• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

Election 2020 The 2020 Candidates: Right, Left and Center!

Status
Not open for further replies.
MSNBC deal with S. Carolina Dems rankles other media outlets

South Carolina’s Democratic leader says he granted MSNBC exclusive live rights to this weekend’s party convention because the network agreed to show speeches from 21 presidential contenders and offered a strong chance to reach black voters.

The coverage arrangement for the event, a stop in a key early primary state and a chance for candidates to make their case before next week’s opening debate, angered other media outlets.

C-SPAN says it shuts them out of a previously open political event it has covered live for many years. Journalist Roland Martin, former host at TV One, said the “terrible” decision hurts black-owned media outlets. Fox News Channel lodged a complaint.

“These are the events that should be open to all media,” said Steve Scully, political editor at C-SPAN, which spent $13,351 to give out tote bags to attendees of Saturday’s session.

State Party Chairman Trav Robertson said Wednesday that MSNBC did not pay for the exclusive arrangement.

...

Two of MSNBC’s African American anchors, Joy Reid and the Rev. Al Sharpton, will be live all day from the event, interviewing each candidate after he or she addresses the convention. The network was chosen in part, Robertson said, because of Reid and Sharpton’s appeal to black voters, who make up the majority of the Democratic primary electorate in South Carolina.

MSNBC’s audience is 21% African American during the week but jumps to 30% on the weekend, when Reid and Sharpton have regular shows. The network has received some criticism for a lack of diversity with its all-white weeknight lineup of hosts from 4 p.m. to midnight.

...

The deal further solidifies MSNBC, which is simulcasting next week’s debate with NBC News, as a friendly forum for Democrats. While it will show live speeches from 21 Democratic candidates this weekend, the network aired none of Republican President Donald Trump’s campaign kickoff in Florida on Tuesday night.
Click to expand...


Is it fair to restrict media access, to play favorites? I think so. Though, I think it hurts the party and the event overall, but if they choose to do so, fine.

Interesting bits:
- Al Sharpton is a local anchor and one of two African-American hosts for the event (wondered what his day job was)
- Fox news has filed a complaint :eek:
- MSNBC covered none of Trump's campaign kick off.
 
With Dems starting primaries, have they shaped their platforms yet or is it still in flux? I'm just wondering how these early debates will unfold, and if the candidates will eat each other to a point of hurting the chances for an overall leader, and if their choice of platform promises will be feasible, will they be 'uniting Americans' or dividing them. How much can they campaign beyond 'Orange man bad'? Do they shift focus from Trump (finally) and start creating promise and hope for Americans, or continue to waste energy on fights that are not constructive (against each other, or Reps, or Trump specifically).
 
For all the talk of Trump inciting violence...there's also this:




=======================

However, be honest and do your homework before spreading lies...because there is also this:

Right-wing media push false narrative that Biden called for a “physical revolution”

The conservative media sphere has worked itself up into a frothy rage over a video in which Joe Biden supposedly calls for a “physical revolution.” Spoiler: Biden did not, in fact, call for a “physical revolution.”

On Monday, the former vice president participated in the Poor People’s Campaign’s presidential forum in Washington, D.C. During a Q&A session, MSNBC’s Joy Reid asked Biden how he would advance any sort of legislative agenda as president, with the Senate run by a man who has already vowed to be the “Grim Reaper”for Democratic policies. He replied with a fairly boilerplate call for bipartisanship and use of the bully pulpit to unite people, arguing that there’s not exactly a better option:

You’ve got to make it clear to Republicans that you understand that some things, there is a rationale for compromise. For example, when we did the Recovery Act -- Mr. President, as you may remember, at the State of the Union, said, “Joe will do the Recovery Act” -- $89 billion. And it was done without any waste or fraud -- 2% waste, fraud or abuse. Well, what happened there? We didn’t have the votes initially, so I went out and got -- I changed three Republican votes. You try to persuade. Doesn’t mean you can do it all the time. But it kept us from going into a depression.
Click to expand...

So folks, look, if you start off with the notion there is nothing you can do, then why don’t you all go home, then, man? Or let’s start a real, physical revolution if you are talking about it. Because we have to be able to change what we are doing within our system, because you talk about the creed -- we the people, we hold these truths self-evident -- we haven’t always lived up to that standard, but we’ve never fully abandoned it.
Click to expand...

A few hours later, The Daily Wire’s Ryan Saavedra tweeted a 51-second clip of the exchange between Reid and Biden, edited so it could seem Biden was actually promoting revolution. And he connected that statement to an earlier comment in which Biden referred to dogged campaigning against obstructionists as a “brass knuckle fight.”



“Biden didn’t ‘call for’ [revolution] at all,” Weigel wrote in response to a tweet by Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX). “He did the opposite: He told a crowd that it needed to ‘be able to change what we’re doing within our system,’ saying if they didn’t want that they must want ‘a real physical revolution.”

But by then, it was too late and the claim was already circulating on the right. Saavedra’s edit left out the sentences immediately after the reference to “a brass knuckle fight,” in which Biden explained what exactly he meant by that: “What you do is when they say, ‘We’re not going to support you,’ you do what I did last time -- I went into 68 races in 22 states -- and they were not blue states. … You have to go out and beat these folks if they don’t agree with you, by making your case.”

Similarly, by not including the portion immediately before the “physical revolution” part -- in which Biden talks about convincing people and winning votes -- Saavedra made it seem as though Biden might have been advocating for a violent conflict when he was trying to make the exact opposite point.

Twitter caps videos at two minutes, 20 seconds in length. Measuring from the beginning of his answer through the “physical revolution” comment, Biden spoke for 2:16, meaning that no edit to his words was necessary -- especially not one that cut essential context. In his write-up for The Daily Wire, headlined, “Biden Suggests Starting ‘Physical Revolution’ To Deal With Republicans,” Saavedra again omitted context in order to make it seem as though the “brass knuckle” comment was related to the reference to a “physical revolution”:
Click to expand...



Lol, the guy who edited and put the tweet-video up works for Dailywire (right leaning media). He's creating his own material for articles. Not that everyone else isn't already doing it, but c'mon man.

Point being, don't believe it if you hear Biden pushing for violence on Reps. That isn't close to what he was saying. If we're going to slam people for bad ideas, let the ideas be truly spoken by them, not edited into existence.


EDIT: Wow. If you follow the tweet and read the replies, he obviously feeds his followers what they want. Nobody in the replies questions this creation - they blindly cheer on the mis-representation as reality. Before you tell me 'all those Trump supporters do'....I know both sides do in their own way. But some, the sane I hope, stay grounded in the middle and seek the truth.
 
He was never gonna get it. Black democrats are disproportionately religious compared to white democrats. More moderate, more socially conservative.

So yeah the liberal gay won't do too well with the moderate black Dems, just like the liberal Jew didn't do so well last time.

This is not a reflection on their ideas or them as candidates.

Btw, Pete said black lives matter. Perhaps he meant your in the traditional sense, as in addressing the person he was speaking to not you as in all black people.
 
Didn't something he did policywise some years back get him on the wrong side of the black community? I forget if it was related to police shootings or not.
 
"The American people bailed out Wall Street," he said as he outlined the plan on Capitol Hill. "Now it is time for Wall Street to come to the aid of the middle class of this country."
Click to expand...

www.bbc.com

Bernie Sanders plans to cancel all $1.6tn of US student debt

The plan to erase $1.6tn (£1.2tn) in loans is the most ambitious among the 2020 contenders thus far.
www.bbc.com

HE IS MISSING THE POINT: WALL STREET SHOULD HAVE NEVER GOTTEN A BAIL OUT

omg
 
I was very interested by Mr Yang's comment that either he would win or the winner would crib a lot of his ideas, which would indeed be a good thing. It looks to me like he and Ms Gabbard are the best candidates idea-wise since the 1930s in either major party or the larger third parties and I think her idea was to get uncommon ideas out there, even if someone else won. It surely would help, in my humble opinion.
 
Captain.Heroin said:
HE IS MISSING THE POINT: WALL STREET SHOULD HAVE NEVER GOTTEN A BAIL OUT

omg
Click to expand...

I don't think he's missing the point. Yeah, taxpayers never should have bailed out Wall Street. So now doesn't it make sense to regain that money from Wall Street? I can't imagine he thinks it was the correct move to bail out Wall Street if this is the idea he's proposing.
 
Couldn't someone also say that single, divorced, and widowed people, not to mention other cases like small cults where a dozen people live in a house or heterosexual couples with a mutual girlfriend or boyfriend as a third member of the household are also discriminated against? And thereby turn the whole thing on its head? Maybe that's a good thing -- stop writing normative notions into tax law or something?
 
Nicomorphinist said:
stop writing normative notions into tax law or something?
Click to expand...
The House unanimously voted for the PRIDE Act which removes inadequate wording such as "husband" and "wife" from the tax code.

Warren's plan is simply common sense tax refunding. Republicans probably support this more than democrats, seeing as it's fixing a flawed over-regulation of taxes, no?
 
A common sense tax refunding based on altered policy is a good idea by me. However the idea of reparations I don't really like. We should focus on actually leveling the playing field and eliminating bigotry and discrimination and fear and anger. My ancestors came over from Sweden in the late 1800s (both sides of my family did), my family never had anything to do with slavery. Neither does any white person alive now regardless of their ancestors. I don't think it makes sense for the current generation to have to be held accountable for past generations especially when people just equate "white" with "used to have slaves" (the majority of white people's ancestors in America immigrated as poor Irish, Scottish, Scandinavian and Polish immigrants who were discriminated against severely themselves at first and certainly never participated in slavery). I think giving reparations would only hurt the actual cause because it would create further anger from people who are already racist.

I think of all of this kind of stuff as a pendulum of power swinging back and forth. And every time it starts to swing back in the opposite direction, the people who were oppressed try to push back and make it swing equally far in the other direction, when what we should be doing is all gathering together and grabbing that motherfucker and holding it down until it stops in the middle.
 
Xorkoth said:
I think giving reparations would only hurt the actual cause because it would create further anger from people who are already racist.
Click to expand...

I sense a lot of expectations that slavery reparations would work to further divide the country rather than resolve anything. Maybe it is the right leaning bias of the other site I read, and some fear projection on their part.

Xorkoth said:
A common sense tax refunding based on altered policy is a good idea by me.
Click to expand...

I have a real hard time with this in general. I agree with your words that everyone expects slavery reparations to be charged to 'nearly all whites' and given to 'nearly all blacks' and it raises a lot of questions on who actually ought to pay (if anyone, given they personally haven't owned slaves) and who should receive (same thing, how do you prove you are descendant of slaves, and do 1/16th slave get more than 1/1024?). But putting aside the 'who' and the 'qualifications' involved, I struggle with applying a punishment to something done before there was a law or rule against it. And there is the chance times change again and the pendulum swings back the other way.

For prohibition, we didn't arrest anyone prior to it becoming law, should we have fined people for? Logic says no. And when it got reversed, should we have then paid alcoholics for the time period they were deprived of drinking? I know this is a far mark away from things like slavery which will likely never 'swing back' the other way; and it's not a form of oppression that was on the scale of slavery nor had the multi-generational effects that slavery and Jim Crow laws had. They are worlds apart, so please don't accuse me of making light of black reparations or the impact of slavery. I'm making the point that laws change - we don't punish for the behaviour that was done under a different law than we have now.

I suppose a closer to home example would be drug laws. People incarcerated for drug laws 20y ago ... are they set free today when the law changes that makes weed legal in some areas? Are those people released with any compensation? Are their records cleared or left with a felony? I don't know the answers to these questions. But at the same time, someone who does something wrong 20y ago, but it was legal and acceptable....they aren't prosecuted under today's law if that activity has now become illegal.

I won't spend more time on 'what was the law when the act occurred'. I only note it because it is an issue for me.

As to the reparations for blacks, or gays, or any population...there's a lot of questions raised, and I'm not sure they are easy to answer, or if they can be answered at all. Slavery reparations - compensation just out of American pockets (taxes on all, or certain people?), or does society then look back to the Dutch, Spanish, French, and British of the colonial era and hold them accountable for the business of slavery? Or the African tribes who went to war, enslaved their opponents, and then sold those slave to those colonial traders. Are they accountable?

I don't deny a wrong was done. I do question how feasible and reasonable it is to propose reparations today. I further question if this is just rhetoric from the left in an effort to capture votes with no real plan to implement, or if they really can push this as a platform for the election. And if they do run on it as a plank, will they be accountable for getting it done or not?

Coming back to Xork's words of rather than making up for the past, focus on levelling the field today. Now, THAT is something I honestly would fully support, depending upon how it is defined. But this also get tricky to implement. Do you lower the standards for a job so everyone has an equal chance, or boost certain persons up to better enable them to qualify (Affirmative Action)? Fast athletes running with weights? Smarter persons required to perform at a higher level but in the same job for the same pay as someone less capable? What is fair? How is it achieved?
 
The problem with all solutions to all societal problems pretty much is that they're tricky to implement. It's hard to get people to work together. How do you abolish bigotry? I don't know. I do know that pushing back the other way and becoming a "reverse bigot" is not the answer.

Sorry I want to reply more but I'm about to head out. You raise some interesting points. When I said "A common sense tax refunding based on altered policy is a good idea by me" I was just thinking we were talking about taxing wall street in order to bring more money into the government budget to spend on people. I support this whether or not they should have been bailed out with taxpayer money.
 
The reparations aren’t about slavery, they’re about the inherited discrimination from slavery. In some parts of the country, from Boston to the SE (especially) to Hawaii, it’s alive and well.

(Wish I had more time to write...great topic @TheLoveBandit!).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top