Stan Van Gundy: Whites are racists

[mngopher35]

I was telling people to stop talking about Trump 4 years ago and nobody listened. It ain't my fault

He should be addressed not dismissed, dismissing just makes people feel you are being dishonest. Discussion and debate are good.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Scoots]

He should be addressed not dismissed, dismissing just makes people feel you are being dishonest. Discussion and debate are good.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've been saying since 2015 that everyone (including the news) should just refuse to say his name or to talk about his totally pointless antics. Talk about policy and the things he has DONE, but leave his name and any BS he says out of it. I think we'd be a much healthier country if we had.

[ldawg]

Nawh talk about it. Build a wall deport all Mexicans, Rocket man KIM, Corona Asians, Defend Police misconduct on Black people and Call them terrorist for sticking up for themselves, Ignored Puerto Rico/USVI during Hurricane Irma. The real question is what does his base represent and what is the reason for rallying around him? Who are they and why are they so mad and about what? Why they always have a rope in one hand a bible in the next terrorizing and promoting violence but get names like Proud, fine people, vigilante.

[mngopher35]

I've been saying since 2015 that everyone (including the news) should just refuse to say his name or to talk about his totally pointless antics. Talk about policy and the things he has DONE, but leave his name and any BS he says out of it. I think we'd be a much healthier country if we had.

I know, that isn't realistic though. You can't just ignore someone so high profile with such a large following in place. You especially can't do so after that person becomes POTUS. The real issue we have is why so many do follow and vote for someone like this pushing/doing these things. We might be better off without mentioning his name but a lot of issues around what he does matter whether it's said or not.

I was just repeating things you told another poster right above that quote. Same thing applies here, we can't just ignore such a major issue in this country (especially a far more valid one).

[Scoots]

I know, that isn't realistic though. You can't just ignore someone so high profile with such a large following in place. You especially can't do so after that person becomes POTUS. The real issue we have is why so many do follow and vote for someone like this pushing/doing these things. We might be better off without mentioning his name but a lot of issues around what he does matter whether it's said or not.

I was just repeating things you told another poster right above that quote. Same thing applies here, we can't just ignore such a major issue in this country (especially a far more valid one).

I'm not saying ignore him, just don't reference his name or the stupid directionless things he says. If the only coverage was substantive he would go crazy(er), and it would make him far less divisive.

[mngopher35]

I'm not saying ignore him, just don't reference his name or the stupid directionless things he says. If the only coverage was substantive he would go crazy(er), and it would make him far less divisive.

You can’t just force all networks/private companies etc to “cancel” talking about him. As I noted this isn’t realistic and further it ignores the actual/bigger issue which is the large base of followers supporting a lot of the bad things. Whether or not his name is said isn’t changing much of what divides people about the topics.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Scoots]

You can’t just force all networks/private companies etc to “cancel” talking about him. As I noted this isn’t realistic and further it ignores the actual/bigger issue which is the large base of followers supporting a lot of the bad things. Whether or not his name is said isn’t changing much of what divides people about the topics.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I realize that. If he hadn't been given the biggest megaphone anyone in US history has ever had he wouldn't have as many crazy followers and they would not have as much crazy in them.

[mngopher35]

I realize that. If he hadn't been given the biggest megaphone anyone in US history has ever had he wouldn't have as many crazy followers and they would not have as much crazy in them.

He has had the opportunity/been a public figure with coverage for a long long time. He started gaining followers and support politically after pushing certain things/narratives (like birthirism).

It might have limited him some but the real issue is him pushing these narratives gaining him such massive support. Of course media will cover these things with such a large audience (places like fox/cnn were covering this with or without Trump) though you just can’t prevent that.

Trump isn’t the main issue he is just the mouthpiece (which can and will be replaced by someone else just like he took the McConnell stance to a new level when he was more of a mouthpiece for the party against Obama). I don’t disagree it could have been better with less coverage but it’s not realistic nor the main problem either way. Once he became potus or even the nominee canceling him or not bringing up what he said would be divisive in itself (we see the victim hood of his followers in politics forum plenty talking about it already with him and mistreatment he receives without anything you mention).

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Scoots]

He has had the opportunity/been a public figure with coverage for a long long time. He started gaining followers and support politically after pushing certain things/narratives (like birthirism).

It might have limited him some but the real issue is him pushing these narratives gaining him such massive support. Of course media will cover these things with such a large audience (places like fox/cnn were covering this with or without Trump) though you just can’t prevent that.

Trump isn’t the main issue he is just the mouthpiece (which can and will be replaced by someone else just like he took the McConnell stance to a new level when he was more of a mouthpiece for the party against Obama). I don’t disagree it could have been better with less coverage but it’s not realistic nor the main problem either way. Once he became potus or even the nominee canceling him or not bringing up what he said would be divisive in itself (we see the victim hood of his followers in politics forum plenty talking about it already with him and mistreatment he receives without anything you mention).

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You keep saying "you can't do that" and I'm saying "I know" ... that doesn't mean I can't dream right?

I didn't say Trump was the main issue, but he is the clarion at the moment.

[mngopher35]

You keep saying "you can't do that" and I'm saying "I know" ... that doesn't mean I can't dream right?

I didn't say Trump was the main issue, but he is the clarion at the moment.

So if you agree/know why bring it up many times over the years as you noted? You just are telling us your unrealistic dream over and over?

I honestly just responded because it seemed things you just told other posters (about not canceling others and having discussions etc) seemed to apply to your own post. Now I am not sure you even had a point in making this statement over the years anyways so whatever.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Scoots]

So if you agree/know why bring it up many times over the years as you noted? You just are telling us your unrealistic dream over and over?

I honestly just responded because it seemed things you just told other posters (about not canceling others and having discussions etc) seemed to apply to your own post. Now I am not sure you even had a point in making this statement over the years anyways so whatever.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Because we can choose for ourselves what we consume. I chose not to listen to the idiot and it's worked well for me

[IKnowHoops]

You know armed black people marched on the capital in the past when things were MUCH worse for black people and nobody was shot and they kept their guns. Being angry and black isn't enough to get you shot on live TV today.

Yeah but they didn’t beat, destroy, threaten, and plunder and get wreckless. I guarantee if the black panthers would of pummeled a cop in the street to death and then proceed to rip the capitol apart, they would of gotten lit up in the 60’s. Lit up

[mngopher35]

Because we can choose for ourselves what we consume. I chose not to listen to the idiot and it's worked well for me

We sure can I just thought there was more of a point to what you were trying to say with this stuff over the years I guess. I think most of the time people are talking about what's actually happening/possible.

Like I said I just thought it was funny your response right above to others applied to your own following post. I don’t think thats a post/topic worth going further on if this is all you’ve been saying though, my bad. You can certainly consume what you choose and glad it works


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[IKnowHoops]

nope.

Accept the riot at the capitol was unsighted by the POTUS and you had Republican Senator on film letting rioters in through a side door as well as another Republican politician filming the hole breach of the capitol with play by play of how they have broken into the capitol and leading the charge.