|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 05 2017 00:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2017 00:15 meadbert wrote:On April 04 2017 19:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 04 2017 13:06 KwarK wrote:
Wait, receiving the answers? Not the debate questions ahead of time but the debate answers? What? Trump thinks CNN secretly gave Hillary a list of her own policies before the debate? Trump doesn't realize that the candidates were allowed to practice and do research ahead of time... No wonder he just winged it and never made any sense; maybe he thought that was the rule? Trump really thinks she was sat down by news reporters and told to say "Hillary good; Trump bad"? CNN outsourced their town Hall questions to Roland Martin. Martin then presumably sent the questions to Donna Brazile. Brazile then forwarded the questions to Podesta. From there it is safe to assume that Podesta gave them to Clinton. The result was that Clinton new CNN's town hall questions before CNN did. In another case Brazile got her hands on questions that supposedly only the questioner and Anderson Cooper's producer knew about. Again she forwarded them to Clinton. I assume that CNN fed Clinton questions prior to her debate with Trump. If they were willing to feed her questions when she faced Sanders why not feed her questions when she faced Trump. After giving Clinton the debate questions in two debates, Brazile was made president of the DNC. She maintained that post for several months after all of this came to light. Brazile recently expressed regret. At no point has Clinton acknowledged that she received the debate questions or apologized for any of this. She tried to undermine American democracy by cheating in a debate and all we hear from her is crickets. I think you may have misread Trump's tweet. Even if all of that is true, there's no evidence she was told "the answers" any more than every candidate is coached and practiced.
Well she was given the answers, but by staffers and pollsters, not the person who leaked the questions to her (cheated) and then went on to be in charge of the DNC
On April 05 2017 00:31 Doodsmack wrote:I'm enjoying the damage the NYT is doing to Fox right now. Who knew Ailes and O'Reilly could be men of this character? Show nested quote +The sexual harassment scandal that engulfed Fox News last year and led to the ouster of its chairman, Roger Ailes, continued to batter the network on Monday, as a new lawsuit described unwanted sexual advances by Mr. Ailes and two major advertisers pulled their spots from the show of its top-rated host, Bill O’Reilly.
Mercedes-Benz and Hyundai said they were withdrawing their ads from Mr. O’Reilly’s prime-time show, “The O’Reilly Factor,” after The New York Times published an investigation this weekend that found five women who made allegations of sexual harassment or inappropriate behavior against him. Those five women received settlements totaling about $13 million, The Times reported. NYT
First time I watched O'Reilly he was being super creepy/condescending to his women guests. There was also that whole Lis Wiehl inexplicably regularly plugging her shitty crime fiction books on his show.
He even has her books on his website for no apparent reason, along with Janice Dean's children's books listed under "Fox News Authors". Unsurprisingly, it's only those two women's books listed, none of the best sellers written by men at Fox.
Besides saying he's paying this for his kids (who were basically taken away because he's likely an abusive asshole), it's pretty clear he's a perv and uses his position to coerce women.
|
I'm enjoying the damage the NYT is doing to Fox right now. Who knew Ailes and O'Reilly could be men of this character?
The sexual harassment scandal that engulfed Fox News last year and led to the ouster of its chairman, Roger Ailes, continued to batter the network on Monday, as a new lawsuit described unwanted sexual advances by Mr. Ailes and two major advertisers pulled their spots from the show of its top-rated host, Bill O’Reilly.
Mercedes-Benz and Hyundai said they were withdrawing their ads from Mr. O’Reilly’s prime-time show, “The O’Reilly Factor,” after The New York Times published an investigation this weekend that found five women who made allegations of sexual harassment or inappropriate behavior against him. Those five women received settlements totaling about $13 million, The Times reported.
NYT
|
United States43758 Posts
On April 05 2017 00:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2017 00:15 meadbert wrote:On April 04 2017 19:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 04 2017 13:06 KwarK wrote:
Wait, receiving the answers? Not the debate questions ahead of time but the debate answers? What? Trump thinks CNN secretly gave Hillary a list of her own policies before the debate? Trump doesn't realize that the candidates were allowed to practice and do research ahead of time... No wonder he just winged it and never made any sense; maybe he thought that was the rule? Trump really thinks she was sat down by news reporters and told to say "Hillary good; Trump bad"? CNN outsourced their town Hall questions to Roland Martin. Martin then presumably sent the questions to Donna Brazile. Brazile then forwarded the questions to Podesta. From there it is safe to assume that Podesta gave them to Clinton. The result was that Clinton new CNN's town hall questions before CNN did. In another case Brazile got her hands on questions that supposedly only the questioner and Anderson Cooper's producer knew about. Again she forwarded them to Clinton. I assume that CNN fed Clinton questions prior to her debate with Trump. If they were willing to feed her questions when she faced Sanders why not feed her questions when she faced Trump. After giving Clinton the debate questions in two debates, Brazile was made president of the DNC. She maintained that post for several months after all of this came to light. Brazile recently expressed regret. At no point has Clinton acknowledged that she received the debate questions or apologized for any of this. She tried to undermine American democracy by cheating in a debate and all we hear from her is crickets. I think you may have misread Trump's tweet. Even if all of that is true, there's no evidence she was told "the answers" any more than every candidate is coached and practiced.
It's clear that Trump meant questions because questions is the scandal. It's just funny that Trump literally can't get shit shit together enough to type 140 characters without fucking it up.
|
It's just funny that Trump literally can't get shit shit together enough to type 140 characters without fucking it up.
What makes it even more hilarious is that he doesn't trust e-mail, yet he tweets every brain fart he has for everyone to see. ^^
|
On April 04 2017 23:50 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2017 23:11 LightSpectra wrote:On April 04 2017 23:02 Danglars wrote:On April 04 2017 22:34 LightSpectra wrote:On April 04 2017 22:31 Danglars wrote:
Opponents call him racist, like always, and he's already used to that kind of slander so things are good. In other words, racism's okay so long as you tough it out for a really long time and hope that eventually another racist promotes you for it. Sessions thinks it's okay for the government to sell your house because your second cousin in another state is a drug dealer. He also thinks cancer patients using medical marijuana should go to prison. Is this really the hill you want to die on Danglars? Racism's been an empty threat for years and I'm surprised people like you still cling to it. Racists don't stop being racist because other racists have decided to vote for them. But yeah, you happen to be right that it's an "empty threat" insofar that it doesn't really convince Republicans to not vote for them. That being said, it's really not a badge of honor like you make it out to be. If you want to bring up other topics of criticism for justice department policies, I suggest you start in with something other than second cousins and prison for cancer victims and his remarks on the matter. So calm down the unwarranted trolling if you're actually into more depth than top 10 things to hate about Sessions. I say this without exaggeration: Jeff Sessions is the most evil and dangerous person affiliated with Trump, and that's really saying something. There are no informed people who think Sessions deciding to "review" police departments is going to result in anything but more unarmed people being shot in the back without repercussion. If that's the stakes of your engagement I'll give mine. Jeff Sessions is one of th brightest lights in the Trump administration, and a decent and honest man. I could think of few better to undo the despicable leadership of Holder and Lynch who politicized the department beyond belief. There are few criticisms I've seen leveled at the man that haven't subsisted on lies, twisted half-truths, and the most bitter hyperpartisanship as has persisted in the post-Clinton years. You've welcomed identity politics and benefited from false accusations of racism, so I say you deserve another dozen Trump administrations that push white & working class identity politics and cause chaos in the executive branch.
Jeff Sessions is one of th brightest lights in the Trump administration, and a decent and honest man.
He automatically cannot be decent because he thinks people who take medication for agonizingly painful diseases like cancer or multiple sclerosis should be thrown in jail. So he's either a clueless moron or thoroughly vile. As to whether he's an honest man, many media sources have already shown his vast history in destroying people's careers for having a D by their name (here's one such write-up). Considering that he's been doing such things so skillfully for decades, that leans toward the "thoroughly vile" moreso than "clueless moron".
I could think of few better to undo the despicable leadership of Holder and Lynch who politicized the department beyond belief.
Neither Holder nor Lynch were good people, but this does not excuse Sessions.
There are few criticisms I've seen leveled at the man that haven't subsisted on lies, twisted half-truths, and the most bitter hyperpartisanship as has persisted in the post-Clinton years.
He was too racist in 1986 to be confirmed as a federal judge, before any Clinton held any federal office.
You've welcomed identity politics and benefited from false accusations of racism, so I say you deserve another dozen Trump administrations that push white & working class identity politics and cause chaos in the executive branch.
In other words, because we have actually called a demonstrably racist person a racist, we deserve more racists in office. Got it. Thanks for playing.
|
http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/10/roland-martin-cnn-email-donna-brazile-wikileaks-229673
Donna Brazile shared the exact wording, spelling, capitalization and punctuation with the Clinton campaign. This is the worst scandal in American media history. The fact that Brazile segued this behavior into becoming chair of the DNC shows that the Democratic party has no shame over its behavior.
EDIT: I realize that Trump typed (or thumbed) answer rather than question. I could chalk this up to him tweeting without thinking while on the pot in the morning, but to give him the benefit of the doubt, if her team knew the questions in advance, then it is fair to assume they also fashioned answers to that exact questions in advance, so the performance we saw was not spur of the moment, but rather fully choreographed to deceive the American voter into thinking that Clinton could think on her feet.
|
I imagine Danglars doesn't support Sessions wanting to override states' rights when it comes to marijuana. Who knows, maybe he'll prove me wrong. The whole idea of letting states decide how to handle prohibition seems like a very conservative-friendly position.
|
On April 05 2017 00:16 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2017 00:00 KwarK wrote:On April 04 2017 23:50 Danglars wrote:On April 04 2017 23:11 LightSpectra wrote:On April 04 2017 23:02 Danglars wrote:On April 04 2017 22:34 LightSpectra wrote:On April 04 2017 22:31 Danglars wrote:
Opponents call him racist, like always, and he's already used to that kind of slander so things are good. In other words, racism's okay so long as you tough it out for a really long time and hope that eventually another racist promotes you for it. Sessions thinks it's okay for the government to sell your house because your second cousin in another state is a drug dealer. He also thinks cancer patients using medical marijuana should go to prison. Is this really the hill you want to die on Danglars? Racism's been an empty threat for years and I'm surprised people like you still cling to it. Racists don't stop being racist because other racists have decided to vote for them. But yeah, you happen to be right that it's an "empty threat" insofar that it doesn't really convince Republicans to not vote for them. That being said, it's really not a badge of honor like you make it out to be. If you want to bring up other topics of criticism for justice department policies, I suggest you start in with something other than second cousins and prison for cancer victims and his remarks on the matter. So calm down the unwarranted trolling if you're actually into more depth than top 10 things to hate about Sessions. I say this without exaggeration: Jeff Sessions is the most evil and dangerous person affiliated with Trump, and that's really saying something. There are no informed people who think Sessions deciding to "review" police departments is going to result in anything but more unarmed people being shot in the back without repercussion. If that's the stakes of your engagement I'll give mine. Jeff Sessions is one of th brightest lights in the Trump administration, and a decent and honest man. I could think of few better to undo the despicable leadership of Holder and Lynch who politicized the department beyond belief. There are few criticisms I've seen leveled at the man that haven't subsisted on lies, twisted half-truths, and the most bitter hyperpartisanship as has persisted in the post-Clinton years. You've welcomed identity politics and benefited from false accusations of racism, so I say you deserve another dozen Trump administrations that push white & working class identity politics and cause chaos in the executive branch. Out of curiousity do you think that cannabis is as bad as Sessions says it is or do you recognize it as the continuation of Nixon's Southern Strategy war on drugs associated with minorities? Sessions tends to only not appear racist to people who have racist tendencies themselves I've noticed. Cops are out here regularly violating PoC's constitutional rights, and sessions wants to "review" the slightest thing the government was able to accomplish to stop them. No one thinks he's going to be tougher on police who habitually violate black people's rights, but no, nothing racist about ignoring the habitual violation of black people's constitutional rights.
People like Danglars think we live in a post-racial age where there is no discrimination by police officers or employers or any other people, just left-wing politicians that use race to inflame tensions to win votes. These people really can't be rationed with. The best you can do is demonstrate just how out of touch they are and let everyone else realize that racism is truly alive and well.
|
United States43758 Posts
On April 05 2017 00:46 thePunGun wrote:Show nested quote +It's just funny that Trump literally can't get shit shit together enough to type 140 characters without fucking it up. What makes it even more hilarious is that he doesn't trust e-mail, yet he tweets every brain fart he has for everyone to see. ^^
Mark Cuban once shared the story of how Trump does emails. When he gets them he prints them out, scrawls his reply on the back and then hands them to his assistant to scan. He replies with a handwritten response on a scanned printout of the original email. Perhaps the only positive aspect of this story is that it suggests that he can at least read.
|
worst scandal in american media history? that's really blowing things out of proportion, and makes you sound hyper-partisan. american history is long; worst is a VERY high standard.
|
On April 05 2017 00:53 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2017 00:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 05 2017 00:00 KwarK wrote:On April 04 2017 23:50 Danglars wrote:On April 04 2017 23:11 LightSpectra wrote:On April 04 2017 23:02 Danglars wrote:On April 04 2017 22:34 LightSpectra wrote:On April 04 2017 22:31 Danglars wrote:
Opponents call him racist, like always, and he's already used to that kind of slander so things are good. In other words, racism's okay so long as you tough it out for a really long time and hope that eventually another racist promotes you for it. Sessions thinks it's okay for the government to sell your house because your second cousin in another state is a drug dealer. He also thinks cancer patients using medical marijuana should go to prison. Is this really the hill you want to die on Danglars? Racism's been an empty threat for years and I'm surprised people like you still cling to it. Racists don't stop being racist because other racists have decided to vote for them. But yeah, you happen to be right that it's an "empty threat" insofar that it doesn't really convince Republicans to not vote for them. That being said, it's really not a badge of honor like you make it out to be. If you want to bring up other topics of criticism for justice department policies, I suggest you start in with something other than second cousins and prison for cancer victims and his remarks on the matter. So calm down the unwarranted trolling if you're actually into more depth than top 10 things to hate about Sessions. I say this without exaggeration: Jeff Sessions is the most evil and dangerous person affiliated with Trump, and that's really saying something. There are no informed people who think Sessions deciding to "review" police departments is going to result in anything but more unarmed people being shot in the back without repercussion. If that's the stakes of your engagement I'll give mine. Jeff Sessions is one of th brightest lights in the Trump administration, and a decent and honest man. I could think of few better to undo the despicable leadership of Holder and Lynch who politicized the department beyond belief. There are few criticisms I've seen leveled at the man that haven't subsisted on lies, twisted half-truths, and the most bitter hyperpartisanship as has persisted in the post-Clinton years. You've welcomed identity politics and benefited from false accusations of racism, so I say you deserve another dozen Trump administrations that push white & working class identity politics and cause chaos in the executive branch. Out of curiousity do you think that cannabis is as bad as Sessions says it is or do you recognize it as the continuation of Nixon's Southern Strategy war on drugs associated with minorities? Sessions tends to only not appear racist to people who have racist tendencies themselves I've noticed. Cops are out here regularly violating PoC's constitutional rights, and sessions wants to "review" the slightest thing the government was able to accomplish to stop them. No one thinks he's going to be tougher on police who habitually violate black people's rights, but no, nothing racist about ignoring the habitual violation of black people's constitutional rights. People like Danglars think we live in a post-racial age where there is no discrimination by police officers or employers or any other people, just left-wing politicians that use race to inflame tensions to win votes. These people really can't be rationed with. The best you can do is demonstrate just how out of touch they are and let everyone else realize that racism is truly alive and well.
I was going to try to stick up for Danglars acknowledging it was a serious issue, but then I saw that he sincerely believes racism isn't a serious issue in the US.
On August 14 2013 07:44 Danglars wrote:
Straw manning conservatives as a single disgraced Republican and everything else straw men is pretty cute. I love the caricatures. You're actually close on a couple points, I'll give you that. Racism and sexism aren't huge societal problems in desperate need of solution since most of society has moved on. The businesses that refuse to hire based on race and sex are the losers in capitalism. Most everyone still has the opportunity to improve their lot in life if they work hard.
Not surprising upper-middle-class white male thinks racism and sexism aren't big problems because society has moved on. As if the following years didn't confirm the nationwide habitual abuse and violation of PoC's constitutional rights that people like Danglars were dismissing as over-hyped bad apples.
|
United States43758 Posts
GH, all those investigations into police abuses that found serious and ongoing violations of the constitutional rights of minority Americans were part of Obama's war on police obviously. The fact that the Justice Department investigated why people were protesting and found out that the shit the protesters were complaining about actually happened is just a symptom of how desperate Obama was to drive up racial tensions in an effort to help Hillary win through identity politics.
^this is what the right actually believes. They think Obama invented racism to try to help Democrats win using identity politics. And therefore by deliberately ignoring racism they are beating his master plan and seeing through identity politics.
|
On April 05 2017 01:00 zlefin wrote:worst scandal in american media history? that's really blowing things out of proportion, and makes you sound hyper-partisan. american history is long; worst is a VERY high standard.
Which media scandal is worse?
|
On April 05 2017 01:11 meadbert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2017 01:00 zlefin wrote:worst scandal in american media history? that's really blowing things out of proportion, and makes you sound hyper-partisan. american history is long; worst is a VERY high standard. Which media scandal is worse?
Probably the whole purposefully causing the Spanish American War by Hearst
|
On April 05 2017 01:13 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2017 01:11 meadbert wrote:On April 05 2017 01:00 zlefin wrote:worst scandal in american media history? that's really blowing things out of proportion, and makes you sound hyper-partisan. american history is long; worst is a VERY high standard. Which media scandal is worse? Probably the whole purposefully causing the Spanish American War by Hearst
Can the entire existence and tenure of Fox News be labeled as a single, 20-year media scandal? I posit that it can, not because of its partisan hackery but because of the data that Fox News viewers are, on average, less informed than *not just other news network viewers*, but also the average person who doesn't watch the news at all. It's not just spinning the facts; it's actual falsehoods and lies. The average American would literally be better informed and bettered educated on the news if Fox News didn't exist.
I'm sure we've all seen the surveys affirming this by now, but in case you haven't...
Researchers asked 1,185 random nationwide respondents what news sources they had consumed in the past week and then asked them questions about events in the U.S. and abroad. On average, people correctly answered 1.6 of 5 questions about domestic affairs. Because the aim of the study was to isolate the effects of each type of news source, they then controlled for variables such as other news sources, partisanship, education and other demographic factors. They found that someone who watched only Fox News would be expected to answer 1.04 domestic questions correctly compared to 1.22 for those who watched no news at all. Those watching only "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" answered 1.42 questions correctly and people who only listened to NPR or only watched Sunday morning political talk shows answered 1.51 questions correctly. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/MjVP3yV.jpg)
http://www.businessinsider.com/study-watching-fox-news-makes-you-less-informed-than-watching-no-news-at-all-2012-5
"Those who receive most of their news from Fox News are more likely than average to have misperceptions."
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/IraqMedia_Oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_rpt.pdf
"more exposure to Fox News was associated with more rejection of many mainstream scientists’ claims about global warming, with less trust in scientists, and with more belief that ameliorating global warming would hurt the U.S. economy.”
https://woods.stanford.edu/research/public-opinion-research
"Evidence from a content analysis of climate change coverage on Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC during 2007 and 2008 demonstrates that Fox takes a more dismissive tone toward climate change than CNN and MSNBC. Fox also interviews a greater ratio of climate change doubters to believers. An analysis of 2008 survey data from a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults finds a negative association between Fox News viewership and acceptance of global warming, even after controlling for numerous potential confounding factors. Conversely, viewing CNN and MSNBC is associated with greater acceptance of global warming."
http://climateshiftproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/FeldmanStudy.pdf
And even more are listed here: http://www.alternet.org/media/science-fox-news-why-its-viewers-are-most-misinformed
|
On April 05 2017 01:13 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2017 01:11 meadbert wrote:On April 05 2017 01:00 zlefin wrote:worst scandal in american media history? that's really blowing things out of proportion, and makes you sound hyper-partisan. american history is long; worst is a VERY high standard. Which media scandal is worse? Probably the whole purposefully causing the Spanish American War by Hearst
This same war probably is the reason we got the critical holdings in the Pacific to halt Japanese imperialism and face us teddy rosevelt as president so I think it gets a pass.
I don't like people hanging sessions on the racist charges he felt with back in the eighties. It's the same as saying people can't change in 30 years and that's a bad charge for a lot of people if you take in the social progress the nation has had. Idk just seems pretty petty and stale.
Also I don't think it's fair to say the right thinks obama invented racism but that he didn't make it any better or made everyone look at it which didn't help anyone. I really doubt police have gotten worse under obama and yet the national perception of police drooped a ton under him. Now we're picking up the pieces and nothings really changed.
|
On April 05 2017 01:13 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2017 01:11 meadbert wrote:On April 05 2017 01:00 zlefin wrote:worst scandal in american media history? that's really blowing things out of proportion, and makes you sound hyper-partisan. american history is long; worst is a VERY high standard. Which media scandal is worse? Probably the whole purposefully causing the Spanish American War by Hearst
That one was pretty bad. Others that come to mind:
Rathergate
Duke Lacross Rape Hoax (I don't blame the media much for this)
UVa Rape Hoax (I do blame Rolling Stone for this)
Jason Blair at NYT
Glenn Beck selling gold from his Fox News show without Fox News knowing he was paid for it. (This was originally just a Beck scandal, but when Fox did not immediately fire him it became a Fox scandal.)
Various Sexual Harassment scandals including the one that brought down Ailes. (I do not consider this a media scandal, in the sense that it was not a scandal about the content of reporting)
Most of these involve a few companies reporting thing inaccurately, while preserving the ability of others to get to the truth. What is sinister about what CNN did, is that we would have never found out if it were not for Wikileaks somehow getting their hands on Podesta's emails.
So Rathergate potentially threatened the integrity of an election, but it was so blatant that the rest of the media got to the truth almost immediately.
Duke Lacrosse was not really a media scandal. More of a rogue prosecutor, but the media fanned the flames.
UVa was really bad but does not rise to the level of undermining our Democracy.
Jason Blair was bad, but he was caught, and while he fabricated his stories, he was just doing it to be lazy rather than into manipulate public opinion.
Beck was pretty bad I thought, but does not rise to the level of starting a war or corrupting an election.
The Ailes scandal was bad but was not directly related to the reporting content.
These leaves Hearst/Pullitzer fanning the flames of war and CNN/Brazile sabotaging Town Halls in an attempt to undermine the Democratic Primary.
When it comes to Brazile, many Republicans were content that she cheated to eliminate Bernie Sanders who they saw as a worst case scenario. It is Sanders' supporters who were cheated the worst.
|
On April 05 2017 01:35 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2017 01:13 Nevuk wrote:On April 05 2017 01:11 meadbert wrote:On April 05 2017 01:00 zlefin wrote:worst scandal in american media history? that's really blowing things out of proportion, and makes you sound hyper-partisan. american history is long; worst is a VERY high standard. Which media scandal is worse? Probably the whole purposefully causing the Spanish American War by Hearst This same war probably is the reason we got the critical holdings in the Pacific to halt Japanese imperialism and face us teddy rosevelt as president so I think it gets a pass.
Three hurrahs for consequentialist militarism.
I don't like people hanging sessions on the racist charges he felt with back in the eighties. It's the same as saying people can't change in 30 years and that's a bad charge for a lot of people if you take in the social progress the nation has had. Idk just seems pretty petty and stale.
It's true that there were some open racists that repented and strived to fight against racism. That being said, it doesn't sound like Jeff Sessions ever repented of his racism; if anything he's emboldened on it.
|
On April 05 2017 01:35 Sermokala wrote:
Also I don't think it's fair to say the right thinks obama invented racism but that he didn't make it any better or made everyone look at it which didn't help anyone. I really doubt police have gotten worse under obama and yet the national perception of police drooped a ton under him. Now we're picking up the pieces and nothings really changed.
Race relations indisputably worsened during Obama's presidency, which is a shame given his unique opportunity to really do some good.
|
Really good article on the South FL crisis of Climate Change and rising seas.
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170403-miamis-fight-against-sea-level-rise
As some one who lives close to South Beach, that area, gets flooded no matter what. Even if it rains for 10mins, the area gets flooded. People swear climate change isn't real, but it's damn real when you see it happen in person.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
