• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Go figure

gdgyva said:
yep

and he had almost NO chance of being elected the first time too

keep driving the path from the middle to the far far left, and see what happens

i mean all i hear right now is

free college
reparations for slavery
universal insurance
$ 1000 a month given to everyone

and no way to pay for any of it.....

yeah....should be a riot come Nov 2020
Click to expand...

For reals ? You've only heard about those 4 issues you listed ?
 
COTO said:
Count me among those wondering why the NYT is publishing 400-year-old "news".

Or not, in light of Mr. Baquet's recent pep rally. I believe we all know exactly why the NYT is publishing this.
Click to expand...

Give us your 'opinion.'
 
ludin said:
it depends on how they framed it and if they actually told the truth.
The main party for slavery are democrats that started with Jackson.
Democrats fought every civil rights act that there was and the starting on the KKK were all democrats.

they continue their slavery programs today just in a different form trying to get everyone dependent on government.
for some reason though i doubt the NY time mentioned this.

The founder of planned parenthood is a devout democrat and racist.
it is funny that she put most of the planned parenthood in black communities.
which also corresponds to the plummet in black births.
Click to expand...

Black genocide and the Left says nothing.
 
code1211 said:
In a meeting with his staff, Dean Baquet came right out and said that the designed and contrived attacks on Trump based on Russian collusion did not do the job.

As a result, he was changing the structure of the NYT to attack Trump on a different front.

He was both admitting that the previous Propaganda Campaign did NOT work and hoping the the new Propaganda Campaign would work.

This rag is a propaganda, political action fish wrap. No more. No less.

From his comments:

Inside the New York Times town hall.
<snip>
Dean Baquet: If we’re really going to be a transparent newsroom that debates these issues among ourselves and not on Twitter, I figured I should talk to the whole newsroom, and hear from the whole newsroom.

We had a couple of significant missteps, and I know you’re concerned about them, and I am, too.

But there’s something larger at play here.

This is a really hard story, newsrooms haven’t confronted one like this since the 1960s.

It got trickier after [inaudible] … went from being a story about whether the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia and obstruction of justice to being a more head-on story about the president’s character.

We built our newsroom to cover one story, and we did it truly well.

Now we have to regroup, and shift resources and emphasis to take on a different story.
<snip>
Click to expand...

It's sweet the Left thinks this NYT focus on slavery is all about equality and goodness. It's not. It's simply a narrative to frame Trump as a racist (and by extension, anyone who dares push back against their agitprop) to harm his re-election chances in 2020.
That's all it is.
When and if Trump wins in 2020 (or even before that when people tire of this latest drum banging) and the black slavery narrative is no longer useful, they will move on to the next narrative.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Hard to accept as part of our history?

I find it very easy to accept as part of our history. Clearly it's the historical record. Our founding document acknowledged it with the 3/5 compromise. The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 codified it. And then conscientious juries and the civil war effectively ended it.

If it were up to certain intolerant people in high office, it would still be here today.
Click to expand...

Do you question the timing or underpinnings for the NYT's decision to dedicate their raison d'etre to re-framing all of American history through the lens of slavery? Why now? Why them?
If you aren't question that, you should be.
 
gdgyva said:
why?
why run a piece on slavery?
is it to garner support for the reparations crazies who are out there?
is it to garner support for a particular candidate?
slavery has been gone for since the civil war ended
civil acts was passed in the early 60's
why? why now?
Click to expand...


I would say it's their kick-off story to their racism subject for the next year and a half which they have layed out in that leaked transcript.
 
gdgyva said:
yep

and he had almost NO chance of being elected the first time too

keep driving the path from the middle to the far far left, and see what happens

i mean all i hear right now is

free college
reparations for slavery
universal insurance
$ 1000 a month given to everyone

and no way to pay for any of it.....

yeah....should be a riot come Nov 2020
Click to expand...

I thought he had a fairly decent chance last time. :shrug:

Hillary was the most unlikable politician in the country at a time people hate establishment politicians and to most people Trump was just an eccentric t.v. personality. That isn't the case this time. We've all had a long time to watch the trainwreck that is this Presidency and you think moderates are signing up for 4 more years of this? :lamo
 
Last edited:
Barnacle said:
I would say it's their kick-off story to their racism subject for the next year and a half which they have layed out in that leaked transcript.
Click to expand...

It is. What will be interesting is to see if they change course now that EVERYONE understands their appeal to emotion and cynical political ploy to exploit blacks and our history of slavery, dressed up as caring about black Americans and America's history of slavery.
 
Acadia said:
It is. What will be interesting is to see if they change course now that EVERYONE understands their appeal to emotion and cynical political ploy to exploit blacks and our history of slavery, dressed up as caring about black Americans and America's history of slavery.
Click to expand...


I don't think they will change course; I believe more they will ramp up that rhetoric with CNN and MSNBC on their flanks.
 
Acadia said:
It is. What will be interesting is to see if they change course now that EVERYONE understands their appeal to emotion and cynical political ploy to exploit blacks and our history of slavery, dressed up as caring about black Americans and America's history of slavery.
Click to expand...

Right. Its conservatives who have black people's interests at heart. Its why so many blacks vote for you guys. :lamo
 
gdgyva said:
why?

why run a piece on slavery?

is it to garner support for the reparations crazies who are out there?

is it to garner support for a particular candidate?

slavery has been gone for since the civil war ended

civil acts was passed in the early 60's

why? why now?
Click to expand...

Because on anniversaries you generally commemorate an event. It's an anniversary 1619, 2019....get it?
Oh I forgot only some are allowed to commemorate significant events....whether good or bad.
 
Logician Man said:
Give us your 'opinion.'
Click to expand...
Dean Baquet: "We built our newsroom to cover one story, and we did it truly well. Now we have to regroup, and shift resources and emphasis to take on a different story. I’d love your help with that. As Audra Burch said when I talked to her this weekend, this one is a story about what it means to be an American in 2019. It is a story that requires deep investigation into people who peddle hatred, but it is also a story that requires imaginative use of all our muscles to write about race and class in a deeper way than we have in years."

The "one story" Russian collusion conspiracy theory failed to bring down the Trump presidency, hence the Times is moving on to the next "one story" they believe might take down (or at least seriously hurt) the Trump presidency.

They're not publishing 400-year-old "news" available in any one of a thousand textbooks for kicks. It's part of the new narrative: expound the evils of racism, emphasize white supremacy as a form of racism, link Pres. Trump and his policies to white supremacy (either as supporting or enabling it).

They're openly prioritizing activism above journalism. There's no rule saying they can't do this, and indeed you may approve of their approach, but let's call a spade a spade. For the sake of this thread, it answers @Nickyjo's question over why the Times is dredging up the sins of the republic and why some Republicans are upset about it.
 
Some givens

1-slavery is bad
2-every nation and people on the planet practiced slavery
3-for all the pretense of giving a **** about slavery of yesterday, leftists don’t give the first **** about the ongoing slavery today.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
ludin said:
it depends on how they framed it and if they actually told the truth.
The main party for slavery are democrats that started with Jackson.
Democrats fought every civil rights act that there was and the starting on the KKK were all democrats.

they continue their slavery programs today just in a different form trying to get everyone dependent on government.
for some reason though i doubt the NY time mentioned this.

The founder of planned parenthood is a devout democrat and racist.
it is funny that she put most of the planned parenthood in black communities.
which also corresponds to the plummet in black births.
Click to expand...

Usual throwback of blaming democrats. YES! YES! WE WERE THE PARTY OF SLAVERY!! AND SEGREGATION!!

We got over it in the 1960s. You should too. My hood is buried in the hall closet somewhere. If the 90% (or whateve it is) of black people who generally vote for democrats can recognize recent history, I am sure with some therapy you can escape being frozen in time.
 
Luther said:
I didn't realize we still had slavery?

I would say those people are tired of this drumbeat of "slavery" for political reasons
Click to expand...

In 1960-1 I remember reading Life Magazine doing a special on the Civil War 100 years after. This year we celebrate 50 years since Woodstock. In 1976 there were huge celebrations in Colorado where I lived, billed as Centennial/Bicentennial. (You may notice similar events every July 4, as for that we don't wait for round numbers.) December 7, 1941 lives on in people's memories, as does June 6, 1944. Every year that ends in "5" I celebrate the anniversary of the glorious first World Series victory of the Brooklyn Dodgers. There are memories of my first kiss, but I am not going to tell when. And then there was 2000, the anniversary (or not) of Jesus's birth.

Sense a pattern here? Lots of drumbeats. It's what we humans do.
 
Mycroft said:
Really? Did slavery actually start 400 years ago "this month"?
Click to expand...

We celebrate the bringing of slaves to Virginia 400 years ago this month. Easy concept to grasp. Of course slavery did not start 400 years ago, but that's not your point, is it?
 
Luther said:
How do ya figure?

Even Ben Franklin?
Click to expand...

They accepted that the US should allow it. They could have fought to end it as you know "All Men are Created Equal" sort of does not apply if in fact all Men are actually equal under the law
 
ocean515 said:
It would be helpful if you posted a link to comments or anything else "Gingrich" and others said so the informed poster could understand what you are upset about.
Click to expand...

Sorry, can't copy and post on my phone, and don't know how to do so on iPad. Google "conservatives upset at slavery piece in NYTimes." As I noted, this is not universal on the right, but just as there is an "infantile left," there is a bit of that on the right as well. I suspect that if USA Today did something on the issue, people would not object.
 
code1211 said:
In a meeting with his staff, Dean Baquet came right out and said that the designed and contrived attacks on Trump based on Russian collusion did not do the job.

As a result, he was changing the structure of the NYT to attack Trump on a different front.

He was both admitting that the previous Propaganda Campaign did NOT work and hoping the the new Propaganda Campaign would work.

This rag is a propaganda, political action fish wrap. No more. No less.

From his comments:

Inside the New York Times town hall.
<snip>
Dean Baquet: If we’re really going to be a transparent newsroom that debates these issues among ourselves and not on Twitter, I figured I should talk to the whole newsroom, and hear from the whole newsroom.

We had a couple of significant missteps, and I know you’re concerned about them, and I am, too.

But there’s something larger at play here.

This is a really hard story, newsrooms haven’t confronted one like this since the 1960s.

It got trickier after [inaudible] … went from being a story about whether the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia and obstruction of justice to being a more head-on story about the president’s character.

We built our newsroom to cover one story, and we did it truly well.

Now we have to regroup, and shift resources and emphasis to take on a different story.
<snip>
Click to expand...

I got it, "since the attempt to tie Trump to Russia failed, let's tie him to the coming of slavery to Virginia." Clever folks, these enemies of the people.

Paranoia strikes deep.
 
apdst said:
Any links to the upsettedness? How can we discuss it without some background?
Click to expand...

Will try to post links later if I can on my device, but easy to search the topic.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
They accepted that the US should allow it. They could have fought to end it as you know "All Men are Created Equal" sort of does not apply if in fact all Men are actually equal under the law
Click to expand...

You act as if slavery never existed in Canada.
 
COTO said:
Count me among those wondering why the NYT is publishing 400-year-old "news".

Or not, in light of Mr. Baquet's recent pep rally. I believe we all know exactly why the NYT is publishing this.
Click to expand...

Because it is 400 years old this month. Same reason I celebrate my friend's 75th birthday next week, and we did things bigger on my 25th wedding anniversary. Apparently this has been in the works for month. Significant number. Duh. What possible connection with a "Baquet pep rally," whatever that was?

Are people that clueless or that paranoid to wonder why this is being done?

Are people being disingenuous when they ask this question? Did they ask it on July 4, 1976?
 
Nickyjo said:
We celebrate the bringing of slaves to Virginia 400 years ago this month. Easy concept to grasp. Of course slavery did not start 400 years ago, but that's not your point, is it?
Click to expand...

Actually, that was.

You didn't give a link to your source and you did say this: "but the Times does us a great favor in highlighting what started 400 years ago this month." without any mention of Virginia or any other location.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom