21–29 of 29 posts
> (Trump has never mentioned race in a negative way) This is my absolute favorite casual-oh-by-the-way-in-parentheses-at-the-end-of-a-paragraph statement. Ever.
Has he mentioned race in a negative way? I don't remember him doing so.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jul/05/...
So he endorses clinton to stop getting harassed. Then he posts afterward that he only did it to stop getting harassed while simultaneously promoting trump. I'm sure that'll work out well for him.
[1] https://medium.com/@SeanBlanda/the-other-side-is-not-dumb-26...
> But the police shootings and the recent uptick in domestic racial violence are mostly Clinton’s doings to win the election. What. The. Fuck. ???
> (Trump has never mentioned race in a negative way) This is my absolute favorite casual-oh-by-the-way-in-parentheses-at-the-end-of-a-paragraph statement. Ever.
Has he mentioned race in a negative way? I don't remember him doing so.
Pretty sure he wasn't speaking positively of them.
He also sub-tweeted about rates of violence of blacks and whites.
Somebody has hacked Scott Adams' account (and by "account" I mean brain).
> But the police shootings and the recent uptick in domestic racial violence are mostly Clinton’s doings to win the election. What. The. Fuck. ???
His point is that it's Clinton who tries to antagonize Americans against each other.
2. If there's a problem with police and "race relations" in this country (which I believe is the case) it behooves us to address it.
3. I'm not aware of how Clinton is antagonizing Americans against each other over this.
4. Trump is not exactly a uniter, if you know what I mean.
Disclaimer: I'm a Berner who will vote for Clinton under duress.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
His point is that it's Clinton who tries to antagonize Americans against each other.
1. It reads like she orchestrated these events, which is obviously not true. 2. If there's a problem with police and "race relations" in this country (which I believe is the case) it behooves us to address it. 3. I'm not aware of how Clinton is antagonizing Americans against each other over this. 4. Trump is not exactly a uniter, if you know what I mean. Disclaimer: I'm a Berner who will vote for Clinton under duress…
The point is that race relations are actively being made worse by media narrating the tired identity politics that Clinton represents.
There undoubtedly is a problem of police unaccountability in this country, potentially affecting any of us. The incidents are inherently rare, otherwise they'd be quickly changed through democratic feedback. The media has completely derailed this issue with its racism, framing it as a problem that non-blacks do not need to worry about (but just perhaps feel bad about). I can't think of a better way to preserve the status quo.
He is saying Clinton will win in one paragraph and then he is saying Trump will win in a landslide in another paragraph. Which one is it? I read some other blog posts of this guy and now I am losing respect for the guy who came up with Dilbert.
Which one is it? Bear with me on this one ... I loved the movie Pulp Fiction. In it, Jules and Vincent are stone cold killers. They do their job with cool nonchalance. But when something goes wrong they fall apart; they can't cope with changed circumstances. They're utterly helpless until Winston Wolfe rescues them. In summary, the domain over which they can be considered "experts" is very limited. Another example is…