Bill O’Reilly Confirms that Bigots and Misogynists Elected Donald Trump


This is the rant everyone is talking about of Bill O’Reilly on Fox News, that beacon of “fair and balanced” news.

O’Reilly is a white, 67 years old man.  Trump is a 70 year old white/orange old man.

O’Reilly, inspired by Trump, has suggested that the only reason people are infavor of changing the electoral college system of electing our President is because of an attempt to elevate minorities in America.  His point is that white, male voters are happy with the electoral college system, even though if it doesn’t result in the person being elected who won the popular vote.  O’Reilly explained:

“The left sees white privilege as an oppressive force that must be done away with.

Left thinks that white working class voters must be marginalized.

The heart of liberalism in America today is based on race.  It permeates every issue.  That white men have set up a system of oppression and that system must be destroyed.

So-called white privilege bad, diversity good.”

O’Reilly disparaged Democrats by explaining that Democrats are heavily reliant on minority vote and women’s vote.  The clear message is that the old white men in the country should have greater timpact and  their votes should carry more weight than a woman’s vote, or that of a minority.  O’Reilly’s remarks are frightening similar to those made by the old s-class accounts of the Electoral College rarely mention the real demon dooming direct national election in 1787 and 1803: slavery.

At the Philadelphia convention, the visionary Pennsylvanian James Wilson proposed direct national election of the president. But the savvy Virginian James Madison responded that such a system would prove unacceptable to the South: “The right of suffrage was much more diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.” In other words, in a direct election system, the North would outnumber the South, whose many slaves (more than half a million in all) of course could not vote. But the Electoral College—a prototype of which Madison proposed in this same speech—instead let each southern state count its slaves, albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing its share of the overall count.

Virginia emerged as the big winner—the California of the Founding era—with 12 out of a total of 91 electoral votes allocated by the Philadelphia Constitution, more than a quarter of the 46 needed to win an election in the first round. After the 1800 census, Wilson’s free state of Pennsylvania had 10% more free persons than Virginia, but got 20% fewer electoral votes. Perversely, the more slaves Virginia (or any other slave state) bought or bred, the more electoral votes it would receive. Were a slave state to free any blacks who then moved North, the state could actually lose electoral votes.

If the system’s pro-slavery tilt was not overwhelmingly obvious when the Constitution was ratified, it quickly became so. For 32 of the Constitution’s first 36 years, a white slaveholding Virginian occupied the presidency.

Southerner Thomas Jefferson, for example, won the election of 1800-01 against Northerner John Adams in a race where the slavery-skew of the electoral college was the decisive margin of victory: without the extra electoral college votes generated by slavery, the mostly southern states that supported Jefferson would not have sufficed to give him a majority. As pointed observers remarked at the time, Thomas Jefferson metaphorically rode into the executive mansion on the backs of slaves.

http://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/

here have been other attempts to change the system, particularly after cases in which a candidate wins the popular vote, but loses in the Electoral College.

  • Four times a candidate has won the popular vote and lost the election. Andrew Jackson in 1824 (to John Quincy Adams); Samuel Tilden in 1876 (to Rutherford B. Hayes); Grover Cleveland in 1888 (to Benjamin Harrison); Al Gore in 2000 (to George W. Bush).

The closest Congress has come to amending the Electoral College since 1804 was during the 91st Congress (1969–1971). H.J. Res. 681 proposed the direct election of a President and Vice President, requiring a run off when no candidate received more than 40 percent of the vote. The resolution passed the House in 1969, but failed to pass the Senate.http://history.house.gov/Institution/Electoral-College/Electoral-College/

 

 

In a scandal that could destroy the network, Andrea Tantaros’ lawsuit against Fox News and Roger Ailes is exposing a network-wide culture of sexual harassment that included the most watched host on all of cable news, Bill O’Reilly.

The New York Times reported:

“Fox News masquerades as a defender of traditional family values, but behind the scenes, it operates like a sex-fueled, Playboy Mansion-like cult, steeped in intimidation, indecency and misogyny,” Ms. Tantaros’s suit says.

….
During arbitration, Mr. Burstein said, Fox News offered to pay her a sum “in the seven figures” if she renounced claims against Mr. Ailes and others at the network, including the host Bill O’Reilly. According to the lawsuit, Ms. Tantaros said she had been subjected to unwelcome advances from Mr. O’Reilly, whom she had regarded as a friend and adviser.

All that family values stuff that Fox News spent hours spewing was nothing more than marketing to socially conservative viewers. The problem for Fox News is that Tantaros’ lawsuit is threatening to blow the lid off the network and all of their dark secrets in public. This isn’t the first time that Bill O’Reilly has been accused of sexual harassment. In 2004, O’Reilly settled a sexual harassment lawsuit filed against him by a Fox News producer.

The lawsuit accuses O’Reilly of trying to lure Tantaros to his Long Island home so that he could see her “wild side.” When she refused his advances, Tantaros was banned from appearing on O’Reilly’s show.

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/08/23/fox-news-falling-eyes-bill-oreilly-accused-sexual-harassment.html

Instead, O’Reilly’s preferred theory for economic disparities between black and white people is about some abstract notion of “culture”, i.e. that white people have a superior culture that breeds hard work, but black culture supposedly breeds laziness and sexual degeneracy. (This, from a man who got sued for foisting his unwanted and lurid loofah fantasies on an underling.)

http://www.salon.com/2016/04/12/bill_oreillys_relentless_racism_revolting_comment_to_trump_about_african_americans_having_forehead_tattoos_is_the_newest_chapter_in_his_long_history_of_bigotry/

“The left sees white privilege as an oppressive force that must be done away with.

Left thinks that white working class voters must be marginalized.

The heart of liberalism in America today is based on race.  It permeates every issue.  That white men have set up a system of oppression and that system must be destroyed.

So-called white privilege bad, diversity good.

Democrats heavily reliant on minority vote and women’s vote.

Fox News host Bill O’Reilly went on a white supremacism-laden rant Tuesday night, saying that the effort to abolish the Electoral College is an attempt by “the left” to take away power from the “white establishment.”

O’Reilly went on to denounce Democrats for being “reliant on the minority vote and female voters” in their electoral coalition.

“The left wants power taken away from the white establishment and they want a profound change in the way America is run,” he said on his show, the O’Reilly Factor. “Taking voting power away from the white precincts is the quickest way to do that.”

Throughout his rant, O’Reilly discounted the notion that “so-called white privilege” even exists, and said the left’s focus on race and diversity is why “white men have largely abandoned the Democrats.”

“The left sees white privilege in America as an oppressive force that must be done away with, therefore white working class voters must be marginalized and what better way to do that than center the voting power in the cities,” O’Reilly said.

And, while some conservative commentators’ words are sometimes taken out of context to make them sound worse than they really were, there was broad agreement that O’Reilly’s rant actually was worse when taken in context.

http://www.aol.com/article/news/2016/12/21/bill-oreillys-white-establishment-comments-ignite-firestorm/21632884/

Enter the 12th Amendment, which allowed each party to designate one candidate for president and a separate candidate for vice president. The amendment’s modifications of the electoral process transformed the Framers’ framework, enabling future presidential elections to be openly populist and partisan affairs featuring two competing tickets. It is the 12th Amendment’s Electoral College system, not the Philadelphia Framers’, that remains in place today. If the general citizenry’s lack of knowledge had been the real reason for the Electoral College, this problem was largely solved by 1800. So why wasn’t the entire Electoral College contraption scrapped at that point?

Standard civics-class accounts of the Electoral College rarely mention the real demon dooming direct national election in 1787 and 1803: slavery.

At the Philadelphia convention, the visionary Pennsylvanian James Wilson proposed direct national election of the president. But the savvy Virginian James Madison responded that such a system would prove unacceptable to the South: “The right of suffrage was much more diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.” In other words, in a direct election system, the North would outnumber the South, whose many slaves (more than half a million in all) of course could not vote. But the Electoral College—a prototype of which Madison proposed in this same speech—instead let each southern state count its slaves, albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing its share of the overall count.

Virginia emerged as the big winner—the California of the Founding era—with 12 out of a total of 91 electoral votes allocated by the Philadelphia Constitution, more than a quarter of the 46 needed to win an election in the first round. After the 1800 census, Wilson’s free state of Pennsylvania had 10% more free persons than Virginia, but got 20% fewer electoral votes. Perversely, the more slaves Virginia (or any other slave state) bought or bred, the more electoral votes it would receive. Were a slave state to free any blacks who then moved North, the state could actually lose electoral votes.

If the system’s pro-slavery tilt was not overwhelmingly obvious when the Constitution was ratified, it quickly became so. For 32 of the Constitution’s first 36 years, a white slaveholding Virginian occupied the presidency.

Southerner Thomas Jefferson, for example, won the election of 1800-01 against Northerner John Adams in a race where the slavery-skew of the electoral college was the decisive margin of victory: without the extra electoral college votes generated by slavery, the mostly southern states that supported Jefferson would not have sufficed to give him a majority. As pointed observers remarked at the time, Thomas Jefferson metaphorically rode into the executive mansion on the backs of slaves.

http://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/

here have been other attempts to change the system, particularly after cases in which a candidate wins the popular vote, but loses in the Electoral College.

  • Four times a candidate has won the popular vote and lost the election. Andrew Jackson in 1824 (to John Quincy Adams); Samuel Tilden in 1876 (to Rutherford B. Hayes); Grover Cleveland in 1888 (to Benjamin Harrison); Al Gore in 2000 (to George W. Bush).

The closest Congress has come to amending the Electoral College since 1804 was during the 91st Congress (1969–1971). H.J. Res. 681 proposed the direct election of a President and Vice President, requiring a run off when no candidate received more than 40 percent of the vote. The resolution passed the House in 1969, but failed to pass the Senate.http://history.house.gov/Institution/Electoral-College/Electoral-College/

Rac

http://www.aol.com/article/news/2016/12/21/womans-racist-rant-at-jcpenney-goes-viral/21632657/

B”ill O’Reilly is the definition of “BAD”!

One thought on “Bill O’Reilly Confirms that Bigots and Misogynists Elected Donald Trump

Add yours

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: