BuzzFeed Ends $1.3M Advertising Deal With RNC Over Donald Trump (cnn.com) 403
An anonymous reader writes: In response to Donald Trump's rhetoric, the "social news and entertainment company" BuzzFeed has decided to terminate an advertising deal with the Republican National Committee. The deal was for $1.3 million, a source close to BuzzFeed told POLITICO. The source said the reason was because of the website's employees. "[BuzzFeed could not countenance] having employees make ads, or working at the company and having our site promoting things, that limit our freedom and make it harder for them to live their lives," they said. The source said in response to whether or not BuzzFeed would rule out any Trump advertising: "In general, we have taken the position that we won't take ads for his presidential campaign." In a CNN article, RNC chief strategist Sean Spicer says, "Space was reserved on many platforms, but we never intended to use BuzzFeed." He added, "It is ironic that they have not ruled out taking money from a candidate currently under investigation by the FBI." The agreement between the RNC and BuzzFeed called for the GOP to "spend a significant amount on political advertisements slated to run during the fall election cycle," BuzzFeed CEO Jonah Peretti wrote in an internal memo.
I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it (Score:2, Interesting)
I'll say here what I said elsewhere: I'm sure Donald Trump is all torn up about losing access to advertising to all those people who don't vote anyway.
Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it (Score:4, Interesting)
Assuming Buzzfeed readers don't vote is why the GOP keeps losing.
Re: I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it (Score:3, Informative)
They keep loosing? Remind me, which party controls both the house and senate? Shall we look at the state by state map with regards to legislatures and governorships? Obama has actually done wonders for the GOP.
Re: I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it (Score:5, Funny)
Really? He showed you how to spell losing, and you still spelled it "loosing"?
Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do you want to vote for him? He's unrepentantly racist, why do you want a guy like that leading the country? He doesn't let any perceived insult go unanswered, you really want a guy like that in control of the most powerful military on the planet? We don't need a would-be strongman trying to run the country like Putin runs Russia. Trump's word doesn't mean anything, he'll say something one day on video and the next day he'll say he never said that. He's a sociopath who will say anything to win or escape that particular moment, with no thought to tomorrow. And casting your vote for him just because there are so many people who hate him is probably the worst reason to vote for someone that I've heard so far. "A strong majority in the country doesn't like that guy? That's my candidate!" How about looking to the smaller parties to find someone who actually represents what you believe instead of some stupid troll protest vote?
Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it (Score:5, Insightful)
Because the alternatives are green, libertarian or so fucking crooked she really believes she's above the law.
Re: (Score:3)
There are no fewer than 17 other political parties with restricted ballot access. Maybe that's the real problem.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
In what way is it racist to call out people who say they want to kill you?
As far as the traditional minority groups are concerned as far as I can tell Trumps companies hire African-Americans and Latinos in larger percentages than most other U.S. companies. It is well known that Trump has hired more women for executive positions than your standard Tech company. So in what way is Trump racists. (By the way being Muslim is not a race.)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
In what way is it racist to call out people who say they want to kill you?
It's not. I don't think I said "Donald Trump is racist because he calls out people who say they want to kill him", but I'll go ahead and re-read what I wrote just to make sure.
OK, I re-read it, and sure enough, I didn't say that. So I'm not sure why you're asking me. Maybe you replied to the wrong person.
So in what way is Trump racists.
Other than that time when David Duke endorsed Trump, and Trump said he didn't know enough about the KKK to say that he didn't want to be endorsed by them? How about the time when the justice department
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Clearly, so racist he never learned much about the KKK
Should be modded hilarious.
It is a common trait among ostensibly intelligent, successful people to not know what the KKK is about. "I just never thought to look" LOL
Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it (Score:5, Insightful)
Are we honestly supposed to believe he never heard of the KKK and David Duke until he was 70 years old?
Further, I would contend that if he is that sheltered, then it's simply even more evidence that he is not qualified for office.
Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, he said the intelligent thing to say when you don't know about something.
Are you shitting me? Are you seriously trying to suggest that there are Americans alive now who were born in the 1940s and who have never heard about the fucking Ku Klux Klan?
It could be that in this instance Trump didn't know who David Duke was
Well, yeah, I guess that could be the case, but Trump did know who David Duke was in 1991, and also in 2000 when Trump specifically cited Duke as the reason why he didn't want to accept the Reform Party nomination [washingtonpost.com]. Even called him a "Klansman", now what the hell do you think "Klansman" means?
What do you think is more likely, that Trump does not know what the KKK is or who David Duke is, or that he's a lying sack of shit?
Re: (Score:3)
KKK? Isn't that that folklore group that walks with sheets over their heads?
No, no, no. I'm pretty sure they're a detergent company, they keep telling me that my whites need to be whiter...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Hmmm. That's funny. I never knew that "illegal" and "Muslim" were races.
Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it (Score:5, Informative)
He just said that a judge, who is a natural born US citizen, cannot be impartial in the suit against Trump because of his ethnicity. That's racist.
Re: I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it (Score:5, Insightful)
Black people say white juries, cops, and judges, can't be impartial all the time. I don't see any inconsistency here.
Re: I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it (Score:4, Insightful)
Black people say white juries, cops, and judges, can't be impartial all the time. I don't see any inconsistency here.
How many of those black people are running for President of the United States?
Re: I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it (Score:2)
Thanks for illustrating my point so well.
Re: (Score:3)
His comment about the judge, in context, pertains to the judges membership in an extremist group
Only if you count "people with Mexican heritage" as an "extremist group", because the only reason Trump initially gave that the judge was not qualified was because the judge's parents are Mexican and Trump wants to build a wall. That's the only reason he initially gave. Go find his speech and wind through the word spaghetti yourself, in between talking about how much Mexicans love him, Trump only cites the fact that Curiel's parents are Mexican as the reason. In the days after he said that then he starte
Re: (Score:3)
What does this 'running for president' thing got to do with the issue at hand?
What??? The fact that Trump is running for president is the ONLY thing that is relevant. If he wasn't running, we wouldn't even be having this conversation, and nobody would give a rats ass what Trump thinks about Mexicans or Muslims. That fact that some random black people openly express racist attitudes does not make it okay for a presidential candidate to also openly expresses racist opinions. People running for president should be held to a higher standard.
Re: I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it (Score:2)
Yeah, I went to college too. It's a lot of bullshit. If one ethnicity who wields power can be biased, then so can another. You have to be deliberately ignorant to not understand that.
Re: (Score:3)
That's because the US has a history of white supremacy, an ideology that was widespread among whites of all social strata and systematically applied by those in power
What a pile of liberal horse shit, lets blame history for making me black crap doesn't float any more. You remember way back in the 50' they had the korean war and even earlier in the 70s they had the Vietnam war. Thousands of refugees from both conflicts immigrated to the USA with no money, no education, and no english language skills. The Vietnamese and Koreans went off worked hard got an education and also made sure their kids had an education. So now explain to me why the Koreans and the Vietnamese livi
Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it (Score:5, Informative)
You mean the judge that's a member of La Raza, the racist organization of Mexicans who hate white people?
No. He is a member of The Hispanic National Bar Association [wikipedia.org], which used to be known as La Raza National Lawyers Association, and is a completely separate organization from the National Council of La Raza [wikipedia.org], a political advocacy group. The organization he belongs to changed their name more than 30 years ago, specifically to avoid confusing people like you, but apparently to no avail.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/donald-trump-and-the-ku-klux-klan-a-history [newyorker.com]
For example
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well, at least we KNOW that Hillary has heard of the KKK, since she is good friends with a former KKK member.
Former Senator Byrd was actually a KKK member, and very cozy with the Clintons -- close enough to give Hillary a big smooch.
http://www.snopes.com/clinton-... [snopes.com]
50-60 years ago (Score:5, Informative)
Only people which are extreme right wing and disinterested into fact would use that photo and "kiss" against Clinton or Byrd. I am sorry but everybody makes error while young, and since he apologized along his long carrier of 50+year , I am seeing painting him as having KKK tie as either chicaneries or plain old lies. Either way it does not paint a good picture about people which uses this against Clinton. Disclaimer : I do not like Clinton I just don't like fact distortion.
Re: (Score:3)
2 Things here: 1) Byrd died a decade ago. Unless she carries a Ouija board around with her, she hasn't been friends with him in quite a while. 2) He renounced that membership long before he died or before Hillary ever met him, and was (mostly) not a supporter of White Supremacy in Congress.
People do grow and change their minds. Hillary once supported Goldwater. Ronald Regan was a New Deal Democrat. Republicans used to be the party of Liberals and Democrats used to be the party of Conservatives. If you want
Re: I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it (Score:3)
When you're referencing all Mexicans and call them murderers and rapists and some, you assume, are good people... You're a racist.
When you use the possessive to refer to African Americans... OK, then you're probably just ignorant.
When you call out Hiliary over Bill's infidelity yet the woman you're having an affair with gets caught screwing someone else under a lifeguard tower... You're a hypocrite as well as a cuckhold.
When you tell everyone how successful a businessman you are, having vastly lost money co
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Scott Adams has an interesting take on things.
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/145309172876/the-risks-of-a-trump-presidency [dilbert.com]
My only question is---if Trump is so racist, sexist, and prone to violent reactions--why hasn't that popped up in his past? Discrimination lawsuits? Sexual harassment cases? Workplace violence or intimidation? Anything like that? I mean everything that comes out about him basically makes him seem like a mild-mannered Steve Jobs or Zuckerberg... As far a celebrity children, his don't seem pa
Re: I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it (Score:4, Insightful)
You don't get it. The Republican is always conveniently unabashedly racist. As long as that is the case, it is not necessary to argue substance or look at the faults of any of the other candidates. Also, if the guy you oppose is racist, it automatically makes you morally superior and just a good all around person. No need to use reason or actually objectively look at the candidates.
Re: (Score:3)
Adams, whose cartoons seemed to find nuance in everything, ignores the nuances of the "Leader" of a country announcing that the government will now create a list of members of a specific religious group
Ummm, are you fucking kidding me? (Score:3)
1. He's been sued twice by the Justice Department for not renting to black people.
2. He was fined $200K because his Casino would regularly remove black casino dealers at the request of players
3. He is quoted as saying the following: “And it’s probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It’s not anything they can control.”
4. He was the original birther.
5. He defended his supporters attacking a protester: “Maybe [the protester] shou
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Why do you want to vote for him? He's
exactly like Hillary, and every other candidate, except for one thing: He's honest about it.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Please share some of his racist comments... But please remember. "illegal Mexican immigrant" is not a race or ethnic group. Muslim is not a race or ethnic group.
Disliking a subgroup within an ethnic group for the actions is not racist.
Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it (Score:5, Insightful)
But please remember. "illegal Mexican immigrant" is not a race or ethnic group.
Except the judge was a native born American citizen, and was not illegal, or Mexican, or an immigrant. When Trump attacked him, and called him a "Mexican", he was clearly referring to his ethnicity.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do you want to vote for him? He's unrepentantly racist, why do you want a guy like that leading the country
Way to prove the GP's point.
Trump has said some stupid and insensitive shit, but can you point to something that was actually racist? Keep in mind that racism entails an overall declaration that some race is inherently better than some other race. Racism does not apply to nationality. Racism does not apply to religion. Racism does not apply to class. Has Trump actually said something truly racist, or did you just label him a racist because that's the go-to label for people you find disagreeable?
To be clear,
Re: (Score:2)
I completely agree. I will now spew out a "jingoistic plutocrat" label because, y'know, reasons.
Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it (Score:4, Informative)
Way to prove the GP's point.
Trump has said some stupid and insensitive shit, but can you point to something that was actually racist?
Trump said that a judge should be disqualified from a case solely based on his ethnicity. As Paul Ryan, GOP house leader, said on Trump's statements: "Saying that someone can't do their job because of their race is the textbook definition of racism."
This isn't Democrats and liberals calling him a racist - top Republican leaders are now saying so as well.
Because he'll fix 7 things (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do you want to vote for him?
Because he has 7 clear positions with a plan to fix each, while Hillary has 31 nebulous "issues" and a vague attitude on each.
In an attempt to learn about a non-hot-potato issue, I checked out Trump's position on tax reform.
Basically, it says [donaldjtrump.com] any individual earning under $25,000 pays no tax, couples under $50,000 pay no tax, and it gets rid of the marriage penalty and the estate tax. It's also revenue neutral(*).
That sounds pretty good to me: this would help out a lot of poor and underprivileged, and it would eliminate the huge chunk of bureaucratic effort low earners have to do each year. The amount of revenue from a poor person is negligible, so it makes sense not to expend the effort (on both sides) trying to collect it.
I couldn't find anything in Clinton's issues specifically about tax reform (let me know if I missed it), but her "economy" issue mentions a couple of tax 'gimmes such as this one:
Hillary will cut taxes for hard-working families to increase their take-home pay as they face rising costs from child care, health care, and sending their kids to college. She is calling for extending a tax cut of up to $2,500 per student to help deal with college costs as part of her New College Compact, and for cutting taxes for businesses that share profits with their employees.
Her position is nebulous ("Hillary will cut taxes for hard-working families") and makes you feel like she's on your side without anything concrete. She's adding yet another rule to an overly-complicated tax code, and it only helps families with college-bound students.
All her positions are like that: feel-good appeals to emotional problems, and a vague sense that she'll do something about it.
Donald Trump has 7 positions listed, each of which are high priority problems that should be fixed such as the current backlog of Veterans benefits. Clinton has a looooong list of issues, such as campus sexual assault. I'm not entirely certain that campus sexual assault rises to the same level as tax reform or Veteran's benefits, but I'm pretty certain it should not be dealt with at the federal level. It's there for emotional impact.
Trump notes 7 problems and has a plan to fix them.
Clinton lists all the problems she can find, and asks "won't someone think of the $whatever-gets-me-the-vote"?
(*) Whether you believe that it is actually revenue neutral makes no difference. You can always *make* it revenue neutral by adjusting the numbers as needed, and the government thinks nothing of going into debt by twice its revenue anyway, so they could make up the shortfall that way.
(**) I had to correct myself from typing "Clinton has issues".
Re:Because he'll fix 7 things (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
you really want a guy like that in control of the most powerful military on the planet?
The US Military doesn't just rush off to war because the president gives an order.
We don't need a would-be strongman trying to run the country like Putin runs Russia.
The US has balance of powers. No one person can take over the US like Putin has in Russia.
Trump's word doesn't mean anything, he'll say something one day on video and the next day he'll say he never said that.
That's true, so what does he stand for? If he doesn't know, you don't either.
He's a sociopath who will say anything to win or escape that particular moment
That hardly makes him unique in US politics does it?
Re: (Score:2)
What would be interesting is if Buzzfeed still carried ads for the DNC, and if someone could make a legal argument for if that's an illegal campaign contribution...
Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You shouldn't be shocked by that. Progressives over the last 10 years have showing that the only tolerance they accept, is the one that echos their own voice. And yet they wonder why liberals and non-affiliated leftists are running towards independents and the right.
Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it (Score:5, Interesting)
in creating a just and equitable society there is no requirement to tolerate the views of racists (ie intolerance) as the views of those people are explicitly inimical to said just and equitable society.
"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them...We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant." - Karl Popper
Re:Obamaism (Score:5, Informative)
Remember how bad McCarthism was, but McCarthy only targeted State Department employees.
McCarthy's House Un-American Activities Committee persecuted many people not employed in any capacity by the Federal government. Do the words, "Hollywood blacklist" ring a bell?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Obamaism (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm going to agree with you but only in the hopes we can become friends and you connect me with whoever sold you what you were smoking.
Neither party is who they were in twenty years ago. If you look at the degree of polarization, even then, there were some who could work across the aisles.
Go back as far as St Ronald and you get someone with more in common with current democrats than republicans.
Go twenty years further back and you have broadly un recognizable parties pivoting on some of their traditional issues as other of their traditional issues drove them to do so.
Go back half a century more and you've got parties no modern zealot could agree with as each held political territory that deeply appeals and deeply disgusts each of the current parties.
Just because a party once did something the better part of a century or two ago really means nothing in a world where 20-30 years can make a party unrecognizable to many of its old stalwarts.
Or, you know, whatever your talk radio of choice tells you.
Now can I get some of that weed?
$1.3M (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or it could feed a lot of hungry children, which would make Buzz happy. [endhunger.com]
Free Advertising (Score:3, Insightful)
Instead of taking the $1.3million they've just given Trump some great free advertising here.
It's also interesting how the left are consistently against free speech, both as defined in the constitution and as a general principle. They only believe you should be permitted to say things that agree with their ideology, and will try to silence any descenting voices by using terms such as racist, xenophobic, bigoted and elitist.
They left have become extremely fascist over the last few decades, yet they are unable to recognise this and continue to accuse people on the right of being fascist.
Re:Free Advertising (Score:5, Insightful)
A private company choosing not to run ads for a dull demagogue is not "against free speech" - it's that company practising its free speech right to say what it wants to say, and no more.
You get authoritarian sorts at all points of the political spectrum, from those who have a problem with criticism of a particular race to those who have a problem with "anti-American" speech. The authoritarian will cry to government for protection from whatever it is he doesn't like, even if it's none of his business.
Re:Free Advertising (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A few bigots/'elitists'/xenophobes running around spouting half truths is far less harmful to society than having the state decide what speech is allowed. Of course, your description is just a tad off. Labeling criticism as bigotry and then demanding censure to silence it is not much of an argument to trample free speech.
Re: (Score:2)
I must have missed the news - when did we elect Buzzfeed as our new government?
Re: (Score:2)
We didn't.
Re:Free Advertising (Score:5, Insightful)
The Loony Left (as you call it) is actually trying to suppress free speech, or haven't you seen pictures of the Left wing rioting and attacking of Trump supporters for being nothing but Trump Supporters. If the roles were reversed, it would be called "Hate" and Misogyny (for the physical attacks on women). But alas, it is against Trump supporters so ... we're good!
FYI, I am not voting for Trump, was never going to vote for GOP either.
Re: (Score:2)
The Loony Left (as you call it) is actually trying to suppress free speech, or haven't you seen pictures of the Left wing rioting and attacking of Trump supporters for being nothing but Trump Supporters.
These are no more representatives of "the Left" any more than the random racists were a representative sample of the "Tea Party" activists or a KKK rally with confederate flags is representative of "the Right."
Or, frankly, the few psychopaths who blow things up are also not representative of "Muslims" (or "Christians" -- see other terrorist acts -- or whomever).
A small minority of idiots and wackos are not evidence that any large mainstream group is "trying to suppress free speech" or that "all Republic
Re:Free Advertising (Score:5, Informative)
That is straight-up bullshit, and you know it. Everybody from Hillary Clinton on down to (for instance) San Jose's mayor and police chief are engaged in "blame the victim" over what happened in that city recently.
Re: (Score:3)
Everybody from Hillary Clinton on down to (for instance) San Jose's mayor and police chief are engaged in "blame the victim" over what happened in that city recently.
What happened in that city recently? I checked the news, and the best I could find was that their hockey team made it to the playoffs.
If you are talking about violence at Trump rallies...well...every politician has been getting protesters at their rallies this cycle. That includes Sanders and Clinton. Heck, even O'Malley got protested, and most of you probably didn't even know he was running. There's only one candidate where things tend to get violent, and its no coincidence its the one candidate who's mad
Re: (Score:2)
"Silencing" people only lead em to go discuss somewhere else and now with even less opposition, which leads em to becoming even more racists, xenophobes etc..
And no, you can't "kill all places".
I'm not sure they can do that... (Score:5, Interesting)
I may be completely wrong, but I thought FEC rules were If they take ads for one candidate/party they have to allow the other candidate/party to advertise as well.
Re: (Score:2)
The new rule is, they CAN reject his advertising, but they have to bake him a cake that says "Make America Great Again."
In all seriousness, I wonder about this too. I am not up on these rules.
Re: (Score:2)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't discrimination based on political affiliation a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
Or are they giving up ad money from all political parties?
Re:I'm not sure they can do that... (Score:5, Interesting)
That's a common misconception. There USED TO BE an 'equal time' rule that applied to broadcast media. It was called the Fairness Doctrine, and it only governed TV and radio broadcasts. (so it never would have regulated something online) In essence, the rule said that if you let one guy talk on your program, you had to give the other guy the same amount of time to talk. Until recently, I thought it still existed, and there's certainly a public perception that this rule exists, but it actually ended in 1987 because of strong opposition by appointees of the Reagan administration. Here's a link with more info and a whole bunch of sources talking about the history of the rule and how it ended: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Equal-time+rule
Re: (Score:2)
For instance, Saturday Night Live was theoretically obligated to offer opposing candidates a platform since the Donald hosted a show.
Paid advertisements are another matter, not governed by the original rule.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not seeing this here: http://www.fec.gov/pages/broch... [fec.gov]
However, Buzzfeed is SAYING that the employees don't want the business but I doubt that every single one of them feels that way and they haven't documented that they do. I'd bet that there are employees who don't feel that way but feel that they can't speak their mind without fear of retribution. One could also argue that by not accepting ads for one party, they can't accept ad revenue for another. To do so would imply that they are endorsing one
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't want them anyway... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
RNC didn't want to advertise there anyway. They're low energy. Losers.
...and probably Mexican. They're Mexican, aren't they? Or Muslim?
In all seriousness, I am enjoying the shit out of watching the clown car that was the republican field, now that Trump is behind the wheel with his foot mashing that gas pedal. The wreck is going to be of historic proportions.
Re:Didn't want them anyway... (Score:4, Insightful)
But remember that about half of the voters in the US are going to vote Democrat no matter what, and about half will vote Republican no matter what. That means even the craziest candidate is still in with a shot at winning, simply because he'll have the might of a major political party behind him - and now the infighting is over everyone who supports the party can agree that having a Republican nutjob in office is still better than letting a Democrat win.
Re: (Score:3)
...and probably Mexican. They're Mexican, aren't they?
Well, if you burn USA flags . . . while waving Mexican flags at an anti-Trump protest . . . I don't think you are doing anything to help Hillary or Bernie.
Totally the opposite . . . this just pours oil on the fire and fans the flames of Trump xenophobia.
Re: (Score:2)
what? (Score:2, Insightful)
currently under investigation by the FBI
What happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
That's dead. Haven't you heard? The new way is "listen and believe."
Re:what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Equally,
By the miracle of modern politics, sometimes factual == fat ass.
I just picked up a copy of It's Even Worse Than It Looks this morning. You, sir, are the Elephant Man in the mirror, minus the redeeming character of your pachydermous patriarch.
Re: (Score:2)
In politics it's "You wear it until you figure out how to out-spin the spinner".
I bet there are a lot of "investigatable" issues in the federal government; it's just that they haven't come to light (yet). The email thing spawned out of the Benghazi investigation, which the GOP made sure was examined under a microscope. We'd perhaps never know about it if not discovered from that. After all, Colin Powell also allegedly "did it wrong", but if
I Don't Believe Trump's Eligible to be President (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I want to see Trump's long form Birth Certificate, because it's pretty clear he's an Oompa Loompa. It seems much more likely that he was born in Loompaland, not the USA.
You can't be prez unless you're vetted out as a pure-blood lizardperson, and they don't have birth certificates. They get hatching certificates instead.
But, if Trump were gay... (Score:2)
He could force any bakery to bake him a cake, right? The cognitive dissonance of the far left is amazing.
What's BuzzFeed? (Score:2)
Is it one of those slideshow ad sites masquerading as news? Twice in the past week some obscure site gets attention by getting itself /.'ed.
nothing more needs be said. (Score:2)
Well that's rich (Score:2)
The source said the reason was because of the website's employees. "[BuzzFeed could not countenance] having employees make ads, or working at the company and having our site promoting things, that limit our freedom and make it harder for them to live their lives,
You mean like the freedom not to have to make cakes for people when it's against your moral beliefs to work on their behalf? Ok then.
It' nice to know Buzzed will fold when the pressure gets high, lets see what other advertising we can remove from
Re: (Score:3)
unadulterated garbage
Not any more. Now BuzzFeed is praiseworthy and noble, espousing Our Values(tm) by refusing to do business with Trump.
Same thing happened with Facebook last month; a whistle-blower kicked over the rock and "blacklists" and BLM story "injection" appeared, and suddenly Facebook went from bloodsucking privacy invaders to a sovereign corporation that should be protected from investigation.
Re: (Score:2)
What is there to investigate? They have no legal obligation to be unbiased, or even truthful.
Re:Fuck off (Score:5, Insightful)
The first amendment begins "Congress shall make no law..."
Neither buzzfeed nor Facebook are Congress, obviously. Private businesses are free to publish or not publish whatever they wish. And readers are presumably free to read or not read material from said private businesses.
Re: (Score:2)
The first amendment begins "Congress shall make no law..." Private businesses are free...
Yeah. The same phenomena continues; corporate personhood advocates everywhere when the corporates are leftists.
Re: (Score:2)
The first amendment begins "Congress shall make no law..."
Neither buzzfeed nor Facebook are Congress, obviously. Private businesses are free to publish or not publish whatever they wish. .
So I, as the owner of a private business, could post messages on the website of my place of business about the inferiority of various races, and the fact that women don't belong in the work place taking jobs away from men who have families to feed.
Thanks for letting me know about this. I'll get right on it.
Re:Fuck off (Score:4, Insightful)
The first amendment begins "Congress shall make no law..."
Neither buzzfeed nor Facebook are Congress, obviously. Private businesses are free to publish or not publish whatever they wish. .
So I, as the owner of a private business, could post messages on the website of my place of business about the inferiority of various races, and the fact that women don't belong in the work place taking jobs away from men who have families to feed.
Thanks for letting me know about this. I'll get right on it.
Actually I don't think there is much legislation that would prohibit you from doing so. If you are found to be making hiring decisions based on those ideas, or vetting your clientel in that way, you may be in contravention of a variety of statues. Perhaps creating a hostile work environment by way of your website postings might also be a problem.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
To be honest, the Liberal Left has made Mockery (see John Stewart) a viable political commentary tool. If people don't like it with the tables are turned, then they are simply hypocrites.
Re:Safe space (Score:5, Insightful)
To be honest, the Liberal Left has made Mockery (see John Stewart) a viable political commentary tool.
Comedians have used mockery, satire, etc as a tool of political and social commentary forever. That's literally what their job is. It's not exactly a new phenomenon. And it's also not limited to any part of the political spectrum, look at people like Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh if you'd like to see conservatives using mockery in political commentary.
It's also not necessary to capitalize "liberal left" (which is also redundant), or mockery, and it's Jon Stewart, not John.
It's also the only safe space (Score:2)