Black Lives Matter came about as a result of police homicides involving unarmed Black men. The Conservative response to those homicides was to downplay them by quoting statistics. There was no move by Conservatives to assess use of force by police. We end up, predictively, with riots in Ferguson. MLK obviously did not condone riots, but knew they were the voice of those unheard. BLM has moderate support among Black people, but more support than Conservatives.
Most Black people, do not live lives of fear in high crime neighborhoods. But, those law abiding Black people see Eric Garner choked to death, Breonna Taylor murder by police, and George Floyd suffocated by police. We recently saw a Black man strip searched in public by police. The natural response among among law-abiding Black people is to not put their full trust in police.
If you criticize the actions of police, Conservatives will say that you want to defund the police. Conservatives are not serious people on this issue. Enter BLM, Ben Crump, and Al Sharpton. Black people are beyond the point where they will waste time trying to find common ground with Conservatives
Black people do recognize the need for police, but they want police held accountable. Conservatives sent Tim Scott out to waste Cory Booker’s time trying to find common ground on police reform.
Because Conservatives by nature, are resistant to change, Blacks do not see them as part of the solution.
Politics in a nation of over 330mm people with a history like America's--and an ethos like America's--is difficult. Particularly on issues surrounding "race".
I am not sure it has to be this way, but I get it. I get Black people who think there's unfinished business on the table. I get White people who think we're long past that stuff. I get how people from various racial groups feel unfairly attacked from time to time, and as a result, feel compelled to respond in some way. I even get how non-racial groups also fall into a narrative of identity politics: It's very American; and even practical in many ways, albeit (sometimes) pernicious in others.
We are a country that behaves as such while clinging steadfastly to a principle of individual liberty. Again, not a simple task.
Even though I don't respect the man anymore--because like so many others, this tiger changed his stripes like a damned chameleon--Bill Bennett once coined a phrase, "The more we talk about race, the more we talk about race."
Truer words have never been spoken. But how do we not talk about race in AMERICA?
As for politics? Short-term? It's practically impossible.
Of course, long-term, as the celebrated historian Arthur Schlesinger once said, sex is the answer. Meaning, over time, we will blend; miscegenate; intermarry.
In other words, get to the point where race REALLY doesn't matter. Happens to be my favorite solution. The *only* solution if you ask me, even though there's a gang of folk who will go to their graves before they agree to it.
Allow me to abruptly leapfrog to my point: I am just now beginning to understand how much political junkies like us are motivated by very different issues. Some of these divides are deeper and wider than I realized.
Some issues are quite real; some aren't. Some issues are exaggerated; some are understated. Some issues are misunderstood. Some issues are used for political self-aggrandizement. And yes, sometimes very real issues are ignored, which can sometimes redound to everyone's detriment.
Right now, I am thinking about violent crime. Specifically, the kind we all think about when we hear that term: Murder, rape, robbery, burglary, vandalism.
These are not Black issues in my mind. But don't get me wrong. I understand (kinda, sorta) why people label them as such. If you look at the overrepresentation of African-American victims and perpetrators of violent crimes in various cities, it screams at you. But I still think it's a mistake to call it a Black thing.
The average Black American is not perpetrating or being victimized by violent crime on any kind of regular basis. I don't know if most people understand this.
But again, let us not run from the real issues. How DOES violent crime affect Black citizens in many Black neighborhoods? That's probably obvious. General quality of life: Fewer businesses willing to set up shop. People with the means to move leaving asap. Property values decrease. An internalized culture of neglect and apathy festers. Those are real issues to me.
Do I honestly think that voting Democrat or Republican is the key to bettering these conditions? I would be one lying blankety-blank if I said "Yes". For I do not see the government as the key component in solving such problems. Call me a conservative.
I believe that a child's early development is fundamental. I believe instilling better values in people is fundamental. Frankly, I still believe decriminalizing drugs would help. But two out of three don't require government.
Last point: When critics suggest that African-Americans reflexively vote against their interests, which African-Americans are they talking about? The folks at the bottom rung catching the most hell? Does that make sense?
Are those people dependable voters? Has a study ever been done? I kinda doubt it.
San Francisco is a disaster but it is still 100 times better than Philly. In Philly we average 10 murders a week, over 2,000 shootings a year, far more car-jackings and assaults, and yet nearly no arrests, prosecutions or incarcerations. There is a video from a week ago where a cop is on the radio crying (literally crying) for help as his car is surrounded and assaulted by hundreds of blacks. Even the cops can’t count on other cops to intervene for them. Happened on Delaware avenue on 2April.
The French financed the US rebels in the 1770s, the British financed the South American Liberators c.1800, the Germans financed Lenin in 1917, the Russians financed Mao. In the 1960s the Russians used "active measures" against the West, especially in universities and unions, the "Liberation Movements" were a creation of Comintern. Active measures locates pressure points in the social and economic order within an enemy and relentlessly agitates them.
China is now the largest economy in the world (in PPP $s). It is a national socialist surveillance state run by oligarchs. It has 3 million, million dollars of foreign currency to spend on active measures. It is buying up media companies through offshore "front companies". BLM was the principal Maoist organisation in the USA. If China makes a mistake such as COVID or indulges in aggression it all peters out in the media.
Draw your own conclusions. I think the West has lost already.
Thank you Loury, McWhorter and Rowe from Hepworth in the SF Tenderloin. My homework is to look up “1862 Emancipation” + “1964 Civil Rights Act”. I believe the biggest root causes of SF and CA decline are (1) Replacement of transparency/disclosure with extreme secrecy- that accompanied Equity implementation in SF-Gov, CA-Gov. (2) North Korea-level censorship at each step, another feature of Equity Program. Any disagreement with BLM-aligned ideas - is forbidden. I experienced 1 and 2, firsthand.
If normal people with normal ideas were not silenced at each step, we wouldn’t be in this mess.
Good news, tonight I saw Judge Carlos Bea from SF 9th Circuit Appeals Court speak at the Federalist Society. He acts like a normal person, except very intelligent and educated and happens to be Republican with a history of hand-holding on both sides of the aisle. My kind of guy.
The grassroots "BLM" rally cry to care more about Black lives was absolutely necessary. And should forever remain on the lips of Black folks and others who do care. We should acknowledge that the founders of the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation (BLMGNF) had a focus on sexuality, disrupting capitalism, and "normalizing" family structures that deviate from the nuclear type. We can name those realities without ever conflating the BLM rally cry with the BLMGNF organization. Just as we don't throw the United States away because of its messed up first 100-year implementation of "all men are created equal," we don't throw out the necessity of "BLM" because those three Soros-funded women founders had priorities that were more important to them than substantive change for Black Americans.
Plenty of the concerns are valid, but BLM chose the wrong path, and the slogan has always been unnecessarily confrontational. Helping disadvantaged people is something everyone can get behind, and those people are disproportionately black. Once the push becomes about selective history, selective police confrontations, privilege, supremacy, etc., you've lost half the country, and messed with the psyche of our youth. The BLM timeline is in direct parallel with MAGA and the recent crime wave.
Contrast BLM with organizations such as Project HOOD in Chicago. Nothing confrontational, simply building a community center and putting together violence prevention programs. If only BLM could've have chosen that path, it could have both helped a lot of people and been unifying.
I noticed that "BLM" was about making the lives of all Black people matter.
Not for nothing, there has never been a situation in America where more than 59% of the country supported an effort to make Black lives matter. That 59% was revealed in a Gallup Poll about sentiments around the 1964 civil rights act. Literally 31% of the nation disapproved of the 1964 act and 10% weren't sure.
In present day (2020), merely 2.5 of 10 white people believed Chauvin murdered Floyd just by watching the 9 minute long recording of his suffocation.
America is unlikely to have even 80% of white people support matters focused specifically on Black people.
That's one of the reasons the liberal ethic of just steamrolling white resistance is gaining more and more appeal. People are literally dying and white folks want to be convinced to care. Doesn't make sense to cater to that. The only question becomes when will it stop making sense to ANY Black Americans to keep coaching a culture of care among white people?
By the way, the post-civil war acts were steamrolled rather than counting on broad white morality/support. It also helped that anti-Black bigots had murdered the President.
Again, there is a difference between BLM and BLMGNF and that's more than semantics; it's about accuracy. Did you read my piece about "Black Lives Matter Was Doomed to Fail?" It's on my substack.
The prescription isn't that hard. The implementation is harder. Ian Rowe kinda said it in that episode (albeit in his own GOP conservative kind of way).
That is to say, there is a major opportunity with what appears to be a silent majority out there. But my approach to this cohort would differ somewhat from Ian's.
Focus on people who aren't particularly political. People who care deeply about education and economic growth. People who care about the long-term success of their children and grandchildren.
Don't ask people to make a choice between Trump's Republican Party and Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation. That's not a serious choice. It's not a serious conversation. And most serious people know this.
Find, encourage and promote conscientious people; decent people; logical people; entrepreneurs, scientists, thinkers, readers. But discourage groupthink-for-the-sake-of-groupthink.
Don't require people to feel confined to past norms unnecessarily. Yes, we want to conserve life's most fundamental and utilitarian principles, but we don't want to waste time on the periphery fighting over minutiae like vernacular, accents, clothing styles and musical choices. Don't worry about who is / is not a theist; or what kind of theist they are. Don't worry about who is / is not "patriotic".
Do NOT make your pitch about "America". Make it about the opportunities that exist throughout the world; because frankly, I don't think that any kid born between now and 20 years ago has a choice given the future of the economy.
These are my initial views. I am certain that even I will find glaring flaws in some of what I have said here, but I am more than happy to adjust as needed.
Nice try but you are high as a kite; 95% of blacks will only vote for a) a black Democrat, or lacking a black one available, a b) Democratic. And that is true up and down the ticket and across time and space. Zero discretion. And of course the Democratic Party ensures that blacks have the highest rates of not testing at grade proficiency (90% failure in Philly), abortions, violent crime (perp and victim), children out of marriage, fatherless homes and welfare.
Sometimes two people simply do not respect the other person's opinion. This is definitely one of those cases.
Libertarian, you sound like a Fox News automaton. That is not a compliment. It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic. I can't even pretend to take what you're saying seriously because it's not serious. Just empty talking points. 30 to 40 years old at least. No depth whatsoever. Not even worth an analysis. Pretty much a script.
But unfortunately, with today's Republican party, your words fit right in.
To be clear, I'm not trying to get Black people to vote Republican. I am not trying to get anybody to vote Republican. And I say that as a former staunch Republican from the 90s.
I'm trying to get people to think. Not a lot of that going on in the Republican Party. And to be perfectly honest, I don't feel but so much loyalty to this country. So it really isn't about GOP versus Democrat for me. At all.
But I have to say this. Most Jews vote Democrat, too. Asians, too. Lesser percentages, yes. But so what? Still majorities.
Would you say the same about their "thoughtlessness" as voters as you do about Blacks? If not, why not? I honestly don't care that much but I'm a little curious.
And if you think there's a ton of depth of thought transpiring with the average White Republican today, you're not just high as a kite, you're somewhere on Mars.
Charles, I had “liked” your comment and certainly didn’t intend to upset you by asking if you were high. I exaggerated that but didn’t mean it as a trigger. Anyway, on one hand you say you aren’t interested and on the other ask for a reply anyway. So here it is; you stooped to ad hominem attacks and then say you’re above that, you don’t address my points about how bad Philly is and has been under generations of Democrats, you say you don’t care about politics then trash the GOP. So to use your tact, you are a CNN bot, pathetic in your hypocrisy, Affirmative Action hire without merit, working for the government as an employee or contractor, and owe everything you have to racist discrimination policies that punish whites in order to keep blacks voting for Dems. And now since I am not asking you any questions, don’t bother replying. It only makes you look more pathetic.
I am definitely not the one who looks pathetic in this exchange, L. I attacked your words. I said you sound like _____.
And let's be honest; you don't believe a word you just said about me. But objectively, you did sound kind of robotic with those old talking points.
You set the stage by saying I was high as a kite and basically saying Black voters exercise no discretion; and frankly, that's bs; especially the part about voting according to race. Joe Biden in 2020 disproved that.
Also, I don't know if "liking" my comment erased all that. But you do. Whatever.
If my response was uncivil, I apologize. But I think my tone was quite understandable at that moment.
I wasn't even talking about voting--whatsoever. And I don't think Glenn was either. You just randomly dove into this 'Blacks vote Democrat with no discretion' routine.
Anyway, I am done. I will let others decide which of us is the pathetic one.
One last item:
You didn't point out anything I actually said in my original post that caused you to think that I was "high as a kite"/"unrealistic"/whatever the appropriate term/euphemism is or should have been. This is important because, as you know, you have a bit of a track record of talking to me about things I wasn't even talking about, and assuming things about me that were/are quite wrong.
Looking back, I went overboard, but not by much considering.
“Don't ask people to make a choice between Trump's Republican Party and Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation. That's not a serious choice. It's not a serious conversation. And most serious people know this.”
That’s the problem: ‘critical’ stance. They’re completely uncritical when it comes to thinking. Pure blind tribalism. We see it on the right and the left. Antiracism is racism.
Black Lives Matter came about as a result of police homicides involving unarmed Black men. The Conservative response to those homicides was to downplay them by quoting statistics. There was no move by Conservatives to assess use of force by police. We end up, predictively, with riots in Ferguson. MLK obviously did not condone riots, but knew they were the voice of those unheard. BLM has moderate support among Black people, but more support than Conservatives.
Most Black people, do not live lives of fear in high crime neighborhoods. But, those law abiding Black people see Eric Garner choked to death, Breonna Taylor murder by police, and George Floyd suffocated by police. We recently saw a Black man strip searched in public by police. The natural response among among law-abiding Black people is to not put their full trust in police.
If you criticize the actions of police, Conservatives will say that you want to defund the police. Conservatives are not serious people on this issue. Enter BLM, Ben Crump, and Al Sharpton. Black people are beyond the point where they will waste time trying to find common ground with Conservatives
Black people do recognize the need for police, but they want police held accountable. Conservatives sent Tim Scott out to waste Cory Booker’s time trying to find common ground on police reform.
Because Conservatives by nature, are resistant to change, Blacks do not see them as part of the solution.
False on many accounts.
Politics in a nation of over 330mm people with a history like America's--and an ethos like America's--is difficult. Particularly on issues surrounding "race".
I am not sure it has to be this way, but I get it. I get Black people who think there's unfinished business on the table. I get White people who think we're long past that stuff. I get how people from various racial groups feel unfairly attacked from time to time, and as a result, feel compelled to respond in some way. I even get how non-racial groups also fall into a narrative of identity politics: It's very American; and even practical in many ways, albeit (sometimes) pernicious in others.
We are a country that behaves as such while clinging steadfastly to a principle of individual liberty. Again, not a simple task.
Even though I don't respect the man anymore--because like so many others, this tiger changed his stripes like a damned chameleon--Bill Bennett once coined a phrase, "The more we talk about race, the more we talk about race."
Truer words have never been spoken. But how do we not talk about race in AMERICA?
As for politics? Short-term? It's practically impossible.
Of course, long-term, as the celebrated historian Arthur Schlesinger once said, sex is the answer. Meaning, over time, we will blend; miscegenate; intermarry.
In other words, get to the point where race REALLY doesn't matter. Happens to be my favorite solution. The *only* solution if you ask me, even though there's a gang of folk who will go to their graves before they agree to it.
Allow me to abruptly leapfrog to my point: I am just now beginning to understand how much political junkies like us are motivated by very different issues. Some of these divides are deeper and wider than I realized.
Some issues are quite real; some aren't. Some issues are exaggerated; some are understated. Some issues are misunderstood. Some issues are used for political self-aggrandizement. And yes, sometimes very real issues are ignored, which can sometimes redound to everyone's detriment.
Right now, I am thinking about violent crime. Specifically, the kind we all think about when we hear that term: Murder, rape, robbery, burglary, vandalism.
These are not Black issues in my mind. But don't get me wrong. I understand (kinda, sorta) why people label them as such. If you look at the overrepresentation of African-American victims and perpetrators of violent crimes in various cities, it screams at you. But I still think it's a mistake to call it a Black thing.
The average Black American is not perpetrating or being victimized by violent crime on any kind of regular basis. I don't know if most people understand this.
But again, let us not run from the real issues. How DOES violent crime affect Black citizens in many Black neighborhoods? That's probably obvious. General quality of life: Fewer businesses willing to set up shop. People with the means to move leaving asap. Property values decrease. An internalized culture of neglect and apathy festers. Those are real issues to me.
Do I honestly think that voting Democrat or Republican is the key to bettering these conditions? I would be one lying blankety-blank if I said "Yes". For I do not see the government as the key component in solving such problems. Call me a conservative.
I believe that a child's early development is fundamental. I believe instilling better values in people is fundamental. Frankly, I still believe decriminalizing drugs would help. But two out of three don't require government.
Last point: When critics suggest that African-Americans reflexively vote against their interests, which African-Americans are they talking about? The folks at the bottom rung catching the most hell? Does that make sense?
Are those people dependable voters? Has a study ever been done? I kinda doubt it.
Had to get it off my chest. Signing off.
I took the time to read your back story. I apologize for jumping the gun on you. Continue with your well articulated responses.
San Francisco is a disaster but it is still 100 times better than Philly. In Philly we average 10 murders a week, over 2,000 shootings a year, far more car-jackings and assaults, and yet nearly no arrests, prosecutions or incarcerations. There is a video from a week ago where a cop is on the radio crying (literally crying) for help as his car is surrounded and assaulted by hundreds of blacks. Even the cops can’t count on other cops to intervene for them. Happened on Delaware avenue on 2April.
The French financed the US rebels in the 1770s, the British financed the South American Liberators c.1800, the Germans financed Lenin in 1917, the Russians financed Mao. In the 1960s the Russians used "active measures" against the West, especially in universities and unions, the "Liberation Movements" were a creation of Comintern. Active measures locates pressure points in the social and economic order within an enemy and relentlessly agitates them.
China is now the largest economy in the world (in PPP $s). It is a national socialist surveillance state run by oligarchs. It has 3 million, million dollars of foreign currency to spend on active measures. It is buying up media companies through offshore "front companies". BLM was the principal Maoist organisation in the USA. If China makes a mistake such as COVID or indulges in aggression it all peters out in the media.
Draw your own conclusions. I think the West has lost already.
Thank you Loury, McWhorter and Rowe from Hepworth in the SF Tenderloin. My homework is to look up “1862 Emancipation” + “1964 Civil Rights Act”. I believe the biggest root causes of SF and CA decline are (1) Replacement of transparency/disclosure with extreme secrecy- that accompanied Equity implementation in SF-Gov, CA-Gov. (2) North Korea-level censorship at each step, another feature of Equity Program. Any disagreement with BLM-aligned ideas - is forbidden. I experienced 1 and 2, firsthand.
If normal people with normal ideas were not silenced at each step, we wouldn’t be in this mess.
Good news, tonight I saw Judge Carlos Bea from SF 9th Circuit Appeals Court speak at the Federalist Society. He acts like a normal person, except very intelligent and educated and happens to be Republican with a history of hand-holding on both sides of the aisle. My kind of guy.
👌👌👌
Walk up the hill to where SF is REALLY 'governed'
Didn't P.T. Barnum give an explanation for this?
Made you (and Ian and John) my first Notes recommendation. Keep up the good work. Talk soon. Good job on the Amy Wax video too.
Pace “ Jerry Maguire” ask BLM to show me the money 💸
The grassroots "BLM" rally cry to care more about Black lives was absolutely necessary. And should forever remain on the lips of Black folks and others who do care. We should acknowledge that the founders of the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation (BLMGNF) had a focus on sexuality, disrupting capitalism, and "normalizing" family structures that deviate from the nuclear type. We can name those realities without ever conflating the BLM rally cry with the BLMGNF organization. Just as we don't throw the United States away because of its messed up first 100-year implementation of "all men are created equal," we don't throw out the necessity of "BLM" because those three Soros-funded women founders had priorities that were more important to them than substantive change for Black Americans.
Plenty of the concerns are valid, but BLM chose the wrong path, and the slogan has always been unnecessarily confrontational. Helping disadvantaged people is something everyone can get behind, and those people are disproportionately black. Once the push becomes about selective history, selective police confrontations, privilege, supremacy, etc., you've lost half the country, and messed with the psyche of our youth. The BLM timeline is in direct parallel with MAGA and the recent crime wave.
Contrast BLM with organizations such as Project HOOD in Chicago. Nothing confrontational, simply building a community center and putting together violence prevention programs. If only BLM could've have chosen that path, it could have both helped a lot of people and been unifying.
https://www.projecthood.org/
I noticed that "BLM" was about making the lives of all Black people matter.
Not for nothing, there has never been a situation in America where more than 59% of the country supported an effort to make Black lives matter. That 59% was revealed in a Gallup Poll about sentiments around the 1964 civil rights act. Literally 31% of the nation disapproved of the 1964 act and 10% weren't sure.
In present day (2020), merely 2.5 of 10 white people believed Chauvin murdered Floyd just by watching the 9 minute long recording of his suffocation.
America is unlikely to have even 80% of white people support matters focused specifically on Black people.
That's one of the reasons the liberal ethic of just steamrolling white resistance is gaining more and more appeal. People are literally dying and white folks want to be convinced to care. Doesn't make sense to cater to that. The only question becomes when will it stop making sense to ANY Black Americans to keep coaching a culture of care among white people?
By the way, the post-civil war acts were steamrolled rather than counting on broad white morality/support. It also helped that anti-Black bigots had murdered the President.
Again, there is a difference between BLM and BLMGNF and that's more than semantics; it's about accuracy. Did you read my piece about "Black Lives Matter Was Doomed to Fail?" It's on my substack.
Is BLMGNF the payee on the checks?
Huh?
Sorry. "Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation (BLMGNF) ". Assumed "those three Soros-funded women founders" got the money via check.
I didn't see "the check." But yes, a foundation would pay money to an organization not a social media hashtag. Is that the point you're making?
Right
The prescription isn't that hard. The implementation is harder. Ian Rowe kinda said it in that episode (albeit in his own GOP conservative kind of way).
That is to say, there is a major opportunity with what appears to be a silent majority out there. But my approach to this cohort would differ somewhat from Ian's.
Focus on people who aren't particularly political. People who care deeply about education and economic growth. People who care about the long-term success of their children and grandchildren.
Don't ask people to make a choice between Trump's Republican Party and Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation. That's not a serious choice. It's not a serious conversation. And most serious people know this.
Find, encourage and promote conscientious people; decent people; logical people; entrepreneurs, scientists, thinkers, readers. But discourage groupthink-for-the-sake-of-groupthink.
Don't require people to feel confined to past norms unnecessarily. Yes, we want to conserve life's most fundamental and utilitarian principles, but we don't want to waste time on the periphery fighting over minutiae like vernacular, accents, clothing styles and musical choices. Don't worry about who is / is not a theist; or what kind of theist they are. Don't worry about who is / is not "patriotic".
Do NOT make your pitch about "America". Make it about the opportunities that exist throughout the world; because frankly, I don't think that any kid born between now and 20 years ago has a choice given the future of the economy.
These are my initial views. I am certain that even I will find glaring flaws in some of what I have said here, but I am more than happy to adjust as needed.
Nice try but you are high as a kite; 95% of blacks will only vote for a) a black Democrat, or lacking a black one available, a b) Democratic. And that is true up and down the ticket and across time and space. Zero discretion. And of course the Democratic Party ensures that blacks have the highest rates of not testing at grade proficiency (90% failure in Philly), abortions, violent crime (perp and victim), children out of marriage, fatherless homes and welfare.
Sometimes two people simply do not respect the other person's opinion. This is definitely one of those cases.
Libertarian, you sound like a Fox News automaton. That is not a compliment. It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic. I can't even pretend to take what you're saying seriously because it's not serious. Just empty talking points. 30 to 40 years old at least. No depth whatsoever. Not even worth an analysis. Pretty much a script.
But unfortunately, with today's Republican party, your words fit right in.
To be clear, I'm not trying to get Black people to vote Republican. I am not trying to get anybody to vote Republican. And I say that as a former staunch Republican from the 90s.
I'm trying to get people to think. Not a lot of that going on in the Republican Party. And to be perfectly honest, I don't feel but so much loyalty to this country. So it really isn't about GOP versus Democrat for me. At all.
But I have to say this. Most Jews vote Democrat, too. Asians, too. Lesser percentages, yes. But so what? Still majorities.
Would you say the same about their "thoughtlessness" as voters as you do about Blacks? If not, why not? I honestly don't care that much but I'm a little curious.
And if you think there's a ton of depth of thought transpiring with the average White Republican today, you're not just high as a kite, you're somewhere on Mars.
Charles - how could you possibly know what news is reported on Fox?
Because I watch it on occasion.
Charles, I had “liked” your comment and certainly didn’t intend to upset you by asking if you were high. I exaggerated that but didn’t mean it as a trigger. Anyway, on one hand you say you aren’t interested and on the other ask for a reply anyway. So here it is; you stooped to ad hominem attacks and then say you’re above that, you don’t address my points about how bad Philly is and has been under generations of Democrats, you say you don’t care about politics then trash the GOP. So to use your tact, you are a CNN bot, pathetic in your hypocrisy, Affirmative Action hire without merit, working for the government as an employee or contractor, and owe everything you have to racist discrimination policies that punish whites in order to keep blacks voting for Dems. And now since I am not asking you any questions, don’t bother replying. It only makes you look more pathetic.
I am definitely not the one who looks pathetic in this exchange, L. I attacked your words. I said you sound like _____.
And let's be honest; you don't believe a word you just said about me. But objectively, you did sound kind of robotic with those old talking points.
You set the stage by saying I was high as a kite and basically saying Black voters exercise no discretion; and frankly, that's bs; especially the part about voting according to race. Joe Biden in 2020 disproved that.
Also, I don't know if "liking" my comment erased all that. But you do. Whatever.
If my response was uncivil, I apologize. But I think my tone was quite understandable at that moment.
I wasn't even talking about voting--whatsoever. And I don't think Glenn was either. You just randomly dove into this 'Blacks vote Democrat with no discretion' routine.
Anyway, I am done. I will let others decide which of us is the pathetic one.
One last item:
You didn't point out anything I actually said in my original post that caused you to think that I was "high as a kite"/"unrealistic"/whatever the appropriate term/euphemism is or should have been. This is important because, as you know, you have a bit of a track record of talking to me about things I wasn't even talking about, and assuming things about me that were/are quite wrong.
Looking back, I went overboard, but not by much considering.
Done for real this time.
Dude, we havent been given a 'serious choice' in maybe forever.
Touché
“Don't ask people to make a choice between Trump's Republican Party and Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation. That's not a serious choice. It's not a serious conversation. And most serious people know this.”
Amen 🙏
That’s the problem: ‘critical’ stance. They’re completely uncritical when it comes to thinking. Pure blind tribalism. We see it on the right and the left. Antiracism is racism.
Michael Mohr
‘Sincere American Writing’
https://michaelmohr.substack.com/
Based Loury McWhorter is the far superior BLM.