It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 2:18 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 238 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Ta-Nehisi Coates
PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2017 12:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
KDdidit wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:
Lost among all of this is the fact that both you & I were clearly not the biggest fans of Obama (for reasons later borne out) until June of 2008. Hell, I still in large part blame the dotard's presidency on his inability to take aggressive stands.

I don't think LTG had a substantial presence around here then, but I'm comfortable opining that he too would have shared our skepticism.

Sadly Obama the candidate and Obama the President were 2 different things. It's not a surprise though, as Dems mostly campaign much farther to the left than what they do when they actually govern. Hillary lost because she didn't go far left enough, and that might not have even worked because I don't think anyone would have believed her if she did. Now a guy who Rs painted as a crazy socialist (no, not Bernie, Obama) is out there raking in mad cash for speeches from the big businesses he helped out during his 2 terms. That's not what the candidate Obama would have done, but the centrist, friend to corporations President was cool with it. But hey, we can't criticize him for it.

Image



Obama's signature legislation is a vote away from being toast and it's the Dems fault. In 2009 the Ds go and push for a bipartisan PPACA bill with tons of republican amendments and adjustments that looks like Romneycare. Rs whine the whole time and then vote against the bipartisan bill anyway. Ds still keep the bipartisan bullshit in their finished bill. In 2017 Ds are cool working with Rs to gut Obama's crown jewel, and the Rs laugh at them and just do what they want to healthcare.



KDiddit I always believed Obama the candidate was that guy too. Hillary Clinton may have shilled for corporations but I can also point to situations throughout her history where she has attempted to help others. I never got that with Obama and that was always my problem with him. GUys like Jesse and Sharpton have hustled Civil Rights for years but at least you can point to situations where they have been "champions" of things. Hillary too. Obama never was and it carried over into his Presidency. I didn't want to get caught up in the symbolism of him being President as much as I wanted to see what his policies were. He disappointed because he never took on the economic challenges that confront ordinary people.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ta-Nehisi Coates
PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2017 1:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
leashyourkids wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Nas wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
I've never once waivered in my beliefs. My beliefs are my beliefs, and I don't need validation from anyone. My frustration with "the Left" or whatever we want to call it does not change what I "believe" one iota. It's a separate point, and it's one that, in my mind, properly encapsulates the mindset of "Trump voters" or whatever we also want to call them (they're the people I grew up with - my friends and family).

And that point is that constantly hinting at they're racism is not only bullshit; it's going to have the opposite effect of what is intended. There are certainly racists in that group, but the majority are just people struggling to get by, like all of us do from time-to-time. They don't have time to be racist even if they were so inclined. They're busy trying to make ends meet and making sure their kids have an edible fucking lunch. Lumping them into these groups is no different than if I said inner-city people all need to get their shit together and stop complaining.

We (royal "we") need to stop blaming each other on the basis of skin color or ethnicity and realize that 90% of these issues are economic issues. We're on the same fucking team. I agree with LTG that there is resistance to believing that on both sides, but that doesn't make it any less true, and - IMO - it still remains the only way any of this gets close to being solved.

You can disagree, and I appreciate some of your kinder words, but please don't twist it to insinuate that I never believed in Liberal values. What I am stating here is the definition of Liberal values. We will never win hearts and minds if we continue to label people to specific groups. Judge the individual, not the perceived "group."

And for what it's worth, my prior posts are laced with acknowledgements of both historical and contemporary obstacles that minorities have to overcome. I just don't believe it is the caricature of the racist hillbilly that has caused these obstacles.

This is a good conversation to have. Let's be fair.


Yes being beaten over the head and called a racist solely because you are white is wrong. I understand how you and anyone else would be bothered by that. The label is bullshit. You don't think you should have to prove that you aren't racist. It probably frustrates and pisses you all off when your valid complaints are dismissed or completely ignored.

Welcome to the world of blacks and other minorities. We're beaten over the head with the racist label and a bunch of other negative ones. We've been asking for the same things for years and was basically told to get over it. It frustrates and pisses us off too when our valid complaints are dismissed or completely ignored.

The opposite effect is what we're used to. Somehow regardless of the approach that how it ends up. In the end we all just want opportunities and to support our families. I think if we all did more listening and had an open mind we could stop talking past one another and start seeing progress again.

As I've said before many people are bothered when they're labeled and ask for grace from others. Many of those same people are quick to use similar labels to describe others. #GoldenRule



People keep asserting that they shouldn't be labeled racists for voting for Trump. Consider the not so subtle way that certain people here continuously assert that blacks are stupid for voting Democrat. That charge is subliminally made by MANY on here and I along with Reader especially have attempted to refute the charge without ever making it personal. Its interesting that the questioning of voting preferences never is considered offensive in those MANY instances.


Do you think that anyone who voted for Trump is racist?



If you mean everyone No I don't think that everyone who voted for Trump is racist. I never said that either. I believe that is a greater number than the few crackpots that everyone keeps implying on here. I believe that roughly 30-35% of the people voting for Trump hold strong racial views. I believe that those views attracted them to him. We can debate the semantics of racial views vs racism but there is no doubt that the appeal for him was greater with regards to race than it was with regards to economics. Statistics bear that out as well. Hillary received a greater percent of the vote from people earning less than $50,000.

My issue is that for too long there has been an evasion when it comes to speaking about specific instances of racism. Everyone is in agreement that racism still exists but when it comes time to label specific events to be racist you get strong denials. If you ask the average white supremacist if he is a racist he will more than likely say no. He will engage you in a semantical argument as to why he isn't such. That is why I don't seek polling for confirmation. YOu'd never get it if that is the case.

There are certain trends that you can Identify with respect to Trump voters however. If you believed in Birtherism chances are you voted for Trump. If you believe that whites suffer from reverse discrimination then you voted for Trump. There are other things I can cherry pick which tell me that you were voting for Trump. Does advocacy of these particular issues make one a racist? Not necessarily and that will be the argument. Why is that people that believe in such things vote for Trump? Definitely begs the question

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ta-Nehisi Coates
PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2017 1:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 3:05 am
Posts: 28664
pizza_Place: Clamburger's
long time guy wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Nas wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
I've never once waivered in my beliefs. My beliefs are my beliefs, and I don't need validation from anyone. My frustration with "the Left" or whatever we want to call it does not change what I "believe" one iota. It's a separate point, and it's one that, in my mind, properly encapsulates the mindset of "Trump voters" or whatever we also want to call them (they're the people I grew up with - my friends and family).

And that point is that constantly hinting at they're racism is not only bullshit; it's going to have the opposite effect of what is intended. There are certainly racists in that group, but the majority are just people struggling to get by, like all of us do from time-to-time. They don't have time to be racist even if they were so inclined. They're busy trying to make ends meet and making sure their kids have an edible fucking lunch. Lumping them into these groups is no different than if I said inner-city people all need to get their shit together and stop complaining.

We (royal "we") need to stop blaming each other on the basis of skin color or ethnicity and realize that 90% of these issues are economic issues. We're on the same fucking team. I agree with LTG that there is resistance to believing that on both sides, but that doesn't make it any less true, and - IMO - it still remains the only way any of this gets close to being solved.

You can disagree, and I appreciate some of your kinder words, but please don't twist it to insinuate that I never believed in Liberal values. What I am stating here is the definition of Liberal values. We will never win hearts and minds if we continue to label people to specific groups. Judge the individual, not the perceived "group."

And for what it's worth, my prior posts are laced with acknowledgements of both historical and contemporary obstacles that minorities have to overcome. I just don't believe it is the caricature of the racist hillbilly that has caused these obstacles.

This is a good conversation to have. Let's be fair.


Yes being beaten over the head and called a racist solely because you are white is wrong. I understand how you and anyone else would be bothered by that. The label is bullshit. You don't think you should have to prove that you aren't racist. It probably frustrates and pisses you all off when your valid complaints are dismissed or completely ignored.

Welcome to the world of blacks and other minorities. We're beaten over the head with the racist label and a bunch of other negative ones. We've been asking for the same things for years and was basically told to get over it. It frustrates and pisses us off too when our valid complaints are dismissed or completely ignored.

The opposite effect is what we're used to. Somehow regardless of the approach that how it ends up. In the end we all just want opportunities and to support our families. I think if we all did more listening and had an open mind we could stop talking past one another and start seeing progress again.

As I've said before many people are bothered when they're labeled and ask for grace from others. Many of those same people are quick to use similar labels to describe others. #GoldenRule



People keep asserting that they shouldn't be labeled racists for voting for Trump. Consider the not so subtle way that certain people here continuously assert that blacks are stupid for voting Democrat. That charge is subliminally made by MANY on here and I along with Reader especially have attempted to refute the charge without ever making it personal. Its interesting that the questioning of voting preferences never is considered offensive in those MANY instances.


Do you think that anyone who voted for Trump is racist?



If you mean everyone No I don't think that everyone who voted for Trump is racist. I never said that either. I believe that is a greater number than the few crackpots that everyone keeps implying on here. I believe that roughly 30-35% of the people voting for Trump hold strong racial views. I believe that those views attracted them to him. We can debate the semantics of racial views vs racism but there is no doubt that the appeal for him was greater with regards to race than it was with regards to economics. Statistics bear that out as well. Hillary received a greater percent of the vote from people earning less than $50,000.

My issue is that for too long there has been an evasion when it comes to speaking about specific instances of racism. Everyone is in agreement that racism still exists but when it comes time to label specific events to be racist you get strong denials. If you ask the average white supremacist if he is a racist he will more than likely say no. He will engage you in a semantical argument as to why he isn't such. That is why I don't seek polling for confirmation. YOu'd never get it if that is the case.

There are certain trends that you can Identify with respect to Trump voters however. If you believed in Birtherism chances are you voted for Trump. If you believe that whites suffer from reverse discrimination then you voted for Trump. There are other things I can cherry pick which tell me that you were voting for Trump. Does advocacy of these particular issues make one a racist? Not necessarily and that will be the argument. Why is that people that believe in such things vote for Trump? Definitely begs the question


long time guy wrote:
KDdidit wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:
Lost among all of this is the fact that both you & I were clearly not the biggest fans of Obama (for reasons later borne out) until June of 2008. Hell, I still in large part blame the dotard's presidency on his inability to take aggressive stands.

I don't think LTG had a substantial presence around here then, but I'm comfortable opining that he too would have shared our skepticism.

Sadly Obama the candidate and Obama the President were 2 different things. It's not a surprise though, as Dems mostly campaign much farther to the left than what they do when they actually govern. Hillary lost because she didn't go far left enough, and that might not have even worked because I don't think anyone would have believed her if she did. Now a guy who Rs painted as a crazy socialist (no, not Bernie, Obama) is out there raking in mad cash for speeches from the big businesses he helped out during his 2 terms. That's not what the candidate Obama would have done, but the centrist, friend to corporations President was cool with it. But hey, we can't criticize him for it.

Image



Obama's signature legislation is a vote away from being toast and it's the Dems fault. In 2009 the Ds go and push for a bipartisan PPACA bill with tons of republican amendments and adjustments that looks like Romneycare. Rs whine the whole time and then vote against the bipartisan bill anyway. Ds still keep the bipartisan bullshit in their finished bill. In 2017 Ds are cool working with Rs to gut Obama's crown jewel, and the Rs laugh at them and just do what they want to healthcare.



KDiddit I always believed Obama the candidate was that guy too. Hillary Clinton may have shilled for corporations but I can also point to situations throughout her history where she has attempted to help others. I never got that with Obama and that was always my problem with him. GUys like Jesse and Sharpton have hustled Civil Rights for years but at least you can point to situations where they have been "champions" of things. Hillary too. Obama never was and it carried over into his Presidency. I didn't want to get caught up in the symbolism of him being President as much as I wanted to see what his policies were. He disappointed because he never took on the economic challenges that confront ordinary people.


Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
ZephMarshack wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
ZephMarshack wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:
And yes, I feel that his discussion is "fair", a word curiously now in heavy use by Trump supporters.



I've been accused of being a Trump supporter in this forum (and in certain circles that's about the worst possible accusation one can hurl at someone), mostly because I have tried to discuss the way the media has covered Trump. My interest in the subject has little to do with Trump himself. It is really about my fascination with media/advertising/perceptions and the way they are all interconnected.

When I talk about "fairness" with regard to Donald Trump, it's not really about Trump at all. In fact, I enjoy seeing a silver spoon like Trump get it shoved up his ass for once in his life. No, the fairness I'm talking about is fairness for you and me and the rest of the American electorate. We should be able to receive the news without it being filtered through the prism of someone else's politics, whatever those politics may be.

And I know that someone is likely to say that the new has always been slanted. William Randolph Hearst wasn't exactly promoting unbiased truth. But the newspaper business evolved over time and adopted certain standards that are rapidly disappearing/have disappeared in the Internet age. A good example is the Russian dossier story. No reputable news organization would have touched that story. But when Buzzfeed published it, it was out there. So the "reputable" media uses this little trick for clicks rather than simply ignoring it as beneath them (which it should be considering the background, way it was sourced, etc.). They report the story this way: "____________ is reporting that..." That gives them cover when the story turns out to be baseless while allowing them to actually report it. It's not what I call journalism.

See I tend to think the press should have a more and not less adversarial relationship with politicians in general. And I'm not going to shed crocodile tears about them suddenly being mean or "unfair" to Trump just because they failed at their jobs in the past by treating previous politicians with kid gloves. The bad policies that Trump is actually promoting bother me a helluva lot more than mere procedural questions about whether he would have gotten a pass on them if he was another politician. And quite frankly I think most of the people who are more concerned about such "fairness" are either partisans of Trump or in a privileged position where his actual policies only marginally affect them and so they're able to focus on the discourse and procedural fairness.



There's a difference between the press having an adversarial relationship with politicians and the press using its platform to promote political beliefs of their own. Not that there isn't a place for opinion in media, but news should be news. You can write the story anyway you want.

You're entitled to think that Trump is promoting bad policies. The guy reporting about the policies shouldn't be suggesting to you that they are bad. You can make up your own mind. You're probably certain you have, but now we may be getting into "advertising doesn't work on me" territory.

You admit yourself that there's never been a value-free presentation of the news but then seem troubled that there's currently no value-free presentation of the news. Beyond this, many of your complaints about the treatment of Trump haven't just been limited to journalists suddenly violating their fake objectivity in writing news stories, but have just as often focused on the explicitly editorial side of things as well ("Where was the outrage when Obama/Hillary also did..."). Likewise, asking Trump or his cronies hard questions in pressers isn't a case of unfair reporting, but again a healthy instance of an adversarial press.

The outlets that have most used their role on the reporting side of things to promote political beliefs of their own are primarily those sources most sympathetic to Trump and the Republican party, not against them. Yet it seems it's all fair in love and politics when it's the Kochs and Aileses and Sinclair Groups and Clear Channels, but a sign of a unhinged media when there's any perceived spin at all in the opposite direction against the president. Did you devote as much time to these issues of procedural fairness during the Obama administration out of curiosity? Why or why not?

I happen to think the media is and has been broken for a long time. I also happen to think pretty much most of the bias against Trump in that class comes down to how he acts and comes across far more than any policy disagreement. Pence or Jeb or Romney could probably push the exact same agenda as Trump and receive far cushier treatment from the press because he's more "presidential." But even if tougher coverage is the product of appearances rather than anything principled at all, I don't really care because I'm a consequentialist on this issue. I value tougher coverage of politicians as a good in general and specifically don't care if people are opposing Trump's policies in the here and now for the right or wrong reasons.


I think the collapse of what we knew as the standard newspaper business model wherein there were definitive lines between news/editorial and advertising is a big part of the problem.

I know you're not comparing the overall media love affair Obama with the way Trump has been handled. Trump never gave anyone a thrill up his leg. Regardless, I'm sure I can find criticisms of Fox News on this site that I made during the Obama presidency. And it's a lot easier to dismiss something like the Washington Examiner than it is to dismiss CNN. I see things like Politico cited all the time as if they are unbiased observers of the American political scene.

I'll give you one really simple example of what I'm talking about. Obama halted immigration from Muslim countries and it was hardly covered. It certainly wasn't referred to by news organizations as a "Muslim Ban". It doesn't matter what your own opinion is on these policies, it should be obvious the coverage is different.


veganfan21 wrote:
long time guy wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Nas wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
I've never once waivered in my beliefs. My beliefs are my beliefs, and I don't need validation from anyone. My frustration with "the Left" or whatever we want to call it does not change what I "believe" one iota. It's a separate point, and it's one that, in my mind, properly encapsulates the mindset of "Trump voters" or whatever we also want to call them (they're the people I grew up with - my friends and family).

And that point is that constantly hinting at they're racism is not only bullshit; it's going to have the opposite effect of what is intended. There are certainly racists in that group, but the majority are just people struggling to get by, like all of us do from time-to-time. They don't have time to be racist even if they were so inclined. They're busy trying to make ends meet and making sure their kids have an edible fucking lunch. Lumping them into these groups is no different than if I said inner-city people all need to get their shit together and stop complaining.

We (royal "we") need to stop blaming each other on the basis of skin color or ethnicity and realize that 90% of these issues are economic issues. We're on the same fucking team. I agree with LTG that there is resistance to believing that on both sides, but that doesn't make it any less true, and - IMO - it still remains the only way any of this gets close to being solved.

You can disagree, and I appreciate some of your kinder words, but please don't twist it to insinuate that I never believed in Liberal values. What I am stating here is the definition of Liberal values. We will never win hearts and minds if we continue to label people to specific groups. Judge the individual, not the perceived "group."

And for what it's worth, my prior posts are laced with acknowledgements of both historical and contemporary obstacles that minorities have to overcome. I just don't believe it is the caricature of the racist hillbilly that has caused these obstacles.

This is a good conversation to have. Let's be fair.


Yes being beaten over the head and called a racist solely because you are white is wrong. I understand how you and anyone else would be bothered by that. The label is bullshit. You don't think you should have to prove that you aren't racist. It probably frustrates and pisses you all off when your valid complaints are dismissed or completely ignored.

Welcome to the world of blacks and other minorities. We're beaten over the head with the racist label and a bunch of other negative ones. We've been asking for the same things for years and was basically told to get over it. It frustrates and pisses us off too when our valid complaints are dismissed or completely ignored.

The opposite effect is what we're used to. Somehow regardless of the approach that how it ends up. In the end we all just want opportunities and to support our families. I think if we all did more listening and had an open mind we could stop talking past one another and start seeing progress again.

As I've said before many people are bothered when they're labeled and ask for grace from others. Many of those same people are quick to use similar labels to describe others. #GoldenRule



People keep asserting that they shouldn't be labeled racists for voting for Trump. Consider the not so subtle way that certain people here continuously assert that blacks are stupid for voting Democrat. That charge is subliminally made by MANY on here and I along with Reader especially have attempted to refute the charge without ever making it personal. Its interesting that the questioning of voting preferences never is considered offensive in those MANY instances.


Do you think that anyone who voted for Trump is racist?



If you mean everyone No I don't think that everyone who voted for Trump is racist. I never said that either. I believe that is a greater number than the few crackpots that everyone keeps implying on here. I believe that roughly 30-35% of the people voting for Trump hold strong racial views. I believe that those views attracted them to him. We can debate the semantics of racial views vs racism but there is no doubt that the appeal for him was greater with regards to race than it was with regards to economics. Statistics bear that out as well. Hillary received a greater percent of the vote from people earning less than $50,000.

My issue is that for too long there has been an evasion when it comes to speaking about specific instances of racism. Everyone is in agreement that racism still exists but when it comes time to label specific events to be racist you get strong denials. If you ask the average white supremacist if he is a racist he will more than likely say no. He will engage you in a semantical argument as to why he isn't such. That is why I don't seek polling for confirmation. YOu'd never get it if that is the case.

There are certain trends that you can Identify with respect to Trump voters however. If you believed in Birtherism chances are you voted for Trump. If you believe that whites suffer from reverse discrimination then you voted for Trump. There are other things I can cherry pick which tell me that you were voting for Trump. Does advocacy of these particular issues make one a racist? Not necessarily and that will be the argument. Why is that people that believe in such things vote for Trump? Definitely begs the question


If we're going to suggest correlations between racism/holding prejudicial view/etc. and voting Trump then that's fine - we already have numerous surveys supporting such links. But you've also got to account for the "Obama Trump voter," meaning those who switched from voting Obama to voting Trump. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/15/upsh ... ml?mcubz=3

This complicates the racism charge, though I know you're not saying 100 percent of Trump's voters are racist.

_________________
Nardi wrote:
Weird, I see Dolphin looking in my asshole


Last edited by Jbi11s on Fri Sep 22, 2017 2:51 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ta-Nehisi Coates
PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2017 1:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2010 10:16 am
Posts: 20082
pizza_Place: Aurelios
I think we need to debate the semantics of racial views. I'm not sure what you mean. A third is a big number.

_________________
drinky wrote:
If you hate Laurence, then don't listen - don't comment. When he co-hosts the B&B show, take that day off ... listen to an old podcast of a Bernstein solo show and jerk off all day.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ta-Nehisi Coates
PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2017 1:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81627
Nas wrote:
KDdidit wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:
Lost among all of this is the fact that both you & I were clearly not the biggest fans of Obama (for reasons later borne out) until June of 2008. Hell, I still in large part blame the dotard's presidency on his inability to take aggressive stands.

I don't think LTG had a substantial presence around here then, but I'm comfortable opining that he too would have shared our skepticism.

Sadly Obama the candidate and Obama the President were 2 different things. It's not a surprise though, as Dems mostly campaign much farther to the left than what they do when they actually govern. Hillary lost because she didn't go far left enough, and that might not have even worked because I don't think anyone would have believed her if she did. Now a guy who Rs painted as a crazy socialist (no, not Bernie, Obama) is out there raking in mad cash for speeches from the big businesses he helped out during his 2 terms. That's not what the candidate Obama would have done, but the centrist, friend to corporations President was cool with it. But hey, we can't criticize him for it.

Image
Well he IS half-white



Obama's signature legislation is a vote away from being toast and it's the Dems fault. In 2009 the Ds go and push for a bipartisan PPACA bill with tons of republican amendments and adjustments that looks like Romneycare. Rs whine the whole time and then vote against the bipartisan bill anyway. Ds still keep the bipartisan bullshit in their finished bill. In 2017 Ds are cool working with Rs to gut Obama's crown jewel, and the Rs laugh at them and just do what they want to healthcare.


I will never understand how a reasonable person would call Obama a far left liberal when he governed like a Blue Dog Democrat.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ta-Nehisi Coates
PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2017 1:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 88693
Location: To the left of my post
If Trump won by racism why did he get a smaller percentage of the popular vote?

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ta-Nehisi Coates
PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2017 1:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 8:10 pm
Posts: 38609
Location: "Across 110th Street"
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
If Trump won by racism why did he get a smaller percentage of the popular vote?


Ask Russia's darling Jill Stein or the Mormon ex-CIA from Utah.

Or the targeting statistics company the Mercer's & Jared ran in areas Hillary(& Russ Feingold) took for granted

_________________
There are only two examples of infinity: The universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the universe.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ta-Nehisi Coates
PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2017 1:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2010 10:16 am
Posts: 20082
pizza_Place: Aurelios
Regular Reader wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
If Trump won by racism why did he get a smaller percentage of the popular vote?


Ask Russia's darling Jill Stein or the Mormon ex-CIA from Utah.

Or the targeting statistics company the Mercer's & Jared ran in areas Hillary(& Russ Feingold) took for granted


You think, if not for McMullin, Utah would have gone for Hillary? They probably haven't been Democrat since FDR.

_________________
drinky wrote:
If you hate Laurence, then don't listen - don't comment. When he co-hosts the B&B show, take that day off ... listen to an old podcast of a Bernstein solo show and jerk off all day.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ta-Nehisi Coates
PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2017 2:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 8:10 pm
Posts: 38609
Location: "Across 110th Street"
Hank Scorpio wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
If Trump won by racism why did he get a smaller percentage of the popular vote?


Ask Russia's darling Jill Stein or the Mormon ex-CIA from Utah.

Or the targeting statistics company the Mercer's & Jared ran in areas Hillary(& Russ Feingold) took for granted


You think, if not for McMullin, Utah would have gone for Hillary? They probably haven't been Democrat since FDR.


McMullin(I forgot his name :lol: ) peeled off R votes from long time GOP voters in small amounts who couldn't stomach Trump even with the specter of Hillary, even in states like Wis. and Michigan where the ballot box was heavily suppressed against Dem. voters.

_________________
There are only two examples of infinity: The universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the universe.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ta-Nehisi Coates
PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2017 2:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 3:50 pm
Posts: 16056
pizza_Place: Malnati's
Regular Reader wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
If Trump won by racism why did he get a smaller percentage of the popular vote?


Ask Russia's darling Jill Stein or the Mormon ex-CIA from Utah.

Or the targeting statistics company the Mercer's & Jared ran in areas Hillary(& Russ Feingold) took for granted


Trump's numbers were pedestrian and the win was unremarkable from a metrics perspective. The unique thing was turning the "blue firewall" states red but other than that there's nothing to suggest the win was a mandate of any kind. The Dems just didn't inspire anyone to get out and vote.

_________________
Successful calls:

Kyrie Irving will never win anything as a team's alpha: check
T.rubisky is a bust: check
Ben Simmons is a liability: check
The Fields Cult is dumb: double check

2013 CSFMB ROY


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ta-Nehisi Coates
PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2017 2:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
veganfan21 wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
If Trump won by racism why did he get a smaller percentage of the popular vote?


Ask Russia's darling Jill Stein or the Mormon ex-CIA from Utah.

Or the targeting statistics company the Mercer's & Jared ran in areas Hillary(& Russ Feingold) took for granted


Trump's numbers were pedestrian and the win was unremarkable from a metrics perspective. The unique thing was turning the "blue firewall" states red but other than that there's nothing to suggest the win was a mandate of any kind. The Dems just didn't inspire anyone to get out and vote.


70,000 votes over 3 states really isnt as you correctly stated. Throw in the often underreported voter suppression tactics of Republicans in those states and it really plays even smaller. Funny how mr rigged election himself omits this during his numerous victory laps

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ta-Nehisi Coates
PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2017 2:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 11:28 am
Posts: 22545
Location: Boofoo Zoo
pizza_Place: Chuck E Cheese
Nas wrote:
KDdidit wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:
Lost among all of this is the fact that both you & I were clearly not the biggest fans of Obama (for reasons later borne out) until June of 2008. Hell, I still in large part blame the dotard's presidency on his inability to take aggressive stands.

I don't think LTG had a substantial presence around here then, but I'm comfortable opining that he too would have shared our skepticism.

Sadly Obama the candidate and Obama the President were 2 different things. It's not a surprise though, as Dems mostly campaign much farther to the left than what they do when they actually govern. Hillary lost because she didn't go far left enough, and that might not have even worked because I don't think anyone would have believed her if she did. Now a guy who Rs painted as a crazy socialist (no, not Bernie, Obama) is out there raking in mad cash for speeches from the big businesses he helped out during his 2 terms. That's not what the candidate Obama would have done, but the centrist, friend to corporations President was cool with it. But hey, we can't criticize him for it.

Image



Obama's signature legislation is a vote away from being toast and it's the Dems fault. In 2009 the Ds go and push for a bipartisan PPACA bill with tons of republican amendments and adjustments that looks like Romneycare. Rs whine the whole time and then vote against the bipartisan bill anyway. Ds still keep the bipartisan bullshit in their finished bill. In 2017 Ds are cool working with Rs to gut Obama's crown jewel, and the Rs laugh at them and just do what they want to healthcare.


I will never understand how a reasonable person would call Obama a far left liberal when he governed like a Blue Dog Democrat.


It's why I'm constantly annoyed the Democrats for chickening out from moving farther left and just being R-lites. No matter how fucking centrist you are, the Republicans are still going to paint you as to the left of Marx, have some spines and earn some of it at least.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ta-Nehisi Coates
PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2017 2:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 8:10 pm
Posts: 38609
Location: "Across 110th Street"
KDdidit wrote:
Nas wrote:
I will never understand how a reasonable person would call Obama a far left liberal when he governed like a Blue Dog Democrat.


It's why I'm constantly annoyed the Democrats for chickening out from moving farther left and just being R-lites. No matter how fucking centrist you are, the Republicans are still going to paint you as to the left of Marx, have some spines and earn some of it at least.


Mario Cuomo backing down from Bill Clinton's (implied) threats finished what the inept Michael Dukakis really got rolling

_________________
There are only two examples of infinity: The universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the universe.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ta-Nehisi Coates
PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2017 2:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2010 10:16 am
Posts: 20082
pizza_Place: Aurelios
Regular Reader wrote:
KDdidit wrote:
Nas wrote:
I will never understand how a reasonable person would call Obama a far left liberal when he governed like a Blue Dog Democrat.


It's why I'm constantly annoyed the Democrats for chickening out from moving farther left and just being R-lites. No matter how fucking centrist you are, the Republicans are still going to paint you as to the left of Marx, have some spines and earn some of it at least.


Mario Cuomo backing down from Bill Clinton's (implied) threats finished what the inept Michael Dukakis really got rolling


The right eats it own as well. Anybody with an R next to their name that even says God Bless You when a democrat sneezes gets labeled a RINO.

_________________
drinky wrote:
If you hate Laurence, then don't listen - don't comment. When he co-hosts the B&B show, take that day off ... listen to an old podcast of a Bernstein solo show and jerk off all day.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ta-Nehisi Coates
PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2017 2:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 3:50 pm
Posts: 16056
pizza_Place: Malnati's
long time guy wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Nas wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
I've never once waivered in my beliefs. My beliefs are my beliefs, and I don't need validation from anyone. My frustration with "the Left" or whatever we want to call it does not change what I "believe" one iota. It's a separate point, and it's one that, in my mind, properly encapsulates the mindset of "Trump voters" or whatever we also want to call them (they're the people I grew up with - my friends and family).

And that point is that constantly hinting at they're racism is not only bullshit; it's going to have the opposite effect of what is intended. There are certainly racists in that group, but the majority are just people struggling to get by, like all of us do from time-to-time. They don't have time to be racist even if they were so inclined. They're busy trying to make ends meet and making sure their kids have an edible fucking lunch. Lumping them into these groups is no different than if I said inner-city people all need to get their shit together and stop complaining.

We (royal "we") need to stop blaming each other on the basis of skin color or ethnicity and realize that 90% of these issues are economic issues. We're on the same fucking team. I agree with LTG that there is resistance to believing that on both sides, but that doesn't make it any less true, and - IMO - it still remains the only way any of this gets close to being solved.

You can disagree, and I appreciate some of your kinder words, but please don't twist it to insinuate that I never believed in Liberal values. What I am stating here is the definition of Liberal values. We will never win hearts and minds if we continue to label people to specific groups. Judge the individual, not the perceived "group."

And for what it's worth, my prior posts are laced with acknowledgements of both historical and contemporary obstacles that minorities have to overcome. I just don't believe it is the caricature of the racist hillbilly that has caused these obstacles.

This is a good conversation to have. Let's be fair.


Yes being beaten over the head and called a racist solely because you are white is wrong. I understand how you and anyone else would be bothered by that. The label is bullshit. You don't think you should have to prove that you aren't racist. It probably frustrates and pisses you all off when your valid complaints are dismissed or completely ignored.

Welcome to the world of blacks and other minorities. We're beaten over the head with the racist label and a bunch of other negative ones. We've been asking for the same things for years and was basically told to get over it. It frustrates and pisses us off too when our valid complaints are dismissed or completely ignored.

The opposite effect is what we're used to. Somehow regardless of the approach that how it ends up. In the end we all just want opportunities and to support our families. I think if we all did more listening and had an open mind we could stop talking past one another and start seeing progress again.

As I've said before many people are bothered when they're labeled and ask for grace from others. Many of those same people are quick to use similar labels to describe others. #GoldenRule



People keep asserting that they shouldn't be labeled racists for voting for Trump. Consider the not so subtle way that certain people here continuously assert that blacks are stupid for voting Democrat. That charge is subliminally made by MANY on here and I along with Reader especially have attempted to refute the charge without ever making it personal. Its interesting that the questioning of voting preferences never is considered offensive in those MANY instances.


Do you think that anyone who voted for Trump is racist?



If you mean everyone No I don't think that everyone who voted for Trump is racist. I never said that either. I believe that is a greater number than the few crackpots that everyone keeps implying on here. I believe that roughly 30-35% of the people voting for Trump hold strong racial views. I believe that those views attracted them to him. We can debate the semantics of racial views vs racism but there is no doubt that the appeal for him was greater with regards to race than it was with regards to economics. Statistics bear that out as well. Hillary received a greater percent of the vote from people earning less than $50,000.

My issue is that for too long there has been an evasion when it comes to speaking about specific instances of racism. Everyone is in agreement that racism still exists but when it comes time to label specific events to be racist you get strong denials. If you ask the average white supremacist if he is a racist he will more than likely say no. He will engage you in a semantical argument as to why he isn't such. That is why I don't seek polling for confirmation. YOu'd never get it if that is the case.

There are certain trends that you can Identify with respect to Trump voters however. If you believed in Birtherism chances are you voted for Trump. If you believe that whites suffer from reverse discrimination then you voted for Trump. There are other things I can cherry pick which tell me that you were voting for Trump. Does advocacy of these particular issues make one a racist? Not necessarily and that will be the argument. Why is that people that believe in such things vote for Trump? Definitely begs the question


If we're going to suggest correlations between racism/holding prejudicial view/etc. and voting Trump then that's fine - we already have numerous surveys supporting such links. But you've also got to account for the "Obama Trump voter," meaning those who switched from voting Obama to voting Trump. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/15/upsh ... ml?mcubz=3

This complicates the racism charge, though I know you're not saying 100 percent of Trump's voters are racist.

_________________
Successful calls:

Kyrie Irving will never win anything as a team's alpha: check
T.rubisky is a bust: check
Ben Simmons is a liability: check
The Fields Cult is dumb: double check

2013 CSFMB ROY


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ta-Nehisi Coates
PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2017 3:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 20575
pizza_Place: Giordano's
veganfan21 wrote:

If we're going to suggest correlations between racism/holding prejudicial view/etc. and voting Trump then that's fine - we already have numerous surveys supporting such links. But you've also got to account for the "Obama Trump voter," meaning those who switched from voting Obama to voting Trump. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/15/upsh ... ml?mcubz=3

This complicates the racism charge, though I know you're not saying 100 percent of Trump's voters are racist.


Also, the proclamation that some 35% of Trump voters "hold strong racial views" (whatever that means) is completely unfounded, as is the claim that "appeal for him was greater with regards to race than it was with regards to economics". Those are concise accusations that aren't founded by a single shred of evidence. In fact, the polling data shows that Trump voters (and Republican voters in general, as well as all voters in this election) listed "the economy" and "jobs" as most important to them. LTG here is saying that there is a phantom rank, a 1A that isn't shown, that being "strong racial views" without a shadow of proof. Polling data matters right up until they prove LTG wrong.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ta-Nehisi Coates
PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2017 3:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
veganfan21 wrote:

If we're going to suggest correlations between racism/holding prejudicial view/etc. and voting Trump then that's fine - we already have numerous surveys supporting such links. But you've also got to account for the "Obama Trump voter," meaning those who switched from voting Obama to voting Trump. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/15/upsh ... ml?mcubz=3

This complicates the racism charge, though I know you're not saying 100 percent of Trump's voters are racist.


Also, the proclamation that some 35% of Trump voters "hold strong racial views" (whatever that means) is completely unfounded, as is the claim that "appeal for him was greater with regards to race than it was with regards to economics". Those are concise accusations that aren't founded by a single shred of evidence. In fact, the polling data shows that Trump voters (and Republican voters in general, as well as all voters in this election) listed "the economy" and "jobs" as most important to them. LTG here is saying that there is a phantom rank, a 1A that isn't shown, that being "strong racial views" without a shadow of proof. Polling data matters right up until they prove LTG wrong.


The polling data showed that Hillary Clinton received a greater share of the vote among people earning $50,000 or less. That has been summarily discounted. Data also showed that 66% of Trump voters believe that reverse discrimination against whites is a major issue. It is really difficult to quantify racism because unless a person identifies as a racist there is always doubt. I just think that the narrative regarding working class support for Trump is way too convenient and very much overblown. I will never say that the majority of Trump voters are racists but there was a sizable number that were. Some stronger than others. The fact that his racists views weren't discounted is also troubling. You know personally what that feels like. The fact that you didn't strongly come out against Nazism suggested to some that you held sympathetic views towards Nazis. I'm not saying whether I agree or not but this is sort of similar.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ta-Nehisi Coates
PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2017 3:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2015 1:15 pm
Posts: 39748
Location: Small Fringe Minority
pizza_Place: John's
Image

Off topic but I read that Don Lemon is gay, is this true? Was he gay in Chicago? I dont' remember that.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ta-Nehisi Coates
PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2017 3:38 pm 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:06 pm
Posts: 76683
pizza_Place: 773-684-2222
Caller Bob wrote:
Image

Off topic but I read that Don Lemon is gay, is this true? Was he gay in Chicago? I dont' remember that.


That's not Don Lemon and yes he is gay.

_________________
Nas: Blago, who has single handedly destroyed CFMB?

Blago: https://youtube.com/shorts/Lftdxd-YXt8?feature=share

"You can’t love your country only when you win." -President Biden

https://youtu.be/R6e4ruziZBI?si=1G4W1vbh0eGQuHfU


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ta-Nehisi Coates
PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2017 3:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2015 1:15 pm
Posts: 39748
Location: Small Fringe Minority
pizza_Place: John's
Nas wrote:
Caller Bob wrote:
Image

Off topic but I read that Don Lemon is gay, is this true? Was he gay in Chicago? I dont' remember that.


That's not Don Lemon and yes he is gay.


Don Lemon or the guy who's NOT Don Lemon?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ta-Nehisi Coates
PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2017 3:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 20575
pizza_Place: Giordano's
long time guy wrote:
I will never say that the majority of Trump voters are racists but there was a sizable number that were.


What is this "sizable number" and how did you arrive at it, from what evidence?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ta-Nehisi Coates
PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2017 3:42 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:45 pm
Posts: 37087
Location: Lovetron
pizza_Place: Malnati's
veganfan21 wrote:
long time guy wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Nas wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
I've never once waivered in my beliefs. My beliefs are my beliefs, and I don't need validation from anyone. My frustration with "the Left" or whatever we want to call it does not change what I "believe" one iota. It's a separate point, and it's one that, in my mind, properly encapsulates the mindset of "Trump voters" or whatever we also want to call them (they're the people I grew up with - my friends and family).

And that point is that constantly hinting at they're racism is not only bullshit; it's going to have the opposite effect of what is intended. There are certainly racists in that group, but the majority are just people struggling to get by, like all of us do from time-to-time. They don't have time to be racist even if they were so inclined. They're busy trying to make ends meet and making sure their kids have an edible fucking lunch. Lumping them into these groups is no different than if I said inner-city people all need to get their shit together and stop complaining.

We (royal "we") need to stop blaming each other on the basis of skin color or ethnicity and realize that 90% of these issues are economic issues. We're on the same fucking team. I agree with LTG that there is resistance to believing that on both sides, but that doesn't make it any less true, and - IMO - it still remains the only way any of this gets close to being solved.

You can disagree, and I appreciate some of your kinder words, but please don't twist it to insinuate that I never believed in Liberal values. What I am stating here is the definition of Liberal values. We will never win hearts and minds if we continue to label people to specific groups. Judge the individual, not the perceived "group."

And for what it's worth, my prior posts are laced with acknowledgements of both historical and contemporary obstacles that minorities have to overcome. I just don't believe it is the caricature of the racist hillbilly that has caused these obstacles.

This is a good conversation to have. Let's be fair.


Yes being beaten over the head and called a racist solely because you are white is wrong. I understand how you and anyone else would be bothered by that. The label is bullshit. You don't think you should have to prove that you aren't racist. It probably frustrates and pisses you all off when your valid complaints are dismissed or completely ignored.

Welcome to the world of blacks and other minorities. We're beaten over the head with the racist label and a bunch of other negative ones. We've been asking for the same things for years and was basically told to get over it. It frustrates and pisses us off too when our valid complaints are dismissed or completely ignored.

The opposite effect is what we're used to. Somehow regardless of the approach that how it ends up. In the end we all just want opportunities and to support our families. I think if we all did more listening and had an open mind we could stop talking past one another and start seeing progress again.

As I've said before many people are bothered when they're labeled and ask for grace from others. Many of those same people are quick to use similar labels to describe others. #GoldenRule



People keep asserting that they shouldn't be labeled racists for voting for Trump. Consider the not so subtle way that certain people here continuously assert that blacks are stupid for voting Democrat. That charge is subliminally made by MANY on here and I along with Reader especially have attempted to refute the charge without ever making it personal. Its interesting that the questioning of voting preferences never is considered offensive in those MANY instances.


Do you think that anyone who voted for Trump is racist?



If you mean everyone No I don't think that everyone who voted for Trump is racist. I never said that either. I believe that is a greater number than the few crackpots that everyone keeps implying on here. I believe that roughly 30-35% of the people voting for Trump hold strong racial views. I believe that those views attracted them to him. We can debate the semantics of racial views vs racism but there is no doubt that the appeal for him was greater with regards to race than it was with regards to economics. Statistics bear that out as well. Hillary received a greater percent of the vote from people earning less than $50,000.

My issue is that for too long there has been an evasion when it comes to speaking about specific instances of racism. Everyone is in agreement that racism still exists but when it comes time to label specific events to be racist you get strong denials. If you ask the average white supremacist if he is a racist he will more than likely say no. He will engage you in a semantical argument as to why he isn't such. That is why I don't seek polling for confirmation. YOu'd never get it if that is the case.

There are certain trends that you can Identify with respect to Trump voters however. If you believed in Birtherism chances are you voted for Trump. If you believe that whites suffer from reverse discrimination then you voted for Trump. There are other things I can cherry pick which tell me that you were voting for Trump. Does advocacy of these particular issues make one a racist? Not necessarily and that will be the argument. Why is that people that believe in such things vote for Trump? Definitely begs the question


If we're going to suggest correlations between racism/holding prejudicial view/etc. and voting Trump then that's fine - we already have numerous surveys supporting such links. But you've also got to account for the "Obama Trump voter," meaning those who switched from voting Obama to voting Trump. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/15/upsh ... ml?mcubz=3

This complicates the racism charge, though I know you're not saying 100 percent of Trump's voters are racist.




It simply means that there are a lot of racist Dems as well.

Not all of them were Obama Trump voters.

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ta-Nehisi Coates
PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2017 3:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 8:10 pm
Posts: 38609
Location: "Across 110th Street"
Nas wrote:
Caller Bob wrote:
Image

Off topic but I read that Don Lemon is gay, is this true? Was he gay in Chicago? I dont' remember that.


That's not Don Lemon and yes he is gay.


:lol:

_________________
There are only two examples of infinity: The universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the universe.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ta-Nehisi Coates
PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2017 3:57 pm 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:06 pm
Posts: 76683
pizza_Place: 773-684-2222
Caller Bob wrote:
Nas wrote:
Caller Bob wrote:
Image

Off topic but I read that Don Lemon is gay, is this true? Was he gay in Chicago? I dont' remember that.


That's not Don Lemon and yes he is gay.


Don Lemon or the guy who's NOT Don Lemon?


Don is definitely gay. He came out recently. Apparently CNN hires most of the gay journalist

_________________
Nas: Blago, who has single handedly destroyed CFMB?

Blago: https://youtube.com/shorts/Lftdxd-YXt8?feature=share

"You can’t love your country only when you win." -President Biden

https://youtu.be/R6e4ruziZBI?si=1G4W1vbh0eGQuHfU


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ta-Nehisi Coates
PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2017 3:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2010 10:16 am
Posts: 20082
pizza_Place: Aurelios
Drunk Don Lemon on NYE is the best thing CNN has ever done.

_________________
drinky wrote:
If you hate Laurence, then don't listen - don't comment. When he co-hosts the B&B show, take that day off ... listen to an old podcast of a Bernstein solo show and jerk off all day.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ta-Nehisi Coates
PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2017 4:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 1:33 pm
Posts: 12078
pizza_Place: Vito and Nick's
Nas wrote:

Don is definitely gay. He came out recently. Apparently CNN hires most of the gay journalist


That gay blade is like 50. I realize that this might sound odd saying this in the same thread in which people talk about his being gay, but he's got the body of 25 year-old. He's in great shape.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ta-Nehisi Coates
PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2017 4:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2010 10:16 am
Posts: 20082
pizza_Place: Aurelios
tommy wrote:
Nas wrote:

Don is definitely gay. He came out recently. Apparently CNN hires most of the gay journalist


That gay blade is like 50. I realize that this might sound odd saying this in the same thread in which people talk about his being gay, but he's got the body of 25 year-old. He's in great shape.


Don Lemon is 50?!?! No fucking way.

_________________
drinky wrote:
If you hate Laurence, then don't listen - don't comment. When he co-hosts the B&B show, take that day off ... listen to an old podcast of a Bernstein solo show and jerk off all day.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ta-Nehisi Coates
PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2017 4:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 3:05 am
Posts: 28664
pizza_Place: Clamburger's
Hank Scorpio wrote:
tommy wrote:
Nas wrote:

Don is definitely gay. He came out recently. Apparently CNN hires most of the gay journalist


That gay blade is like 50. I realize that this might sound odd saying this in the same thread in which people talk about his being gay, but he's got the body of 25 year-old. He's in great shape.


Don Lemon is 50?!?! No fucking way.

Black don't crack.

_________________
Nardi wrote:
Weird, I see Dolphin looking in my asshole


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ta-Nehisi Coates
PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2017 4:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 1:33 pm
Posts: 12078
pizza_Place: Vito and Nick's
Hank Scorpio wrote:
tommy wrote:
Nas wrote:

Don is definitely gay. He came out recently. Apparently CNN hires most of the gay journalist


That gay blade is like 50. I realize that this might sound odd saying this in the same thread in which people talk about his being gay, but he's got the body of 25 year-old. He's in great shape.


Don Lemon is 50?!?! No fucking way.

I thought he was a Millennial. But he's at least fiddy. He looks youthful.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ta-Nehisi Coates
PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2017 4:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:29 pm
Posts: 54161
Location: Pearl Harbor, Waukesha, and other things that make no sense
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
Regular Reader wrote:
Odd twist though, Hyde Park is arguably the most progressive area in the Midwest, in part sustained by one of the most libertarian/conservative institutions of higher learning in the country.

Photo finish between Hyde Park and Madison.

_________________
Molly Lambert wrote:
The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 238 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group