It was during a discussion between host Tamron Hall and Mother Jones editor David Corn about Donald Trump’s David Duke problem and overall “racist” supporters that MSNBC cut away to video footage of an interview with a black Donald Trump supporter. I don’t think she was expecting that. The look on her face, and her reaction is priceless:
You don’t have to be a Trump supporter to agree with what the black man said:
Trending: Freak Show
“David Duke and people like that, they come out from under the rocks all the time around this time of year. It’s got nothing to do with Donald Trump. I think we need to stop with all the racist stuff and all the race-baiting. We’re all Americans … Nobody [is] paying David Duke no mind.”
The media did a similar thing to Ron Paul – not that Ron Paul and Donald Trump are anything at all alike. During his campaign for president, Ron Paul had received a $500 donation from a white supremacist named Don Black who ran a website called Stormfront. At some campaign event, this same white supremacist appeared in a photo with Ron Paul. Paul had no idea who this guy was. In fact, no one knew who this guy was, until the media brought it up. From Paul’s perspective, he was just another supporter who wanted a picture with the candidate, just like thousands of others.
The media hounded Paul about the picture and about the donation, and asked him if he was going to “disavow” their support and give the campaign donation back to the white supremacist. Sure, Paul “disavowed” racism and white supremacy and all that, but he wasn’t going to give the money back. Why would he have to return the money just because the media told him to? Taking the donation would “reduce the cash Black has to spend on spreading his controversial ideology by $500.” In addition, Paul’s campaign would “have $500 more with which to spread his libertarian message of freedom from big government.”
His accepting the donation in no way meant he endorsed the donor. If he had returned the money as the holier-than-thou-art media talking heads had demanded, would he have had to sift through all his donations and investigate each donor to make sure their views were consistent with his? Do other candidates have to do that, or just the ones the media despise?
In Donald Trump’s case, I don’t understand his acting as if he didn’t know who David Duke was, since he had already previously “disavowed” Duke on a number of occasions.
But I actually don’t really care that much about Trump’s inconsistent responses as much as the media’s sanctimonious grandstanding on politically incorrect issues. They demand that Trump strongly disavow any support from any known white supremacist. They want him to announce publicly that he doesn’t like David Duke, and that he doesn’t want his endorsement. But why? Regardless of David Duke’s beliefs, is he not free to support whomever he wants?
I’m sure there are millions of child molesters, domestic abusers, thieves, convicted murderers, even racists and white supremacists, etc. who watch the mainstream media. That means that the media’s ratings are higher with the viewership support of immoral people. They’re accepting ad revenue that’s been generated in part by criminal viewers. Are they going to return that money and tell those viewers to stop watching?