None of that matters. He's an outsider with business experience. He deserves a chance to be the leader of the free world despite his woeful ignorance of the world. The connection is null and void but folks just won't let go of it even though it's intellectually lazy nonsense.
On the job training. Yeah, that's the ticket. 😛
None of that matters. He's an outsider with business experience. He deserves a chance to be the leader of the free world despite his woeful ignorance of the world.
You build a team around you, experts in their field of endeavor. You can't become a world
class entrepreneur without massive team building capabilities.
None of that matters. He's an outsider with business experience. He deserves a chance to be the leader of the free world despite his woeful ignorance of the world.
You build a team around you, experts in their field of endeavor. You can't become a world
class entrepreneur without massive team building capabilities.
You need to read about this guy before you make statements like that. First, he inherited his wealth. Most of it was in NYC real estate. Even a complete moron would make money just by sitting on that. Trump branched out into casinos and failed. He started an airline. That failed also. He started Trump University. Failure and the subject to multiple lawsuits. He is hardly a business expert. He also surrounds himself with yes men. Failure to worship The Donald results in quick unemployment.
There is nothing in his resume that shows him to be capable of being POTUS. Dictator of a banana republic? Sure, but then again, they don't usually last very long.
He also surrounds himself with yes men.
...and hotties.
None of that matters. He's an outsider with business experience. He deserves a chance to be the leader of the free world despite his woeful ignorance of the world. The connection is null and void but folks just won't let go of it even though it's intellectually lazy nonsense.
That should have been Trump's campaign slogan: "He deserves a chance." Almost as good as Kinky's slogan:
All these people did not want to give Donald a chance.
World Forum of the neo-con American Enterprise Institute (AEI), held in a luxury resort on Sea Island, Georgia, March 3-6, 2016. They flew in by private jets. Seventy private jets landed there. Here’s a list of the AEI World Forum attendees:
(1) High-tech billionaires:
◾Apple CEO Tim Cook
◾Google co-founder Larry Page
◾Napster creator and Facebook investor Sean Parker
◾Tesla Motors and SpaceX honcho Elon Musk
(2) GOP political élites:
◾Political guru Karl Rove
◾Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky)
◾House Speaker Paul Ryan
◾Sens. Tom Cotton (Ark.), Cory Gardner (Colo.), Tim Scott (S.C.), Rob Portman (Ohio) and Ben Sasse (Neb.).
◾Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Fred Upton (Mich.)
◾Rep. Kevin Brady (Texas)
◾Kevin McCarthy (Calif.)
◾Cathy McMorris Rodgers (Wash.),
◾Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price (R-Ga.)
◾Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (Texas)
◾Diane Black (Tenn.)
In addition to the Sea Island meeting, according to Bloomberg, there are yet other “stop Trump” conspiracies: “A trio of conservative groups not affiliated with any candidate has spent about $28 million against [Trump], mostly on negative ads that aired in the past few weeks. So far, the effort has failed to dent his popularity.”
According to FEC filings, contributors to the “stop Trump” conservative groups include:
◾The Warren brothers, Stephens and Jackson, who gave a total of $3.5 million last month to two of the groups, on top of $500,000 last year. Stephens Warren has given a total of $300,000 to super-PACs supporting Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, and Chris Christie, all of whom have since dropped out.
◾The Ricketts family of Omaha, Nebraska have given $5 million since January.
◾New York hedge-fund manager Paul Singer gave $1 million.
◾San Francisco investor William Oberndorf gave $500,000.
◾Club for Growth: A super-PAC run by Club for Growth (CFG), a powerful conservative group that pushes for limited government and lower taxes, is one of the first organizations to take on Trump. According to The New York Times, the super PAC raised $4 million in February, three times as much as it had raised any other month this election cycle. Donors include: ◾The Warren brothers gave $2.5 million in February.
◾Richard Uihlein, an Illinois shipping-supplies manufacturer who backed Gov. Scott Walker’s campaign last year, gave the Club for Growth $500,000.
◾Richard Gaby, who gave $50,000 to a super PAC backing former Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana.
◾Robert Arnott, a California-based investor who has poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into groups backing Senator Ted Cruz of Texas.
◾Robert Mercer, who backs Ted Cruz, gave $100,000.
◾A political network led by billionaires Charles G. and David H. Koch, which is the biggest and deepest-pocketed independent political force in the conservative world.
With Bernie Sanders soon out of the race officially, the only candidate that is speaking about the remnants of the 'giant sucking sound' is Trump.
How about some economic nationalism.
I guess you'd rather Kia grow by leaps and bounds continually taking market share from US and foreign Auto companies with large footprint and assembly operations here. What Kia builds 2 or 3 of their models here out of their 10 or 12 on dealers lots. Good ratio for them. Lots of margin, and hell of a competitive advantage. Great for US workers.
More Korean appliances for your home? Great! Put downward pressure on the wages of US workers building GE and Maytag appliances. Sounds great, yes, let's have more of that! I think it is time for some real competition for these fat US companies, how about some Chinese cars and large appliances in on our dealer lots and big box stores? Bravo to that, yes! We'll just keep selling American workers down the river. OH, don't worry, we'll make sure you can earn $15 an hour working that cash register. Lots of value added in that job son.
Seriously, screw the chamber of commerce and screw the establishment Republican and Democrat leaders and their behind the scene trade lawyers and lobbyists that pull the strings on the trade deals. And really, when is the last time anyone from the left pretended to care what the chamber of commerce said regarding economic policy? Only now as they both set their eyes on Trump.
Vote no on TPP. Vote on on trade promotion authority. Withdraw from the WTO. Renegotiate NAFTA, CAFTA...put American workers and American labor first. Why does China have most favored nation status on trade? Why enrich foreign corporations and foreign countries at the expense of our blue collar tax paying neighbors? And what for US companies wanting to exploit foreign labor markets for products bound for reentry into the US market, treat them with the same rules a foreign company would have.
Trump is a highly flawed candidate. That is clear and obvious. What is also clear and obvious is the disaster that has been unleashed on our country with the trade deals and all the negative aspects that come with the repercussions trickling down to the average Joe. If the shoe was on the other foot, if Hillary was the one bashing the trade situation (like Bernie was) I doubt I'd see even one negative article copy and pasted here.
This isn't a D vs R issue. This is an American issue. Be American, Buy American!
Nothing like an old fashioned policy driven discussion.. Is this woman a doctor?
On and on it goes.....
Lets see, he managed to secure the nomination spending most likely the least amount of any candidate in the last 20 years
Why was that? It's a valid question.
Republicans have been whining for years about the liberal media, but the free mass media coverage that Trump just received over the last several months is unprecedented.
True, but about 90% of that free coverage has been negative.
Big help.
Lets see, he managed to secure the nomination spending most likely the least amount of any candidate in the last 20 years
Why was that? It's a valid question.
Republicans have been whining for years about the liberal media, but the free mass media coverage that Trump just received over the last several months is unprecedented.
True, but about 90% of that free coverage has been negative.
Big help.
That coverage has basically reporting whateer Trump says. His words make the coverage negative, not the media,
Lets see, he managed to secure the nomination spending most likely the least amount of any candidate in the last 20 years
Why was that? It's a valid question.
Republicans have been whining for years about the liberal media, but the free mass media coverage that Trump just received over the last several months is unprecedented.
True, but about 90% of that free coverage has been negative.
Big help.
That coverage has basically reporting whatever Trump says. His words make the coverage negative, not the media,
It's only negative to clear thinking people. Overall it's seems to have a positive effect for Trump.
Lets see, he managed to secure the nomination spending most likely the least amount of any candidate in the last 20 years
Why was that? It's a valid question.
Republicans have been whining for years about the liberal media, but the free mass media coverage that Trump just received over the last several months is unprecedented.
True, but about 90% of that free coverage has been negative.
Big help.
That coverage has basically reporting whatever Trump says. His words make the coverage negative, not the media,
It's only negative to clear thinking people. Overall it's seems to have a positive effect for Trump.
That's true. Problem from the neck up again. What else could it be?
Sorry. I forgot.
Lets see, he managed to secure the nomination spending most likely the least amount of any candidate in the last 20 years
Why was that? It's a valid question.
Republicans have been whining for years about the liberal media, but the free mass media coverage that Trump just received over the last several months is unprecedented.
True, but about 90% of that free coverage has been negative.
Big help.
Bwaaaa ha ha ahaaaaa haa! You are even more disconnected from reality that I thought.
Lets see, he managed to secure the nomination spending most likely the least amount of any candidate in the last 20 years
Why was that? It's a valid question.
Republicans have been whining for years about the liberal media, but the free mass media coverage that Trump just received over the last several months is unprecedented.
True, but about 90% of that free coverage has been negative.
Big help.
Bwaaaa ha ha ahaaaaa haa! You are even more disconnected from reality that I thought.
And that would surprise you? Aren't all Conservatives handicapped by some kind of mental
problem, low intelligence, insanity, ect?
Where is Donald T. getting all this positive coverage? I see, hear, and read quite a bit of the opposite,
quite a bit being a classic understatement.
Lets see, he managed to secure the nomination spending most likely the least amount of any candidate in the last 20 years
Why was that? It's a valid question.
Republicans have been whining for years about the liberal media, but the free mass media coverage that Trump just received over the last several months is unprecedented.
True, but about 90% of that free coverage has been negative.
Big help.
Bwaaaa ha ha ahaaaaa haa! You are even more disconnected from reality that I thought.
And that would surprise you? Aren't all Conservatives handicapped by some kind of mental
problem, low intelligence, insanity, ect?
Where is Donald T. getting all this positive coverage? I see, hear, and read quite a bit of the opposite,
quite a bit being a classic understatement.
Conservatives have become such victims. So sad.
Coverage is coverage, it's the interpretation of it that is either negative or positive. Trump has gotten so much coverage and so much mileage from that coverage that he hasn't really had to fundraise because he hasn't really had to spend. If there is anything Trump is good at, it is using the media to his advantage. From a media standpoint, this election cycle as it relates to Trump in particular has been unlike anything we've ever seen and will be studied and talked about for years and years.
Lets see, he managed to secure the nomination spending most likely the least amount of any candidate in the last 20 years
Why was that? It's a valid question.
Republicans have been whining for years about the liberal media, but the free mass media coverage that Trump just received over the last several months is unprecedented.
True, but about 90% of that free coverage has been negative.
Big help.
Bwaaaa ha ha ahaaaaa haa! You are even more disconnected from reality that I thought.
And that would surprise you? Aren't all Conservatives handicapped by some kind of mental
problem, low intelligence, insanity, ect?
Where is Donald T. getting all this positive coverage? I see, hear, and read quite a bit of the opposite,
quite a bit being a classic understatement.
Coverage is coverage, it's the interpretation of it that is either negative or positive.
Seriously? So when you flip the TV on and day after day the face on the screen is calling him
a racist, bigot, insane, hates women, hates Mexicans, incites violence, appeals to the lowest
common denominator, hates Muslims, owns a struggling golf course in Scotland.....on and on
and on........some might interpret that as positive coverage?
Wow.
Lets see, he managed to secure the nomination spending most likely the least amount of any candidate in the last 20 years
Why was that? It's a valid question.
Republicans have been whining for years about the liberal media, but the free mass media coverage that Trump just received over the last several months is unprecedented.
True, but about 90% of that free coverage has been negative.
Big help.
Bwaaaa ha ha ahaaaaa haa! You are even more disconnected from reality that I thought.
And that would surprise you? Aren't all Conservatives handicapped by some kind of mental
problem, low intelligence, insanity, ect?
Where is Donald T. getting all this positive coverage? I see, hear, and read quite a bit of the opposite,
quite a bit being a classic understatement.
Coverage is coverage, it's the interpretation of it that is either negative or positive.
Seriously? So when you flip the TV on and day after day the face on the screen is calling him
a racist, bigot, insane, hates women, hates Mexicans, incites violence, appeals to the lowest
common denominator, hates Muslims, owns a struggling golf course in Scotland.....on and on
and on........some might interpret that as positive coverage?
Wow.
Yep, many people are, millions even. I don't get it either, but it is happening. Hence the remainder of my post that you didn't include.
[Edited on 7/1/2016 by gondicar]
Conservatives have become such victims. So sad.
It's true. They did not used to be so whiny. They once were angry, but now they just seem depressed. The good news is that soon they will begin dialog and bargaining on their way to full acceptance and a return to meaningful life.
Conservatives have become such victims. So sad.
It's true. They did not used to be so whiny. They once were angry, but now they just seem depressed. The good news is that soon they will begin dialog and bargaining on their way to full acceptance and a return to meaningful life.
"Whining" redefined.
Shocking.
Simply repeating their own terms and phrases employed day after day by political adversaries
back to them?
Parroting....maybe.
Lets see, he managed to secure the nomination spending most likely the least amount of any candidate in the last 20 years
Why was that? It's a valid question.
Republicans have been whining for years about the liberal media, but the free mass media coverage that Trump just received over the last several months is unprecedented.
True, but about 90% of that free coverage has been negative.
Big help.
Bwaaaa ha ha ahaaaaa haa! You are even more disconnected from reality that I thought.
And that would surprise you? Aren't all Conservatives handicapped by some kind of mental
problem, low intelligence, insanity, ect?
Where is Donald T. getting all this positive coverage? I see, hear, and read quite a bit of the opposite,
quite a bit being a classic understatement.
Coverage is coverage, it's the interpretation of it that is either negative or positive.
Seriously? So when you flip the TV on and day after day the face on the screen is calling him
a racist, bigot, insane, hates women, hates Mexicans, incites violence, appeals to the lowest
common denominator, hates Muslims, owns a struggling golf course in Scotland.....on and on
and on........some might interpret that as positive coverage?
Wow.
Go back and listen to his interviews, speeches, and quotes. The things you have described above...well...Donald has earned honestly. The unbelievable words that come out of his mouth have earned him these accuarte descriptions & depictions. One reaps what he sows, and in this case Donald is being rewarded appropriately.
alloak, tell us which items on your list is not accurate and is not justfied. You should be proud to support Donald as he "makes America great again".
Lets see, he managed to secure the nomination spending most likely the least amount of any candidate in the last 20 years
Why was that? It's a valid question.
Republicans have been whining for years about the liberal media, but the free mass media coverage that Trump just received over the last several months is unprecedented.
True, but about 90% of that free coverage has been negative.
Big help.
Bwaaaa ha ha ahaaaaa haa! You are even more disconnected from reality that I thought.
And that would surprise you? Aren't all Conservatives handicapped by some kind of mental
problem, low intelligence, insanity, ect?
Where is Donald T. getting all this positive coverage? I see, hear, and read quite a bit of the opposite,
quite a bit being a classic understatement.
Coverage is coverage, it's the interpretation of it that is either negative or positive.
Seriously? So when you flip the TV on and day after day the face on the screen is calling him
a racist, bigot, insane, hates women, hates Mexicans, incites violence, appeals to the lowest
common denominator, hates Muslims, owns a struggling golf course in Scotland.....on and on
and on........some might interpret that as positive coverage?
Wow.
Go back and listen to his interviews, speeches, and quotes. The things you have described above...well...Donald has earned honestly. The unbelievable words that come out of his mouth have earned him these accuarte descriptions & depictions. One reaps what he sows, and in this case Donald is being rewarded appropriately.
Is that fact or opinion?
But back to the question, would a reasonable person consider the "accurate" descriptions and
depictions positive coverage?
[Edited on 7/1/2016 by alloak41]
I think Trump lives by the old adage " There is no such thing as bad press" in my opinion.
Lets see, he managed to secure the nomination spending most likely the least amount of any candidate in the last 20 years
Why was that? It's a valid question.
Republicans have been whining for years about the liberal media, but the free mass media coverage that Trump just received over the last several months is unprecedented.
True, but about 90% of that free coverage has been negative.
Big help.
Bwaaaa ha ha ahaaaaa haa! You are even more disconnected from reality that I thought.
And that would surprise you? Aren't all Conservatives handicapped by some kind of mental
problem, low intelligence, insanity, ect?
Where is Donald T. getting all this positive coverage? I see, hear, and read quite a bit of the opposite,
quite a bit being a classic understatement.
Coverage is coverage, it's the interpretation of it that is either negative or positive.
Seriously? So when you flip the TV on and day after day the face on the screen is calling him
a racist, bigot, insane, hates women, hates Mexicans, incites violence, appeals to the lowest
common denominator, hates Muslims, owns a struggling golf course in Scotland.....on and on
and on........some might interpret that as positive coverage?
Wow.
Go back and listen to his interviews, speeches, and quotes. The things you have described above...well...Donald has earned honestly. The unbelievable words that come out of his mouth have earned him these accuarte descriptions & depictions. One reaps what he sows, and in this case Donald is being rewarded appropriately.
Is that fact or opinion?
But back to the question, would a reasonable person consider the "accurate" descriptions and
depictions positive coverage?
If it helps him towards his goal I suppose it is positive, at least for him. And it seems to be working that way, though I don't know why.
Lets see, he managed to secure the nomination spending most likely the least amount of any candidate in the last 20 years
Why was that? It's a valid question.
Republicans have been whining for years about the liberal media, but the free mass media coverage that Trump just received over the last several months is unprecedented.
True, but about 90% of that free coverage has been negative.
Big help.
Bwaaaa ha ha ahaaaaa haa! You are even more disconnected from reality that I thought.
And that would surprise you? Aren't all Conservatives handicapped by some kind of mental
problem, low intelligence, insanity, ect?
Where is Donald T. getting all this positive coverage? I see, hear, and read quite a bit of the opposite,
quite a bit being a classic understatement.
Coverage is coverage, it's the interpretation of it that is either negative or positive.
Seriously? So when you flip the TV on and day after day the face on the screen is calling him
a racist, bigot, insane, hates women, hates Mexicans, incites violence, appeals to the lowest
common denominator, hates Muslims, owns a struggling golf course in Scotland.....on and on
and on........some might interpret that as positive coverage?
Wow.
Go back and listen to his interviews, speeches, and quotes. The things you have described above...well...Donald has earned honestly. The unbelievable words that come out of his mouth have earned him these accuarte descriptions & depictions. One reaps what he sows, and in this case Donald is being rewarded appropriately.
Is that fact or opinion?
But back to the question, would a reasonable person consider the "accurate" descriptions and
depictions positive coverage?
[Edited on 7/1/2016 by alloak41]
I'd call it fact, but of course you'd call it opinion. How about we label it cause & effect?
As far as positive coverage, Trump loves all coverage, as he is a media whore. If his lies, fabrications, or negative statements earn him another 24 hours of news cycle coverage, he probably sees it as free coverage which in his twisted reasoning is a positive. He's not taking in much money from the usual GOP donors, so he needs all the free & positive coverage he can get. He certainly knows how to grab it when he wants it.
Why Do We Hear More About Hillary’s Emails Than Donald Trump’s Rape Charges?
07/03/2016 05:02 pm ET | Updated 2 days ago
I don’t know about you, but I’m getting tired of 2016 presidential election media coverage. It’s been a mess since the beginning, when Donald Trump kicked off his campaign with the statement that Mexicans are rapists, and major news channels and newspapers responded by giving him just what he wanted: more coverage than any other candidate.
For months I maintained the position that if we all stopped clicking on Donald Trump headlines, he would go away. But no one was interested in that strategy, and now it’s too late to implement it. The media played a major role in Donald Trump’s rise to power, and now it seems as though they are rooting for him to maintain it.
Two weeks ago, a woman filed a federal lawsuit against Donald Trump, alleging that he raped her in 1994, when she was 13 years old. Also named as a defendant in the lawsuit is Jeffrey Epstein, a man who has already served a year in prison for soliciting an underage prostitute, and who was recently described by Donald Trump as a “terrific guy.”
This story was first reported on June 20th by The Real Deal, a publication dedicated to covering New York real estate news. It was picked up by Gothamist, The Daily Beast, Snopes, and a few other websites. I did not learn about the case until a friend of mine shared this Huffington Post blog about it. The case was not covered in Huffington Post’s news section, nor in the news section of any major publication.
Meanwhile, I received two New York Times push notifications this week with updates about Hillary Clinton’s emails.
Has the media decided Donald Trump is just so despicable that it isn’t worth covering another atrocity allegedly perpetrated by him, while Hillary Clinton is expected to be a perfect human being, so more coverage of her emails serves the public good? Have they decided Donald Trump is just so immune to negative coverage that reporting this lawsuit is a waste of time, while another story on Hillary’s email server is guaranteed to make her even more unpopular?
Or, is giving credence to rape accusations against powerful men still socially unacceptable? (Re: Peyton Manning)
It’s difficult for me not to think that sexism has a hand in guiding the media’s wacky priority list. I know a lot of people are getting tired of accusations of sexism in this presidential race, but sexism would explain why a female candidate sending emails from a private server faces a thousand times more public scrutiny than a male candidate allegedly raping a child.
To reiterate what has already been determined about Hillary’s emails: Federal law did not prohibit public officials from using private email accounts until 2014, after she left office, and none of her emails were considered classified at the time she sent them via a private server. And yet, Hillary is branded a criminal, while Donald Trump—who has now had three legal claims of sexual assault filed against him—remains the successful businessman whose greatest offense is his ego.
You can counter that the claims of sexual assault against Donald Trump are unproven in a court of law, and to that I will counter that Hillary has not been convicted of any crimes either. In this country, the principle of “innocent until proven guilty” tends to serve the privileged. That principle goes out the window when we discuss accusations against women and people of color.
Donald Trump may be a megalomaniac who has no experience in public office and has shocked the entire world by making it this far in the race, but the absurdity of his candidacy does not mean that he should be vetted less critically than his opponent. He may be a racist and a misogynist from whom we can never expect anything but the worst, but the reality is that he’s one election away from being the most powerful person on the planet. If we dismiss his transgressions as just being typical of his character, we may allow him to actually hold that power in his hands.
To all the media gatekeepers out there: If you are frustrated by the fact that criticisms of Donald Trump do not dissuade his supporters in the slightest, I sympathize with you. But your frustration is not an excuse for failing to deliver those criticisms which Trump deserves. Perhaps this latest development would have no effect on Trump’s poll numbers, but it still needs to be covered. This is information that the public needs to know.
[Edited on 7/6/2016 by gondicar]
From the mouth of a Republican member of the House:
Rep. Mark Sanford (R-S.C.) left the meeting worried about Trump’s grasp on the basics of the Constitution. At a lunch with reporters afterward, he recalled that the candidate did not seem to know what he was promising to defend.
“I wasn’t particularly impressed,” said Sanford. “It was the normal stream of consciousness that’s long on hyperbole and short on facts. At one point, somebody asked about Article I powers: What will you do to protect them? I think his response was, ‘I want to protect Article I, Article II, Article XII,’ going down the list. There is no Article XII.”
Sadly, that's not as important as getting payback on liberals for 8 years of Obama. Because they perceived Obama as the worst possible option, they are intentionally voting in the worst possible option for a liberal - Trump. They'd rather achieve spite and payback rather than elect the best Republican for President of our country.
Why Do We Hear More About Hillary’s Emails Than Donald Trump’s Rape Charges?
07/03/2016 05:02 pm ET | Updated 2 days ago
I don’t know about you, but I’m getting tired of 2016 presidential election media coverage. It’s been a mess since the beginning, when Donald Trump kicked off his campaign with the statement that Mexicans are rapists, and major news channels and newspapers responded by giving him just what he wanted: more coverage than any other candidate.
For months I maintained the position that if we all stopped clicking on Donald Trump headlines, he would go away. But no one was interested in that strategy, and now it’s too late to implement it. The media played a major role in Donald Trump’s rise to power, and now it seems as though they are rooting for him to maintain it.
Two weeks ago, a woman filed a federal lawsuit against Donald Trump, alleging that he raped her in 1994, when she was 13 years old. Also named as a defendant in the lawsuit is Jeffrey Epstein, a man who has already served a year in prison for soliciting an underage prostitute, and who was recently described by Donald Trump as a “terrific guy.”
This story was first reported on June 20th by The Real Deal, a publication dedicated to covering New York real estate news. It was picked up by Gothamist, The Daily Beast, Snopes, and a few other websites. I did not learn about the case until a friend of mine shared this Huffington Post blog about it. The case was not covered in Huffington Post’s news section, nor in the news section of any major publication.
Meanwhile, I received two New York Times push notifications this week with updates about Hillary Clinton’s emails.
Has the media decided Donald Trump is just so despicable that it isn’t worth covering another atrocity allegedly perpetrated by him, while Hillary Clinton is expected to be a perfect human being, so more coverage of her emails serves the public good? Have they decided Donald Trump is just so immune to negative coverage that reporting this lawsuit is a waste of time, while another story on Hillary’s email server is guaranteed to make her even more unpopular?
Or, is giving credence to rape accusations against powerful men still socially unacceptable? (Re: Peyton Manning)
It’s difficult for me not to think that sexism has a hand in guiding the media’s wacky priority list. I know a lot of people are getting tired of accusations of sexism in this presidential race, but sexism would explain why a female candidate sending emails from a private server faces a thousand times more public scrutiny than a male candidate allegedly raping a child.
To reiterate what has already been determined about Hillary’s emails: Federal law did not prohibit public officials from using private email accounts until 2014, after she left office, and none of her emails were considered classified at the time she sent them via a private server. And yet, Hillary is branded a criminal, while Donald Trump—who has now had three legal claims of sexual assault filed against him—remains the successful businessman whose greatest offense is his ego.
You can counter that the claims of sexual assault against Donald Trump are unproven in a court of law, and to that I will counter that Hillary has not been convicted of any crimes either. In this country, the principle of “innocent until proven guilty” tends to serve the privileged. That principle goes out the window when we discuss accusations against women and people of color.
Donald Trump may be a megalomaniac who has no experience in public office and has shocked the entire world by making it this far in the race, but the absurdity of his candidacy does not mean that he should be vetted less critically than his opponent. He may be a racist and a misogynist from whom we can never expect anything but the worst, but the reality is that he’s one election away from being the most powerful person on the planet. If we dismiss his transgressions as just being typical of his character, we may allow him to actually hold that power in his hands.
To all the media gatekeepers out there: If you are frustrated by the fact that criticisms of Donald Trump do not dissuade his supporters in the slightest, I sympathize with you. But your frustration is not an excuse for failing to deliver those criticisms which Trump deserves. Perhaps this latest development would have no effect on Trump’s poll numbers, but it still needs to be covered. This is information that the public needs to know.
[Edited on 7/6/2016 by gondicar]
That's because raping little girls is not a big deal to the average Trump supporter. Rich people are allowed to do that.
Why Do We Hear More About Hillary’s Emails Than Donald Trump’s Rape Charges?
Trump has been charged with rape? When did this happen?
Why Do We Hear More About Hillary’s Emails Than Donald Trump’s Rape Charges?
Trump has been charged with rape? When did this happen?
Hillary has been charged with a crime concerning her emails? When did that happen?