Slashdot Mirror
BuzzFeed Ends $1.3M Advertising Deal With RNC Over Donald Trump (cnn.com)
An anonymous reader writes: In response to Donald Trump's rhetoric, the "social news and entertainment company" BuzzFeed has decided to terminate an advertising deal with the Republican National Committee. The deal was for $1.3 million, a source close to BuzzFeed told POLITICO. The source said the reason was because of the website's employees. "[BuzzFeed could not countenance] having employees make ads, or working at the company and having our site promoting things, that limit our freedom and make it harder for them to live their lives," they said. The source said in response to whether or not BuzzFeed would rule out any Trump advertising: "In general, we have taken the position that we won't take ads for his presidential campaign." In a CNN article, RNC chief strategist Sean Spicer says, "Space was reserved on many platforms, but we never intended to use BuzzFeed." He added, "It is ironic that they have not ruled out taking money from a candidate currently under investigation by the FBI." The agreement between the RNC and BuzzFeed called for the GOP to "spend a significant amount on political advertisements slated to run during the fall election cycle," BuzzFeed CEO Jonah Peretti wrote in an internal memo.
Instead of taking the $1.3million they've just given Trump some great free advertising here.
It's also interesting how the left are consistently against free speech, both as defined in the constitution and as a general principle. They only believe you should be permitted to say things that agree with their ideology, and will try to silence any descenting voices by using terms such as racist, xenophobic, bigoted and elitist.
They left have become extremely fascist over the last few decades, yet they are unable to recognise this and continue to accuse people on the right of being fascist.
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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
Because the alternatives are green, libertarian or so fucking crooked she really believes she's above the law.
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
The tolerance is OVERWHELMING!
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
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.
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).
You don't get it. The Republican is always conveniently unabashedly racist. As long as that is the case, it is not necessary to argue substance or look at the faults of any of the other candidates. Also, if the guy you oppose is racist, it automatically makes you morally superior and just a good all around person. No need to use reason or actually objectively look at the candidates.
Black people say white juries, cops, and judges, can't be impartial all the time. I don't see any inconsistency here.
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?
Really? He showed you how to spell losing, and you still spelled it "loosing"?
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?
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.
But please remember. "illegal Mexican immigrant" is not a race or ethnic group.
Except the judge was a native born American citizen, and was not illegal, or Mexican, or an immigrant. When Trump attacked him, and called him a "Mexican", he was clearly referring to his ethnicity.
Why do you want to vote for him?
Because he has 7 clear positions with a plan to fix each, while Hillary has 31 nebulous "issues" and a vague attitude on each.
In an attempt to learn about a non-hot-potato issue, I checked out Trump's position on tax reform.
Basically, it says any individual earning under $25,000 pays no tax, couples under $50,000 pay no tax, and it gets rid of the marriage penalty and the estate tax. It's also revenue neutral(*).
That sounds pretty good to me: this would help out a lot of poor and underprivileged, and it would eliminate the huge chunk of bureaucratic effort low earners have to do each year. The amount of revenue from a poor person is negligible, so it makes sense not to expend the effort (on both sides) trying to collect it.
I couldn't find anything in Clinton's issues specifically about tax reform (let me know if I missed it), but her "economy" issue mentions a couple of tax 'gimmes such as this one:
Hillary will cut taxes for hard-working families to increase their take-home pay as they face rising costs from child care, health care, and sending their kids to college. She is calling for extending a tax cut of up to $2,500 per student to help deal with college costs as part of her New College Compact, and for cutting taxes for businesses that share profits with their employees.
Her position is nebulous ("Hillary will cut taxes for hard-working families") and makes you feel like she's on your side without anything concrete. She's adding yet another rule to an overly-complicated tax code, and it only helps families with college-bound students.
All her positions are like that: feel-good appeals to emotional problems, and a vague sense that she'll do something about it.
Donald Trump has 7 positions listed, each of which are high priority problems that should be fixed such as the current backlog of Veterans benefits. Clinton has a looooong list of issues, such as campus sexual assault. I'm not entirely certain that campus sexual assault rises to the same level as tax reform or Veteran's benefits, but I'm pretty certain it should not be dealt with at the federal level. It's there for emotional impact.
Trump notes 7 problems and has a plan to fix them.
Clinton lists all the problems she can find, and asks "won't someone think of the $whatever-gets-me-the-vote"?
(*) Whether you believe that it is actually revenue neutral makes no difference. You can always *make* it revenue neutral by adjusting the numbers as needed, and the government thinks nothing of going into debt by twice its revenue anyway, so they could make up the shortfall that way.
(**) I had to correct myself from typing "Clinton has issues".
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.
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.
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...
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
I'm going to agree with you but only in the hopes we can become friends and you connect me with whoever sold you what you were smoking.
Neither party is who they were in twenty years ago. If you look at the degree of polarization, even then, there were some who could work across the aisles.
Go back as far as St Ronald and you get someone with more in common with current democrats than republicans.
Go twenty years further back and you have broadly un recognizable parties pivoting on some of their traditional issues as other of their traditional issues drove them to do so.
Go back half a century more and you've got parties no modern zealot could agree with as each held political territory that deeply appeals and deeply disgusts each of the current parties.
Just because a party once did something the better part of a century or two ago really means nothing in a world where 20-30 years can make a party unrecognizable to many of its old stalwarts.
Or, you know, whatever your talk radio of choice tells you.
Now can I get some of that weed?
Are we honestly supposed to believe he never heard of the KKK and David Duke until he was 70 years old?
Further, I would contend that if he is that sheltered, then it's simply even more evidence that he is not qualified for office.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
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
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.
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.