|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 11 2015 22:39 JinDesu wrote:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/anti-government-group-vows-to-keep-kim-davis-out-of-jail_55f1d06be4b03784e2786c51Show nested quote +Kentucky clerk Kim Davis will return to work next week after having been jailed for contempt of court, and one anti-government group wants to make sure she never winds up behind bars again.
The Oath Keepers, described by the Southern Poverty Law Center, a civil rights organization, as a “fiercely anti-government, militaristic group,” say they have their sights set on defending the Rowan County clerk, who has refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
In a phone call with Jackson County Kentucky Sheriff Denny Peyman, Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes said members of his group had reached out to Davis's legal team and were already forming an on-the-ground presence in Kentucky's Rowan County, but remained tight-lipped on specifics, Right Wing Watch reports. Rhodes said his group's action had nothing to do with same-sex marriage, but instead was focused on his belief that Davis had been illegally detained after being found in contempt of court by not issuing marriage licenses. lol... this will be amusing... or not =\
So they want to protect her with a citizens militia like happened a while back with some farmers?
These armed fanatic anarchists are going to cause a massacre at some point...
|
Oh, these are the clowns that showed up in Ferguson to protect the police from the rioters. Apparently now they are protecting a woman from the police. Its almost like they are on the side of racism and homophobia. But good ol' boys with guns are never like that, ever.
|
On September 11 2015 09:59 Cowboy64 wrote:From the article: Show nested quote +Myth #1: Marriage licenses issued without Davis’ signature are invalid.
...
However, a simple sentence found in Kentucky law seems to clear things up. According to statute 61.035, “Any duty enjoined by law or by the Rules of Civil Procedure upon a ministerial officer, and any act permitted to be done by him, may be performed by his lawful deputy.” If Davis can issue licenses, so can her deputies. There is little to suggest that these licenses would or could ever be rejected as legal and binding. Here they openly admit that there is a clear ability for a reasonable religious accommodation. In fact, they have gone to great lengths here to particularly point out that four other clerks are currently issuing gay-marriage licenses, and that those licenses are valid. I accept their debunking of Myth #1. However the problem comes in here: Show nested quote +Myth #3: Kentucky could accommodate Davis without forcing her to resign.
...
but then suggested that Gov. Steven Beshear (D) didn’t do what he could when requiring state officials to abide by the Obergefell ruling. This would have required calling the Kentucky legislature back for a special session to pass legislation changing how marriage licenses are issued.
There are already four other people who are currently issuing "valid" marriage-licenses. It required no special session, it actually just required one judge to issue an order. He specifically rejected this, instead requiring her to personally authorize the marriage licenses. As far as providing sources is concerned, I prefer primary sources: http://www.lrc.ky.gov/lrcpubs/ib114.pdfShow nested quote +County judges/executive may perform marriage ceremonies. They may also authorize justices of
the peace and fiscal court commissioners in their respective counties to perform marriages
(KRS 402.050). In the absence of the county clerk, the county judge/executive may issue a
marriage license (KRS 402.240). Your article is wrong, and thus your opinion is based on flawed facts. Here is some info on reasonable religious accommodations. http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfmShow nested quote +The law requires an employer or other covered entity to reasonably accommodate an employee's religious beliefs or practices, unless doing so would cause more than a minimal burden on the operations of the employer's business. This means an employer may be required to make reasonable adjustments to the work environment that will allow an employee to practice his or her religion.
Examples of some common religious accommodations include flexible scheduling, voluntary shift substitutions or swaps, job reassignments, and modifications to workplace policies or practices. (emphasis added) In this instance, there is no undue hardship upon the employer, as there are other people who could potentially issue the marriage licenses. The judge's argument against the "absent" argument was that it had no legal precedent, as if there is not 1) great legal precedent for reasonable religious accommodations, and 2) as if every legal precedent was at some point unprecedented. I encourage everyone to read more about this issue though, and not blog posts from a website, but actual, primary sources.
The point was that while her junior clerks were issuing marriage licenses while she was in jail, she expressly forbid them from doing so when she was actually in the office. Being their boss, they didn't really have much ground to stand on (although wrongful termination would be a pretty obvious go-to option).
Now, there are at least a couple of clerks issuing marriage licenses in that courthouse, and as long as everybody who is legally allowed to get married is able to get married, and Kim Davis is not blocking her junior clerks from issuing and filing the marriage licenses, I agree that there is no reason anymore to fire her. But that was explicitly not what was happening before she was jailed, so jailing her seems to have driven some sense into her head, and was not only legally just, it also worked out for the better for everybody (including Kim Davis, who got her 15 minutes of fame).
|
Not really her lawyer said that all the licenses issued by them are void lol. She is actively trying to halt the process. She doesn't want to be accommodated, she wants to do the Lord's work by persecuting her fellow man.
|
Why is this even a political topic? One random nutjob tried to use Its power and is being prosecuted for it. End of Story.
In other actual news, the Iran deal passed.
Edit: sorry, on phone. Spelling corrected now, i think 
|
On September 11 2015 20:03 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2015 14:41 Yoav wrote:On September 11 2015 13:37 Plansix wrote:On September 11 2015 13:33 Yoav wrote:On September 11 2015 12:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Huckabee keeps going further off the deep end. With this stupid remark of his, he's about 3/5 closer to being thrown in an asylum.
He doesn't have any significant polling numbers, so I don't understand why anyone even cares what he says. The reason he's going off the deep end (and this goes just as much for Graham and Jindal) is that he barely registers in the polls and so he needs media coverage any way he can get it. Even if he is spouting the most flawed legal theory I have heard in a while. All states much overturn blue laws prohibiting women and blacks from owning property, voting or whatever else those laws covered. Sure they are unenforceable due to the 14th Amendment and basically useless. But Huckabee says they still matter, after all this time and who are we to argue. Is there another meaning of "blue law" than "Sunday work prohibition?" I'm a bit confused by your post. In my state, people would use the term "blue laws" for any outdated law still on the book that was unenforceable. For a long time it was technically permissible to shoot someone crossing the boarder from Rhode Island. And you needed a license to grow a goatee.
In my state, we had blue laws (no work on Sunday) that were enforced (by a secular populace, for secular reasons.)
Interesting that that's your usage though. Never how I heard the term.
On September 11 2015 22:51 Plansix wrote:
Oh, these are the clowns that showed up in Ferguson to protect the police from the rioters. Apparently now they are protecting a woman from the police. Its almost like they are on the side of racism and homophobia. But good ol' boys with guns are never like that, ever.
Technically, these guys actually expressed solidarity with the protesters and offered to provide them with weapons. http://www.newsweek.com/oath-keepers-ferguson-blacklivesmatter-michael-brown-black-lives-matter-second-363994
|
On September 12 2015 02:31 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2015 20:03 Plansix wrote:On September 11 2015 14:41 Yoav wrote:On September 11 2015 13:37 Plansix wrote:On September 11 2015 13:33 Yoav wrote:On September 11 2015 12:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Huckabee keeps going further off the deep end. With this stupid remark of his, he's about 3/5 closer to being thrown in an asylum.
He doesn't have any significant polling numbers, so I don't understand why anyone even cares what he says. The reason he's going off the deep end (and this goes just as much for Graham and Jindal) is that he barely registers in the polls and so he needs media coverage any way he can get it. Even if he is spouting the most flawed legal theory I have heard in a while. All states much overturn blue laws prohibiting women and blacks from owning property, voting or whatever else those laws covered. Sure they are unenforceable due to the 14th Amendment and basically useless. But Huckabee says they still matter, after all this time and who are we to argue. Is there another meaning of "blue law" than "Sunday work prohibition?" I'm a bit confused by your post. In my state, people would use the term "blue laws" for any outdated law still on the book that was unenforceable. For a long time it was technically permissible to shoot someone crossing the boarder from Rhode Island. And you needed a license to grow a goatee. In my state, we had blue laws (no work on Sunday) that were enforced (by a secular populace, for secular reasons.) Interesting that that's your usage though. Never how I heard the term. Show nested quote +On September 11 2015 22:51 Plansix wrote:
Oh, these are the clowns that showed up in Ferguson to protect the police from the rioters. Apparently now they are protecting a woman from the police. Its almost like they are on the side of racism and homophobia. But good ol' boys with guns are never like that, ever. Technically, these guys actually expressed solidarity with the protesters and offered to provide them with weapons. http://www.newsweek.com/oath-keepers-ferguson-blacklivesmatter-michael-brown-black-lives-matter-second-363994
Wow that is almost worse, but less racist. I am conflicted. And the term "Blue Law" might be regional. Most of our crazy old laws came out of religion, so that may be way we call them all that.
|
On September 11 2015 22:54 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2015 09:59 Cowboy64 wrote:From the article: Myth #1: Marriage licenses issued without Davis’ signature are invalid.
...
However, a simple sentence found in Kentucky law seems to clear things up. According to statute 61.035, “Any duty enjoined by law or by the Rules of Civil Procedure upon a ministerial officer, and any act permitted to be done by him, may be performed by his lawful deputy.” If Davis can issue licenses, so can her deputies. There is little to suggest that these licenses would or could ever be rejected as legal and binding. Here they openly admit that there is a clear ability for a reasonable religious accommodation. In fact, they have gone to great lengths here to particularly point out that four other clerks are currently issuing gay-marriage licenses, and that those licenses are valid. I accept their debunking of Myth #1. However the problem comes in here: Myth #3: Kentucky could accommodate Davis without forcing her to resign.
...
but then suggested that Gov. Steven Beshear (D) didn’t do what he could when requiring state officials to abide by the Obergefell ruling. This would have required calling the Kentucky legislature back for a special session to pass legislation changing how marriage licenses are issued.
There are already four other people who are currently issuing "valid" marriage-licenses. It required no special session, it actually just required one judge to issue an order. He specifically rejected this, instead requiring her to personally authorize the marriage licenses. As far as providing sources is concerned, I prefer primary sources: http://www.lrc.ky.gov/lrcpubs/ib114.pdfCounty judges/executive may perform marriage ceremonies. They may also authorize justices of
the peace and fiscal court commissioners in their respective counties to perform marriages
(KRS 402.050). In the absence of the county clerk, the county judge/executive may issue a
marriage license (KRS 402.240). Your article is wrong, and thus your opinion is based on flawed facts. Here is some info on reasonable religious accommodations. http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfmThe law requires an employer or other covered entity to reasonably accommodate an employee's religious beliefs or practices, unless doing so would cause more than a minimal burden on the operations of the employer's business. This means an employer may be required to make reasonable adjustments to the work environment that will allow an employee to practice his or her religion.
Examples of some common religious accommodations include flexible scheduling, voluntary shift substitutions or swaps, job reassignments, and modifications to workplace policies or practices. (emphasis added) In this instance, there is no undue hardship upon the employer, as there are other people who could potentially issue the marriage licenses. The judge's argument against the "absent" argument was that it had no legal precedent, as if there is not 1) great legal precedent for reasonable religious accommodations, and 2) as if every legal precedent was at some point unprecedented. I encourage everyone to read more about this issue though, and not blog posts from a website, but actual, primary sources. The point was that while her junior clerks were issuing marriage licenses while she was in jail, she expressly forbid them from doing so when she was actually in the office. Being their boss, they didn't really have much ground to stand on (although wrongful termination would be a pretty obvious go-to option). Now, there are at least a couple of clerks issuing marriage licenses in that courthouse, and as long as everybody who is legally allowed to get married is able to get married, and Kim Davis is not blocking her junior clerks from issuing and filing the marriage licenses, I agree that there is no reason anymore to fire her. But that was explicitly not what was happening before she was jailed, so jailing her seems to have driven some sense into her head, and was not only legally just, it also worked out for the better for everybody (including Kim Davis, who got her 15 minutes of fame).
I thought the reason she forbid her junior clerks issuing licenses is that the licenses they issued would still have her name on them (because it came out of her office).
|
United States41983 Posts
I guess we're lucky she doesn't have a common name.
|
On September 12 2015 02:37 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2015 02:31 Yoav wrote:On September 11 2015 20:03 Plansix wrote:On September 11 2015 14:41 Yoav wrote:On September 11 2015 13:37 Plansix wrote:On September 11 2015 13:33 Yoav wrote:On September 11 2015 12:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Huckabee keeps going further off the deep end. With this stupid remark of his, he's about 3/5 closer to being thrown in an asylum.
He doesn't have any significant polling numbers, so I don't understand why anyone even cares what he says. The reason he's going off the deep end (and this goes just as much for Graham and Jindal) is that he barely registers in the polls and so he needs media coverage any way he can get it. Even if he is spouting the most flawed legal theory I have heard in a while. All states much overturn blue laws prohibiting women and blacks from owning property, voting or whatever else those laws covered. Sure they are unenforceable due to the 14th Amendment and basically useless. But Huckabee says they still matter, after all this time and who are we to argue. Is there another meaning of "blue law" than "Sunday work prohibition?" I'm a bit confused by your post. In my state, people would use the term "blue laws" for any outdated law still on the book that was unenforceable. For a long time it was technically permissible to shoot someone crossing the boarder from Rhode Island. And you needed a license to grow a goatee. In my state, we had blue laws (no work on Sunday) that were enforced (by a secular populace, for secular reasons.) Interesting that that's your usage though. Never how I heard the term. On September 11 2015 22:51 Plansix wrote:
Oh, these are the clowns that showed up in Ferguson to protect the police from the rioters. Apparently now they are protecting a woman from the police. Its almost like they are on the side of racism and homophobia. But good ol' boys with guns are never like that, ever. Technically, these guys actually expressed solidarity with the protesters and offered to provide them with weapons. http://www.newsweek.com/oath-keepers-ferguson-blacklivesmatter-michael-brown-black-lives-matter-second-363994 Wow that is almost worse, but less racist. I am conflicted. And the term "Blue Law" might be regional. Most of our crazy old laws came out of religion, so that may be way we call them all that.
Better in terms of the character of the dudes, worse in effect. A lot of why US cops are so trigger happy is the proliferation of guns. It's easy for a Dutch cops to feel safe and secure, since they're way less likely to suddenly face a gun than US cops. These split-second decisions obviously bring out subconscious bias.
And I did some research. Wikipedia is conflicted. "Blue Law" is a page on Sunday work prohibitions. "Blue Laws in the US" is about religious laws generally. But are you from Connecticut? They seem to have a different deal altogether. Blue laws in Connecticut supposedly refer to the Colony's original law code, but there is some belief that these laws are actually an anti-american forgery from the Revolutionary War period designed to make us appear backward. Huh.
|
On September 12 2015 02:49 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2015 02:37 Plansix wrote:On September 12 2015 02:31 Yoav wrote:On September 11 2015 20:03 Plansix wrote:On September 11 2015 14:41 Yoav wrote:On September 11 2015 13:37 Plansix wrote:On September 11 2015 13:33 Yoav wrote:On September 11 2015 12:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Huckabee keeps going further off the deep end. With this stupid remark of his, he's about 3/5 closer to being thrown in an asylum.
He doesn't have any significant polling numbers, so I don't understand why anyone even cares what he says. The reason he's going off the deep end (and this goes just as much for Graham and Jindal) is that he barely registers in the polls and so he needs media coverage any way he can get it. Even if he is spouting the most flawed legal theory I have heard in a while. All states much overturn blue laws prohibiting women and blacks from owning property, voting or whatever else those laws covered. Sure they are unenforceable due to the 14th Amendment and basically useless. But Huckabee says they still matter, after all this time and who are we to argue. Is there another meaning of "blue law" than "Sunday work prohibition?" I'm a bit confused by your post. In my state, people would use the term "blue laws" for any outdated law still on the book that was unenforceable. For a long time it was technically permissible to shoot someone crossing the boarder from Rhode Island. And you needed a license to grow a goatee. In my state, we had blue laws (no work on Sunday) that were enforced (by a secular populace, for secular reasons.) Interesting that that's your usage though. Never how I heard the term. On September 11 2015 22:51 Plansix wrote:
Oh, these are the clowns that showed up in Ferguson to protect the police from the rioters. Apparently now they are protecting a woman from the police. Its almost like they are on the side of racism and homophobia. But good ol' boys with guns are never like that, ever. Technically, these guys actually expressed solidarity with the protesters and offered to provide them with weapons. http://www.newsweek.com/oath-keepers-ferguson-blacklivesmatter-michael-brown-black-lives-matter-second-363994 Wow that is almost worse, but less racist. I am conflicted. And the term "Blue Law" might be regional. Most of our crazy old laws came out of religion, so that may be way we call them all that. Better in terms of the character of the dudes, worse in effect. A lot of why US cops are so trigger happy is the proliferation of guns. It's easy for a Dutch cops to feel safe and secure, since they're way less likely to suddenly face a gun than US cops. These split-second decisions obviously bring out subconscious bias. And I did some research. Wikipedia is conflicted. "Blue Law" is a page on Sunday work prohibitions. "Blue Laws in the US" is about religious laws generally. But are you from Connecticut? They seem to have a different deal altogether. Blue laws in Connecticut supposedly refer to the Colony's original law code, but there is some belief that these laws are actually an anti-american forgery from the Revolutionary War period designed to make us appear backward. Huh.
Massachusetts. And use the term to cover all the laws. We still have a law where you could be thrown in jail for kissing your wife in public.
|
On September 12 2015 01:54 Velr wrote:
Why is this even a political topic? One random nutjob tried to use Its power and is being prosecuted for it. End of Story.
Because a disturbing amount of people (including many Republican presidential candidates) are actually on her side. 
|
http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-cnn-debate-charity-jeff-zucker-letter-2015-9
This is amazing.
Dear Jeff,
Over the weekend it was announced by numerous entertainment channels and
magazines that your ad rates have gone from $5,000 to $200,000, or a 4,000%
increase. Since then I have heard that your rates will go even higher. While I refuse
to brag, and as you know very well, this tremendous increase in viewer interest and
advertising is due 100% to Donald J. Trump. You saw it on The Apprentice
where it was virtually the easiest show to sell to advertisers on television, and at
extraordinary rates. In fact, NBC renewed The Apprentice, even though I told them
not to because I was running for President (something which did not exactly endear
them to me).
As you are aware, for the first debate, FOX unexpectedly (but not to those who
know), had one of the largest audiences in the history of cable television, 24
million people plus, and word is that your audience will be even larger.
I am self funding my campaign and do not want money from lobbyists, donors or
special interest groups. Likewise, you should view the second debate broadcast as
a public service and not accept the massive profits that this airing will generate. I
believe that all profits from this broadcast should go to various VETERANS
groups, a list of which I will send to you in the near future. The veterans of our
country, our finest people, have been treated horribly by our government and its
"all talk and no action" politicians. In fact, some would say they are treated like
third class citizens-even worse, in many cases, than illegal immigrants. It is about
time that someone comes to their aid. Let's start now!
Years ago, when I built the Vietnam Memorial in Downtown Manhattan with a
small group of others, I had always felt that we have to be helping our veterans far
more than we do. That is why my campaign is so focused on these great people
who have done so much for us. This large contribution of many millions of dollars
would be a truly wonderful thing for CNN to do.
Please let me know what your decision is as soon as possible. Thank you!
Donald J. Trump
|
Trump takes arrogant to a whole new level. I don't understand how expects any new agency, even one as shitty as CNN, to take that seriously or even think that would be acceptable.
|
United States41983 Posts
Clearly CNN hates veterans. I suspect an incoming "Dear Mexico, did you know the taxes of US veterans are being used to build a wall. Please send money to pay for a wall so they don't have to. I once made CNN send money to veterans."
|
On September 12 2015 04:38 cLutZ wrote:http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-cnn-debate-charity-jeff-zucker-letter-2015-9This is amazing. Show nested quote +Dear Jeff,
Over the weekend it was announced by numerous entertainment channels and
magazines that your ad rates have gone from $5,000 to $200,000, or a 4,000%
increase. Since then I have heard that your rates will go even higher. While I refuse
to brag, and as you know very well, this tremendous increase in viewer interest and
advertising is due 100% to Donald J. Trump. You saw it on The Apprentice
where it was virtually the easiest show to sell to advertisers on television, and at
extraordinary rates. In fact, NBC renewed The Apprentice, even though I told them
not to because I was running for President (something which did not exactly endear
them to me).
As you are aware, for the first debate, FOX unexpectedly (but not to those who
know), had one of the largest audiences in the history of cable television, 24
million people plus, and word is that your audience will be even larger.
I am self funding my campaign and do not want money from lobbyists, donors or
special interest groups. Likewise, you should view the second debate broadcast as
a public service and not accept the massive profits that this airing will generate. I
believe that all profits from this broadcast should go to various VETERANS
groups, a list of which I will send to you in the near future. The veterans of our
country, our finest people, have been treated horribly by our government and its
"all talk and no action" politicians. In fact, some would say they are treated like
third class citizens-even worse, in many cases, than illegal immigrants. It is about
time that someone comes to their aid. Let's start now!
Years ago, when I built the Vietnam Memorial in Downtown Manhattan with a
small group of others, I had always felt that we have to be helping our veterans far
more than we do. That is why my campaign is so focused on these great people
who have done so much for us. This large contribution of many millions of dollars
would be a truly wonderful thing for CNN to do.
Please let me know what your decision is as soon as possible. Thank you!
Donald J. Trump
This is despicable. It is mindboggling how this kind of shit can be allowed when campaigning for president. It is simple emotional blackmail.
Also, how about Trump takes one of his multiple billions of dollars and donates it to veteran societies before telling CNN what to do with their money.
|
On September 12 2015 04:55 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2015 04:38 cLutZ wrote:http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-cnn-debate-charity-jeff-zucker-letter-2015-9This is amazing. Dear Jeff,
Over the weekend it was announced by numerous entertainment channels and
magazines that your ad rates have gone from $5,000 to $200,000, or a 4,000%
increase. Since then I have heard that your rates will go even higher. While I refuse
to brag, and as you know very well, this tremendous increase in viewer interest and
advertising is due 100% to Donald J. Trump. You saw it on The Apprentice
where it was virtually the easiest show to sell to advertisers on television, and at
extraordinary rates. In fact, NBC renewed The Apprentice, even though I told them
not to because I was running for President (something which did not exactly endear
them to me).
As you are aware, for the first debate, FOX unexpectedly (but not to those who
know), had one of the largest audiences in the history of cable television, 24
million people plus, and word is that your audience will be even larger.
I am self funding my campaign and do not want money from lobbyists, donors or
special interest groups. Likewise, you should view the second debate broadcast as
a public service and not accept the massive profits that this airing will generate. I
believe that all profits from this broadcast should go to various VETERANS
groups, a list of which I will send to you in the near future. The veterans of our
country, our finest people, have been treated horribly by our government and its
"all talk and no action" politicians. In fact, some would say they are treated like
third class citizens-even worse, in many cases, than illegal immigrants. It is about
time that someone comes to their aid. Let's start now!
Years ago, when I built the Vietnam Memorial in Downtown Manhattan with a
small group of others, I had always felt that we have to be helping our veterans far
more than we do. That is why my campaign is so focused on these great people
who have done so much for us. This large contribution of many millions of dollars
would be a truly wonderful thing for CNN to do.
Please let me know what your decision is as soon as possible. Thank you!
Donald J. Trump
This is despicable. It is mindboggling how this kind of shit can be allowed when campaigning for president. It is simple emotional blackmail. Also, how about Trump takes one of his multiple billions of dollars and donates it to veteran societies before telling CNN what to do with their money.
I agree, its terrible, but its also great turnabout, as CNN will almost certainly find the most vulnerable and emotionally charged immigrants and their situations to trot out and question Trump. Or the most needy and helpless person on government assistance to question Cruz on a potential government shutdown.
|
On September 12 2015 04:59 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2015 04:55 Acrofales wrote:On September 12 2015 04:38 cLutZ wrote:http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-cnn-debate-charity-jeff-zucker-letter-2015-9This is amazing. Dear Jeff,
Over the weekend it was announced by numerous entertainment channels and
magazines that your ad rates have gone from $5,000 to $200,000, or a 4,000%
increase. Since then I have heard that your rates will go even higher. While I refuse
to brag, and as you know very well, this tremendous increase in viewer interest and
advertising is due 100% to Donald J. Trump. You saw it on The Apprentice
where it was virtually the easiest show to sell to advertisers on television, and at
extraordinary rates. In fact, NBC renewed The Apprentice, even though I told them
not to because I was running for President (something which did not exactly endear
them to me).
As you are aware, for the first debate, FOX unexpectedly (but not to those who
know), had one of the largest audiences in the history of cable television, 24
million people plus, and word is that your audience will be even larger.
I am self funding my campaign and do not want money from lobbyists, donors or
special interest groups. Likewise, you should view the second debate broadcast as
a public service and not accept the massive profits that this airing will generate. I
believe that all profits from this broadcast should go to various VETERANS
groups, a list of which I will send to you in the near future. The veterans of our
country, our finest people, have been treated horribly by our government and its
"all talk and no action" politicians. In fact, some would say they are treated like
third class citizens-even worse, in many cases, than illegal immigrants. It is about
time that someone comes to their aid. Let's start now!
Years ago, when I built the Vietnam Memorial in Downtown Manhattan with a
small group of others, I had always felt that we have to be helping our veterans far
more than we do. That is why my campaign is so focused on these great people
who have done so much for us. This large contribution of many millions of dollars
would be a truly wonderful thing for CNN to do.
Please let me know what your decision is as soon as possible. Thank you!
Donald J. Trump
This is despicable. It is mindboggling how this kind of shit can be allowed when campaigning for president. It is simple emotional blackmail. Also, how about Trump takes one of his multiple billions of dollars and donates it to veteran societies before telling CNN what to do with their money. I agree, its terrible, but its also great turnabout, as CNN will almost certainly find the most vulnerable and emotionally charged immigrants and their situations to trot out and question Trump. Or the most needy and helpless person on government assistance to question Cruz on a potential government shutdown.
If I was CNN, I would just reiterate their current charitable activity cover the debates. And thank Trump for the idea, but explain in small word why it wouldn't be ethical for them taking suggestions from the candidates they are covering.
|
Ask Trump to take the Buffet pledge
All's fair in love and war, this is a bit of both
|
Rick Perry is out of the race
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
