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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
To be honest, the Liberal Left has made Mockery (see John Stewart) a viable political commentary tool.
Comedians have used mockery, satire, etc as a tool of political and social commentary forever. That's literally what their job is. It's not exactly a new phenomenon. And it's also not limited to any part of the political spectrum, look at people like Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh if you'd like to see conservatives using mockery in political commentary.
It's also not necessary to capitalize "liberal left" (which is also redundant), or mockery, and it's Jon Stewart, not John.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
In 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".
Table-ized A.I.
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?
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!
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?
Senator McCarthy would've had no control over the House Un-American Activities Committee. Try again.
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
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".
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.
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
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.
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.
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. 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. ”
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?