The biased Media vs Trump!

KingBrian2

cristoir wrote: »

One of the candidates in the race is an authoritarian who wants to expel millions of people from a country, ban people based on their religion from entering, uses coded threats of violence against his opponents, is on the record for calling women "bimbos" and "pretty on their knees", wouldn't condemn a white supremacist when asked, is massively supported by the far-right, calls Mexican's rapists, has been accused of rape, gave campaign donations to an elected official who was supposed to be investigating him, refuses to release his tax returns, mocks people with disabilities and yesterday lied on television about owning stocks. The other candidate fainted today.

The US Media treats Trump as a normal candidate and inflates "scandals" like this health one because they are so terrified of looking biased. They should be biased. The man is only half a mile from a fascist. History is going to judge mainstream media very unfavorably if Donald Trump wins in November. They should be tearing him alive, they could be the difference between Hispanic children waking up in a society they think hates them in January or not.

Trump will say the media has taken his words out of context to demonize him. It has happened before and worked. Lets remember many of the other potential leaders had a lot of obnoxious views also. It is also worth pointing out that what Trump is talking about are very serious issues lets not pretend Mexico is not a deeply corrupt country.

Had Nixon been around in todays media world we would know all about his political views. He would be depicted as a racist. Not a fan of Catholics. So yeah Trump is getting all this media exposure and it comes with the job. His views chime with a good portion of the population. His comments on a variety of subjects have been on the ball.

Overheal

Nixon would have been depicted as a racist...because, he was

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richard-nixon-drug-war-blacks-hippie/

764dak

What a joke of an election

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

Nixon would have been depicted as a racist...because, he was

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richard-nixon-drug-war-blacks-hippie/

History has shown us, and continues to show us, that the Democratic Party is the real party of racism.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

History has shown us, and continues to show us, that the Democratic Party is the real party of racism.

Spare your partisan shyte. Is this a ya but from you?

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

Spare your partisan shyte. Is this a ya but from you?

You might want to delete that before YOU also get in trouble.

Well history is quite clear that the Democratic party has been the party of racism. And as of today you might ask? Democrats keep African-Americans in poverty by offering so many welfare benefits to the poor that there is no way for them to move out of poverty. The government gives people just enough to keep them from wanting to move up. Democrats fight to keep affirmative action in place because they do not think minorities are good enough to be held to the same standards as white people. And Democrats are ardent supporters of Planned Parenthood who proudly supports and performs abortions, the number one cause of death for African-Americans.

Amerika

I see the media has gotten their marching orders to protect Hillary and give her recent gaff some credence, and has made all the morning headlines about VP candidate Mike Pence's refusing to call David Duke a ‘deplorable.’

Pence new exactly that the media was attempting to manipulate Hillary's gaff into something positive, and said “I'm not really sure why the media keeps dropping David Duke's name. Donald Trump has denounced David Duke repeatedly."

But it doesn’t matter, as the media is on a mission to destroy Trump and elevate Clinton.

So when do you think the media will be asking Hillary or Kaine: “The Communist Party USA endorsed you. Are they deplorable?” or “You've been endorsed by Planned Parenthood, an organization that harvests baby parts for sale. Are they deplorable?” Or "You were supported by the anti-American father of Omar Mateen, who murdered 49 gay people in an Orlando nightclub. Isn’t he deplorable?” When? Let me give you a clue... When Hell Freezes Over.

alastair

Amerika wrote: »

You might want to delete that before YOU also get in trouble.

Well history is quite clear that the Democratic party has been the party of racism. And as of today you might ask? Democrats keep African-Americans in poverty by offering so many welfare benefits to the poor that there is no way for them to move out of poverty. The government gives people just enough to keep them from wanting to move up. Democrats fight to keep affirmative action in place because they do not think minorities are good enough to be held to the same standards as white people. And Democrats are ardent supporters of Planned Parenthood who proudly supports and performs abortions, the number one cause of death for African-Americans.

Well, for the supposedly pre-eminent racist party in the U.S., the Democrats have managed to attract and involve a much broader representation of races and gender than the alternative, predominantly whitebread male alternative. Welfare doesn't hold anyone down. To pretend otherwise is simply delusional. And abortion is not the number one cause of death for African-Americans. The American voter knows very well where racism resides on the ideological spectrum, and votes accordingly. So unless you're a believer in the whole 'Obama is racist against whites' line, the taste test suggests majorities of ethnic minorities of all colours are not opting to vote for a racist platform.

Amerika

alastair wrote: »

...the Democrats have managed to attract and involve a much broader representation of races...

Yes, boggles the mind, doesn't it? What have Democrats actually done for African-Americans?

alastair

Amerika wrote: »

Yes, boggles the mind, doesn't it?

Not at all.

Amerika wrote: »

What have Democrats actually done for African-Americans?

Do you really need to be reminded?

Amerika

alastair wrote: »

Do you really need to be reminded?

So, you got nothing?

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

So, you got nothing?

Don't be so ridiculous:

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964) is a landmark piece of civil rights and US labor law legislation in the United States that outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin

alastair

Amerika wrote: »

So, you got nothing?

Don't be petulant. There's a long list of good reasons for any African-American to opt for the Democrats over Republicans. The Voting Rights Act being the first and foremost, but the history of African-American achievement in office under Democrat administrations is very much at odds with Republican ones. Never mind the rather more contemporary racist southern strategy of the Republican Party compared with the housecleaning of Democrats down south. But you know all this.

Earlier this week, RNC Chairman Michael Steele told a group of 200 students at DePaul University that African-Americans “don’t have a reason” to vote for Republican candidates.

During his remarks he also acknowledged that for decades the GOP pursued “‘Southern Strategy’ that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male vote in the South.”

Steele was asked to explain why an African-American should vote Republican at a university-sponsored discussion on the conservative movement. The RNC chairman’s response: “You really don’t have a reason to, to be honest — we haven’t done a very good job of really giving you one. True? True.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/22/michael-steele-for-decade_n_547702.html

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

Don't be so ridiculous:

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964) is a landmark piece of civil rights and US labor law legislation in the United States that outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin

Only six Senate Republicans voted against the bill in 1964, while 21 Senate Democrats opposed it. In the House, 96 Democrats voted against it and only 34 Republicans voted against the Civil Rights Act. The bulk of the opposition to the Civil Rights Act was from Democrats.

Overheal

southern democrats, areas which have since become republican. wonder where those old boys went

Amerika

alastair wrote: »

Don't be petulant. There's a long list of good reasons for any African-American to opt for the Democrats over Republicans. The Voting Rights Act being the first and foremost, but the history of African-American achievement in office under Democrat administrations is very much at odds with Republican ones. Never mind the rather more contemporary racist southern strategy of the Republican Party compared with the housecleaning of Democrats down south. But you know all this.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/22/michael-steele-for-decade_n_547702.html

Generalizations is all you got?

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Only six Senate Republicans voted against the bill in 1964, while 21 Senate Democrats opposed it. In the House, 96 Democrats voted against it and only 34 Republicans voted against the Civil Rights Act. The bulk of the opposition to the Civil Rights Act was from Democrats.

Revisionism at its finest! The bill was drafted by a Democrat, proposed to the house by a Democrat, pushed through the Senate by a Democrat and signed by a Democrat President.

Some southern democrats opposed it.

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

Revisionism at its finest! The bill was drafted by a Democrat, proposed to the house by a Democrat, pushed through the Senate by a Democrat and signed by a Democrat President.

Some southern democrats opposed it.

The GOP had been on the forefront of civil rights when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, as well as the Voting Rights Act that passed the following year. The degree of Republican support for the two bills actually exceeded the degree of Democratic support.

alastair

Amerika wrote: »

Only six Senate Republicans voted against the bill in 1964, while 21 Senate Democrats opposed it. In the House, 96 Democrats voted against it and only 34 Republicans voted against the Civil Rights Act. The bulk of the opposition to the Civil Rights Act was from Democrats.

The bulk of opposition to the civil rights act was from the southern states. Of which a majority of representatives were, at the time, Democrats. Democrats and Republicans of the southern states opposed the act. But of the rest of the country, a greater number of Republicans than Democrats oppose the act. The white south stayed racist, and gradually shifted it's allegiance to the party that courted it's racist vote - which is where we find ourselves today.

alastair

Amerika wrote: »

Generalizations is all you got?

Facts are all I have. If you want a roster of first appointments and achievements for African-Americans under Democratic administrations, compared to the same under Republican administrations, then it's going to be a pretty one-sided affair. But, again, you know this to be true.

Amerika

alastair wrote: »

Facts are all I have. If you want a roster of first appointments and achievements for African-Americans under Democratic administrations, compared to the same under Republican administrations, then it's going to be a pretty one-sided affair. But, again, you know this to be true.

Okay, we'll let your generalizations stand on their own merit.

alastair

Amerika wrote: »

Okay, we'll let your generalizations stand on their own merit.

The head in the sand strategy isn't the greatest tbh.

Amerika

alastair wrote: »

The bulk of opposition to the civil rights act was from the southern states. Of which a majority of representatives were, at the time, Democrats. Democrats and Republicans of the southern states opposed the act. But of the rest of the country, a greater number of Republicans than Democrats oppose the act. The white south stayed racist, and gradually shifted it's allegiance to the party that courted it's racist vote - which is where we find ourselves today.

Last I heard, since 1865 we were one nation.

alastair

Amerika wrote: »

Last I heard, since 1865 we were one nation.

Last I heard the legacy of the Confederacy still plays into both politics and race in the south. Do you have a point with this musing?

KingBrian2

The Republicans have always traditionally been the party of limited gvt and when the GOP moved away from this stance the party faithful abandoned them. That is why Reagan was loved so much. People on the left are trying to characterize all the GOPers as racist extremists. To date much of the violence has come from the hard core Democratic supporters. I see them as more ruthless & sinister.

alastair

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The Republicans have always traditionally been the party of limited gvt and when the GOP moved away from this stance the party faithful abandoned them. That is why Reagan was loved so much. People on the left are trying to characterize all the GOPers as racist extremists. To date much of the violence has come from the hard core Democratic supporters. I see them as more ruthless & sinister.

Reagan grew the size of the federal government.
Reagan actually increased taxation.
Racism is not the same issue as violence, so even if your personal views of what's ruthless or sinister had any real value, they don't really relate to the issue of racism. One party is advocating a ticket headed by a man who has objectively communicated racist views, and the other party advocates a candidate without any such baggage. Sometimes the thing that walks and talks like a duck, is indeed a duck.

Amerika

alastair wrote: »

Last I heard the legacy of the Confederacy still plays into both politics and race in the south. Do you have a point with this musing?

5 recent governors of Illinois have gone to jail. 4 Democrats and 1 Republican. Should we use Illinois to explain away Democratic governance? Or should we look at the nation as a whole when talking about Democratic governance?

alastair

Amerika wrote: »

5 recent governors of Illinois have gone to jail. 4 Democrats and 1 Republican. Should we use Illinois to explain away Democratic governance? Or should we look at the nation as a whole when talking about Democratic governance?

Illinois clearly has it's own regional dynamic, just as the south does. Pretending otherwise would be remarkably blinkered. The opposition to the civil rights act can be clearly identified as the southern states' representatives and beyond that, Republican represenatives outside the south. The racist political legacy of the south has been passed from one party to another in the intervening years, a reality which Michael Steele seems to have acknowledged, even if you can't do so.

Amerika

alastair wrote: »

Illinois clearly has it's own regional dynamic, just as the south does. Pretending otherwise would be remarkably blinkered. The opposition to the civil rights act can be clearly identified as the southern states' representatives and beyond that, Republican represenatives outside the south. The racist political legacy of the south has been passed from one party to another in the intervening years, a reality which Michael Steele seems to have acknowledged, even if you can't do so.

Yet Michael Steele became the Lt. Governor of Maryland as a Republican, and Chairman of the Republican National Committee. Last I heard he was African-American. Will wonders never cease?

alastair

Amerika wrote: »

Yet Michael Steele became the Lt. Governor of Maryland as a Republican, and Chairman of the Republican National Committee. Last I heard he was African-American. Will wonders never cease?

Perhaps you should listen when he says there's a problem with the party and it's attitude to African-Americans then?