WaPo Reporter Does Exactly What Vivek Predicted in His Terrific Takedown of Lib Media Tactics

Somehow the people who receive welfare benefits can figure out how to get ID.

And you know who they vote for

 

Well why don't you go ahead and explain what those obstacles are and how they only affect black people.....we "cons" think only progs believe that....

What was it Reagan said? It's not that our liberal friends are ignorant it's just that they know so much that isn't so

 

They put no obstacles in the way. Except that you have be a citizen of the united states. I can see why that's a problem for the left.

 

Well considering I used to employ a black felon that educated me on his family as well as HIM stereotyping all blacks, I'm not saying I'm an expert, but I am saying I know more than the vast majority of liberal whites. After you operate a business in the hood for over a decade, come back to me and whitesplain it.

Crabs in a bucket.

BTW, have you noticed all those white mobs looting retail stores? Me neither.

 

Haven't heard about the epidemic of shoplifting?

 

One of the benefits of having a high IQ I suppose.

 

Racism, to me, seems to be a general phrase. It is a blanket covering different types of discrimination. People can be racist but also not be a follower of white supremacy. Anti-semitism also has its own category. Vivek chose to give a blanket answer when asked a specific question.

 

So saying "Of course, I condemn any form of vicious racial discrimination in this country" leaves a loophole for white supremacy, and only white supremacy? How does that work?

 

I'm certainly not saying Vivek is a supporter of white supremacy. Not at all. I don't believe he is. I'm simply pointing out that he was asked a specific question and he answered it with a generalized blanket answer. And he used it to get up on a soapbox about msm.

 

Listen to the exchange yourself, be honest with yourself, and make up your own mind.

Or would you rather have some talking head on CNN tell you how to think?

 

He quickly answered the question by saying he against all forms of discrimination. Unless you think white supremacy isn't discrimination, I don't know why you would think it wasn't answered.

 

Every stupid question is an opportunity to get on a soapbox about the MSM, so I see no problem with pointing out it is a stupid question. Why would a reporter need to ask about white supremacy? Why is that even an issue?

 

He condemned all racism which would include white "supremacy."

 

There was nothing 'quick' about his answer. He used the question to bash the msm - the bulk of his response was used to shame the reporter. You saw it as a sufficient answer but many others saw it as a side step.

 

White Supremacy has become a major focus in government. So it wasn't 'out of the blue'. You thought it was a stupid question but many didn't. And I think that most, likely, would have accepted the answer if he didn't go on to belittle the reporter. After Trump, I think we all want to see a return to civility from POTUS...not a 2.0 version.

 

Nothing wrong with pointing out the vicissitudes of MSM. But there are better ways to do that.

Her question could also be viewed as a simple on the spot test of whether a candidate is willing to risk alienating a certain demographic and their precious votes.

 

Yeah, it's true that Trump did denounce white supremacy - and repeatedly. So it's not hard to do.

There are plenty of other things Trump did to sink his own boat. I have maintained in many threads that Trump could be a decent leader if he wasn't a thin-skinned, undisciplined, narcissistic con-artist.

 

"White Supremacy has become a major focus in government."

It is a major focus of the current administration, but as an issue of societal problems it's so tiny that it's not even significant enough to show up on any candidates website, let alone with actual policies to deal with it. To me, child abuse and pedophilia is a greater societal problem than white supremacy, but no reporter ever asks about that.

Obviously this wasn't about a social problem or policy solutions. Vivek was asked about this as a catechism that is innately religious in nature, "I reject White Supremacy and all it's works." Given that, he was 100% correct to go after the reporter for asking such a stupid question.

 

There is no voting bloc demographic of White Supremists who vote on that issue. If you think that there is one that candidates need to pay attention to, I think it's on you to demonstrate that.

 

I'm afraid you and I won't come to agreement on the issue of White Supremacy or on the idea that POTUS should rise above belittling others.

 

His first response answered the question. The rest was because of how disingenuous the question was. Do you ask people if they are against murder? No because you would only do that if you thought the person was so morally defunct that you weren't sure. Anyone who feels the need to ask that question is just playing games or trying to insinuate things about vivek.

 

We have a POTUS that belittles others, and you've not made that an issue so far. So let's not pretend that this is about "belittling others."

 

We could go back and forth on this endlessly. You and I see things differently. No harm or foul in that.

 

I'm not pretending anything - I made my case that it spent approximately 10% of his time answering the question as he saw fit and then the rest was used to belittle the reporter. Please feel free to point out when Biden has done that.

 

I would like to offer up an additional response, specifically addressing your suggesting that I (or other Dems) are 'pretending'.

We (Dems) don't believe that Trump supporters are pretending their loyalty. We don't say that Reps are pretending to care about things. I wish we could all agree that we have differing beliefs. We DO BELIEVE that our Democracy is at stake this year. We are not pretending fear or outrage. You don't have to agree with us on this point, but to suggest we are feigning concern is disrespectful.