Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let's be fair though. I saw several media personalities address this because they were criticized for giving Trump more interviews. They said, several of them, they sent the same number of requests to Clinton as they did to Trump (as well as other primary candidates). Trump always said yes, Clinton said no almost universally. I think they would have loved to give her more air time but she declined to do so. So really, the answer is that Trump was far more media savvy than both Clinton and his primary opponents. That's just good strategy; superior to Clinton's and his other opponents. The others were given the same opportunity, they chose not to capitalize on it for whatever reason and Trump did. Can't blame him for utilizing what the others chose to turn down.
Good post, that was pretty much exactly what I was going to respond with but didn't have time.
Justnancy: My post had nothing to do with him being treated unfairly (though I think he was post primaries but that is a separate matter) but was dealing with what southbel just posted.
This wasn't the first person denied to speak on a campus although this was done through senseless violence. Still it is wrong to deny a point of view, even one you don't agree with as it broadens your view, besides if you don't like it you don't have to attend. I recall Louis Farrakhan, Condoleezza Rice and others being denied speaking engagements at universities but not violently like these events.
I recall Mahmoud Ahmadinejad from Iran speaking at Columbia University, Farrakhan at Chicago , if they can allow them then what's the problem with these speakers at NYU and Berkley. This is a total over reaction, these people should be embarrassed not to mention incarcerated, I hope they find them. This is damaging their cause not to mention making these speakers no one heard of famous.
This is not your normal Democrat protest to say we do not like what the Republicans are trying to do.
These are Communist Revolutionaries, making Trump and all those that voted for him look like they were more than on the right track, when they may not have been. It just reinforces Trump.
These are not Democrats, they are full blown Communist rioting. They want to feel the Bern.
Ah. I do recall that and other than the very small percentage guys (like Graham), the media defended themselves there too, saying they offered Jeb!, Rubio, etc more air time. Those guys turned it down. Silly of them in retrospect, I guess.
Interesting because my perception of Trump isn't that's he's really likable at all. I think he comes across as tacky and loud mouthed. I like his policies, dislike the guy. And Obama was the opposite, thought he seemed a nice guy - funny, good father but couldn't stand his policies.
I heard Bill Bellichek (New England patriots head coach if you don't follow football) on the radio today talking about trump. He said after his wife died he was depressed and Trump called him once a week for an entire year to talk and check up on him.
Personally I think that is who Trump is - big mouth, will call you out if he disagrees, but also caring.
There I provide the links reporting that the official KKK Newspaper, the top Nazi leader and a horde of white supremacists endorsing Trump. Not only that but we all know what the Alt-right thinks about him.
Trump probably is the US President with the largest support of white supremacist in recent US history, mentioning a single grand wizard of the KKK is nothing comparable with the armies of Neo-Nazis that love Trump.
Now, does that make Trump a Neo-Nazi? Of course not. That's the main point of my initial argument. Hillary, Obama or other mainstream liberals have nothing to do with the violence at UC Berkeley, therefore they are not obliged to apologise for it.
Groups like the Black Block and Antifas hate those same mainstream liberals as well, so your assertion doesn't make any sense at all.
See, the Left sees anyone who ever wrote anything that they could paint as even remotely racist on Breitbart as proof that the entire site is chock full of "white supremacists" and Bannon is guilty by association.
Actually putting those words in Bannon's mouth is a bit harder for them though...thus the reluctance to post links to direct quotes.
Also you have to ask yourself why these "quotes" aren't all over the news?
Why did Nancy Pelosi not use them to back up her accusations of Bannon being a "White Supremacist"??
(Hint...anyone who disagrees with a liberal is a "white nationalist" or "white supremacist")
Nothing is racist.
There are only people that have been raised to be a victim of their own identities, so they can be used to bank money, by political figures in their communities.(scammers) Playing with lives so they can get rich off emotions they themselves create and perpetuate.
"Destruction and violence are contrary to progressive values and have no place in our community, Unfortunately, last night, a small minority of the protesters who had assembled in opposition to a speaking engagement featuring a prominent white nationalist engaged in violence and property damage. They also provided the ultra-nationalist far right exactly the images they want to use to try to discredit the vast majority of peaceful protesters in Berkeley and across America who are deeply concerned about where our country is heading.”
Where did he blame Milo Yiannopoulos? He was criticizing the violent thugs who invaded a peaceful protect. He then apologized for the "white nationalist" label with this tweet.
Seriously, not that hard. It means he deleted the Tweet. Here go to his main page, you can even see where he references he deleted the tweet. https://mobile.twitter.com/JesseArreguin
Thanks. I was just about to quote the comment Arreguin made apologizing "for the white national label," but I see justNancy beat me to it. I also noticed that Arreguin's apology was dated yesterday - Feb 2. It's not that hard. If OP had bothered to check, he'd have seen that his post had been rendered invalid before he ever even wrote it. This is why I do not waste my time chasing after inaccurate links given by every Tom, Dick and Harry on the Internet. You folks are savvy enough to go thru Twitter and get it right the first time around. Why don't you?
"Destruction and violence are contrary to progressive values and have no place in our community, Unfortunately, last night, a small minority of the protesters who had assembled in opposition to a speaking engagement featuring a prominent white nationalist engaged in violence and property damage. They also provided the ultra-nationalist far right exactly the images they want to use to try to discredit the vast majority of peaceful protesters in Berkeley and across America who are deeply concerned about where our country is heading.”
Where did he blame Milo Yiannopoulos? He was criticizing the violent thugs who invaded a peaceful protect. He then apologized for the "white nationalist" label with this tweet.
"I consider much of what Mr. Yiannopoulos says to be hateful. But I regret and apologize for the white national label."
Yeah, but it's so much more fun to grab an alternate fact and run with it than it is to take the trouble to figure out what's actually going on. Think how boring the CD politics board would be if everyone bothered to fact check.
Thanks. I was just about to quote the comment Arreguin made apologizing "for the white national label," but I see justNancy beat me to it. I also noticed that Arreguin's apology was dated yesterday - Feb 2. It's not that hard. If OP had bothered to check, he'd have seen that his post had been rendered invalid before he ever even wrote it. This is why I do not waste my time chasing after inaccurate links given by every Tom, Dick and Harry on the Internet. You folks are savvy enough to go thru Twitter and get it right the first time around. Why don't you?
Yeah, but it's so much more fun to grab an alternate fact and run with it than it is to take the trouble to figure out what's actually going on. Think how boring the CD politics board would be if everyone bothered to fact check.
Ya, on the internet, you can never take it back or erase it. You can only apologize.
No, I didn't say the transcript was wrong, only that there was a discussion about this matter that went further than what you're quoting. Reich also never said they were right-wingers, only that there have been rumors. My only mistake was that I turned on the TV late and didn't realize he was the first to answer, but there was a discussion with others who had different viewpoints.
Also, the interpretation of what Don Lemon meant by "playing right into the hands of.." is entirely different from the way I took it. In other words, the violence only further proves what Yiannopoulost has been preaching to his followers.
I stand my ground that you cannot possibly know that the violent thugs who caused all the damage and disrupted the peaceful protest were students, liberals or members of any other group, since their faces were covered, although they look like the group often referred to as the "Black Bloc." When there was violence at Trump rallies, many people on this forum said they were paid Democrats, which was never confirmed by anyone. I guess someone is not allowed to have an opinion unless it fits your agenda.
I wrote a longer comment, but I decided to edit it, since nothing I write will matter here.
Nancy, first off I commend you for having the intestinal fortitude to actually come back and expand on your thoughts and debate this from your point of view.
Now then, let's address the "rumor" thing. Everyone with any kind of critical thinking is aware of the reason for using the word "rumor" before one makes a charge. It gives the speaker cover, allowing the speaker to pass unproven and usually false gossip or their own opinions as fact with the knowledge most people will ignore the word "rumor" and take the statement as fact.
Honest and upstanding people don't run around spouting gossip or "rumors" as they are not FACT. It's like saying "I heard a rumor that Nancy is a child predator, she hangs kids in a smoker for a day then dips 'em in BBQ sauce". While totally unfounded and salacious people will run with it like it's fact as they will mentally drop the "rumor" part and the story will take a life of it's own.
To further explain, using the word "rumor" in the context he did is a way for him to toss something out, something HE believes is the truth without taking responsibility or blame for saying it. It's a WEASLE word.
Secondly, what he said about those thugs not being students or connected to the college "because I've never seen them here before" is COMPLETE crap unless he has XRay glasses or has a way to identify different mask fabrics. For all he knows it was his own kids and their friends since nobody could see their faces.
I never said I "knew" who they were though I can safely guess that they were left/far left of center in ideology.
Also, I can almost say with certainty they were NOT connected to the College Republicans and most likely not of any conservative group,movement or action given the violence and property damage.
So Beck said that there are some things unique to being black in America and that they are more likely to have interactions with cops that are negative. He then said that he was unfair to Obama by calling him a racist early on and that has made him a better man as he holds off on judging, but that he still disagrees with Obama's policies.
I don't see how that makes him a liberal.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
