done it yet

      On the other hand, your idol Hussein Barack Obama has already ruined America!

      America under Obama has suffered worse systemic abuse than Russia suffered under Putin

      Under Obama, American's liberty, privacy and rights were stripped away

      Nowadays even little girls in America, oh yes, American little girls using little girl toilets inside the United States of America have to watch out for grown man wearing bras because Obama says grown man wearing bras have the rights to use little girls toilets

      --
      Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    44. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is one of those true-but-bullshit things that always comes up with the pushback.

      Read Byrd's biography. Yes, he was a KKK member, but he abandoned his membership in the 1950s, his views consistently mellowed and for basically the last 20 years of his life he earnestly apologised, again and again.

      If you're measuring someone by their views, measure them by the ones they won't repudiate.

      (This is part of the whole "republicans emancipated slaves / republicans gave black people the vote" pushback. Yes, it is true, the republican party did that. But you are ignoring what happened in the 1970s, when the Southern Strategy effectively inverted the racist vote. Republicans have aggressively retained their bigot vote ever since; the democrats (always divided on this issue, not unified) have aggressively shed theirs.)

    45. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    46. Re: I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

      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?

      What does this 'running for president' thing got to do with the issue at hand?

      When the blacks can accuse the Whites as 'racists' why can't Trump, a White, accusing a judge with links to a certain hispanic racial movement, 'racist'?

      ShanghaiBill, I've read plenty of your comments, but this one, tsk, tsk, tsk! is nothing less than a miserable cop-out

      --
      Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    47. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      From the very link you provide:

      [Byrd says] "After about a year, I became disinterested [in the KKK], quit paying my dues, and dropped my membership in the organization," and throughout his long political career (he served for 57 years in the United States Congress) he repeatedly apologized for his involvement with the KKK

      The article goes on, "In 2010, even the NAACP released a statement honoring Senator Byrd and mourning his passing."

    48. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 1

      They're not. And half the shit Trump says isn't wrong. The problem is that 1. he's a scam artist, so he's probably lying to you, and 2. the other half is beyond-the-pale wrong and puts him tied in last place with Kim Jong-un for people who should have the authority to deploy the military and order a nuclear strike. So I'm voting Libertarian. I don't agree with half the stuff Johnson has to say, but he's not a criminal and he's not batshit insane.

    49. Re: I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 2

      That's because the US has a history of white supremacy

      Cut the motherfucking crap!

      I ain't a White

      I am a Chinese

      And I am getting super tired of the 'history of White supremacy' bullshit

      So I have spent some decades inside the country filled with the so-called 'history of White Supremacy'

      Did it stop me from climbing the social ladder? Nope

      Did it stop me from achieving my goals? Nope

      Did it stop me from doing the things I had wanted to do all along? Nope

      What the fuck is wrong with you guys who were born right here inside the USA?

      If you can't make it, stop blaming the history or whatever/whoever fuck you want to blame

      Instead, you should blame yourself for being a USELESS FUCK!!

      --
      Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    50. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by TooManyNames · · Score: 1

      I have no problem with labels when they actually describe someone or a situation, and I'd say that there are plenty of reasons why Trump could be labeled a "jingoistic plutocrat." My issue is when allegations like racism, which should be regarded fairly seriously, are tossed around simply out of disdain or disagreement. Also, while I'd agree that Trump has said racially insensitive things, that's quite different from actual racism. That's why, I think, that someone like Gregory Cheadle didn't take serious offense to Trump when he got singled out as "my African-American [supporter] over here," though it certainly would have been a much better received story if he had, especially since he wasn't even an actual supporter to begin with.

      --
      "Is not a sentence" is not a sentence. Well damn.
    51. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by Mashiki · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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...
    52. Re: I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      What does this 'running for president' thing got to do with the issue at hand?

      What??? The fact that Trump is running for president is the ONLY thing that is relevant. If he wasn't running, we wouldn't even be having this conversation, and nobody would give a rats ass what Trump thinks about Mexicans or Muslims. That fact that some random black people openly express racist attitudes does not make it okay for a presidential candidate to also openly expresses racist opinions. People running for president should be held to a higher standard.

    53. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Scott Adams' apologia for Trump is reminiscent of what was said about Germany in the run-up to WWII.

      If you can't look back in history and find an example that doesn't involve Nazis, then you don't know much about history.
      Godwin's law exists to identify people who don't know much about history. Find a better example to make your point.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    54. Re: I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Hold it

      How does running for president change your status as racist ?

      If a black person who says white juries can't be impartial isn't a racist, or a black president who calls white people "Bitter Clingers" isn't racist.
      How the hell is Trump Racist ?

      Go get yourself an enema.

    55. Re: I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by EEPROMS · · Score: 2

      That's because the US has a history of white supremacy, an ideology that was widespread among whites of all social strata and systematically applied by those in power

      What a pile of liberal horse shit, lets blame history for making me black crap doesn't float any more. You remember way back in the 50' they had the korean war and even earlier in the 70s they had the Vietnam war. Thousands of refugees from both conflicts immigrated to the USA with no money, no education, and no english language skills. The Vietnamese and Koreans went off worked hard got an education and also made sure their kids had an education. So now explain to me why the Koreans and the Vietnamese living in the USA don't have the same issues as black african americans. Times up for black african americans, sorry the "slave" jar of forgiveness is empty and now holds zero weight when considered by american citizens of all races.

    56. Re: I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by nick_davison · · Score: 2

      When you're referencing all Mexicans and call them murderers and rapists and some, you assume, are good people... You're a racist.

      When you use the possessive to refer to African Americans... OK, then you're probably just ignorant.

      When you call out Hiliary over Bill's infidelity yet the woman you're having an affair with gets caught screwing someone else under a lifeguard tower... You're a hypocrite as well as a cuckhold.

      When you tell everyone how successful a businessman you are, having vastly lost money compared to if you'd just invested the money daddy gave you in the S&P500 and then claim the tax credit for earning UNDER $500K in NYC for each of the last three years, to go along with your many corporate and personal bankruptcies, you're a failure.

      Though, actually, to be fair, I doubt he is a racist. To be a racist, you have to hold those beliefs. He's just hitched his wagon to those who hold them. He fits the definition of a sociopathic narcissist, a very scared and shallow little man who'll say and do whatever it takes to get what he needs.

      In that regard, I actually feel sorry for the racists who do vote for him...

      Those who vote against him always knew he was a sociopathic narcissist.

      Those who vote for him, who really hoped he meant whatever he spouted to get their vote, are going to be the ones left with a far nastier shock when they no longer empower him and he needs to chase someone else.

      When he bashed the Muslims, I said nothing because I wasn't a Muslim.

      When he came for the Mexicans, I said nothing because I wasn't a Mexican.

      And when he came for my guns, there was no one left to speak up for me.

    57. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by johanw · · Score: 1

      KKK? Isn't that that folklore group that walks with sheets over their heads?

    58. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by johanw · · Score: 1

      After he insulted Mexicans in general, he may have a point that a judge with Mexican roots might not be impartial.

    59. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by dave420 · · Score: 1

      There is no scientific definition of "race", so its definitions are rather vague. It can include a group of people who share a similar culture, tradition or behaviour, which definitely suits defining adherents of a certain religion as a race.

      So yeah. The dictionary is your friend.

    60. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      Shellacking is a perfectly cromulent term when discussing furniture refinishing.

    61. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      So, 100% true then.

      http://www.americanfreedomlawc...

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    62. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by Britz · · Score: 1

      Scott Adams has been desperately trying to hide his huge Trump boner at least for a year. His admiration for what he call "persuasion" feels like a cult. A little "self help" with a couple sleazy car salesman techniques thrown together. Adams seems to think Trump is some kind of mastermind using these techniques, disregarding the possibility that he is simply a sleazy salesperson whose particular nasty style strikes a cord with a lot of people after 20 years of Fox News preparation.

      Like most of his fans (and most of the fans of other candidates like Bernie or Obama) Scott Adams is somehow convinced that good things will happen when his candidate is elected. Disregarding that Trump is especially good at promising just that to everyone. Minorities excluded.

    63. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by iris-n · · Score: 1

      Interesting take on things? The only thing he's saying is that you're not allowed to think about how a Trump presidency would be, because people suck at thinking. ORLY? Next thing he says, learning languages is difficult, so you should not even try? And you often make mistakes when investing in the stock market, so we shouldn't invest at all? That's obscurantism, pure and simple. I, for one, will not give up on thinking.

      --
      entropy happens
    64. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      "In what way is it racist to call out people who say they want to kill you?"

      The Trump University case gives this candidate an opportunity, even before the GOP convention, to be 'presidential'. He stands or falls on this single issue: if TU proves to be a scam, and if he can't prove that Judge Curiel is biased, he goes down immediately. The GOP will have to sheepishly nominate French in August.

    65. Re: I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Not white over here either, which was made abundantly clear to me during certain of my school years. Not black either, actually white Father, Mother was first in her Mexican family to be born in the U.S., her parents never spoke English, but she never spoke Spanish around us.

      I was an Army Brat, which gave me insight into different parts of the country, but also protected me, because the Army (is/was) one of the most progressive organizations when it comes to race relations.

      It's a convenient fiction to say that race doesn't matter anymore, or that people should have recovered from slavery over the past 100+ years, but it's absolutely a fiction. While slavery was 100 years ago, there were Government policies designed to harm blacks as recently as the 1970's, if white's couldn't get over slavery in 100 years, why should blacks? Read some history. There is a reason for the anger felt by blacks. Other races have benefited from the civil rights movement, but did not have the couple hundred years of oppression in the US that blacks have dealt with.

    66. Re: I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by Nickodeimus · · Score: 1

      I'm beginning to understand the liberal mindset a little bit from this thread. They tend to take something logical and think it means the opposite of what it does. Being president, or running for such an office makes no difference at all. Racism is racism and Trump doesn't seem to demonstrate racism if you take his full comments and not just the un-contextualized version that the media repeates . He makes comments that the media skews to fit their agenda. His comment about the judge, in context, pertains to the judges membership in an extremist group that espouses views and actions that are opposite of those that trump has been very vocal about. In my view, the judge should have recused himself to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. Trumps commentary is about two things - justice and the appearance of the court being impartial. Both are very important and the judge's refusal to recuse himself undermines both.

    67. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by NotDrWho · · Score: 1

      I'm just wondering if Buzzfeed is still going to force all the Bernie supporters that work there to produce ads for Hillary Clinton. Fair's fair, right?

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    68. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      i dont really wantt to vote for him but making statements like hes unrepentantly racist...with no facts to back up the claim only outof context 2 second snippets and people see through the lies. hes a lot of things, arrogant, a blowhard, says things before he thinks. but he also is being attacked by literally everyone that is disliked by both sides, no one has done that, so its clear they feel he could disrupt the system, the same system that we all agree is broken.

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    69. Re: I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by danlip · · Score: 1

      Such as ...?

    70. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      you dont get to the level he was (pretty much a couple steps behind top dog) in only a year in any organization i call bullshit on the claim he was only there a year

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    71. Re: I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      when your first line in your post is a lie, the rest cant be taken seriously. he never called all mexicans rapists or murderers.

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    72. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by tbannist · · Score: 2

      KKK? Isn't that that folklore group that walks with sheets over their heads?

      No, no, no. I'm pretty sure they're a detergent company, they keep telling me that my whites need to be whiter...

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    73. Re: I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by tbannist · · Score: 1

      “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

      Donald Trump, presidential announcement speech, June 16, 2015

      “What can be simpler or more accurately stated? The Mexican Government is forcing their most unwanted people into the United States. They are, in many cases, criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc.”

      Donald Trump, statement about his June 16 comments, July 6, 2015

      So Trump didn't call Mexican immigrants "murderers" but he definitely said they rapists at least twice. On the one hand the evidence indicates that excluding the crime of illegal immigration, first generation immigrants have actually commit fewer crimes per capita than native born Americans. On the other the hand, the implied statement that the Mexican government is sending criminals to the U.S. instead of putting them in jail, seems to be the real bat-shit crazy part of his statements. In a broader context, these comments display blatant xenophobia and encourage intolerance of immigration and a baseless fear of immigrants.

      I suspect these are just bullshit things that Trump says to drum up far right votes, but I also think it's more than a little evil to encourage and validate the crazies for your own personal benefit.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    74. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by T.E.D. · · Score: 2

      2 Things here: 1) Byrd died a decade ago. Unless she carries a Ouija board around with her, she hasn't been friends with him in quite a while. 2) He renounced that membership long before he died or before Hillary ever met him, and was (mostly) not a supporter of White Supremacy in Congress.

      People do grow and change their minds. Hillary once supported Goldwater. Ronald Regan was a New Deal Democrat. Republicans used to be the party of Liberals and Democrats used to be the party of Conservatives. If you want to play "used to" and then association games with old people, you can "prove" any damn fool thing you like. But you're really saying nothing. We don't live in the 1950's any more.

    75. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by dywolf · · Score: 1
      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    76. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      why hasn't that popped up in his past? Discrimination lawsuits? Sexual harassment cases? Workplace violence or intimidation? Anything like that?

      All the things like that, yes. It turns out that Trump currently has been sued over 3,500 times. As near as anyone can tell, no other POTUS candidate has ever even come close to that figure.

      Personal favorites are the one where he was employing illegal immigrants on his construction jobs, and the one where he used a positively "Clintonian" turn of phrase to argue that just because he said he was developing something doesn't mean he was one of the developers.

    77. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by dywolf · · Score: 1

      in the same way that saying "but I have black friends" doesn't mean you cannot be racist.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    78. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by dywolf · · Score: 1

      This is not flamebait and should not be modded as such.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    79. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by dywolf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.
    80. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by dywolf · · Score: 1

      He should go down already, for trying to use his position as a candidate to intimidate a judge presiding over his case.

      Even worse, that judge has already decided in Trumps favor several times , most recently in agreeing to postpone the trial date until after the election, just as Trump has requested.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    81. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by dywolf · · Score: 1

      Or that the Ford Fusion is a car.
      Seriously, what is the point of your ignorant statements here?

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    82. Re: I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by dywolf · · Score: 1

      yes, you've analyzed your problem correctly.
      now how about the post you were replying to?

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    83. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by dywolf · · Score: 1
      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    84. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by Arkham · · Score: 1

      So you feel your choices are (a) the crook or (b) the stupid, racist, misogynist, egomaniacal hate monger with an inferiority complex and no political ability at all who cheats people. And you choose (b).

      --
      - Vincit qui patitur.
    85. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by dywolf · · Score: 1

      From Scott Adam's post:

      But Trump’s racism exists solely in the minds of his opponents. He has proposed no racist policies and he has no racist acts in his past.

      Just completely wrong.

      Literally no one – ever – has believed all Mexicans are rapists. If you think Trump believes it – or wants us to believe it – you have abandoned any hold on reason. But we agree that Trump says outrageous things, because doing so gets him elected, apparently.

      No one believes it...trump doesn't believe it...but somehow it helps him get elected? by who? and that's ok then?

      And keep in mind that Islam – as commonly practiced in Muslim countries around the world – is not compatible with the Constitution of the United States.

      No.

      Trump also suggested creating a government list of which residents of the country are Muslim. That’s some scary shit. Untilyou realize the government already has that list. You know they do, right?

      Well that makes it ok then...?

      Trump famously suggested we use torture to fight terrorism. Torture is not legal. And he suggested going after the families of terrorists. That’s a war crime too. Did he mean any of that?

      Again, Adam's suggests that it's ok because "he doesn't really mean it".

      Trump is less likely to play that game because he doesn’t need their money. That makes Trump the lower risk of starting a war. He has no profit motive.

      a) Adams must have missed how he's now taking their money
      b) Trump the "puncher" who self-describes himself as having to respond to any and all attacks, will calmly take it on the chin from other countries?
      c) Adams think that the only motive here is profit, in describing a man who's main motivation is self-promotion and power?

      --
      His entire screed is essentially "he doesn't really mean it, and that makes it ok, even though it's what makes people like him, and will get him elected".
      And what happens when those people who elected trump for saying those things, expect him to actually do it?

      I also like the part where he implies that we can't trust Hillary because she's old and takes meds that might change her mood (as well as, sexistly, including wine), which calls into question her decision making skills. While completely ignoring that Trump is older, and just as likely to take regular meds and consume alcohol, but somehow magically wont be affected by it.

      Like I said: I no longer think the words insightful and intelligent apply to Scott Adams.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    86. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by amicusNYCL · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually, he said the intelligent thing to say when you don't know about something.

      Are you shitting me? Are you seriously trying to suggest that there are Americans alive now who were born in the 1940s and who have never heard about the fucking Ku Klux Klan?

      It could be that in this instance Trump didn't know who David Duke was

      Well, yeah, I guess that could be the case, but Trump did know who David Duke was in 1991, and also in 2000 when Trump specifically cited Duke as the reason why he didn't want to accept the Reform Party nomination. Even called him a "Klansman", now what the hell do you think "Klansman" means?

      What do you think is more likely, that Trump does not know what the KKK is or who David Duke is, or that he's a lying sack of shit?

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    87. Re: I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by amicusNYCL · · Score: 2

      His comment about the judge, in context, pertains to the judges membership in an extremist group

      Only if you count "people with Mexican heritage" as an "extremist group", because the only reason Trump initially gave that the judge was not qualified was because the judge's parents are Mexican and Trump wants to build a wall. That's the only reason he initially gave. Go find his speech and wind through the word spaghetti yourself, in between talking about how much Mexicans love him, Trump only cites the fact that Curiel's parents are Mexican as the reason. In the days after he said that then he started saying other stuff as well, which happens every time he has a point. He'll say one thing one day, and the next day it's completely different.

      Trumps commentary is about two things - justice and the appearance of the court being impartial.

      No, Trump is helpfully pointing out what people already know: that if someone is Mexican, or Hispanic, or Latino, then they probably don't like Trump. Every poll already said that, but now Trump is saying that also. Just the fact that this guy has Mexican parents means that Trump thinks he won't be impartial, that he can't do his job. Think about what that says about Trump and his message.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    88. Re: I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Why? It's a perfectly salient point

      If it truly is, then you can make the same point using another example from history. Show that you have knowledge, not that everything is a Nazi to you.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    89. Re: I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      How does running for president change your status as racist ?

      Not status, importance. If the idiot down the street from me doesn't like black people then I'll ignore him and he can go fuck himself. If the leader of my country doesn't like black people then that's a serious problem with the image we're showing to the world.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    90. Re: I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Then it's too bad that Trump only initially said that the judge can't do his job because he's Mexican and Trump wants to build a wall. He could have pointed out all of those many things, but instead he chose to go with a racist message.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    91. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      you dont get to the level he was (pretty much a couple steps behind top dog) in only a year

      How long did it take you? You know so much, so I'm curious how long it takes one to advance in an organization as prestigious as the KKK.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    92. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by dywolf · · Score: 4, Interesting

      in creating a just and equitable society there is no requirement to tolerate the views of racists (ie intolerance) as the views of those people are explicitly inimical to said just and equitable society.

      "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them...We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant." - Karl Popper

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    93. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Honesty is not exactly Trump's forte. He literally says something, on tape, and then claims he never said that.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    94. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      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?

      The O'Donnell book quotes Trump as saying that he believes laziness is a trait in black people. Trump says that O'Donnell's book is "probably true". Trump isn't quite sure whether or not he used racist language, but he's pretty sure he did.

      But, and I really mean this: when you have to define racism to say "but, remember, it doesn't mean all of these enormous groups that he is biased against", it's not really helping the argument.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    95. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by wired_parrot · · Score: 3, Informative

      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?

      Trump said that a judge should be disqualified from a case solely based on his ethnicity. As Paul Ryan, GOP house leader, said on Trump's statements: "Saying that someone can't do their job because of their race is the textbook definition of racism."

      This isn't Democrats and liberals calling him a racist - top Republican leaders are now saying so as well.

    96. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      The US Military doesn't just rush off to war because the president gives an order.

      Yeah, wow, that's exactly what we need, too. The president issuing orders that the military refuses to follow. That would make our country look super.

      The US has balance of powers. No one person can take over the US like Putin has in Russia.

      I think Trump would take your statement as a challenge, actually. You think Trump cares about the balance of power and US traditions? I bet the only times that Trump has become familiar with parts of the constitution is when the federal government sued him and his lawyer had to explain.

      That's true, so what does he stand for? If he doesn't know, you don't either.

      You're not helping.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    97. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      I would sooner vote for Trump than Hillary, you idiot. What I'm not going to do is vote for a pathologically lying sociopath just because I can. I can instead vote for someone who more closely represents what I believe, so why the hell would I vote for either Trump or Clinton?

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    98. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      What is it with you people assuming that if I oppose Trump, then I am necessarily in favor (and/or "idolize") either Obama or Clinton?

      News flash: a Republican is not up for nomination in this election. I could very well be a Republican angered that I have no one to vote for.

      I can't stand Trump, the thought of him as president makes me depressed. And I would sooner vote for Trump than I would for Clinton. But I refuse to cast some stupid protest vote where I'm not voting for someone who I actually want to win.

      Nowadays even little girls in America, oh yes, American little girls using little girl toilets inside the United States of America have to watch out for grown man wearing bras because Obama says grown man wearing bras have the rights to use little girls toilets

      Oh, your post was sarcasm.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    99. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Well I'm not a democrat so, no, I don't think every non-democrat is a racist.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    100. Re: I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by Swave+An+deBwoner · · Score: 1
      I'm no expert on the history of demagogues but Trump's targeting of a specific religious group (Muslims) is reminiscent of that famous "Leader" of the twentieth century.

      Trump's lashing out at a man who is charged with legally prosecuting him for fraud, stating that as a "Mexican" (Gonzalo Curiel, US-born of Mexican parents and once targeted by a Mexican drug cartel for his actions against them) is therefore unable to fairly judge the case against Trump is reminiscent of the racial identity theories of that once famous "Leader".

      And Trump's incitement of his cheering crowd to violence is reminiscent of, well, you tell me:

      http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/23/politics/donald-trump-nevada-rally-punch/

      "In the old days," Trump added, protesters would be "carried out on stretchers."

      When a Black Lives Matter protester was punched and kicked by attendees at a Trump rally last fall, Trump remarked the next day that "maybe he should have been roughed up."

      "I hear the (Ricketts) family, who own the Chicago Cubs, are secretly spending $'s against me. They better be careful. They have a lot to hide," Trump tweeted.

    101. Re: I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by Bartles · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that's exactly what he pointed out. In my experience, people who see racism everywhere they look are actually the racists.

    102. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by friedman101 · · Score: 1

      their tantrums are pushing me more and more to vote trump

      You could make a similar argument throughout history to justify voting into office any of the great tyrants. I see this sentiment over and over again on slashdot and it perplexes me. Yes, people dislike this unapologetically racist, sexist, liar and yes, some of them are very vocal about it. That is not a reason to vote for him

      Is Hillary perfect? No, not even close. But if you vote for her you can rest assured that in four years we'll have another election in which you can vote for someone you find less repulsive. A vote for Trump is a vote for chaos and a move of the political needle in the direction of fascism.

    103. Re: I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I'm no expert on the history of demagogues

      You're better off saying that you don't really know enough to comment based on history, because you don't. (There are parallels between Hitler and every president, including Roosevelt. But none of them ended up being Hitler).

      Instead, say, "These are things that Trump does that I don't like, and he shouldn't be president because of them." That will give you a more powerful argument, and more accurate point, and won't cause people to roll their eyes.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    104. Re: I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      I see there that the Hmong (whoever that is...never heard of them) need way more help than the Black people. Now, there are many problems in this country, but there are exactly 0 people alive today who were enslaved by the people of the US. Those people who are coming out of modern day slavery excepted, and they need all the help we can offer as a society.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    105. Re: I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      So Trump suggests that a federal judge can't do his job because of where his parents were born, and I'm the racist one because I think that's bullshit.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    106. Re: I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by Bartles · · Score: 1

      No you're racist because the judge belongs to a group called La Raza. I'm positive that if the judge was white and belonged to a group called "The Race" all of you idiots would be screaming racism and that he's not capable of impartiality.

    107. Re: I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Oh, OK. Well, I admit, as a pasty white American a group called "La Raza" definitely sounds pretty scary. I only speak un poquito Espanol, but I feel like I should be scared of that name. It even has a "Z", right there in the middle of it. That sounds like gang stuff to me.

      Although it looks like the actual association he belongs to is called San Diego La Raza Lawyer's Association. Although, and I'm being totally serious here, the addition of those 2 additional Spanish words does not help my feelings of insecurity. The group describes itself as "San Diego's Latino/Latina Bar Association." See that? I knew it. They meet in bars. Gang stuff.

      But wait a second, hold on here. I've been arguing with a lot of Trump supporters in this thread, and they are very correct to point out that Mexican is not a race, and neither is Spanish for that matter. I'm actually the same race as Mexicans, we're both white. So we're the same race, so maybe I shouldn't have just shat my pants over their name. But maybe that's just a mistranslation, I mean the National Council of La Raza points out that Hispanic is not a race, it's an ethnicity, and so a better translation of the meaning would be "people" or "community", as far as their advocacy for Hispanics is concerned.

      You know what though? I'm just not convinced. Granted, yes, I did immediately shit my pants when I saw that name. But now that I've thought about it, I think I want to get the opinion of some group like the Southern Poverty Law Center, the ACLU, etc on whether or not the actions of La Raza are actually racist, or if people just have a problem with the name. Can you help me out with that research?

      No you're racist because the judge belongs to a group called La Raza.

      I'm not sure that you're clear on how racism works... I don't think I'm racist for assuming that a federal judge who belongs to a Hispanic lawyers association is unable to do his job. I'm not sure the "racism" standard of proof has been met there, buddy.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    108. Re: I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by Swave+An+deBwoner · · Score: 1

      Instead, say, "These are things that Trump does that I don't like, and he shouldn't be president because of them." That will give you a more powerful argument, and more accurate point, and won't cause people to roll their eyes.

      Roll your eyes if you must but Trump's words strike me as very much like those that resulted in the destruction of six million Jews. Singling out a religious group for governmental monitoring; blocking members of that group from entering the US; concluding that a federal judge cannot properly perform his function because he was born to Mexican parents and that a Muslim judge probably couldn't either ... the white supremacists have recognized this and they support him. I don't want to find out if he's just kidding.

      As the

    109. Re: I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by Swave+An+deBwoner · · Score: 1

      [the dangling "As the" was meant to read]

      As the old saying goes, "if it walks like a duck ..."

    110. Re: I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Roll your eyes if you must

      Yes I do haha. You don't like Trump, so you compare him to Hitler. You compare him to Hitler, because that's all you know. You have no perspective, because you don't know history. In the end, you make dumb comparisons and silly conclusions. Learn history. Get some books (or podcasts), they're better than TV.

      Why is Trump so different than Bush or all the other presidents who were compared to Hitler? You can't answer. I don't like Trump, and will not vote for him, but he's not Hitler.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    111. Re: I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by Bartles · · Score: 1

      You don't get it. The name of the organization is "The Race". And it advocates for attorneys and law to benefit one particular ethnicity. That's not acceptable anymore. If something like that is unacceptable for one ethnicity it is unacceptable for all. If you think otherwise, then you are by definition a racist.

    112. Re: I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by Swave+An+deBwoner · · Score: 1

      Why is Trump so different than Bush or all the other presidents who were compared to Hitler?

      GEORGE W BUSH
      http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/30/opinion/campaign-stops/why-i-miss-george-w-bush.html

      Less than a week after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that killed 2,996 people, President Bush held a news conference at the Islamic Center of Washington. “The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam,” he said, flanked by imams and community leaders. “Islam is peace.”

      It was a message repeated often in the months and years afterward. “Our war is against evil,” the president said, “not against Islam.”

      DONALD J TRUMP
      http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/11/20/donald-trump-says-hed-absolutely-require-muslims-to-register/

      Mr. Trump was asked about the issue by an NBC News reporter and pressed on whether all Muslims in the country would be forced to register. “They have to be,” he said. “They have to be.’’
      ...
      Asked later, as he signed autographs, how such a database would be different from Jews having to register in Nazi Germany, Mr. Trump repeatedly said, “You tell me,” until he stopped responding to the question.

    113. Re: I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by Bartles · · Score: 1

      I agree with you about the Army being good about race relations. But the army is very colorblind. Progressivism most certainly is not. I think liberal not Liberal is a better description.

    114. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Well let's see. Ford Fusion is a car, CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood are buddies. And La Raza is still La Raza even with the name change when they tried to re-write history. You enjoying your ignorance yet?

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    115. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      in creating a just and equitable society there is no requirement to tolerate the views of racists (ie intolerance) as the views of those people are explicitly inimical to said just and equitable society.

      True. Of course the lack of tolerance these days is coming from the left. You miss the straight white males banned from equality conference? The organizations leading the charge with that are all hard left.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    116. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by coinreturn · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure where you got your "facts," but Trump said that the judge's Mexican heritage made it a conflict of interest for the judge to sit on the TrumpU case. The "La Raza" that the judge belongs to is not an "openly racist group," it is a Hispanic National Bar Association created to use the US legal system to assist Hispanic Americans in achieving their rights.

    117. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      In a tolerant society, you are required to tolerate the views of anyone, even racists, but you do not have to tolerate their actions.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    118. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      He seems far more xenophobic than racist. He thinks legal immigration is fine, and doesn't like Muslims all that much (which is really bigoted and bad, but not racist). People are getting pushed to Trump because the left keeps lying about him. Most of the violence at his rallies is started by people protesting him, but the media often just reports "violence at Trump rallies". Some of the farther left sites are actually encouraging people to riot if he shows up. I think he'll be a disaster for America, but Left have themselves to blame for a lot of his popularity.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    119. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      Trump can't be all that stupid. He keeps winning primaries, and nobody is fighting him properly. I'm also not sure Hillary is any less racist than Trump, and probably no less egomaniacal (although better at hiding it).

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    120. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      FYI, David Duke didn't officially endorse Trump, he just said he supports Trump for now.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    121. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      PS. playing the "Muslim" is not a race game is a very week argument. It is at best implying that plain old bigotry is any better than racism.

      Arguably, it is better than racism. Still bad, and should be unacceptable in a Presidential candidate, but being prejudiced against someone for something they choose to be (Muslim, Christian, Republican, Democrat, etc.) is somewhat better than being prejudiced against someone for something they can't change (race, gender, sexuality, etc.).

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    122. Re: I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      How is that relevant? Whether a statement is racist or not does not depend on whether you're running for office.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    123. Re: I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      That oppression wasn't uniquely felt by blacks, nor was it uniquely perpetrated by whites. The proportion of whites who actually owned slaves was very small, and many poor whites did not benefit from slavery (although they certainly weren't hurt by it as much as the slaves were). Blacks owned slaves in America too, as did Native Americans. Certain groups now lumped in with "white", like the Irish and, to a lesser extent, the Italians, also had long periods of oppression and discrimination. Things still aren't equal, but it's more complex than "white supremacy".

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    124. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      I swear, KKK titles sound like someone opened a D&D Monster Manual to random pages and added some adjectives.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    125. Re: I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      When you're referencing all Mexicans and call them murderers and rapists and some, you assume, are good people... You're a racist.

      Not what he said. He was referring to the illegal immigrants. What Trump says is bad enough on its own, why lie?

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    126. Re: I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      The claim in the GP was "all Mexicans", not Mexican immigrants.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    127. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      The majority of illegal immigrants aren't from Mexico. Many illegal immigrants enter the US through the US-Mexico border, but most are actually from South or Central America.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    128. Re: I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      So you're saying that organizations like the NAACP are racist? What about the Disabled American Veterans Charity, should we outlaw that also because they only support a minority group? Are you suggesting that every charity, support group, advocacy group, etc should only support everyone equally and not target specific segments of the population?

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    129. Re: I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by Bartles · · Score: 1

      Organizations like the NAACP are without a doubt racist. Veterans organizations not so much. And the rest of your comment is ridiculous.

    130. Re: I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Yes, the issue is complex, and yelling "white privilege" does not capture those nuances. However, it's purpose is only to get people to acknowledge there is something there, nuances and all.

    131. Re: I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Right, when it's taken to the logical extreme it does seem pretty ridiculous. But you don't seem to think it's ridiculous otherwise. So you think that charities and support groups and advocacy groups are fine if they target a specific underserved or underrepresented segment of the population, as long as that segment is not defined by "race" (however you'd like to define that). And, again, you think I'm the racist one.

      What about other traits that people are born with and can't change, such as where they or their parents came from? How about gender, is it immoral to have a group which advocates only for women? Is it only bad when people advocate on behalf of a certain racial or ethnic group?

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    132. Re: I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      I don't think I've ever seen it used for that. It's almost always been used to shut people up, or try to guilt people. Most people crying it that I've had the misfortune of dealing with have no desire to talk about nuances.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    133. Re: I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      To shut people up who are denying racism exists anymore, sure.

    134. Re: I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      Or just when they're white and challenge any part of the current narrative, like objecting to the arbitrary redefinition of "racism" or racially segregated "safe spaces".

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    135. Re: I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by alexandru_preoteasa · · Score: 1

      The holiest of the holy, of course... a female-to-male, one-legged, PTSD- / AIDS- / myopia-affected black dwarf who identifies as a half-water dragon half-buzzsaw calliope.

      Anyone else is just simply not checking their privilege.

    136. Re: I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Whatever helps you sleep at night...

    137. Re: I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      I'm just relating what I've seen. I don't know how common these experiences are, but I think if you look around you could find some other people with similar stories.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
  2. $1.3M by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    feeds a lot of buzzes

    1. Re:$1.3M by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      Or it could feed a lot of hungry children, which would make Buzz happy.

  3. Safe space by geek · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    I guess BuzzFeed needs a safe space. Too much triggering going on. The micro-aggressions were just too much.

    1. Re:Safe space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This took, like, literally no thought for you, did it. I bet you even have a macro.

      "I guess {{liberal}} needs a safe space. Too much triggering going on. The micro-aggressions were just too much."

      Still, fair point. If like your tedious comrades-in-arms you're going to type it everywhere ad nauseum, I'd save the time too.

    2. Re:Safe space by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1, Insightful

      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.
    3. Re:Safe space by amicusNYCL · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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
    4. Re:Safe space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A classic Rush Limbaugh probably-mocking: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpFC9uziVhE

      (Of course, he has a perfectly normal explanation for why what appears to be him mocking a Parkinson's disease sufferer is, of course, totally not what he was doing, and it's us who take things out of context and fail to grasp his unfortunately not-100%-clear-but-still-pretty-above-board commentary on the issue.)

  4. Free Advertising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Free Advertising by Fwipp · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yeah! The loony left is trying to SILENCE us racists, xenophobes, bigots, and elitists, by using their gosh-darn high-falutin fanny-tootin WORDS! It's high-time these liberal tree huggers learnt them all that we have FREE SPEECH!

    2. Re:Free Advertising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A private company choosing not to run ads for a dull demagogue is not "against free speech" - it's that company practising its free speech right to say what it wants to say, and no more.

      You get authoritarian sorts at all points of the political spectrum, from those who have a problem with criticism of a particular race to those who have a problem with "anti-American" speech. The authoritarian will cry to government for protection from whatever it is he doesn't like, even if it's none of his business.

    3. Re:Free Advertising by epyT-R · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A few bigots/'elitists'/xenophobes running around spouting half truths is far less harmful to society than having the state decide what speech is allowed. Of course, your description is just a tad off. Labeling criticism as bigotry and then demanding censure to silence it is not much of an argument to trample free speech.

    4. Re:Free Advertising by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The Loony Left (as you call it) is actually trying to suppress free speech, or haven't you seen pictures of the Left wing rioting and attacking of Trump supporters for being nothing but Trump Supporters. If the roles were reversed, it would be called "Hate" and Misogyny (for the physical attacks on women). But alas, it is against Trump supporters so ... we're good!

      FYI, I am not voting for Trump, was never going to vote for GOP either.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    5. Re:Free Advertising by thrillseeker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bake that damn cake!

    6. Re:Free Advertising by Fwipp · · Score: 1

      I must have missed the news - when did we elect Buzzfeed as our new government?

    7. Re:Free Advertising by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      The Loony Left (as you call it) is actually trying to suppress free speech, or haven't you seen pictures of the Left wing rioting and attacking of Trump supporters for being nothing but Trump Supporters.

      These are no more representatives of "the Left" any more than the random racists were a representative sample of the "Tea Party" activists or a KKK rally with confederate flags is representative of "the Right."

      Or, frankly, the few psychopaths who blow things up are also not representative of "Muslims" (or "Christians" -- see other terrorist acts -- or whomever).

      A small minority of idiots and wackos are not evidence that any large mainstream group is "trying to suppress free speech" or that "all Republicans are racist" or that "all Muslims are terrorists."

      And there are people on all places of the political spectrum who abhor the violent outbursts at Trump rallies or Bernie rallies or whatever. On the other hand, I do have to say that the entire Trump persona seems to encourage this sort of discourse -- he acts like a bully, so it's not surprising to me that some people who dislike him act out in return. I'm not excusing the violence, only noting why it may seem to be somewhat greater around a guy who taunts others.

    8. Re:Free Advertising by ncc74656 · · Score: 4, Informative

      There is radical elements with extremist views and violent agendas on both sides. The difference is that Trump and his movement embrace these elements while the Liberals disavow them

      That is straight-up bullshit, and you know it. Everybody from Hillary Clinton on down to (for instance) San Jose's mayor and police chief are engaged in "blame the victim" over what happened in that city recently.

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    9. Re:Free Advertising by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      We didn't.

    10. Re:Free Advertising by Z80a · · Score: 1

      "Silencing" people only lead em to go discuss somewhere else and now with even less opposition, which leads em to becoming even more racists, xenophobes etc..
      And no, you can't "kill all places".

    11. Re:Free Advertising by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      No, actually, I'm not.

    12. Re:Free Advertising by T.E.D. · · Score: 2

      Everybody from Hillary Clinton on down to (for instance) San Jose's mayor and police chief are engaged in "blame the victim" over what happened in that city recently.

      What happened in that city recently? I checked the news, and the best I could find was that their hockey team made it to the playoffs.

      If you are talking about violence at Trump rallies...well...every politician has been getting protesters at their rallies this cycle. That includes Sanders and Clinton. Heck, even O'Malley got protested, and most of you probably didn't even know he was running. There's only one candidate where things tend to get violent, and its no coincidence its the one candidate who's made it clear he thinks violent behavior against those you disagree with politically is a Good Thing.

      Dude has been sewing the wind like crazy. If you're shocked at the whirlwind, that's on you.

    13. Re:Free Advertising by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Moral Equivocation is how hypocrites justify people acting badly on their side of things.

      The difference between the Tea Party and hell even the despicable WBC haven't physically attacked people. These people rioting on behalf of the left, are thugs. And as long as people use moral equivocation (like you just did), we can ascribe that to the entire class of left wing protestors. I mean, if you want to judge the Tea Party as a whole, based on some imaginary violence, then please be willing to accept the same with Left Wing Rioters (only more so).

      M-Kay?

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    14. Re:Free Advertising by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Bundy Ranch wasn't violent. Threats only. Malheur refuge, it was the FBI that fired first (shouldn't you be supporting fighting the man? And OK city was one guy, not a violent group. Or ...

      Oh yeah, you think Group Riots are nicer because you support their cause. Got it. BLM, Union Thugs, anti Trump .... The fact that there is WAY more left leaning means nothing to you. Got it.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    15. Re:Free Advertising by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      I attended both the Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump rallies in Albuquerque

      There doesn't seem to have been an incident there, but last week in both Oakland and Modesto some protesters rushed the stage while Sanders was speaking. Back when he actually had a reasonable chance to win there was a lot more of that. He had at least two incidents where he actually left a rally early rather than deal with the protesters.

      There was admittedly a wee bit of physical force used in both of these recent incidents, but it was the Secret Service doing it. The protesters themselves didn't feel like violence was called for, and for the most part neither did the supporters. Funny how the candidate sets the tone, isn't it?

  5. Re:Fuck off by Tailhook · · Score: 2

    unadulterated garbage

    Not any more. Now BuzzFeed is praiseworthy and noble, espousing Our Values(tm) by refusing to do business with Trump.

    Same thing happened with Facebook last month; a whistle-blower kicked over the rock and "blacklists" and BLM story "injection" appeared, and suddenly Facebook went from bloodsucking privacy invaders to a sovereign corporation that should be protected from investigation.

    --
    Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
  6. I'm not sure they can do that... by Nikkos · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I may be completely wrong, but I thought FEC rules were If they take ads for one candidate/party they have to allow the other candidate/party to advertise as well.

    1. Re:I'm not sure they can do that... by OakDragon · · Score: 1

      The new rule is, they CAN reject his advertising, but they have to bake him a cake that says "Make America Great Again."

      In all seriousness, I wonder about this too. I am not up on these rules.

    2. Re:I'm not sure they can do that... by taustin · · Score: 1

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't discrimination based on political affiliation a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

      Or are they giving up ad money from all political parties?

    3. Re:I'm not sure they can do that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That's a common misconception. There USED TO BE an 'equal time' rule that applied to broadcast media. It was called the Fairness Doctrine, and it only governed TV and radio broadcasts. (so it never would have regulated something online) In essence, the rule said that if you let one guy talk on your program, you had to give the other guy the same amount of time to talk. Until recently, I thought it still existed, and there's certainly a public perception that this rule exists, but it actually ended in 1987 because of strong opposition by appointees of the Reagan administration. Here's a link with more info and a whole bunch of sources talking about the history of the rule and how it ended: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Equal-time+rule

    4. Re: I'm not sure they can do that... by martas · · Score: 1

      You are definitely not the same person replying to yourself over and over again.

    5. Re:I'm not sure they can do that... by Jzanu · · Score: 1

      Parent needs to be +5 Informative! Grandparent post is out of date by decades, and ignores the difference between analog broadcast on limited spectrum and the modern web with hypertext media.

    6. Re:I'm not sure they can do that... by rmdingler · · Score: 1
      It's an equal time rule:

      For instance, Saturday Night Live was theoretically obligated to offer opposing candidates a platform since the Donald hosted a show.

      Paid advertisements are another matter, not governed by the original rule.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    7. Re:I'm not sure they can do that... by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

      I'm not seeing this here: http://www.fec.gov/pages/broch...
      However, Buzzfeed is SAYING that the employees don't want the business but I doubt that every single one of them feels that way and they haven't documented that they do. I'd bet that there are employees who don't feel that way but feel that they can't speak their mind without fear of retribution. One could also argue that by not accepting ads for one party, they can't accept ad revenue for another. To do so would imply that they are endorsing one candidate over another.

    8. Re: I'm not sure they can do that... by taustin · · Score: 1

      You want to suck my what? Dude, I only mate within my own species. Try the petting zoo.

    9. Re:I'm not sure they can do that... by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      They're not discriminating against him because he's Republican. They're discriminating against him because he's an asshole, as well as they don't agree with his rhetoric.

  7. Didn't want them anyway... by mccrew · · Score: 4, Funny

    RNC didn't want to advertise there anyway. They're low energy. Losers.

    --
    Hey, Windows users, there is no such thing as "forward" slash, there is only slash and backslash.
    1. Re:Didn't want them anyway... by Jawnn · · Score: 1

      RNC didn't want to advertise there anyway. They're low energy. Losers.

      ...and probably Mexican. They're Mexican, aren't they? Or Muslim?

      In all seriousness, I am enjoying the shit out of watching the clown car that was the republican field, now that Trump is behind the wheel with his foot mashing that gas pedal. The wreck is going to be of historic proportions.

    2. Re:Didn't want them anyway... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Didn't want them anyway... by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2

      ...and probably Mexican. They're Mexican, aren't they?

      Well, if you burn USA flags . . . while waving Mexican flags at an anti-Trump protest . . . I don't think you are doing anything to help Hillary or Bernie.

      Totally the opposite . . . this just pours oil on the fire and fans the flames of Trump xenophobia.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    4. Re:Didn't want them anyway... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      RNC didn't want to advertise there anyway. They're low energy. Losers.

      Yah, build a firewall around BuzzFeed and make them and their tech-hugging judge pay for it!

    5. Re:Didn't want them anyway... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They probably, you know and that's fine, but they were probably from Mexico. Of Mexican descent. Which is great. But it just makes them unfit to run a business, at least one you'd want to advertise on.

    6. Re:Didn't want them anyway... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      As much as I dislike Trump, I'd be kind of happy if BuzzFeed disappeared too.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    7. Re:Didn't want them anyway... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The scary part is that whoever wins will get to choose at least one, and more likely 2-3 Supreme Court Justices. Chance has given them the opportunity to wield an unusual amount of power to shape the most important court in the land for decades to come.

      That's probably why the GOP is getting behind Trump now. They figure that as awful as he may be, the opportunity to shape the Supreme Court is too good to miss.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    8. Re:Didn't want them anyway... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Trump is good at being a popular politician. The problem is that what is popular is often not what is the best decision - all politicians need to understand that they have a duty to represent the will of the people, but also that the people are sometimes a bunch of idiots.

      For example, Trump's policies on a few things:
      On immigration: Deport all illegals, one of the largest forced population relocatios in history.
      On ISIS: Stop holding back by worrying about killing civilians and children. Just bomb until everyone is dead.
      On religion: He has called for a database to track every Muslim in the US as a potential terrorist, and a ban on all Muslims entering the country.
      On the environment: He has dismissed climate change as a 'hoax.'

      Yes, he can be popular - but Hitler was popular too, and for much the same reasons.

    9. Re:Didn't want them anyway... by Jawnn · · Score: 1

      ...and probably Mexican. They're Mexican, aren't they?

      Well, if you burn USA flags . . . while waving Mexican flags at an anti-Trump protest . . . I don't think you are doing anything to help Hillary or Bernie.

      Totally the opposite . . . this just pours oil on the fire and fans the flames of Trump xenophobia.

      Agreed. I totally do not understand the thinking of someone who comes to the U.S. and then waves the flag of the shit nation they just left. I do, however, understand the anger at Trump on the part of hard-working Mexican-Americans. The key point here is that it was Trump who laid the fire and struck the first match. Who poured how much gasoline on it is beside the point. He is basking in the glow as the fire grows higher. How the fuck is that good for this country?

  8. Re:Fuck off by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

    What is there to investigate? They have no legal obligation to be unbiased, or even truthful.

  9. what? by viperidaenz · · Score: 1, Insightful

    currently under investigation by the FBI

    What happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?

    1. Re:what? by epyT-R · · Score: 1, Troll

      That's dead. Haven't you heard? The new way is "listen and believe."

    2. Re:what? by ageoffri · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nothing has happened to innocent until proven guilty. It is a factual statement that Hillary is under investigation by the FBI. Now if the RNC had said something like "under investigation by the FBI and will be found to have broken multiple laws" that would be another story. Just because you are innocent until proven guilty doesn't mean it isn't known that you are being investigated.

      --
      -- Slashdot, making the Left look conservative since 1997.
    3. Re:what? by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      [FBI investigation] What happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?

      In politics it's "You wear it until you figure out how to out-spin the spinner".

      I bet there are a lot of "investigatable" issues in the federal government; it's just that they haven't come to light (yet). The email thing spawned out of the Benghazi investigation, which the GOP made sure was examined under a microscope. We'd perhaps never know about it if not discovered from that. After all, Colin Powell also allegedly "did it wrong", but if not for Hillary's activities (or lack of), nobody would know or care.

      Although veto power kept the GOP Congress from passing much legislation, their numbers gave them vast investigative resources.

      I wish waterboarding had that much investigation. The chain of orders is still fuzzy on that. Same with the bleeped-up F35 jet. I bet neither party wants a full F35 investigation because both sides got the local pork. See, they can "compromise".

    4. Re:what? by epine · · Score: 1

      It is a factual statement that Hillary is under investigation by the FBI.

      Equally,

      It is a fat ass statement that Hillary is under investigation by the FBI.

      By the miracle of modern politics, sometimes factual == fat ass.

      I just picked up a copy of It's Even Worse Than It Looks this morning. You, sir, are the Elephant Man in the mirror, minus the redeeming character of your pachydermous patriarch.

    5. Re:what? by Pikoro · · Score: 1

      "All suspects are guilty. Otherwise, they wouldn't be suspect would they?" - Troops

      --
      "Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
    6. Re:what? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      It's not even that so much as it is a matter of policy. They used an appeal to authority citing the FBI, along with a well-poisoning attack.

      Basically, BuzzFeed doesn't like Trump because Trump's policies are destructive to America; the RNC response is, "Well, Hillary did bad things." Okay? If you had a choice between a candidate who is 100% celibate and seeks to legalize sex with children OR a candidate who has been convicted of raping children 9 times and seeks to strengthen child pornography laws and child protection laws, who would you vote for, assuming it was reasonable to believe both candidates's stances on the face?

      This works because most people wouldn't vote for the pederast. People generally don't like to feel they've got their hands dirty, and will avoid taking action X because of its association, and reason they are then not responsible for the consequences. People won't vote for Hillary because she's a Democrat or Bernie because he's a Socialist, even if they agree with these peoples's views; they'll vote for Trump because he's the All American Man, even as they tell you he's smarter than he looks and won't do all that stupid shit (yes, I've had Trump supporters explain Trump won't really put all these policies in place because he'll check with his advisers first and do something sane).

      People are basically stupid despite all having the same intellectual facilities as Stephen Hawking.

    7. Re:what? by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      My point was "Well, Hillary did bad things" isn't appropriate, as the investigation is still ongoing. It should, if mentioned at all, been "Well, Hillary may have done bad things."

  10. Re:Fuck off by david_bonn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  11. Great! by floatpt · · Score: 1

    My ad blocker won't have to block any Trump ads. They should also drop all the DNC ads, and all the other ads.

    --
    d-_-b
  12. Re:Fuck off by Tailhook · · Score: 1

    The first amendment begins "Congress shall make no law..." Private businesses are free...

    Yeah. The same phenomena continues; corporate personhood advocates everywhere when the corporates are leftists.

    --
    Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
  13. I Don't Believe Trump's Eligible to be President by Greyfox · · Score: 2, Funny

    I want to see Trump's long form Birth Certificate, because it's pretty clear he's an Oompa Loompa. It seems much more likely that he was born in Loompaland, not the USA.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  14. Re:I Don't Believe Trump's Eligible to be Presiden by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

    Here you go... Now I wonder if Hillary! will actually release the e-mails she claims are not work related - at least let someone from the FBI screen them to determine she has released everything...

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  15. Re:Obamaism by tsqr · · Score: 5, Informative

    Remember how bad McCarthism was, but McCarthy only targeted State Department employees.

    McCarthy's House Un-American Activities Committee persecuted many people not employed in any capacity by the Federal government. Do the words, "Hollywood blacklist" ring a bell?

  16. But, if Trump were gay... by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

    He could force any bakery to bake him a cake, right? The cognitive dissonance of the far left is amazing.

  17. Re:Fuck off by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
  18. Re:Obamaism by ncc74656 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Senator McCarthy would've had no control over the House Un-American Activities Committee. Try again.

    --
    20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
  19. What's BuzzFeed? by slasher999 · · Score: 1

    Is it one of those slideshow ad sites masquerading as news? Twice in the past week some obscure site gets attention by getting itself /.'ed.

  20. Re:I Don't Believe Trump's Eligible to be Presiden by msauve · · Score: 1

    His birth certificate says he was born in Jamaica!

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  21. Re:I Don't Believe Trump's Eligible to be Presiden by msauve · · Score: 1

    You're confused. Colin Powell isn't running for President and a significant part of current news. youarewrong.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  22. Because he'll fix 7 things by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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".

    1. Re:Because he'll fix 7 things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not to mention Trump is running on a platform of enforcing the rule of law while Hillary and Bernie strongly oppose it.

    2. Re:Because he'll fix 7 things by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      Those seven issues sound good. That's should take care of the first day.

      It's the other 10220 issues that he's going to deal with that gives me pause.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    3. Re:Because he'll fix 7 things by ax_42 · · Score: 1

      If these problems were so easy to fix, they would be fixed already. There is a ton of devil in the details.

    4. Re:Because he'll fix 7 things by ganjadude · · Score: 3, Insightful

      how about we go back to a federal government that doesnt focus on 1037502 different things, you know like the constitution intended? lets the states deal with it

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    5. Re:Because he'll fix 7 things by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Because he has 7 clear positions with a plan to fix each, while Hillary has 31 nebulous "issues" and a vague attitude on each.

      Oh, ok. Well, I guess that if I were the kind of person who decided that I was either going to vote for Trump or Clinton, then I guess either of them makes about as much sense as the other.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  23. Re:Fuck off by j-beda · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  24. It's also the only safe space by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    where any form of left wing press can exist without being crushed by the owners of the media. We have what can best be described as a center-left media on social issues, but looks at _any_ economic issue and you'll find them hard right. The only time I see anyone talking left on economics is the folks at the daily show and their various offshoots and the Simpsons/South Park. They're this countries court jesters. And just like a court jester they're allowed to make fun of the king because nobody takes them seriously or pays them any real mind.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  25. Re:I Don't Believe Trump's Eligible to be Presiden by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2

    I want to see Trump's long form Birth Certificate, because it's pretty clear he's an Oompa Loompa. It seems much more likely that he was born in Loompaland, not the USA.

    You can't be prez unless you're vetted out as a pure-blood lizardperson, and they don't have birth certificates. They get hatching certificates instead.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  26. Re:Obamaism by acrimonious+howard · · Score: 2

    McCarthy went after people suspected of Communism. It could have been anyone, but it was one group. Trump has insulted/threatened Hispanics, Women, Muslims, Iowans, the media, the disabled, Catholics, Seventh-day Adventists, Blacks, Asians, and POW's. That's the short list. He's actually incited physical violence, and this is all /before/ his election to the most powerful position in the world. It's apples and oranges, but if you're going to compare it to McCarthyism, the similarities are scary enough, but I personally think Trump rings the bell louder.

  27. nothing more needs be said. by meglon · · Score: 1
    --
    Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
  28. Well that's rich by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    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,

    You mean like the freedom not to have to make cakes for people when it's against your moral beliefs to work on their behalf? Ok then.

    It' nice to know Buzzed will fold when the pressure gets high, lets see what other advertising we can remove from them...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Well that's rich by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      Does Donald Trump have a history of being discriminated against and being persecuted due to personal attributes that don't affect other people in the slightest?

      Do you even WATCH the news? Or read anything?

      Ok then.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  29. Re:I Don't Believe Trump's Eligible to be Presiden by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    Politifact, hardly a right-wing site, claims your defense of Clinton as mostly false. But hey, Hillary! said her e-mail server was allowed and all A-OK per the State Department lawyers. Except it really wasn't at all, and she was lying through her teeth.

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  30. Re:Obamaism by HiThere · · Score: 1

    I think you need to go a decade further back, and across an ocean to find a reasonable parallel.

    Now what it's impossible to determine is how much he means what he says, but the economic conditions have similarities also.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  31. Re:Obamaism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  32. Re:Always The Donald to Me by Marginal+Coward · · Score: 1

    I just realized that I committed the sin of rhyming "be" with "be." Please accept the following modest correction:

    And he rolls us and trolls us with narcissist glee
    Blame it all on yourself if you voted him POTUS-to-be

  33. 50-60 years ago by aepervius · · Score: 5, Informative
    He was a FORMER member of KK and profusely apologized for it. Read your own link !

    It's also true that Robert Byrd was a member of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1940s and helped establish the hate group's chapter in Sophia, West Virginia. However, in 1952 Byrd avowed that "After about a year, I became disinterested [in the KKK], quit paying my dues, and dropped my membership in the organization," and throughout his long political career (he served for 57 years in the United States Congress) he repeatedly apologized for his involvement with the KKK

    Only people which are extreme right wing and disinterested into fact would use that photo and "kiss" against Clinton or Byrd. I am sorry but everybody makes error while young, and since he apologized along his long carrier of 50+year , I am seeing painting him as having KKK tie as either chicaneries or plain old lies. Either way it does not paint a good picture about people which uses this against Clinton. Disclaimer : I do not like Clinton I just don't like fact distortion.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:50-60 years ago by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      so trumps 4 foreclosures shouldnt matter anymore right? everyone makes mistakes???

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    2. Re:50-60 years ago by dywolf · · Score: 1

      depends.
      has he admitted any mistakes and apologized and been contrite yet?
      how about that "trump university" scam? has he admitted wrong doing and deceit and refunded money?

      or is he instead trying to intimidate the judge presiding his case, just as he attacks anyone who points out his past mistakes?

      if the latter, then yes it still matters.
      forgiveness is earned.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  34. Which "La Raza" group? read up a little... by Brannon · · Score: 1

    and then report back.

    1. Re:Which "La Raza" group? read up a little... by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      Which "La Raza" group? read up a little... and then report back.

      If you have a point to make it's up to YOU to provide a clear statement of it and supporting evidence.

      Arrogating to yourself the authority to assign homework to your debate opponents doesn't even rise to the level of a gratuitous assertion (which may simply be gratuitously denied).

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  35. Re: Fuck off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The cake business is a whole different case though. Be selective with who you sell cakes to and you might just land yourself in hot water.

  36. Ummm, are you fucking kidding me? by Brannon · · Score: 2

    1. He's been sued twice by the Justice Department for not renting to black people.
    2. He was fined $200K because his Casino would regularly remove black casino dealers at the request of players
    3. He is quoted as saying the following: “And it’s probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It’s not anything they can control.”
    4. He was the original birther.
    5. He defended his supporters attacking a protester: “Maybe [the protester] should have been roughed up,” he mused. “It was absolutely disgusting what he was doing.”
    6. He called his supporters that roughed up a homeless Latino man: “I will say that people who are following me are very passionate,” Trump said. “They love this country and they want this country to be great again. They are passionate.”
    7. Speaking to a Jewish audience: “I’m a negotiator, like you folks,” Trump told the crowd, touting his book The Art of the Deal.
    8. “You know, it doesn’t really matter what [the media] write as long as you’ve got a young and beautiful piece of ass.”
    9. When a lawyer facing Trump in 2011 asked for a break to pump breastmilk for her infant daughter, The Donald reacted very poorly. “He got up, his face got red, he shook his finger at me and he screamed, ‘You’re disgusting, you’re disgusting,’ and he ran out of there,”
    10. Referring to Carly Fiorina: “Look at that face. Would anybody vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?! I mean, she's a woman, and I'm not s'posedta say bad things, but really, folks, come on. Are we serious? ”
    11. “You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her — wherever. ”

  37. What are you talking about? by Brannon · · Score: 1

    The president is the commander in chief, he has absolute control of the military. Congress can remove him from office (by a 2/3rds majority in both houses)--but it would have already nuked Mexico by then.

    1. Re:What are you talking about? by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      No, he doesn't have absolute control. He's allowed to deploy troops but needs Congress to approve keeping them there. He also doesn't have unilateral control over the nukes; other people have to also agree to launch them.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
  38. So, are they discriminating against Republicans? by mveloso · · Score: 1

    That dumb bakery didn't want to serve gay people. Internet erupts.

    How is this any different?

  39. Re: Obamaism by nick_davison · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

  40. Re:Obamaism by Nickodeimus · · Score: 1

    You must be new, because I can guarantee that there were about 11 trillion negative posts about Bush from Anonymous Cowards back then.

  41. Re:Always The Donald to Me by Marginal+Coward · · Score: 1

    I see that this got modded down. I guess I finally found the one Trump supporter who reads Slashdot.

  42. Re:And nothing of any REAL value was lost... by Chas · · Score: 1

    Yep. Figured some snowflake would rate this a troll.

    That's for proving the rule.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  43. Re:Obamaism by alexandru_preoteasa · · Score: 1

    Just a PSA for all other astro-turfing SJW bitches:

    We white cis hetero men have already gotten over your use of the slavery thing, the Holocaust thing, the mysoginy thing, and a lot of other things.

    You've cried wolf far too many times, and we, the subjects of your... hmm... "namecalling?" "Raving idiocy?" But I digress... we are over it. Please use the little brain Nature was kind enough to give you and find some new terms to use in trying to shame us to your masters' will.

    Thanks, pumpkin.