P
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
U
UnderGrace
Guest
Yes I am actually all up to date on all this, so what you are saying is that "racist" is just a baseless accusation used the media?
Huge reach. Each state's electoral votes has always been apportioned by their population, as distributed by the number of House representatives plus 2 senators. So California for instance, has a staggering 53 House reps plus 2 Senators for a total of 55 electoral votes. My state, Pennsylvania, has 18 House members and to Senators for a total of 20 electoral votes.
The system is eminently brilliant, in that it still gives the very large states a giant say in Presidential elections, while giving smaller states at least a small voice. In a strict popular vote, the smaller states would have ZERO voice, as candidates would ONLY pander to large states and cities.
So gerrymandering has no bearing whatsoever in this debate. It simply doesn't apply here.
Here is the actual article of how the media is conspiring to get the President with this racist garbage:
Michael Goodwin NY POST August 24 2019
While reading the transcript of a New York Times staff meeting, a Lily Tomlin line came to mind: “No matter how cynical you get, it is impossible to keep up.”
In this case, it is also impossible not to be disheartened and furious. The transcript shows that the rot of bias at the Times is far beyond the pale and there is no hope of recovery. Yet not a single person there declared the obvious — that the paper is betraying its principles.
Rigor in reporting and restraint in judgment once made the Gray Lady noble. Now she is dead, her homicide an inside job.
The transcript, leaked to Slate, reveals a confederacy of ignorance and bigotry involving hundreds of people. The ringleader is executive editor Dean Baquet, who fires the fatal shot into the credibility of his paper.
By giving reporters and editors license to try to stop Donald Trump from becoming president, then letting them peddle the Russia, Russia, Russia hoax, Baquet helped unleash the hatred that is tearing America apart. Never before has a single media institution played such a destructive role in the nation’s life.
But Baquet is not finished. The 75-minute meeting shows he is now determined to destroy the president by painting him as a racist.
“I think that we’ve got to change,” Baquet tells his assembled staff after acknowledging that the paper was “a little tiny bit flat-footed” when special counsel Robert Mueller performed so poorly before Congress.
In other words, Baquet had swallowed hook, line and sinker Hillary Clinton’s fiction that Trump conspired with Vladimir Putin to steal the election.
Then again, this is the same editor whose paper was certain Clinton would win in 2016. Quite a track record.
Which leads to Baquet’s newest idea for stopping Trump.
“How do we cover a guy who makes these kinds of remarks? How do we cover the world’s reaction to him? How do we cover America, that’s become so divided by Donald Trump? How do we write about race in a thoughtful way, something we haven’t done in a large way in a long time? That, to me, is the vision for coverage . . . for the rest of the next two years.”
This isn’t journalism. It’s political activism aligned with the talking points of Democrats. And to liken race relations today to those in the 1960s, as Baquet does, is beyond ignorant.
The Aug. 12 meeting was held after an uproar over a headline deemed too friendly to Trump. “Trump Urges Unity vs Racism” didn’t convey a sufficient dose of Trump hatred, so Baquet had it rewritten to criticize the president’s sober remarks after the mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton.
Even that wasn’t enough to sate the monster he created, so Baquet assembled the newsroom to hear the grievances and explain his thinking.
Though none of those asking questions are identified, they are indistinguishable in wanting the paper to regularly call Trump a racist and a liar. These are supposedly straight news reporters and editors, yet are unrestrained in demanding that their partisan opinions dictate coverage.
One staffer asks Baquet, “Could you explain your decision not to more regularly use the word racist in reference to the president’s actions?”
Another wonders, “You mentioned that there could be situations when we would use the word racist. What is that standard?”
A third sees “racism and white supremacy being sort of the foundation of this country” and wants those topics front and center. “I just feel like racism is in everything. It should be considered in our science reporting, in our culture reporting, in our national reporting.”
SEE ALSO
NY Times reporter allegedly solicited $30K donation from Epstein
Another asks, “What is the overall strategy here for getting us through this administration?”
Sometimes Baquet gently disagrees — up to a point. He says the best way to make the case is by showing instead of telling and cites examples from the 1960s, as if they are relevant.
Not once does he express any doubt that Trump is guilty as charged, or say that reporters should not be expressing partisan opinions. He’s only quibbling over how to present the agreed-upon conclusions.
Indeed, there is zero evidence in the transcript that anyone in the room objects. Even allowing that some might have doubts about an entire news organization speaking with one scripted voice, the silence shows nobody felt secure enough to say so. No safe spaces for dissenters there.
The failure of anyone to recognize that the approach violates the paper’s historic standards of fairness and the strict separation of news from opinion speaks volumes about how low the Times has sunk.
If there is a silver lining, it is that the public has been warned. Readers who want straight facts and fair play won’t find it in the Times. All they will get is a biased agenda and a guaranteed conclusion.
It seems to me that the elected seem to forget who's in charge. We are! Not them!They are supposed to do what voters tell them to. Are they not public servants? The power of the central government is greater now than that of the states. That's way off balance the President has too much influence and Congress isn't taking responsibility. All it takes is money to get what is wanted and lobbyists are filling the pockets of our servants instead of us.
Who would write the text, Ben Shapiro or Bernie Sanders? The Schools I attended taught FDR's New Deal was the best idea since Lincoln freed the slave and that Andrew Johnson was a Dixiecrat who ran out of time in office before impeachment was complete. TR was a republican when they were the liberals and was an anti monopoly crusader. He later became a progressive and if he was re-elected in 1912 the great depression may never have happened.
So I would agree if the voters are taught out of the same texts that we were.
And if California is so liberal why is it that Dick Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Ben Shapiro call or called it home.
What he is forgetting is that all Americans aren't stupid some of us can thing for ourselves and can tell a snake oil salesman when we hear one....
I meant think for ourselves....not thing either auto correct or I can't spell - probably the latter....
S
Susanna
Guest
.
When the US was first formed there was no one person one vote. Only those who owned property could vote. We had no national debt back then because the folks voting were the ones paying the bills. Yes they had democratic principals in this new republic but the indigent did not vote nor did women.
I think the simplest voter standard could be if you work and pay taxes you should be able to vote. A minimum age is also fine along with citizenship.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
I think the simplest voter standard could be if you work and pay taxes you should be able to vote. A minimum age is also fine along with citizenship.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
K
kaylagrl
Guest
K
kaylagrl
Guest
Post Civil War southern states used (among other things) literacy tests as a requirement for voting in order to disenfranchise black voters.