|
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. |
It's a sign of our extremely over-politicized and over-sensitive contemporary society, which, by the way, is fostered through the media and our schools. Hell, if I self-isolated myself based on my political ideology, I'd be a hermit (at least here in Hawaii). Granted, some issues are more core than others, so I don't begrudge people for it sometimes, but damn man, it's like every little detail these days is a part of this politicized nature. I honestly can't stand it (because I can't stand politics and the state in the first place...but I digress).
|
All questions of his savoriness aside, it is interesting that NBC tried to force Trump to find another host for his season of The Apprentice because it would be a campaign ad but is willing to let him host Saturday Night Live. Talk about double standards at the network.
|
On November 08 2015 11:29 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2015 05:51 Introvert wrote:On November 08 2015 05:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 08 2015 05:38 Introvert wrote:On November 08 2015 05:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 08 2015 05:25 Introvert wrote:On November 08 2015 05:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 08 2015 04:22 Introvert wrote:On November 08 2015 04:00 kwizach wrote:On November 08 2015 03:09 Introvert wrote:
This whole West Point line of attack fell apart. So Ben Carsons lied repeatedly about being offered full scholarship to West Point, and someone the "line of attack fell apart"? Are you disputing that he claimed being offered "full scholarship" to an academy which does not even feature "full scholarships" per se, since all costs are covered for accepted students? From what I've seen, at the time ads from West Point used the word "scholarship." But beyond that, Carson doesn't claim to have formally applied in the first place. He says he met someone who offered him a spot, and full paid. He said he had 10 dollars to apply somewhere, and he applied to Yale- only. Combine that with the fact he's remembering something from how many decades before? It becomes more and more of a non-story. Again, I'm not a Carson fan so I don't want to spend time defending him, but it's clear that the Politico article was, at the very least, dishonest. And that's why they had to fix it. When I first read the article, I thought it was pretty damning- I had the same reaction as everyone here. But that was clearly incorrect. Yeah, the General also disappeared from his version of history. In Carson’s 1990 best-selling autobiography, “Gifted Hands: The Ben Carson Story,” the neurosurgeon tells of being offered a scholarship to West Point as a high school senior sometime after having dinner with the U.S. Army’s chief of staff, Gen. William Westmoreland, on Memorial Day 1969.
But Westmoreland’s personal schedule shows the general was not in Detroit on Memorial Day or during the days preceding and following the holiday. His schedule says he was in and around Washington, D.C., that weekend, according to Army archives The Detroit News reviewed Friday. SourceBut like I said, not going to hurt him much if at all. The spin room already has people like Intro defending his habitual misleading by pointing at the "liberal" media. Which is all but completely ignoring Sanders, so they can't be the communist loving far left liberals the right likes to paint them as. On November 08 2015 05:01 TheTenthDoc wrote:
There's no point arguing about dishonesty anymore, Democrats and Republicans are in completely different realities at this point. It's pretty much a game of "Whose Line is it Anyway" on the campaign trail, except all that matters is the points and not whether or not they're true. "War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength;" Nah, if you read the excerpts from what he wrote, ( I had not before this story) it becomes pretty obvious this was a bad article. Point is, from his understanding, he could have gone to West Point, but didn't. It seems impossible to prove otherwise, and it doesn't seem all that unlikely, either. But totally, I just want to defend Carson, cause I'm so known for that. Talk of reality and spin. I'll just say this, if you think Sanders is being unfairly ignored, does that not prove media bias (in favor of the Clinton's?) of course. So then it's not a far fetch to imagine they aren't pro Republican (and considering the voting patterns of most journalists, this seems likely). Your common complaints about Sanders being ignored is proof enough that the media have their favorites. I was saying if people on the right who don't even call themselves supporters are defending him (notice you ignored that he claimed someone was there who obviously wasn't) it's not going to hurt him. It wasn't about you personally. As for Sanders, he doesn't have a Fox News or Talk radio support network like the right, and the "leftist" media isn't much better, save a couple exceptions. But I don't disagree that the media plays favorites. Carson obviously lied, that he didn't actually "admit to lying" or that Politico focused on the wrong aspect,s may be less than stellar reporting, but it doesn't change that he obviously lied. Actually, I didn't ignore anything. And "less than stellar" lol. It was wrong. It said Carson or his campaign said things neither said. That's why they corrected it (kind of). They didn't even get a statement from Carson before publication. It was a crappy article. Like I said, when I first read it it thought it was pretty damning for Carson, but I don't have a natural inclination against him, so I could see when things were explained that the piece was just bad. I'm not going to say any more, as even people in places like The Washington Post have pointed out how bad the story was. It's just hilarious. Sure seems like your not addressing it. Do you think Carson told the truth when he claimed the General was there? Again, if he lied, he lied. It's pretty amazing to me that you're still saying "if he lied". There is no "if". He said he was offered a full scholarship. He wasn't. The guy lied, period. Show nested quote +On November 08 2015 11:20 OuchyDathurts wrote:On November 08 2015 10:56 Danglars wrote:Activists plan to protest Donald Trump’s appearance on “Saturday Night Live” this weekend and are calling cast members of the NBC show to condemn his hardline stance against illegal immigration and past statements made against Mexicans.
In a call with reporters Friday, activists accused the Republican presidential candidate of using racist language and said that NBC had no business giving him the free airtime. In his speech announcing his candidacy back in June, Mr. Trump said that Mexico sends immigrants to the U.S. who are “bringing drugs” and are “rapists.”
“He doesn’t deserve an additional 90-minute campaign ad,” said Justin Krebs of the liberal group Move On, which collected 150,000 signatures on a petition against Mr. Trump’s appearance.
Mr. Trump brushed off the criticisms earlier this week and said that his appearance will help drive record ratings to the show.
“Look, I think they should demonstrate,” Mr. Trump said during a press conference to announce his new book Tuesday. “Ratings will go even higher than they are going to be. It’s going to be one of their highest-rated shows ever and they’re very excited about it.” WSJProtesting a SNL performance and specifically calling on the comedy team to condemn him ... these people need to learn to not feed the trolls. No no no wait, maybe THIS will be the time the shaming works. I didn't know people watched SNL anymore to begin with but this all seems really stupid. Rudy Giuliani has said some pretty fucked up stuff and he's hosted SNL a million times, I don't recall people caring. John Leguizamo is going to boycott SNL forever as if anyone cares what he thinks about anything, he hasn't been relevant in 15 years. Trump is a massive narcissistic sociopathic jackass for sure, he's said some massively ignorant stuff, but this seems so hollow and stupid to me. This is some arm chair activist shit. I don't see how it's supposed to be "hollow and stupid" to be critical of allowing a despicable person to play a role that can only make him more sympathetic to the audience. I don't want terrible people, who encourage xenophobia and racism, to be given PR opportunities. Would I want a representative of the KKK to host SNL, even if he has a great humor outside of his racist views? No. You've got a pretty high-brow view of an entertainment program that invites on pop-star celebrities and the like. Well, that or a pretty unusual soap box preacher approach to TV in general.
|
On November 08 2015 13:51 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2015 11:29 kwizach wrote:On November 08 2015 05:51 Introvert wrote:On November 08 2015 05:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 08 2015 05:38 Introvert wrote:On November 08 2015 05:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 08 2015 05:25 Introvert wrote:On November 08 2015 05:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 08 2015 04:22 Introvert wrote:On November 08 2015 04:00 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
So Ben Carsons lied repeatedly about being offered full scholarship to West Point, and someone the "line of attack fell apart"? Are you disputing that he claimed being offered "full scholarship" to an academy which does not even feature "full scholarships" per se, since all costs are covered for accepted students? From what I've seen, at the time ads from West Point used the word "scholarship." But beyond that, Carson doesn't claim to have formally applied in the first place. He says he met someone who offered him a spot, and full paid. He said he had 10 dollars to apply somewhere, and he applied to Yale- only. Combine that with the fact he's remembering something from how many decades before? It becomes more and more of a non-story. Again, I'm not a Carson fan so I don't want to spend time defending him, but it's clear that the Politico article was, at the very least, dishonest. And that's why they had to fix it. When I first read the article, I thought it was pretty damning- I had the same reaction as everyone here. But that was clearly incorrect. Yeah, the General also disappeared from his version of history. In Carson’s 1990 best-selling autobiography, “Gifted Hands: The Ben Carson Story,” the neurosurgeon tells of being offered a scholarship to West Point as a high school senior sometime after having dinner with the U.S. Army’s chief of staff, Gen. William Westmoreland, on Memorial Day 1969.
But Westmoreland’s personal schedule shows the general was not in Detroit on Memorial Day or during the days preceding and following the holiday. His schedule says he was in and around Washington, D.C., that weekend, according to Army archives The Detroit News reviewed Friday. SourceBut like I said, not going to hurt him much if at all. The spin room already has people like Intro defending his habitual misleading by pointing at the "liberal" media. Which is all but completely ignoring Sanders, so they can't be the communist loving far left liberals the right likes to paint them as. On November 08 2015 05:01 TheTenthDoc wrote:
There's no point arguing about dishonesty anymore, Democrats and Republicans are in completely different realities at this point. It's pretty much a game of "Whose Line is it Anyway" on the campaign trail, except all that matters is the points and not whether or not they're true. "War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength;" Nah, if you read the excerpts from what he wrote, ( I had not before this story) it becomes pretty obvious this was a bad article. Point is, from his understanding, he could have gone to West Point, but didn't. It seems impossible to prove otherwise, and it doesn't seem all that unlikely, either. But totally, I just want to defend Carson, cause I'm so known for that. Talk of reality and spin. I'll just say this, if you think Sanders is being unfairly ignored, does that not prove media bias (in favor of the Clinton's?) of course. So then it's not a far fetch to imagine they aren't pro Republican (and considering the voting patterns of most journalists, this seems likely). Your common complaints about Sanders being ignored is proof enough that the media have their favorites. I was saying if people on the right who don't even call themselves supporters are defending him (notice you ignored that he claimed someone was there who obviously wasn't) it's not going to hurt him. It wasn't about you personally. As for Sanders, he doesn't have a Fox News or Talk radio support network like the right, and the "leftist" media isn't much better, save a couple exceptions. But I don't disagree that the media plays favorites. Carson obviously lied, that he didn't actually "admit to lying" or that Politico focused on the wrong aspect,s may be less than stellar reporting, but it doesn't change that he obviously lied. Actually, I didn't ignore anything. And "less than stellar" lol. It was wrong. It said Carson or his campaign said things neither said. That's why they corrected it (kind of). They didn't even get a statement from Carson before publication. It was a crappy article. Like I said, when I first read it it thought it was pretty damning for Carson, but I don't have a natural inclination against him, so I could see when things were explained that the piece was just bad. I'm not going to say any more, as even people in places like The Washington Post have pointed out how bad the story was. It's just hilarious. Sure seems like your not addressing it. Do you think Carson told the truth when he claimed the General was there? Again, if he lied, he lied. It's pretty amazing to me that you're still saying "if he lied". There is no "if". He said he was offered a full scholarship. He wasn't. The guy lied, period. On November 08 2015 11:20 OuchyDathurts wrote:On November 08 2015 10:56 Danglars wrote:Activists plan to protest Donald Trump’s appearance on “Saturday Night Live” this weekend and are calling cast members of the NBC show to condemn his hardline stance against illegal immigration and past statements made against Mexicans.
In a call with reporters Friday, activists accused the Republican presidential candidate of using racist language and said that NBC had no business giving him the free airtime. In his speech announcing his candidacy back in June, Mr. Trump said that Mexico sends immigrants to the U.S. who are “bringing drugs” and are “rapists.”
“He doesn’t deserve an additional 90-minute campaign ad,” said Justin Krebs of the liberal group Move On, which collected 150,000 signatures on a petition against Mr. Trump’s appearance.
Mr. Trump brushed off the criticisms earlier this week and said that his appearance will help drive record ratings to the show.
“Look, I think they should demonstrate,” Mr. Trump said during a press conference to announce his new book Tuesday. “Ratings will go even higher than they are going to be. It’s going to be one of their highest-rated shows ever and they’re very excited about it.” WSJProtesting a SNL performance and specifically calling on the comedy team to condemn him ... these people need to learn to not feed the trolls. No no no wait, maybe THIS will be the time the shaming works. I didn't know people watched SNL anymore to begin with but this all seems really stupid. Rudy Giuliani has said some pretty fucked up stuff and he's hosted SNL a million times, I don't recall people caring. John Leguizamo is going to boycott SNL forever as if anyone cares what he thinks about anything, he hasn't been relevant in 15 years. Trump is a massive narcissistic sociopathic jackass for sure, he's said some massively ignorant stuff, but this seems so hollow and stupid to me. This is some arm chair activist shit. I don't see how it's supposed to be "hollow and stupid" to be critical of allowing a despicable person to play a role that can only make him more sympathetic to the audience. I don't want terrible people, who encourage xenophobia and racism, to be given PR opportunities. Would I want a representative of the KKK to host SNL, even if he has a great humor outside of his racist views? No. You see here is the problem, you and I may consider him a despicable person. But you dont get to pass judgement nor does anyone else, as if its something the whole world should agree with, And frankly I would love to see Trump on SNL, The guy is endless entertainment. Hes not going on SNL to promote xenophobia now is he ? As for PR, if this country is going to start electing people based on their appearance or PR presence in the form that Trump has had then you have bigger problems than Trump
I'm not sure what "you dont get to pass judgement nor does anyone else, as if its something the whole world should agree with" is supposed to mean with regards to my point. I'm not forcing my views on anyone else. The point is that I believe someone as toxic and xenophobic Trump should get as little exposure as possible, especially exposure designed to make him more likeable. The fact that he's not going on SNL to promote xenophobia is utterly irrelevant -- the net effect will still be that a xenophobic asshole will receive a golden PR opportunity to appear as a nice guy, which can only help himself and his message.
On November 08 2015 14:47 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2015 11:29 kwizach wrote:On November 08 2015 05:51 Introvert wrote:On November 08 2015 05:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 08 2015 05:38 Introvert wrote:On November 08 2015 05:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 08 2015 05:25 Introvert wrote:On November 08 2015 05:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 08 2015 04:22 Introvert wrote:On November 08 2015 04:00 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
So Ben Carsons lied repeatedly about being offered full scholarship to West Point, and someone the "line of attack fell apart"? Are you disputing that he claimed being offered "full scholarship" to an academy which does not even feature "full scholarships" per se, since all costs are covered for accepted students? From what I've seen, at the time ads from West Point used the word "scholarship." But beyond that, Carson doesn't claim to have formally applied in the first place. He says he met someone who offered him a spot, and full paid. He said he had 10 dollars to apply somewhere, and he applied to Yale- only. Combine that with the fact he's remembering something from how many decades before? It becomes more and more of a non-story. Again, I'm not a Carson fan so I don't want to spend time defending him, but it's clear that the Politico article was, at the very least, dishonest. And that's why they had to fix it. When I first read the article, I thought it was pretty damning- I had the same reaction as everyone here. But that was clearly incorrect. Yeah, the General also disappeared from his version of history. In Carson’s 1990 best-selling autobiography, “Gifted Hands: The Ben Carson Story,” the neurosurgeon tells of being offered a scholarship to West Point as a high school senior sometime after having dinner with the U.S. Army’s chief of staff, Gen. William Westmoreland, on Memorial Day 1969.
But Westmoreland’s personal schedule shows the general was not in Detroit on Memorial Day or during the days preceding and following the holiday. His schedule says he was in and around Washington, D.C., that weekend, according to Army archives The Detroit News reviewed Friday. SourceBut like I said, not going to hurt him much if at all. The spin room already has people like Intro defending his habitual misleading by pointing at the "liberal" media. Which is all but completely ignoring Sanders, so they can't be the communist loving far left liberals the right likes to paint them as. On November 08 2015 05:01 TheTenthDoc wrote:
There's no point arguing about dishonesty anymore, Democrats and Republicans are in completely different realities at this point. It's pretty much a game of "Whose Line is it Anyway" on the campaign trail, except all that matters is the points and not whether or not they're true. "War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength;" Nah, if you read the excerpts from what he wrote, ( I had not before this story) it becomes pretty obvious this was a bad article. Point is, from his understanding, he could have gone to West Point, but didn't. It seems impossible to prove otherwise, and it doesn't seem all that unlikely, either. But totally, I just want to defend Carson, cause I'm so known for that. Talk of reality and spin. I'll just say this, if you think Sanders is being unfairly ignored, does that not prove media bias (in favor of the Clinton's?) of course. So then it's not a far fetch to imagine they aren't pro Republican (and considering the voting patterns of most journalists, this seems likely). Your common complaints about Sanders being ignored is proof enough that the media have their favorites. I was saying if people on the right who don't even call themselves supporters are defending him (notice you ignored that he claimed someone was there who obviously wasn't) it's not going to hurt him. It wasn't about you personally. As for Sanders, he doesn't have a Fox News or Talk radio support network like the right, and the "leftist" media isn't much better, save a couple exceptions. But I don't disagree that the media plays favorites. Carson obviously lied, that he didn't actually "admit to lying" or that Politico focused on the wrong aspect,s may be less than stellar reporting, but it doesn't change that he obviously lied. Actually, I didn't ignore anything. And "less than stellar" lol. It was wrong. It said Carson or his campaign said things neither said. That's why they corrected it (kind of). They didn't even get a statement from Carson before publication. It was a crappy article. Like I said, when I first read it it thought it was pretty damning for Carson, but I don't have a natural inclination against him, so I could see when things were explained that the piece was just bad. I'm not going to say any more, as even people in places like The Washington Post have pointed out how bad the story was. It's just hilarious. Sure seems like your not addressing it. Do you think Carson told the truth when he claimed the General was there? Again, if he lied, he lied. It's pretty amazing to me that you're still saying "if he lied". There is no "if". He said he was offered a full scholarship. He wasn't. The guy lied, period. On November 08 2015 11:20 OuchyDathurts wrote:On November 08 2015 10:56 Danglars wrote:Activists plan to protest Donald Trump’s appearance on “Saturday Night Live” this weekend and are calling cast members of the NBC show to condemn his hardline stance against illegal immigration and past statements made against Mexicans.
In a call with reporters Friday, activists accused the Republican presidential candidate of using racist language and said that NBC had no business giving him the free airtime. In his speech announcing his candidacy back in June, Mr. Trump said that Mexico sends immigrants to the U.S. who are “bringing drugs” and are “rapists.”
“He doesn’t deserve an additional 90-minute campaign ad,” said Justin Krebs of the liberal group Move On, which collected 150,000 signatures on a petition against Mr. Trump’s appearance.
Mr. Trump brushed off the criticisms earlier this week and said that his appearance will help drive record ratings to the show.
“Look, I think they should demonstrate,” Mr. Trump said during a press conference to announce his new book Tuesday. “Ratings will go even higher than they are going to be. It’s going to be one of their highest-rated shows ever and they’re very excited about it.” WSJProtesting a SNL performance and specifically calling on the comedy team to condemn him ... these people need to learn to not feed the trolls. No no no wait, maybe THIS will be the time the shaming works. I didn't know people watched SNL anymore to begin with but this all seems really stupid. Rudy Giuliani has said some pretty fucked up stuff and he's hosted SNL a million times, I don't recall people caring. John Leguizamo is going to boycott SNL forever as if anyone cares what he thinks about anything, he hasn't been relevant in 15 years. Trump is a massive narcissistic sociopathic jackass for sure, he's said some massively ignorant stuff, but this seems so hollow and stupid to me. This is some arm chair activist shit. I don't see how it's supposed to be "hollow and stupid" to be critical of allowing a despicable person to play a role that can only make him more sympathetic to the audience. I don't want terrible people, who encourage xenophobia and racism, to be given PR opportunities. Would I want a representative of the KKK to host SNL, even if he has a great humor outside of his racist views? No. You've got a pretty high-brow view of an entertainment program that invites on pop-star celebrities and the like. Well, that or a pretty unusual soap box preacher approach to TV in general.
There's nothing highbrow about recognizing the impact comedy TV has on people. Giving Trump the opportunity to cast himself as a likeable guy only serves to lessen how negatively people see his message. Perhaps you've got a pretty naïve view of the impact of television.
|
"I hate this guy, so he should be barred from showing anything except the stuff I hate."
That is one of the dumbest ideas that I have ever heard.
|
On November 08 2015 16:06 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2015 13:51 Rebs wrote:On November 08 2015 11:29 kwizach wrote:On November 08 2015 05:51 Introvert wrote:On November 08 2015 05:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 08 2015 05:38 Introvert wrote:On November 08 2015 05:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 08 2015 05:25 Introvert wrote:On November 08 2015 05:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 08 2015 04:22 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
From what I've seen, at the time ads from West Point used the word "scholarship." But beyond that, Carson doesn't claim to have formally applied in the first place. He says he met someone who offered him a spot, and full paid. He said he had 10 dollars to apply somewhere, and he applied to Yale- only. Combine that with the fact he's remembering something from how many decades before? It becomes more and more of a non-story.
Again, I'm not a Carson fan so I don't want to spend time defending him, but it's clear that the Politico article was, at the very least, dishonest. And that's why they had to fix it. When I first read the article, I thought it was pretty damning- I had the same reaction as everyone here. But that was clearly incorrect. Yeah, the General also disappeared from his version of history. In Carson’s 1990 best-selling autobiography, “Gifted Hands: The Ben Carson Story,” the neurosurgeon tells of being offered a scholarship to West Point as a high school senior sometime after having dinner with the U.S. Army’s chief of staff, Gen. William Westmoreland, on Memorial Day 1969.
But Westmoreland’s personal schedule shows the general was not in Detroit on Memorial Day or during the days preceding and following the holiday. His schedule says he was in and around Washington, D.C., that weekend, according to Army archives The Detroit News reviewed Friday. SourceBut like I said, not going to hurt him much if at all. The spin room already has people like Intro defending his habitual misleading by pointing at the "liberal" media. Which is all but completely ignoring Sanders, so they can't be the communist loving far left liberals the right likes to paint them as. On November 08 2015 05:01 TheTenthDoc wrote:
There's no point arguing about dishonesty anymore, Democrats and Republicans are in completely different realities at this point. It's pretty much a game of "Whose Line is it Anyway" on the campaign trail, except all that matters is the points and not whether or not they're true. "War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength;" Nah, if you read the excerpts from what he wrote, ( I had not before this story) it becomes pretty obvious this was a bad article. Point is, from his understanding, he could have gone to West Point, but didn't. It seems impossible to prove otherwise, and it doesn't seem all that unlikely, either. But totally, I just want to defend Carson, cause I'm so known for that. Talk of reality and spin. I'll just say this, if you think Sanders is being unfairly ignored, does that not prove media bias (in favor of the Clinton's?) of course. So then it's not a far fetch to imagine they aren't pro Republican (and considering the voting patterns of most journalists, this seems likely). Your common complaints about Sanders being ignored is proof enough that the media have their favorites. I was saying if people on the right who don't even call themselves supporters are defending him (notice you ignored that he claimed someone was there who obviously wasn't) it's not going to hurt him. It wasn't about you personally. As for Sanders, he doesn't have a Fox News or Talk radio support network like the right, and the "leftist" media isn't much better, save a couple exceptions. But I don't disagree that the media plays favorites. Carson obviously lied, that he didn't actually "admit to lying" or that Politico focused on the wrong aspect,s may be less than stellar reporting, but it doesn't change that he obviously lied. Actually, I didn't ignore anything. And "less than stellar" lol. It was wrong. It said Carson or his campaign said things neither said. That's why they corrected it (kind of). They didn't even get a statement from Carson before publication. It was a crappy article. Like I said, when I first read it it thought it was pretty damning for Carson, but I don't have a natural inclination against him, so I could see when things were explained that the piece was just bad. I'm not going to say any more, as even people in places like The Washington Post have pointed out how bad the story was. It's just hilarious. Sure seems like your not addressing it. Do you think Carson told the truth when he claimed the General was there? Again, if he lied, he lied. It's pretty amazing to me that you're still saying "if he lied". There is no "if". He said he was offered a full scholarship. He wasn't. The guy lied, period. On November 08 2015 11:20 OuchyDathurts wrote:On November 08 2015 10:56 Danglars wrote:Activists plan to protest Donald Trump’s appearance on “Saturday Night Live” this weekend and are calling cast members of the NBC show to condemn his hardline stance against illegal immigration and past statements made against Mexicans.
In a call with reporters Friday, activists accused the Republican presidential candidate of using racist language and said that NBC had no business giving him the free airtime. In his speech announcing his candidacy back in June, Mr. Trump said that Mexico sends immigrants to the U.S. who are “bringing drugs” and are “rapists.”
“He doesn’t deserve an additional 90-minute campaign ad,” said Justin Krebs of the liberal group Move On, which collected 150,000 signatures on a petition against Mr. Trump’s appearance.
Mr. Trump brushed off the criticisms earlier this week and said that his appearance will help drive record ratings to the show.
“Look, I think they should demonstrate,” Mr. Trump said during a press conference to announce his new book Tuesday. “Ratings will go even higher than they are going to be. It’s going to be one of their highest-rated shows ever and they’re very excited about it.” WSJProtesting a SNL performance and specifically calling on the comedy team to condemn him ... these people need to learn to not feed the trolls. No no no wait, maybe THIS will be the time the shaming works. I didn't know people watched SNL anymore to begin with but this all seems really stupid. Rudy Giuliani has said some pretty fucked up stuff and he's hosted SNL a million times, I don't recall people caring. John Leguizamo is going to boycott SNL forever as if anyone cares what he thinks about anything, he hasn't been relevant in 15 years. Trump is a massive narcissistic sociopathic jackass for sure, he's said some massively ignorant stuff, but this seems so hollow and stupid to me. This is some arm chair activist shit. I don't see how it's supposed to be "hollow and stupid" to be critical of allowing a despicable person to play a role that can only make him more sympathetic to the audience. I don't want terrible people, who encourage xenophobia and racism, to be given PR opportunities. Would I want a representative of the KKK to host SNL, even if he has a great humor outside of his racist views? No. You see here is the problem, you and I may consider him a despicable person. But you dont get to pass judgement nor does anyone else, as if its something the whole world should agree with, And frankly I would love to see Trump on SNL, The guy is endless entertainment. Hes not going on SNL to promote xenophobia now is he ? As for PR, if this country is going to start electing people based on their appearance or PR presence in the form that Trump has had then you have bigger problems than Trump I'm not sure what "you dont get to pass judgement nor does anyone else, as if its something the whole world should agree with" is supposed to mean with regards to my point. I'm not forcing my views on anyone else. The point is that I believe someone as toxic and xenophobic Trump should get as little exposure as possible, especially exposure designed to make him more likeable. The fact that he's not going on SNL to promote xenophobia is utterly irrelevant -- the net effect will still be that a xenophobic asshole will receive a golden PR opportunity to appear as a nice guy, which can only help himself and his message. Show nested quote +On November 08 2015 14:47 Danglars wrote:On November 08 2015 11:29 kwizach wrote:On November 08 2015 05:51 Introvert wrote:On November 08 2015 05:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 08 2015 05:38 Introvert wrote:On November 08 2015 05:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 08 2015 05:25 Introvert wrote:On November 08 2015 05:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 08 2015 04:22 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
From what I've seen, at the time ads from West Point used the word "scholarship." But beyond that, Carson doesn't claim to have formally applied in the first place. He says he met someone who offered him a spot, and full paid. He said he had 10 dollars to apply somewhere, and he applied to Yale- only. Combine that with the fact he's remembering something from how many decades before? It becomes more and more of a non-story.
Again, I'm not a Carson fan so I don't want to spend time defending him, but it's clear that the Politico article was, at the very least, dishonest. And that's why they had to fix it. When I first read the article, I thought it was pretty damning- I had the same reaction as everyone here. But that was clearly incorrect. Yeah, the General also disappeared from his version of history. In Carson’s 1990 best-selling autobiography, “Gifted Hands: The Ben Carson Story,” the neurosurgeon tells of being offered a scholarship to West Point as a high school senior sometime after having dinner with the U.S. Army’s chief of staff, Gen. William Westmoreland, on Memorial Day 1969.
But Westmoreland’s personal schedule shows the general was not in Detroit on Memorial Day or during the days preceding and following the holiday. His schedule says he was in and around Washington, D.C., that weekend, according to Army archives The Detroit News reviewed Friday. SourceBut like I said, not going to hurt him much if at all. The spin room already has people like Intro defending his habitual misleading by pointing at the "liberal" media. Which is all but completely ignoring Sanders, so they can't be the communist loving far left liberals the right likes to paint them as. On November 08 2015 05:01 TheTenthDoc wrote:
There's no point arguing about dishonesty anymore, Democrats and Republicans are in completely different realities at this point. It's pretty much a game of "Whose Line is it Anyway" on the campaign trail, except all that matters is the points and not whether or not they're true. "War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength;" Nah, if you read the excerpts from what he wrote, ( I had not before this story) it becomes pretty obvious this was a bad article. Point is, from his understanding, he could have gone to West Point, but didn't. It seems impossible to prove otherwise, and it doesn't seem all that unlikely, either. But totally, I just want to defend Carson, cause I'm so known for that. Talk of reality and spin. I'll just say this, if you think Sanders is being unfairly ignored, does that not prove media bias (in favor of the Clinton's?) of course. So then it's not a far fetch to imagine they aren't pro Republican (and considering the voting patterns of most journalists, this seems likely). Your common complaints about Sanders being ignored is proof enough that the media have their favorites. I was saying if people on the right who don't even call themselves supporters are defending him (notice you ignored that he claimed someone was there who obviously wasn't) it's not going to hurt him. It wasn't about you personally. As for Sanders, he doesn't have a Fox News or Talk radio support network like the right, and the "leftist" media isn't much better, save a couple exceptions. But I don't disagree that the media plays favorites. Carson obviously lied, that he didn't actually "admit to lying" or that Politico focused on the wrong aspect,s may be less than stellar reporting, but it doesn't change that he obviously lied. Actually, I didn't ignore anything. And "less than stellar" lol. It was wrong. It said Carson or his campaign said things neither said. That's why they corrected it (kind of). They didn't even get a statement from Carson before publication. It was a crappy article. Like I said, when I first read it it thought it was pretty damning for Carson, but I don't have a natural inclination against him, so I could see when things were explained that the piece was just bad. I'm not going to say any more, as even people in places like The Washington Post have pointed out how bad the story was. It's just hilarious. Sure seems like your not addressing it. Do you think Carson told the truth when he claimed the General was there? Again, if he lied, he lied. It's pretty amazing to me that you're still saying "if he lied". There is no "if". He said he was offered a full scholarship. He wasn't. The guy lied, period. On November 08 2015 11:20 OuchyDathurts wrote:On November 08 2015 10:56 Danglars wrote:Activists plan to protest Donald Trump’s appearance on “Saturday Night Live” this weekend and are calling cast members of the NBC show to condemn his hardline stance against illegal immigration and past statements made against Mexicans.
In a call with reporters Friday, activists accused the Republican presidential candidate of using racist language and said that NBC had no business giving him the free airtime. In his speech announcing his candidacy back in June, Mr. Trump said that Mexico sends immigrants to the U.S. who are “bringing drugs” and are “rapists.”
“He doesn’t deserve an additional 90-minute campaign ad,” said Justin Krebs of the liberal group Move On, which collected 150,000 signatures on a petition against Mr. Trump’s appearance.
Mr. Trump brushed off the criticisms earlier this week and said that his appearance will help drive record ratings to the show.
“Look, I think they should demonstrate,” Mr. Trump said during a press conference to announce his new book Tuesday. “Ratings will go even higher than they are going to be. It’s going to be one of their highest-rated shows ever and they’re very excited about it.” WSJProtesting a SNL performance and specifically calling on the comedy team to condemn him ... these people need to learn to not feed the trolls. No no no wait, maybe THIS will be the time the shaming works. I didn't know people watched SNL anymore to begin with but this all seems really stupid. Rudy Giuliani has said some pretty fucked up stuff and he's hosted SNL a million times, I don't recall people caring. John Leguizamo is going to boycott SNL forever as if anyone cares what he thinks about anything, he hasn't been relevant in 15 years. Trump is a massive narcissistic sociopathic jackass for sure, he's said some massively ignorant stuff, but this seems so hollow and stupid to me. This is some arm chair activist shit. I don't see how it's supposed to be "hollow and stupid" to be critical of allowing a despicable person to play a role that can only make him more sympathetic to the audience. I don't want terrible people, who encourage xenophobia and racism, to be given PR opportunities. Would I want a representative of the KKK to host SNL, even if he has a great humor outside of his racist views? No. You've got a pretty high-brow view of an entertainment program that invites on pop-star celebrities and the like. Well, that or a pretty unusual soap box preacher approach to TV in general. There's nothing highbrow about recognizing the impact comedy TV has on people. Giving Trump the opportunity to cast himself as a likeable guy only serves to lessen how negatively people see his message. Perhaps you've got a pretty naïve view of the impact of television. Indeed, you come off as nothing but a high-brow moralizing buffoon, a kind of left's version of some suburban soccer mom that writes to her local TV station that Junior shouldn't be exposed to the Simpsons or the like.
On November 08 2015 11:29 kwizach wrote:
I don't see how it's supposed to be "hollow and stupid" to be critical of allowing a despicable person to play a role that can only make him more sympathetic to the audience. I don't want terrible people, who encourage xenophobia and racism, to be given PR opportunities. Would I want a representative of the KKK to host SNL, even if he has a great humor outside of his racist views? No.
He's a "despicable person" who you don't want sympathetically portrayed, a xenophobe and racist, and *egads* he's being given PR opportunities.+ Show Spoiler [That ship's sailed.] +Bonus: Makes fun of his own bloated ego and swagger
It's all so delightfully Orwellian with you fearing any appearance that might make him "more sympathetic to the audience". Why if you give him "opportunity to cast himself as a likeable guy" he might "lessen how negatively people see his message!" Trump is very well known by now; if you thought he was a wild racist, one comedy program won't pull the wool down over your eyes. The elephant in the room is many think him a straight talker on immigration and a man truly concerned with making America better for all races and mixed-nationalities (And yes, this is in contrast to groups like the KKK). I think opinion is so divided on his character that everybody's better off letting him blab to whoever's willing to hand him a mic. American television viewers can make up their own damn mind if he has it in for Mexicans, or is just too crude, or is funny and harmless, or a populist that's found his hour.
Let me address your original deft sidestep. It isn't about "being critical" as a general concept. The protesters wanted NBC cast to condemn his political views on a comedy program. NBC had "no business giving him free airtime." They're feeding his machine being critical in this manner and drawing more eyeballs to the show, for a next to nil chance NBC reverses their decision to have him on. If that isn't the very soul of counterproductive activities, or as I called it "feed[ing] the trolls," I hardly know what is. With shaming, is the hundredth time the charm?
|
With enemies like this who needs friends? The protesters just do Trump's work for him raising the profile of a mundane appearance on a comedy show by making it political.
|
On November 08 2015 18:44 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2015 16:06 kwizach wrote:On November 08 2015 13:51 Rebs wrote:On November 08 2015 11:29 kwizach wrote:On November 08 2015 05:51 Introvert wrote:On November 08 2015 05:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 08 2015 05:38 Introvert wrote:On November 08 2015 05:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 08 2015 05:25 Introvert wrote:On November 08 2015 05:08 GreenHorizons wrote:[quote] Yeah, the General also disappeared from his version of history. [quote] SourceBut like I said, not going to hurt him much if at all. The spin room already has people like Intro defending his habitual misleading by pointing at the "liberal" media. Which is all but completely ignoring Sanders, so they can't be the communist loving far left liberals the right likes to paint them as. [quote] "War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength;" Nah, if you read the excerpts from what he wrote, ( I had not before this story) it becomes pretty obvious this was a bad article. Point is, from his understanding, he could have gone to West Point, but didn't. It seems impossible to prove otherwise, and it doesn't seem all that unlikely, either. But totally, I just want to defend Carson, cause I'm so known for that. Talk of reality and spin. I'll just say this, if you think Sanders is being unfairly ignored, does that not prove media bias (in favor of the Clinton's?) of course. So then it's not a far fetch to imagine they aren't pro Republican (and considering the voting patterns of most journalists, this seems likely). Your common complaints about Sanders being ignored is proof enough that the media have their favorites. I was saying if people on the right who don't even call themselves supporters are defending him (notice you ignored that he claimed someone was there who obviously wasn't) it's not going to hurt him. It wasn't about you personally. As for Sanders, he doesn't have a Fox News or Talk radio support network like the right, and the "leftist" media isn't much better, save a couple exceptions. But I don't disagree that the media plays favorites. Carson obviously lied, that he didn't actually "admit to lying" or that Politico focused on the wrong aspect,s may be less than stellar reporting, but it doesn't change that he obviously lied. Actually, I didn't ignore anything. And "less than stellar" lol. It was wrong. It said Carson or his campaign said things neither said. That's why they corrected it (kind of). They didn't even get a statement from Carson before publication. It was a crappy article. Like I said, when I first read it it thought it was pretty damning for Carson, but I don't have a natural inclination against him, so I could see when things were explained that the piece was just bad. I'm not going to say any more, as even people in places like The Washington Post have pointed out how bad the story was. It's just hilarious. Sure seems like your not addressing it. Do you think Carson told the truth when he claimed the General was there? Again, if he lied, he lied. It's pretty amazing to me that you're still saying "if he lied". There is no "if". He said he was offered a full scholarship. He wasn't. The guy lied, period. On November 08 2015 11:20 OuchyDathurts wrote:On November 08 2015 10:56 Danglars wrote:Activists plan to protest Donald Trump’s appearance on “Saturday Night Live” this weekend and are calling cast members of the NBC show to condemn his hardline stance against illegal immigration and past statements made against Mexicans.
In a call with reporters Friday, activists accused the Republican presidential candidate of using racist language and said that NBC had no business giving him the free airtime. In his speech announcing his candidacy back in June, Mr. Trump said that Mexico sends immigrants to the U.S. who are “bringing drugs” and are “rapists.”
“He doesn’t deserve an additional 90-minute campaign ad,” said Justin Krebs of the liberal group Move On, which collected 150,000 signatures on a petition against Mr. Trump’s appearance.
Mr. Trump brushed off the criticisms earlier this week and said that his appearance will help drive record ratings to the show.
“Look, I think they should demonstrate,” Mr. Trump said during a press conference to announce his new book Tuesday. “Ratings will go even higher than they are going to be. It’s going to be one of their highest-rated shows ever and they’re very excited about it.” WSJProtesting a SNL performance and specifically calling on the comedy team to condemn him ... these people need to learn to not feed the trolls. No no no wait, maybe THIS will be the time the shaming works. I didn't know people watched SNL anymore to begin with but this all seems really stupid. Rudy Giuliani has said some pretty fucked up stuff and he's hosted SNL a million times, I don't recall people caring. John Leguizamo is going to boycott SNL forever as if anyone cares what he thinks about anything, he hasn't been relevant in 15 years. Trump is a massive narcissistic sociopathic jackass for sure, he's said some massively ignorant stuff, but this seems so hollow and stupid to me. This is some arm chair activist shit. I don't see how it's supposed to be "hollow and stupid" to be critical of allowing a despicable person to play a role that can only make him more sympathetic to the audience. I don't want terrible people, who encourage xenophobia and racism, to be given PR opportunities. Would I want a representative of the KKK to host SNL, even if he has a great humor outside of his racist views? No. You see here is the problem, you and I may consider him a despicable person. But you dont get to pass judgement nor does anyone else, as if its something the whole world should agree with, And frankly I would love to see Trump on SNL, The guy is endless entertainment. Hes not going on SNL to promote xenophobia now is he ? As for PR, if this country is going to start electing people based on their appearance or PR presence in the form that Trump has had then you have bigger problems than Trump I'm not sure what "you dont get to pass judgement nor does anyone else, as if its something the whole world should agree with" is supposed to mean with regards to my point. I'm not forcing my views on anyone else. The point is that I believe someone as toxic and xenophobic Trump should get as little exposure as possible, especially exposure designed to make him more likeable. The fact that he's not going on SNL to promote xenophobia is utterly irrelevant -- the net effect will still be that a xenophobic asshole will receive a golden PR opportunity to appear as a nice guy, which can only help himself and his message. On November 08 2015 14:47 Danglars wrote:On November 08 2015 11:29 kwizach wrote:On November 08 2015 05:51 Introvert wrote:On November 08 2015 05:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 08 2015 05:38 Introvert wrote:On November 08 2015 05:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 08 2015 05:25 Introvert wrote:On November 08 2015 05:08 GreenHorizons wrote:[quote] Yeah, the General also disappeared from his version of history. [quote] SourceBut like I said, not going to hurt him much if at all. The spin room already has people like Intro defending his habitual misleading by pointing at the "liberal" media. Which is all but completely ignoring Sanders, so they can't be the communist loving far left liberals the right likes to paint them as. [quote] "War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength;" Nah, if you read the excerpts from what he wrote, ( I had not before this story) it becomes pretty obvious this was a bad article. Point is, from his understanding, he could have gone to West Point, but didn't. It seems impossible to prove otherwise, and it doesn't seem all that unlikely, either. But totally, I just want to defend Carson, cause I'm so known for that. Talk of reality and spin. I'll just say this, if you think Sanders is being unfairly ignored, does that not prove media bias (in favor of the Clinton's?) of course. So then it's not a far fetch to imagine they aren't pro Republican (and considering the voting patterns of most journalists, this seems likely). Your common complaints about Sanders being ignored is proof enough that the media have their favorites. I was saying if people on the right who don't even call themselves supporters are defending him (notice you ignored that he claimed someone was there who obviously wasn't) it's not going to hurt him. It wasn't about you personally. As for Sanders, he doesn't have a Fox News or Talk radio support network like the right, and the "leftist" media isn't much better, save a couple exceptions. But I don't disagree that the media plays favorites. Carson obviously lied, that he didn't actually "admit to lying" or that Politico focused on the wrong aspect,s may be less than stellar reporting, but it doesn't change that he obviously lied. Actually, I didn't ignore anything. And "less than stellar" lol. It was wrong. It said Carson or his campaign said things neither said. That's why they corrected it (kind of). They didn't even get a statement from Carson before publication. It was a crappy article. Like I said, when I first read it it thought it was pretty damning for Carson, but I don't have a natural inclination against him, so I could see when things were explained that the piece was just bad. I'm not going to say any more, as even people in places like The Washington Post have pointed out how bad the story was. It's just hilarious. Sure seems like your not addressing it. Do you think Carson told the truth when he claimed the General was there? Again, if he lied, he lied. It's pretty amazing to me that you're still saying "if he lied". There is no "if". He said he was offered a full scholarship. He wasn't. The guy lied, period. On November 08 2015 11:20 OuchyDathurts wrote:On November 08 2015 10:56 Danglars wrote:Activists plan to protest Donald Trump’s appearance on “Saturday Night Live” this weekend and are calling cast members of the NBC show to condemn his hardline stance against illegal immigration and past statements made against Mexicans.
In a call with reporters Friday, activists accused the Republican presidential candidate of using racist language and said that NBC had no business giving him the free airtime. In his speech announcing his candidacy back in June, Mr. Trump said that Mexico sends immigrants to the U.S. who are “bringing drugs” and are “rapists.”
“He doesn’t deserve an additional 90-minute campaign ad,” said Justin Krebs of the liberal group Move On, which collected 150,000 signatures on a petition against Mr. Trump’s appearance.
Mr. Trump brushed off the criticisms earlier this week and said that his appearance will help drive record ratings to the show.
“Look, I think they should demonstrate,” Mr. Trump said during a press conference to announce his new book Tuesday. “Ratings will go even higher than they are going to be. It’s going to be one of their highest-rated shows ever and they’re very excited about it.” WSJProtesting a SNL performance and specifically calling on the comedy team to condemn him ... these people need to learn to not feed the trolls. No no no wait, maybe THIS will be the time the shaming works. I didn't know people watched SNL anymore to begin with but this all seems really stupid. Rudy Giuliani has said some pretty fucked up stuff and he's hosted SNL a million times, I don't recall people caring. John Leguizamo is going to boycott SNL forever as if anyone cares what he thinks about anything, he hasn't been relevant in 15 years. Trump is a massive narcissistic sociopathic jackass for sure, he's said some massively ignorant stuff, but this seems so hollow and stupid to me. This is some arm chair activist shit. I don't see how it's supposed to be "hollow and stupid" to be critical of allowing a despicable person to play a role that can only make him more sympathetic to the audience. I don't want terrible people, who encourage xenophobia and racism, to be given PR opportunities. Would I want a representative of the KKK to host SNL, even if he has a great humor outside of his racist views? No. You've got a pretty high-brow view of an entertainment program that invites on pop-star celebrities and the like. Well, that or a pretty unusual soap box preacher approach to TV in general. There's nothing highbrow about recognizing the impact comedy TV has on people. Giving Trump the opportunity to cast himself as a likeable guy only serves to lessen how negatively people see his message. Perhaps you've got a pretty naïve view of the impact of television. Indeed, you come off as nothing but a high-brow moralizing buffoon, a kind of left's version of some suburban soccer mom that writes to her local TV station that Junior shouldn't be exposed to the Simpsons or the like. Show nested quote +On November 08 2015 11:29 kwizach wrote:
I don't see how it's supposed to be "hollow and stupid" to be critical of allowing a despicable person to play a role that can only make him more sympathetic to the audience. I don't want terrible people, who encourage xenophobia and racism, to be given PR opportunities. Would I want a representative of the KKK to host SNL, even if he has a great humor outside of his racist views? No. He's a "despicable person" who you don't want sympathetically portrayed, a xenophobe and racist, and *egads* he's being given PR opportunities. + Show Spoiler [That ship's sailed.] +. But I'm still beating around the bush. You admit great humor, but love those critics that protest a comedy appearance for its menace to the public
I actually liked this "interview in the mirror", was funny. But I don't understand how Trump can believe this is any good ? Sure it is a good idea to show that you can be cool and all despite being a politician (like Obama did actually), but in this interview at some point he was (from my point of view) ridiculized, talking for a minute about political solutions while Fallon was mimicking him and the audience laughing.
This guy seems to care very little about his credibility.
|
On November 08 2015 14:44 TheTenthDoc wrote:
All questions of his savoriness aside, it is interesting that NBC tried to force Trump to find another host for his season of The Apprentice because it would be a campaign ad but is willing to let him host Saturday Night Live. Talk about double standards at the network.
Um.... I don't see any problem there. I mean, I have friends come over for party once in a while, that doesn't mean they can come every night for dinner?
All candidates does appearances. It's one thing if you don't like him and don't want him to do anything, that's your problem, but what NBC did is pretty normal. No one protested Fiorina's appearance on the view, even though she arguably did more harm at HP than trump ever did.
OTOH I was always confused by Trump's campaign. After a drunken night of wii, I finally understood: it's the mario party strategy!
|
Leading architects of the “New Democrat” movement are sounding the alarm over a lurch to the left in the party, after candidates at the latest presidential primary debate confirmed a resurgence of more populist economic policies.
Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley spoke passionately about the need to reduce wage inequality and corporate power during a forum in South Carolina on Friday night in which all three distanced themselves from the establishment orthodoxy that has long prevailed in Washington.
It followed a similar performance from Clinton at the first official debate in Las Vegas last month that restored her lead over Sanders – who describes himself as a democratic socialist – but has nonetheless left the party with one of its most radical policy platforms in decades.
“We’re at a point in history right now where both our democracy and our economy are not working for the majority,” the former secretary of state told MSNBC moderator Rachel Maddow at the South Carolina event.
“People rightly believe that corporations and the powerful have stacked the deck in their favour and against everybody else.”
How committed Clinton is to her new anti-establishment agenda remains a matter of fierce debate, not least among Sanders supporters, but Guardian interviews with leading activists on both sides of the party’s divide suggest the lurch to the left is not limited to presidential politics.
“The battle for the soul of the Democratic party is coming to an end,” claims Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC), a champion of Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren.
“It’s not just Sanders and O’Malley, there is an entire Warren wing of American politics that includes certain politicians, thinktank, and advocacy groups [and] has fundamentally shifted the national debate in an economic populist direction.”
They point to near-universal rejection among Democrats of Barack Obama’s free trade agreement, a lasting revolt against his plans to cut social security and radical promises to curb student debt as signs that the Democratic mainstream has outstripped a progressive president who once seemed too radical for his party.
Source
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
On November 08 2015 17:50 WolfintheSheep wrote:
"I hate this guy, so he should be barred from showing anything except the stuff I hate."
That is one of the dumbest ideas that I have ever heard.
Good thing that's not what I said, then. I said that I oppose giving a golden PR opportunity to a guy with a xenophobic message. Are you in favor of putting KKK members on TV in a comedy setting (as subjects, not objects), purely to show how sympathetic they can be? I'm not, because it benefits them and their positions.
On November 08 2015 18:44 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2015 16:06 kwizach wrote:On November 08 2015 13:51 Rebs wrote:On November 08 2015 11:29 kwizach wrote:On November 08 2015 05:51 Introvert wrote:On November 08 2015 05:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 08 2015 05:38 Introvert wrote:On November 08 2015 05:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 08 2015 05:25 Introvert wrote:On November 08 2015 05:08 GreenHorizons wrote:[quote] Yeah, the General also disappeared from his version of history. [quote] SourceBut like I said, not going to hurt him much if at all. The spin room already has people like Intro defending his habitual misleading by pointing at the "liberal" media. Which is all but completely ignoring Sanders, so they can't be the communist loving far left liberals the right likes to paint them as. [quote] "War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength;" Nah, if you read the excerpts from what he wrote, ( I had not before this story) it becomes pretty obvious this was a bad article. Point is, from his understanding, he could have gone to West Point, but didn't. It seems impossible to prove otherwise, and it doesn't seem all that unlikely, either. But totally, I just want to defend Carson, cause I'm so known for that. Talk of reality and spin. I'll just say this, if you think Sanders is being unfairly ignored, does that not prove media bias (in favor of the Clinton's?) of course. So then it's not a far fetch to imagine they aren't pro Republican (and considering the voting patterns of most journalists, this seems likely). Your common complaints about Sanders being ignored is proof enough that the media have their favorites. I was saying if people on the right who don't even call themselves supporters are defending him (notice you ignored that he claimed someone was there who obviously wasn't) it's not going to hurt him. It wasn't about you personally. As for Sanders, he doesn't have a Fox News or Talk radio support network like the right, and the "leftist" media isn't much better, save a couple exceptions. But I don't disagree that the media plays favorites. Carson obviously lied, that he didn't actually "admit to lying" or that Politico focused on the wrong aspect,s may be less than stellar reporting, but it doesn't change that he obviously lied. Actually, I didn't ignore anything. And "less than stellar" lol. It was wrong. It said Carson or his campaign said things neither said. That's why they corrected it (kind of). They didn't even get a statement from Carson before publication. It was a crappy article. Like I said, when I first read it it thought it was pretty damning for Carson, but I don't have a natural inclination against him, so I could see when things were explained that the piece was just bad. I'm not going to say any more, as even people in places like The Washington Post have pointed out how bad the story was. It's just hilarious. Sure seems like your not addressing it. Do you think Carson told the truth when he claimed the General was there? Again, if he lied, he lied. It's pretty amazing to me that you're still saying "if he lied". There is no "if". He said he was offered a full scholarship. He wasn't. The guy lied, period. On November 08 2015 11:20 OuchyDathurts wrote:On November 08 2015 10:56 Danglars wrote:Activists plan to protest Donald Trump’s appearance on “Saturday Night Live” this weekend and are calling cast members of the NBC show to condemn his hardline stance against illegal immigration and past statements made against Mexicans.
In a call with reporters Friday, activists accused the Republican presidential candidate of using racist language and said that NBC had no business giving him the free airtime. In his speech announcing his candidacy back in June, Mr. Trump said that Mexico sends immigrants to the U.S. who are “bringing drugs” and are “rapists.”
“He doesn’t deserve an additional 90-minute campaign ad,” said Justin Krebs of the liberal group Move On, which collected 150,000 signatures on a petition against Mr. Trump’s appearance.
Mr. Trump brushed off the criticisms earlier this week and said that his appearance will help drive record ratings to the show.
“Look, I think they should demonstrate,” Mr. Trump said during a press conference to announce his new book Tuesday. “Ratings will go even higher than they are going to be. It’s going to be one of their highest-rated shows ever and they’re very excited about it.” WSJProtesting a SNL performance and specifically calling on the comedy team to condemn him ... these people need to learn to not feed the trolls. No no no wait, maybe THIS will be the time the shaming works. I didn't know people watched SNL anymore to begin with but this all seems really stupid. Rudy Giuliani has said some pretty fucked up stuff and he's hosted SNL a million times, I don't recall people caring. John Leguizamo is going to boycott SNL forever as if anyone cares what he thinks about anything, he hasn't been relevant in 15 years. Trump is a massive narcissistic sociopathic jackass for sure, he's said some massively ignorant stuff, but this seems so hollow and stupid to me. This is some arm chair activist shit. I don't see how it's supposed to be "hollow and stupid" to be critical of allowing a despicable person to play a role that can only make him more sympathetic to the audience. I don't want terrible people, who encourage xenophobia and racism, to be given PR opportunities. Would I want a representative of the KKK to host SNL, even if he has a great humor outside of his racist views? No. You see here is the problem, you and I may consider him a despicable person. But you dont get to pass judgement nor does anyone else, as if its something the whole world should agree with, And frankly I would love to see Trump on SNL, The guy is endless entertainment. Hes not going on SNL to promote xenophobia now is he ? As for PR, if this country is going to start electing people based on their appearance or PR presence in the form that Trump has had then you have bigger problems than Trump I'm not sure what "you dont get to pass judgement nor does anyone else, as if its something the whole world should agree with" is supposed to mean with regards to my point. I'm not forcing my views on anyone else. The point is that I believe someone as toxic and xenophobic Trump should get as little exposure as possible, especially exposure designed to make him more likeable. The fact that he's not going on SNL to promote xenophobia is utterly irrelevant -- the net effect will still be that a xenophobic asshole will receive a golden PR opportunity to appear as a nice guy, which can only help himself and his message. On November 08 2015 14:47 Danglars wrote:On November 08 2015 11:29 kwizach wrote:On November 08 2015 05:51 Introvert wrote:On November 08 2015 05:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 08 2015 05:38 Introvert wrote:On November 08 2015 05:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 08 2015 05:25 Introvert wrote:On November 08 2015 05:08 GreenHorizons wrote:[quote] Yeah, the General also disappeared from his version of history. [quote] SourceBut like I said, not going to hurt him much if at all. The spin room already has people like Intro defending his habitual misleading by pointing at the "liberal" media. Which is all but completely ignoring Sanders, so they can't be the communist loving far left liberals the right likes to paint them as. [quote] "War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength;" Nah, if you read the excerpts from what he wrote, ( I had not before this story) it becomes pretty obvious this was a bad article. Point is, from his understanding, he could have gone to West Point, but didn't. It seems impossible to prove otherwise, and it doesn't seem all that unlikely, either. But totally, I just want to defend Carson, cause I'm so known for that. Talk of reality and spin. I'll just say this, if you think Sanders is being unfairly ignored, does that not prove media bias (in favor of the Clinton's?) of course. So then it's not a far fetch to imagine they aren't pro Republican (and considering the voting patterns of most journalists, this seems likely). Your common complaints about Sanders being ignored is proof enough that the media have their favorites. I was saying if people on the right who don't even call themselves supporters are defending him (notice you ignored that he claimed someone was there who obviously wasn't) it's not going to hurt him. It wasn't about you personally. As for Sanders, he doesn't have a Fox News or Talk radio support network like the right, and the "leftist" media isn't much better, save a couple exceptions. But I don't disagree that the media plays favorites. Carson obviously lied, that he didn't actually "admit to lying" or that Politico focused on the wrong aspect,s may be less than stellar reporting, but it doesn't change that he obviously lied. Actually, I didn't ignore anything. And "less than stellar" lol. It was wrong. It said Carson or his campaign said things neither said. That's why they corrected it (kind of). They didn't even get a statement from Carson before publication. It was a crappy article. Like I said, when I first read it it thought it was pretty damning for Carson, but I don't have a natural inclination against him, so I could see when things were explained that the piece was just bad. I'm not going to say any more, as even people in places like The Washington Post have pointed out how bad the story was. It's just hilarious. Sure seems like your not addressing it. Do you think Carson told the truth when he claimed the General was there? Again, if he lied, he lied. It's pretty amazing to me that you're still saying "if he lied". There is no "if". He said he was offered a full scholarship. He wasn't. The guy lied, period. On November 08 2015 11:20 OuchyDathurts wrote:On November 08 2015 10:56 Danglars wrote:Activists plan to protest Donald Trump’s appearance on “Saturday Night Live” this weekend and are calling cast members of the NBC show to condemn his hardline stance against illegal immigration and past statements made against Mexicans.
In a call with reporters Friday, activists accused the Republican presidential candidate of using racist language and said that NBC had no business giving him the free airtime. In his speech announcing his candidacy back in June, Mr. Trump said that Mexico sends immigrants to the U.S. who are “bringing drugs” and are “rapists.”
“He doesn’t deserve an additional 90-minute campaign ad,” said Justin Krebs of the liberal group Move On, which collected 150,000 signatures on a petition against Mr. Trump’s appearance.
Mr. Trump brushed off the criticisms earlier this week and said that his appearance will help drive record ratings to the show.
“Look, I think they should demonstrate,” Mr. Trump said during a press conference to announce his new book Tuesday. “Ratings will go even higher than they are going to be. It’s going to be one of their highest-rated shows ever and they’re very excited about it.” WSJProtesting a SNL performance and specifically calling on the comedy team to condemn him ... these people need to learn to not feed the trolls. No no no wait, maybe THIS will be the time the shaming works. I didn't know people watched SNL anymore to begin with but this all seems really stupid. Rudy Giuliani has said some pretty fucked up stuff and he's hosted SNL a million times, I don't recall people caring. John Leguizamo is going to boycott SNL forever as if anyone cares what he thinks about anything, he hasn't been relevant in 15 years. Trump is a massive narcissistic sociopathic jackass for sure, he's said some massively ignorant stuff, but this seems so hollow and stupid to me. This is some arm chair activist shit. I don't see how it's supposed to be "hollow and stupid" to be critical of allowing a despicable person to play a role that can only make him more sympathetic to the audience. I don't want terrible people, who encourage xenophobia and racism, to be given PR opportunities. Would I want a representative of the KKK to host SNL, even if he has a great humor outside of his racist views? No. You've got a pretty high-brow view of an entertainment program that invites on pop-star celebrities and the like. Well, that or a pretty unusual soap box preacher approach to TV in general. There's nothing highbrow about recognizing the impact comedy TV has on people. Giving Trump the opportunity to cast himself as a likeable guy only serves to lessen how negatively people see his message. Perhaps you've got a pretty naïve view of the impact of television. Indeed, you come off as nothing but a high-brow moralizing buffoon, a kind of left's version of some suburban soccer mom that writes to her local TV station that Junior shouldn't be exposed to the Simpsons or the like.
Appearing as a buffoon to you is probably one of the highest honors on this board. If there was a Simpsons episode that painted the KKK as likeable and relatable, I would be critical of that episode. Like I said, perhaps the issue is simply that you're incredibly naïve about the impact of media representations and portrayals on people.
On November 08 2015 18:44 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2015 11:29 kwizach wrote:
I don't see how it's supposed to be "hollow and stupid" to be critical of allowing a despicable person to play a role that can only make him more sympathetic to the audience. I don't want terrible people, who encourage xenophobia and racism, to be given PR opportunities. Would I want a representative of the KKK to host SNL, even if he has a great humor outside of his racist views? No. He's a "despicable person" who you don't want sympathetically portrayed, a xenophobe and racist, and *egads* he's being given PR opportunities. + Show Spoiler [That ship's sailed.] +. But I'm still beating around the bush. You admit great humor, but love those critics that protest a comedy appearance for its menace to the public.
Try paying attention to what I'm writing: I said even if a KKK representative had a great humor (I never said anything about Trump's sense of humor), I would not want him to host SNL.
On November 08 2015 18:44 Danglars wrote:
It's all so delightfully Orwellian with you fearing any appearance that might make him "more sympathetic to the audience". Why if you give him "opportunity to cast himself as a likeable guy" he might "lessen how negatively people see his message!" Trump is very well known by now; if you thought he was a wild racist, one comedy program won't pull the wool down over your eyes. The elephant in the room is many think him a straight talker on immigration and a man truly concerned with making America better for all races and mixed-nationalities (And yes, this is in contrast to groups like the KKK). I think opinion is so divided on his character that everybody's better off letting him blab to whoever's willing to hand him a mic. American television viewers can make up their own damn mind if he has it in for Mexicans, or is just too crude, or is funny and harmless, or a populist that's found his hour.
There's absolutely nothing Orwellian about it -- perhaps you should look up what the word means. Trump is free to say whatever he wants to say, and I'm absolutely not in favor of restricting his freedom of speech as long as he does not violate any existing laws (such as inciting to violence against immigrants). There's a difference, however, between letting him say whatever he wants to say, and actively giving him a platform to promote himself (and therefore, indirectly, his message). Again, everyone is free to make their own mind, but that doesn't mean media portrayals of Trump (in this case, Trump's media portrayal of himself) do not have an influence (one way or the other) on how people perceive him. Giving him the opportunity to present himself favorably to the audience as SNL did makes his job of pushing his xenophobic message easier, because people will be more receptive to the message of someone they see as likeable. I'm not in favor of giving him that platform. It would in no way infringe on his freedom of speech to not give it to him.
On November 08 2015 18:44 Danglars wrote:
Let me address your original deft sidestep. It isn't about "being critical" as a general concept. The protesters wanted NBC cast to condemn his political views on a comedy program. NBC had "no business giving him free airtime." They're feeding his machine being critical in this manner and drawing more eyeballs to the show, for a next to nil chance NBC reverses their decision to have him on. If that isn't the very soul of counterproductive activities, or as I called it "feed[ing] the trolls," I hardly know what is. With shaming, is the hundredth time the charm?
I'm not sure where I'm supposed to have "sidestepped" anything, since I stated my position clearly in response to a comment OuchyDathurts made, not you. Like I said, there's nothing "hollow and stupid" about criticizing NBC's decision to give him the platform they did and about protesting the performance. What's hollow and stupid is being ignorant of the effects of positive publicity on audiences (since you're probably going to ignorantly strawman the hell out of this argument again, I'll add that I'm obviously not saying it will convince everyone that Trump is a nice guy, but the effect still exists -- open a psychology manual if you're not convinced).
|
|
|
On November 08 2015 23:32 ragz_gt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2015 14:44 TheTenthDoc wrote:
All questions of his savoriness aside, it is interesting that NBC tried to force Trump to find another host for his season of The Apprentice because it would be a campaign ad but is willing to let him host Saturday Night Live. Talk about double standards at the network. Um.... I don't see any problem there. I mean, I have friends come over for party once in a while, that doesn't mean they can come every night for dinner? All candidates does appearances. It's one thing if you don't like him and don't want him to do anything, that's your problem, but what NBC did is pretty normal. No one protested Fiorina's appearance on the view, even though she arguably did more harm at HP than trump ever did. OTOH I was always confused by Trump's campaign. After a drunken night of wii, I finally understood: it's the mario party strategy!
That wasn't how NBC presented the Celebrity Apprentice issue at all. It's also 2 hours of Trump in front of possibly double what a poor episode of his 1-hour show would have gotten.
Oh, I don't think it's that weird to have NBC have him on. It's clearly a calculated business move for maximum profit on an SNL that's struggling this season. I just think it's pretty funny that they did such a face heel turn on the matter.
|
On November 09 2015 00:45 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2015 17:50 WolfintheSheep wrote:
"I hate this guy, so he should be barred from showing anything except the stuff I hate."
That is one of the dumbest ideas that I have ever heard. Good thing that's not what I said, then. I said that I oppose giving a golden PR opportunity to a guy with a xenophobic message. Are you in favor of putting KKK members on TV in a comedy setting (as subjects, not objects), purely to show how sympathetic they can be? I'm not, because it benefits them and their positions.
I absolutely am.
If you want to make someone sympathetic, forming a metaphorical lynch mob and turning them into a martyr for a cause is a much better method than letting an idiot run their mouth and pretend they're not an idiot.
And attempting to censor them only ends up invoking the Streisand Effect, so all you've done is give them more attention.
Hell, that sums up the entirety of Trump's campaign, really. He says dumb shit, people try to shout him down, and he gets a lot more attention and publicity than his campaign dollars could ever buy.
|
On November 09 2015 02:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2015 00:45 kwizach wrote:On November 08 2015 17:50 WolfintheSheep wrote:
"I hate this guy, so he should be barred from showing anything except the stuff I hate."
That is one of the dumbest ideas that I have ever heard. Good thing that's not what I said, then. I said that I oppose giving a golden PR opportunity to a guy with a xenophobic message. Are you in favor of putting KKK members on TV in a comedy setting (as subjects, not objects), purely to show how sympathetic they can be? I'm not, because it benefits them and their positions. I absolutely am. If you want to make someone sympathetic, forming a metaphorical lynch mob and turning them into a martyr for a cause is a much better method than letting an idiot run their mouth and pretend they're not an idiot. And attempting to censor them only ends up invoking the Streisand Effect, so all you've done is give them more attention. Hell, that sums up the entirety of Trump's campaign, really. He says dumb shit, people try to shout him down, and he gets a lot more attention and publicity than his campaign dollars could ever buy.
That is far from a perfect solution. I don't think Trump himself should barred from speaking or shut out unless the owners of the network don't want him there. These are not publicly funded networks and they have viewer bases and some of them are minorities or whites that do not approve of the KKK. And when those people stay "I don't want the KKK or anyone that the KKK supports on the air," the networks can listen to them and not be repressing anyone.
There is this ongoing confusion about censorship that has arisen on the internet. Racist and bigots are allowed to speak. But not providing them with a wider venue(a time on a networks) is not censorship. And people voicing their opinions that they don't want them on air isn't them asking for censorship, it is them using their freedom of speech. Just because someone has unpopular a/k/a racist opinion does not make them some oppressed minority that automatically deserves the attention of the national media. The new media has the right to think that Trump is not worthy of coverage or that the coverage isn't what the viewers want. They can even say they are unhappy with the viewer base trump attracts.
No one can take away your soap box, but there is no requirement for the town to buy you a megaphone.
|
NEW YORK — Starting in 2017, high school graduates in one Colorado county will be able to turn to a college scholarship funded by marijuana tax.
On Tuesday, 60% of voters in Pueblo County approved a measure that will phase in an increase in taxes — 5% by 2020 — on marijuana growers to fund college scholarships and other community projects.
The county is expected to raise $3.5 million with this tax increase, and at least half the revenue will go toward funding scholarships for high school graduates in Pueblo to attend local colleges. Depending on revenue, the program might be expanded in future years.
“The whole point of the scholarship program was to make higher education a reality for families who can’t afford to send their kids to school because of debt,” said Paris Carmichael, a spokesperson for Pueblo County.
According to Carmichael, this type of scholarship, funded by a marijuana tax, appears to be the first of its kind.
Source
|
On November 09 2015 02:54 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2015 02:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 09 2015 00:45 kwizach wrote:On November 08 2015 17:50 WolfintheSheep wrote:
"I hate this guy, so he should be barred from showing anything except the stuff I hate."
That is one of the dumbest ideas that I have ever heard. Good thing that's not what I said, then. I said that I oppose giving a golden PR opportunity to a guy with a xenophobic message. Are you in favor of putting KKK members on TV in a comedy setting (as subjects, not objects), purely to show how sympathetic they can be? I'm not, because it benefits them and their positions. I absolutely am. If you want to make someone sympathetic, forming a metaphorical lynch mob and turning them into a martyr for a cause is a much better method than letting an idiot run their mouth and pretend they're not an idiot. And attempting to censor them only ends up invoking the Streisand Effect, so all you've done is give them more attention. Hell, that sums up the entirety of Trump's campaign, really. He says dumb shit, people try to shout him down, and he gets a lot more attention and publicity than his campaign dollars could ever buy. That is far from a perfect solution. I don't think Trump himself should barred from speaking or shut out unless the owners of the network don't want him there. These are not publicly funded networks and they have viewer bases and some of them are minorities or whites that do not approve of the KKK. And when those people stay "I don't want the KKK or anyone that the KKK supports on the air," the networks can listen to them and not be repressing anyone. There is this ongoing confusion about censorship that has arisen on the internet. Racist and bigots are allowed to speak. But not providing them with a wider venue(a time on a networks) is not censorship. And people voicing their opinions that they don't want them on air isn't them asking for censorship, it is them using their freedom of speech. Just because someone has unpopular a/k/a racist opinion does not make them some oppressed minority that automatically deserves the attention of the national media. The new media has the right to think that Trump is not worthy of coverage or that the coverage isn't what the viewers want. They can even say they are unhappy with the viewer base trump attracts. No one can take away your soap box, but there is no requirement for the town to buy you a megaphone.
Sounds like you're confusing the issues of censorship even more, and you're confusing my point as well.
Taking away one specific means of speech is censorship. Book burning is censorship, even though literature is not the only means of communication.
That does not mean that all censorship is legally or even morally wrong, and I don't think people who are trying shout down Trump are doing anything wrong from ethical standpoints (though, kwizach's specific argument of not giving people the opportunity to look like people is quite stupid).
However, I think from a pure sensibility standpoint, people trying to censor Trump are the kind of people who will continuously run at a brick wall and think they're accomplishing something. "The Streisand effect is the phenomenon whereby an attempt to hide, remove, or censor a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely". That's Trump's campaign in a nutshell, so all those people trying to shout him down to block his voice? Bang up job you're doing.
|
I don't think actively trying to shut Trump out of specific events is effective. It forces the network into this binary option and if they try to shut Trump out, it just gets picked up by other news networks. The more effective way is for the group to express to the network that they are a valuable demographic that would watch if it wasn't reporting on every time Trump said a dumb thing. But right now networks are all about the short term, quick hits that let them pay the bills.
|
I am aware that the US has a different culture of free speech, but comparing Trumps open racism to soccer moms or "being overly offended" is ridiculous. This whole "anti-political correctness" movement has become an excuse for closet xenophobes to say the stuff a civil society wasn't willing to tolerate anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
