Turning The Ballot Box Against Republicans

As well as should a few thousands of Frenchmen who aren't former Presidents of the US. Please. Barrack Hussein Obama is your poster child for excess?????

One can spend $12,000,000 on a piece of property and a house very easily in France.

https://www.sothebysrealty.com/eng/sales/fra

$12,000,000 is down market on Martha's Vineyard. And almost declasse in France.

You mean the same person who spent 8 years dividing the country by class and wealth? The same guy who rallied against economic inequality, bought a $15 million home in Martha's Vineyard, the home of the elite of the elite? He's a hypocrite.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/18/barack-obama-on-wealth-inequality-only-so-much-you-can-eat.html
“There’s only so much you can eat. There’s only so big a house you can have. There’s only so many nice trips you can take. I mean, it’s enough.”

One year later he purchases a home on the water that costs $15 million... and here you are defending him. BTW, this also applies to a vast majority of the entertainment elite who scream about the wealthy not paying their fair share.


Doesn't matter how many Trump owns, he's never spoken out against wealthy people and demanded they pay more in taxes. Bernie Sanders on the other hand as called out wealthy people for owning more than one home, then he went and purchased a third home after he got that fat payoff from the Clinton campaign gave him for his support in 2016. Do you think he will buy a 4th home when he gets his dropout payoff from Biden and the DNC?


Yes, for someone who claims to be for the poor and economically challenged, yes, this home is obscene. He continues to push against economic inequality while he owns several multi-million dollar homes. That makes him a hypocrite and a scam artist. He's everything he rallies against and he has people like you who defend him.


It added enough that if Trump had bought the home, you would be up in arms and throwing a fit in the streets and proclaiming how much Trump hates the environment and wants people on some small island to drown. You are just as much a hypocrite as Obama, that's why you defend the defensible.


Nice virtue signaling question. These sort of questions and answers only matter to a certain portion of the population and the very fact you are asking a single guy in France what he did for the environment, when he was talking about a wealthy guy who bought a $15 million mansion that a vast majority of his worshipers could never afford. You tried the bait and switch guilt trip, that's weaker than weak. Obama doesn't practice what he preaches, he's the same type of hypocrite like the people who speak out against guy people and get caught with gay hookers.

If you spend your political career talking against wealthy people and their "greed", then you are a hypocrite. As far as I know McConnell hasn't done these things. It's always funny when people complain about wealthy on the left and they try to point to the wealthy on the right. The people on the right are admitted capitalists and live their lives accordingly. Those who you are trying to defend are hypocrites who proclaim to be against greed but live a life filled with it while pointing to others.


Did that owner proclaim that greed was bad and that wealthy people should pay their fair share? Are you a fan of "the other guy did it too" defense?


Honestly? You can claim that but we really don't know do we. His only money type accomplishment was writing a couple of books... he's never owned a business and has been making his money as of late thanks to his claim as President, oh and a nice contract with Netflix...


No one said they didn't, it's the hypcritial way in which they have done so.

And the only one you're picking on is the black guy. And your defense is 'Trump never criticized over-indulgent living' while being over-indulgent.


To quote someone else, "Sad!"

Its a $12M house in a neighborhood of houses closer to $75M. Now Obama owns TWO houses, total. BFD. If he were the average wealthy person, we'd all be better off - every single one of us.

Almost all presidential families have become rich after leaving office if they weren't already rich.

It would seen a logical thing that that would be so, after all we usually elect the best and the brightest. There's books, speaking engagements, film rights, consulting. We don't set ex-Presidents into Amber, though there is a chance we may yet set the current President into a 'jug'.

A lot of un-elected people complaining about what a president can do as an elected representative of the people. What they say is not trustworthy and either are they. Most becoming richer off the hate instilled by the Democratic party and media. Let us know when they start sending out checks to the disadvantaged.

Grant died broke. Someone needs to do some research.
https://www.investopedia.com/the-5-poorest-u-s-presidents-4773376

Grant, who was an honest man surrounded by crooks was flim-flamed by fraudsters of a considerable fortune. He spent what was left paying back other victims of the flim-flam. Dying of cancer he wrote an autobiography that provided a significant sum to take care of his widow and children,

Someone needs to read the WHOLE book and not just the title. That twit is the most superficially educated person on a2k.

Never said he was not. For someone who has me on ignore why do you respond to my posts and call me names on top of it? Cannot handle commitment even to yourself? Not good. Weak and total lack of character.

Clearly, not the kind of person worth listening to.

One might say (as others have) the same about that twit who spreads all sorts of purposeful misinformation. That same twit calls several people here liars multiple times almost every day. Maybe that twit needs to sweep out his own house first.

When that "one" is you it is not worth listening to because there is no one worth listening to behind it. No character, no honesty, and no compunction using any means to silence those who disagree amounting to rank hypocrisy and a blissful arrogance only a fool could enjoy.

Cincinnati Enquirer Op-Ed: Can you support Trump and not be a bigot?

Some of my Republican friends are quick to tell me how much they’re repulsed by Donald Trump, yet they continue to support him anyway because they like some of his policies. When I note that they’re supporting the darling of white supremacy, they insist this doesn’t mean they condone racism or that they themselves are racist – and they take great offense that I or anyone else would think otherwise because, after all, "You don’t know what’s in my heart."
...
You’re right. I may not know what’s in your heart. But I can see what you do, and I can see whom you’re doing it with. And I can see that when you support the candidate of white supremacy, you are aligning yourself with white supremacists, adding weight and power to their racism, even if you are not personally racist yourself.

When you vote, whether in person or by mail, no one will sort out the "racist Trump" votes from the "not racist Trump" votes. If you vote for Trump, your vote will go into the same pile with those cast by voters who support Trump because of, not in spite of, his racism, xenophobia and malevolence. And when the voting’s done and the counting starts, your vote will be counted right along with theirs, and the tabulators couldn’t care less what’s in your heart. All they’ll see is that your ballot for Trump looks exactly like all the other ballots for Trump, and they’ll simply mark you down as one more vote for the white supremacists’ candidate.
...
So, my friend, if you choose to vote for Trump in November, please don’t be offended if you’re mistaken for a racist, even if you’re not. When you align yourself with racists, it’s hard to tell you apart from them, regardless what may be in your heart, because to those of us over here on the right side of history, you all look alike.
https://www.cincinnati.com/story/opinion/2020/06/19/opinion-can-you-support-trump-and-not-bigot/3209123001/

I bet no one in Cincinnati cares, why should they? It is recycled rhetoric and meaningless babble from a self hating moron. Just what the brainwashed need to make sure they stay that way.

People know if they are racist. They need no one to tell them. More arrogance, the same ****, different day pablum.

Facebook Removes Trump Ads With Symbol Used By Nazis. Campaign Calls It An 'Emoji'

June 18, 20202:58 PM ET
Heard on All Things Considered
Bobby Allyn

https://www.npr.org/2020/06/18/880377872/facebook-removes-trump-political-ads-with-nazi-symbol-campaign-calls-it-an-emoji

Facebook said it has taken down Trump campaign ads on the social network that contained a symbol used by Nazis to designate political prisoners.
Evan Vucci/AP

Updated at 9:54 p.m. ET

Facebook on Thursday said it removed campaign posts and advertisements from the Trump campaign featuring an upside down red triangle symbol once used by Nazis to identify political opponents.

The posts, according to a Facebook spokesperson, violated the social network's policy against hate.

"Our policy prohibits using a banned hate group's symbol to identify political prisoners without the context that condemns or discusses the symbol," the spokesperson told NPR.
Critics Slam Facebook But Zuckerberg Resists Blocking Trump's Posts
America Reckons With Racial Injustice
Critics Slam Facebook, But Zuckerberg Resists Blocking Trump's Posts

One of the political advertisements claimed that "dangerous MOBS of far-left groups are running through our streets and causing absolute mayhem." The ad went on to say protesters are destroying America's cities by rioting. "It's absolute madness," the ad said.

Some prisoners in Nazi concentration camps were identified with colored inverted triangles sewn onto uniforms to allow SS guards to identify the alleged grounds for being detained, according to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum.

The President of the United States is campaigning for reelection using a Nazi concentration camp symbol.

Nazis used the red triangle to mark political prisoners and people who rescued Jews.

Trump & the RNC are using it to smear millions of protestors.

Their masks are off. pic.twitter.com/UzmzDaRBup
— Bend the Arc: Jewish Action (@jewishaction) June 18, 2020

The Trump campaign responded by drawing a lighthearted comparison to the red triangle symbol: "This is an emoji."

Trump campaign spokesman Tim Murtaugh said that some products are sold online that use the inverted red triangle in antifa imagery, though experts said it is not a commonly adopted symbol among anti-fascist activists.

"We would note that Facebook still has an inverted red triangle emoji in use, which looks exactly the same, so it's curious that they would target only this ad," Murtaugh said.

The campaign also said that the symbol is not in the Anti-Defamation League Hate Symbols Database.

In an interview with NPR, Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the Anti-Defamation League, pointed out that the database is not a collection of historical Nazi imagery.

"It's a database of symbols commonly used by modern extremist groups and white supremacists in the United States," he said.

Greenblatt said removing the posts should not have been a hard call. He said the Trump campaign should apologize.

"Intentionally or otherwise, using symbols that were once used by the Nazis is not a good look for someone running for the White House," he said. "It isn't difficult for one to criticize a political opponent without using Nazi-era imagery."

The Nazis used red triangles to identify their political victims in concentration camps. Using it to attack political opponents is highly offensive. @POTUS' campaign needs to learn its history, as ignorance is no excuse for using Nazi-related symbols. https://t.co/7R7aGLD7kl
— Jonathan Greenblatt (@JGreenblattADL) June 18, 2020

Earlier Greenblatt had tweeted that "ignorance is no excuse for using Nazi-related symbols."

Facebook's action is the latest salvo between Trump and social media companies, which the president has attacked as biased for placing warning labels and removing posts that violate terms of service.

The removal of the Trump campaign's Facebook posts, which had already accrued more than a million impressions, was a rare move by the social network of more than 2.5 billion users, which has taken a permissive approach to most political advertisements.

"So in a way, it's kind of closing the barn door after all of the horses have gotten out of the barn," said Sarah Roberts, an assistant professor of information studies at UCLA who studies content moderation.

Roberts said for the Trump campaign, the advertisement is beneficial regardless of what Facebook's reaction.

"They get to circulate the ads for some period of time, and then they get to capitalize on a narrative that I believe to be demonstrably false, that they are somehow censored or impeded from sharing their perspectives on social media," Roberts said.

Unlike Twitter, which banned political ads and has added fact-checking labels to Trump tweets, Facebook has taken a more hands-off approach, with CEO Mark Zuckerberg doubling down on the influential social network's free speech absolutism. Zuckerberg has said it is not Facebook's job to determine what the truth is and that voting is the best way to hold elected leaders accountable.

According to the Facebook spokesperson, it is not the first time the platform has removed content from Trump in recent months. In March, Facebook took down advertisements from the Trump campaign that made misleading claims about the 2020 census. In other instances, though, such as in an ad in which Trump wrote of street protesters, "when the looting starts, the shooting starts," Facebook took no action.

The ADL's Greenblatt said his group has been urging Facebook to take a harder stance against intolerance on the platform.

"The one thing has been consistent with Facebook is the inconsistency," Greenblatt said. "It's hard to countenance how some things go up and stay up that are clearly egregious. They have an outsized role to play in the political conversation, and making sure they push prejudice out of the political conversation is not partisan. It's a matter of principle."


The Justice Department announced Wednesday that it was asking Congress to scale back some of the legal protections social media companies such as Facebook and Twitter have long enjoyed, arguing that the legal immunity granted to technology firms in the mid-1990s is out of step with the modern Internet.

But tech companies counter that rolling back the safeguards would impinge on free speech by forcing moderators to take down any content deemed offensive.

Supporters of keeping the legal shield in place also say eliminating the protections would disproportionately hurt smaller online operations, which could be crushed by a wave of defamation lawsuits.

Parent of toddler in 'manipulated' Trump video forces Facebook to remove it
Source: CNN

Facebook (FB) on Friday removed a video posted by President Donald Trump's account that had twisted a viral video of two toddlers after one of the children's parents lodged a copyright claim. The video had more than 4 million views by the time Facebook took it down.

The now-removed clip is a crude and misleading edit of a video that went viral last year which shows a Black child and a White child running to hug each other. The version posted to Trump's account made it first appear as if the Black child was running away from the White child.

Jukin Media, a company that represents creators of videos including the parent who owns this video, said in a statement provided to CNN Business Friday afternoon, "Neither the video owner nor Jukin Media gave the President permission to post the video, and after our review, we believe that his unauthorized usage of the content is a clear example of copyright infringement without valid fair use or other defense."

Jukin said in its statement that it had submitted a takedown request to Twitter (TWTR). As of Friday afternoon, the video remained on Twitter, which had no comment. Jukin did not confirm it had sent the takedown request to Facebook, but Andy Stone, a Facebook spokesperson, said "We received a copyright complaint from the rights holder of this video under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and have removed the post."

Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/18/business/trump-video-twitter-manipulated-media/index.html

15 minutes of fame for hating Trump. Would the child be proud of that?

What kind of real man uses manipulated footage of a child to try to prove a point?