Bernie, Donald, or Hilary? Which one of the seniors are you voting for?

[sanantone]

Edwards claim they contacted Edwards directly to be o his show first, and rescheduled to have them both talk on Bushman's show due to scheduling conflicts. So they worked with two known white supremacists.

I just edited my post above to include a link to an article that's pretty negative against Jews and Israel on Sam Bushman's website. Trump claims to be on Israel's side.

[jsd]

Yes, that's my point.....reread what I am saying without a huge partisan slant.

You edited your post after I replied, changing the context completely. It's a strategy that's worked... white supremacist are pouring in money to the campaign and running a super PAC for him, and supporters who arent racist get to write it off as "all a big mistake."

It's as transparent as when he initially refused to denounce David Duke by pretending he didn't know who he was even though there is proof he knows exactly who he is.

And as you're proving, the strategy is works. Partisans will excuse anything.

[Outis]

You edited your post after I replied, changing the context completely. It's a strategy that's worked... white supremacist are pouring in money to the campaign and running a super PAC for him, and supporters who arent racist get to write it off as "all a big mistake."

You are really off base. First --- I already discussed the PAC below. Exactly $0 donated, totally obscure and irrelevant. Again --- there is no reason to go after the white separatist demographic --- it is such a low number of the overall voting population. You are nuts to suggest that this would be a legitimate strategy put forth by campaign managers. It only makes sense if you are so partisan that you wan't to believe it. The harm and legitimate negative publicity would far outweight the amount of votes and money (very, very, very low compared to any other traditional demographic) from these losers. It just doesn't make sense, unless of course its convenient for you. Sanantone was much closer to the truth in my opinion, in his earlier posts anyways, in which he nailed it by describing how Trump is appealing to all sorts of demographics by taking the approach that he has been over the last year.

Now, somewhat unrelated --when dfrecore mentioned a film, you were quick to denounce it as "partisan" and "discredited". Well, it was certainly produced by a partisan guy. Do you not think Media Matters is "partisan"? It is self-described as partisan. Nice chunky donations from that lovely billionaire George Soros. Gimme a break, Gimme a break, Break me off a piece of that Kit Kat!


BTW, I do not support Trump. In fact, I haven't said anything in support of his presidential bid. But I can recognize a quack idea when I see one, and your suggestion is in bogus land.

[sanantone]

You are really off base. First --- I already discussed the PAC below. Exactly $0 donated, totally obscure and irrelevant. Agains --- there is no reason to go after the white separatist demographic --- it is such a low number of the overall voting population. You are nuts to suggest that this would be a legitimate strategy put forth by campaign managers. It only makes sense if you are so partisan that you wan't to believe it.

People who actively participate in white nationalist groups make up a small percentage of the population, but racists and xenophobes are much larger groups. You don't need to be affiliated with any group to be racist or xenophobic.

AP poll: U.S. majority have prejudice against blacks

Employers' Replies to Racial Names

[jsd]

You don't do it to get their votes, you do it to get their money. They already have their votes. When individuals donate to him, they're not indicatting if they're racist or not, and they don't have to do it through that particular pac.

It's also not a new strategy by trump. Dog whistle politics go way back. It's not partisan to be familiar.

As far as media matters, yes they're absolutely partisan. It was the first link that came up when I went to find the story, but yeah they have a clear agenda.

[sanantone]

You don't do it to get their votes, you do it to get their money. They already have their votes. When individuals donate to him, they're not indicatting if they're racist or not, and they don't have to do it through that particular pac.

It's also not a new strategy by trump. Dog whistle politics go way back. It's not partisan to be familiar.

I don't think they are doing it for the money. They are going after the "silent majority."

As far as media matters, yes they're absolutely partisan. It was the first link that came up when I went to find the story, but yeah they have a clear agenda.

That's why I did some investigating to see what Trump Jr.'s response was and the background of the guy they intentionally booked the show with.

[jsd]

The so-called silent majority is probably already voting for him, but I guess this further mobilizes them. I don't think the campaign is not thinking about the monetary benefits, however

[Outis]

It's also not a new strategy by trump. Dog whistle politics go way back. It's not partisan to be familiar. .

Nice pivot! Dog whistle politics is done by every candidate. Sanantone mentioned this much earlier in the thread, as did I. However, this is not the same thing as deliberately collaborating with white supremacist groups, which is what you claim they are doing. Is there any legitimate press outlet covering the fact that the Trump campaign is actively colluding with white supremacist talk show hosts, or is it just media matters?

You don't do it to get their votes, you do it to get their money. They already have their votes.

Yes, because that white separatist demographic has tons of money. They are just rolling in the dough. Do a search on the SPLC (Sanantone brought them up a while back), and take a look at how many times they have sued the crap (and won) out of these racist groups. They are...shall we say...resource constrained. It does not make a bit of sense to claim Donald Trump - a billionaire - wants money from white separatists in order to earn the presidency. Holy crap, batman.

Now, the "silent majority" --- yes, these are the folks he is going after. If you are claiming they are all on board because of deliberate Trump nods to racist groups....jeebus!

Sanantone -- I'll check out your stats later, gotta get some stuff done today...but dang all those folks who are prejudice sure do love Mr. Obama (he has near Reaganesque approval ratings).

BRB, let me go find a random statistic on race relations and attitudes from a Google query that comes up after I type in a carefully crafted phrase --- I'll find exactly what I want to find.. Kidding. Gotta run for the day. Thanks for the healthy discussion everyone. If your feeler tentacles have been wounded, just take comfort in knowing I'm stuck with Gary Johnson.

[jsd]

Man, when I first saw this thread I thought about ignoring it because they always become arguments and nobody actually changes their mind.

But alas, I jumped in almost immediately because I'm a dummy, apparently.

[jsd]

Nice pivot! Dog whistle politics is done by every candidate. Sanantone mentioned this much earlier in the thread, as did I. However, this is not the same thing as deliberately collaborating with white supremacist groups, which is what you claim they are doing. Is there any legitimate press outlet covering the fact that the Trump campaign is actively colluding with white supremacist talk show hosts, or is it just media matters?

I don't see how working racists but pretending you're not isn't dog whistle politics. That's not a pivot.

Plenty of news outlets have talked about it, first page of results shows NY Post, The Guardian, and Business Insider to name a few...

https://www.google.com/search?q=donal+tr...e&ie=UTF-8