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.
I think SNL would have to open it up for Trump anyway if they gave the platform to other political candidates, or it would have to be considered a donation. Campaign law is a mess though (and I've just been giving it a cursory look), so I could be wrong.
Nyxisto, I am with you. Its like they found out that being aggressive xenophobes, bigots and assholes isn't effective, so they turned to whining about it. Or complaining that someone won't "enter a spirited debate on the subject and see both sides." And the US does protect free speech and our culture has a "tolerance" of bigoted speech that always borderlines on harmful. But then again we don't have the shining example that Germany to make us fear the power of words.
Edit: I think GreenHorizons is right on that one. That they have to open it up to Trump just like everyone else.
It's easy to see the ideal that the US wants to have as a nation, because other countries have done it, or are at least much, much closer to actual tolerance, with the extreme beliefs existing but being ignored as they should be.
Problem is that socially and politically the US seems to be more insistent on dichotomies and opposing extremes than most other nations.
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.
But 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.”
Protesting 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 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.
But 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.”
Protesting 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.
Would you say that Trump is as bad as a KKK member? Does he actually say racist things? I find it hard to find any direct proof in which he directly claims that being latino, or black, makes you more likely to commit crimes, or any such implication. If you could quote an example for me I would be grateful; I have looked around a bit but nothing that directly implies he has xenophobic or racist beliefs. Its definitely true that sometimes Trump makes semi-paranoid remarks (i.e. that the Mexican government is sending rapists to the US), but that's a far cry from racism which is clearly not limited to Mexico.
He has clearly said in many interviews that he has many latino and black friends and that he is not a racist. So to the extent that he may unintentionally support xenophobic ideas, then maybe you would have a point. But I don't think its strong enough that he shouldn't be allowed to host a comedy show.
edit: I did find a tweet he made about how most crimes in America are done by people of colour. But this is just a fact, it doesn't imply that he thinks being black means you will commit a crime. He could still acknowledge that many people of colour come from poor economic backgrounds, and as a consequence they tend to commit many crimes.
But 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.”
Protesting 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.
But 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.”
Protesting 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.
Would you say that Trump is as bad as a KKK member? Does he actually say racist things? I find it hard to find any direct proof in which he directly claims that being latino, or black, makes you more likely to commit crimes, or any such implication. If you could quote an example for me I would be grateful; I have looked around a bit but nothing that directly implies he has xenophobic or racist beliefs. Its definitely true that sometimes Trump makes semi-paranoid remarks (i.e. that the Mexican government is sending rapists to the US), but that's a far cry from racism which is clearly not limited to Mexico.
He has clearly said in many interviews that he has many latino and black friends and that he is not a racist. So to the extent that he may unintentionally support xenophobic ideas, then maybe you would have a point. But I don't think its strong enough that he shouldn't be allowed to host a comedy show.
edit: I did find a tweet he made about how most crimes in America are done by people of colour. But this is just a fact, it doesn't imply that he thinks being black means you will commit a crime. He could still acknowledge that many people of colour come from poor economic backgrounds, and as a consequence they tend to commit many crimes.
The thing is, who cares about what he says right ? People are so inept and unable to argue nowadays that crying out racist, antisemite or mysogine (like they said about Sanders a few weeks ago) and running around seems to basically resume our entire political debate. And then, when idiots like Trump - because racist or not, he is an idiot, just look at his way of talking - actually say "something" and get some votes, they all look at each others asking themselves how stupid the populace can be.
*I'm not judging his intelligence by saying idiot, I judge his behavior, I just don't like people who brag so much.
The Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson sought on Sunday to brush away growing questions about the accuracy of his autobiographical statements, implying it was not possible to be “100% accurate” when recalling events from recent history and instead blaming journalists for what he called a “political hit job”.
Carson, a retired pediatric neurosurgeon who is neck and neck with Donald Trump at the top of the polls, has experienced a torrid week as numerous inconsistencies in his 1992 autobiography, Gifted Hands, have been uncovered by reporters.
Asked on ABC if he believed he needed to be more precise in documenting his past, Carson said: “Show me somebody … who is 100% accurate in everything that they say happened 40 or 50 years ago. Please show me that person, because I will sit at their knees and I will learn from them.”
The appearance followed revelations published by the Wall Street Journal on Saturday and relating to Carson’s time at Yale University, where he has claimed to have been recognised by a psychology professor as “the most honest student in class”.
Carson wrote in Gifted Hands that the professor, who taught a class called Perceptions 301, had pulled a hoax on his 150 students by pretending they all had to re-sit a final exam because their papers had “inadvertently burned”.
According to Carson, every student apart from him refused to retake the exam. Once the prank was revealed, he wrote, the professor presented Carson with $10 as a reward for his honesty, and an article about the incident was published in the the Yale Daily News.
According to the Wall Street Journal, no such article appears in the archives of the campus newspaper and Yale has no record of any such class being taught.
Carson rejected this on Sunday, saying he had a copy of the newspaper article he planned to publish in the coming days. He did, however, concede that the name of the class may have been recorded incorrectly.
Carson is right that most of us can't remember perfectly their past. The bit he loses me at is where he makes outlandish claims about his past on the basis that he can't remember it so it was probably epic. Most normal people will, upon reflecting that they can't really remember, just say that they can't really remember.
The Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson sought on Sunday to brush away growing questions about the accuracy of his autobiographical statements, implying it was not possible to be “100% accurate” when recalling events from recent history and instead blaming journalists for what he called a “political hit job”.
Carson, a retired pediatric neurosurgeon who is neck and neck with Donald Trump at the top of the polls, has experienced a torrid week as numerous inconsistencies in his 1992 autobiography, Gifted Hands, have been uncovered by reporters.
Asked on ABC if he believed he needed to be more precise in documenting his past, Carson said: “Show me somebody … who is 100% accurate in everything that they say happened 40 or 50 years ago. Please show me that person, because I will sit at their knees and I will learn from them.”
The appearance followed revelations published by the Wall Street Journal on Saturday and relating to Carson’s time at Yale University, where he has claimed to have been recognised by a psychology professor as “the most honest student in class”.
Carson wrote in Gifted Hands that the professor, who taught a class called Perceptions 301, had pulled a hoax on his 150 students by pretending they all had to re-sit a final exam because their papers had “inadvertently burned”.
According to Carson, every student apart from him refused to retake the exam. Once the prank was revealed, he wrote, the professor presented Carson with $10 as a reward for his honesty, and an article about the incident was published in the the Yale Daily News.
According to the Wall Street Journal, no such article appears in the archives of the campus newspaper and Yale has no record of any such class being taught.
Carson rejected this on Sunday, saying he had a copy of the newspaper article he planned to publish in the coming days. He did, however, concede that the name of the class may have been recorded incorrectly.
The Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson sought on Sunday to brush away growing questions about the accuracy of his autobiographical statements, implying it was not possible to be “100% accurate” when recalling events from recent history and instead blaming journalists for what he called a “political hit job”.
Carson, a retired pediatric neurosurgeon who is neck and neck with Donald Trump at the top of the polls, has experienced a torrid week as numerous inconsistencies in his 1992 autobiography, Gifted Hands, have been uncovered by reporters.
Asked on ABC if he believed he needed to be more precise in documenting his past, Carson said: “Show me somebody … who is 100% accurate in everything that they say happened 40 or 50 years ago. Please show me that person, because I will sit at their knees and I will learn from them.”
The appearance followed revelations published by the Wall Street Journal on Saturday and relating to Carson’s time at Yale University, where he has claimed to have been recognised by a psychology professor as “the most honest student in class”.
Carson wrote in Gifted Hands that the professor, who taught a class called Perceptions 301, had pulled a hoax on his 150 students by pretending they all had to re-sit a final exam because their papers had “inadvertently burned”.
According to Carson, every student apart from him refused to retake the exam. Once the prank was revealed, he wrote, the professor presented Carson with $10 as a reward for his honesty, and an article about the incident was published in the the Yale Daily News.
According to the Wall Street Journal, no such article appears in the archives of the campus newspaper and Yale has no record of any such class being taught.
Carson rejected this on Sunday, saying he had a copy of the newspaper article he planned to publish in the coming days. He did, however, concede that the name of the class may have been recorded incorrectly.
"reward for his honesty", is it just me or does that not even make sense?
It's not just you. I'm not sure what exactly is honest about choosing to retake an exam that you already know all the questions to. I mean maybe the alternative was a self rating system where you remember roughly how well you did in the exam and then that's how well you're scored. In that case the other 149 students were trying to get into a system that rewarded dishonesty and was extremely exploitable and Carson was standing up and saying "no, I'll take it again and I'll purposefully forget the questions and I'll accept my grade". But that's an awful lot of missing context.
On November 09 2015 05:11 KwarK wrote: Carson is right that most of us can't remember perfectly their past. The bit he loses me at is where he makes outlandish claims about his past on the basis that he can't remember it so it was probably epic. Most normal people will, upon reflecting that they can't really remember, just say that they can't really remember.
aye. Also, if you're writing a book, you might wanna check up on the details, or have someone do it. Did/does the book include a note at the start that he's writing based on his memory, so he might misremember details? admittedly such might be implicit, but when you get too many details wrong it gets a bit worrying. I dislike how he's lashing out at the media, that seems partially uncalled for, or at least he's lashing out too much.
Howard Stern used to have a KKK member on quite a bit, as subject and object both, and it was funny and interesting. There are tons of people I dislike who happen to be on TV, get over it. If anyone thinks putting Trump on SNL is about anything other than ratings they are naive. Trump brings viewers, if people didn't watch him no one would put him on TV, but as it turns out, people like to watch crazy people say crazy things.
On November 09 2015 03:26 Nyxisto wrote: 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.
Welcome to the divide. "Trumps open racism" is still contentious in a way that David Duke's is not. It's not fun for anyone intellectually honest to discover they can't find common ground with "Everybody knows Trump's an open racist," but that's life. This thread's kind of a circle of life in that respect. Every argument taken long enough eventually arives at certain core, irreconcilable points, and both sides walk away thinking the other is deluded.
On August 08 2015 12:31 Nyxisto wrote: People like Trump talking about political correctness and honesty makes about as much sense as Glenn Beck using the "first they came..." Niemöller quote to defend his nonsense.If you want to say something incredibly ignorant just say something about your free speech rights and PC beforehand and you're good to go
and if you want to shut someone up that doesn't agree with your position, call them a bigot, racist, sexist, prejudice, misogynist, etc and your good to go...except it didnt work this time
Well to be fair, Trump is/ does say things that suggest he's a bigot, racist, misogynist, etc. etc.
He- like all other candidates- should be held accountable for his rhetoric.
Then now is a great time to be an actual sexist or racist. If someone who tries to make a joke can be labeled the same as a person who goes out committing violent acts of hate against ethical minorities, game on.
No shit. The terms sexist and racist don't mean dick anymore. When any off-color comment (or even thought) warrants the terms, then damn near everyone's sexist and racist.
Trump's racist, I'm racist, nearly every single conservative poster here is racist, a handful of liberals are racist (and others racist-in-denial) and sad about it, so let's all hug.
Sure Trump isn't the Grand Wizard of the KKK but I really don't think the label racist starts with being a militant white supremacist and everybody to the left of that is just some misunderstood nice guy. His comments on Muslims and Mexicans have no other purpose but to scare people and divide voters along ethnic and religious lines. That's a pretty awful thing to promote your political campaign with.
On November 09 2015 03:26 Nyxisto wrote: 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.
Welcome to the divide. "Trumps open racism" is still contentious in a way that David Duke's is not. It's not fun for anyone intellectually honest to discover they can't find common ground with "Everybody knows Trump's an open racist," but that's life. This thread's kind of a circle of life in that respect. Every argument taken long enough eventually arives at certain core, irreconcilable points, and both sides walk away thinking the other is deluded.
That's quite an accurate description of the forum.
Trump brought SNL the highest ratings in almost 4 years, including a 47% increase over the Hillary episode a month ago per EntertainmentWeekly. As a wise man once said, don't feed the troll.
About 30 University of Missouri football players have said they will not play another game until university system President Tim Wolfe steps down.
The football players said that they were standing in solidarity with the Concerned Student 1950 movement, which has for months now called on the university to seriously address systemic racism on campus.
The team tweeted a picture of the student athletes linking arms. "We are no longer taking it," the tweet said. "It's time to fight."
For months, now, black students at Mizzou have documented a series of incidents in which they were accosted with racial epithets. In the most notorious incident, a swastika was drawn on the bathroom wall of one of the dorms using feces.
In October, black students staged a protest along the homecoming parade route. They formed a chain in front of the president's car chanting, "It's our duty to fight for our freedom!"
Wolfe said nothing to the students and when police removed the students from the street, the crowd erupted in applause. Some of the protesters cried.
Since then, the protests escalated and one student, Jonathan Butler, began a hunger strike last week.
EPT
