America - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter ///M-Spec
  • 38,977 comments
  • 1,694,313 views
man should be allowed to support whoever he wants without being labeled mentally ill
Right, and plenty of men do. Plenty of men don't demonstrate a propensity for embarassing [to themselves and/or others] public outbursts. There's probably even some overlap between men who support whomever or whatever they want without being labeled mentally ill and men who don't demonstrate a propensity for embarassing public outbursts.
 
Right, and plenty of men do. Plenty of men don't demonstrate a propensity for embarassing [to themselves and/or others] public outbursts. There's probably even some overlap between men who support whomever or whatever they want without being labeled mentally ill and men who don't demonstrate a propensity for embarassing public outbursts.
The man was being labeled mentally ill because people didn't agree with him & that's it. Your post isn't much better, dogging the man because you see it as an "embarrassing outburst". But, just as you edited my post, you're missing out on the fact that the man made a compelling argument and even during his discussion on TMZ, offered remorse and apologies for disappointing someone who admired him because they didn't see eye-to-eye.

What matters is when people get past judging Kanye as a loony or Uncle Tom, his underlying message is to "love each other" and to talk things out, to think for yourself and not let the media or people try to influence you. It's exactly why he put John Legend's text out there that kicked this off; to show someone who told him to reconsider what he said because John doesn't like Trump, and used Kanye's fans/legacy as something he could lose. Kanye replied John was using a fear tactic of losing everything to influence how he should think and he was having none of it.

The man's worst offense is how he expresses himself, but he's been that way for years now.
 
The man was being labeled mentally ill because people didn't agree with him & that's it.
He's been labeled as mentally ill for quite some time now; I recall the notion that he may be suffering BPD way back in 2009. It wasn't suggested as an insult either, rather to offer an alternative to the "he's an asshole" insult.

Your post isn't much better, dogging the man because you see it as an "embarrassing outburst".
His support of Trump/"MAGA" may or may not be seen as embarrassing, however I'm not aware that he's expressed that support in an outburst. No, I was actually referring to actual outbursts, such as the one that actually embarrassed Beyonce in 2009, after which he was labeled an asshole and, alternatively, as potentially suffering mental illness in the form of borderline personality disorder. Edit: You may recall he likely embarrassed her again, in a similar manner, some time later with regards to her being more deserving of an award than Beck, rather than Taylor Swift in the previous incident.

just as you edited my post
I edited it, just as I edited your most recent one, to address specific points that weren't inherently supported by text that was omitted in my editing.
 
Ah, so just bringing up something that happened nearly 10 years ago and has no relevance. We're done here.
No relevance? It's relevant in that it demonstrates behavior being discussed. Are you suggesting actual mental illness simply goes away, say, like a cold sore? That's rather insensitive and reflects a problem with how mental illness is addressed in this country.
 
Clearly. Your mind is only focused on 1 thing and bringing up a near decade old instance.
Now you're condemning me for not seeing his support as an outburst after your own argument that it isn't one. That's...well...I don't actually have a word or words that won't cause offense.

Edit: But nice editing to specifically omit text that supports/explains the quoted text.


Nope. You think someone making an ass out of themselves on stage is an indication reflects your own problem addressing mental illness.
I haven't placed myself firmly on either side of the aisle, I've merely considered the possibility, after the notion has been presented, that his actual outbursts (I'm not referring to outbursts that I haven't observed, and not having observed them is more likely due to them not existing than my not paying attention) have been a result of chemical imbalance rather than indicative of personality traits.

I sincerely hope, for his sake and the sake of those around him, that he really is just an asshole, because I know what it's like being around an individual suffering mental illness.
 
Guys, let's stop with the quote editing and cherry-picking opposing people's statements and arguments. If you guys are going to take this debate seriously, I'm gonna say acknowledge everything the other user said, as they said it. Otherwise, you miss on a lot of supporting statements and follow-ups that contribute to the discussion as a whole.

See, this is the issue I have with fellow Americans debating. There is absolutely no give or take on either side, and it's very much a "me or you" issue. There's a reason we have so many political issues at the personal level, people. If you guys are going to have a serious discussion, actually consider that the other person may be right about something and be willing to have some give and take.

Re: Kayne West, though
I need to reread the whole incident with what he said before I can chip in and offer anything of value.
 
Last edited:
Edit: But nice editing to specifically omit text that supports/explains the quoted text.

You edited my post to focus specifically on people calling him mentally ill for saying what he did, as if to validate their name calling because of his past. You are missing the fact that he was not being called mentally ill by others because of his past, he was being called mentally ill along with other names for the sole reason he said something they did not agree with. The man elaborated that he wants people to think freely and express love towards each other, to stop hating each other & others still saw reason for to call him names that include mentally ill as nothing more than a "polite" way to call him crazy all because they refused to see past his support for Trump.

Their usage of "mentally ill" was used in the same people used to say "that's gay" for something they didn't like. Or if I said you're mentally ill because you said something I didn't like about Trump.

Kanye has past issues that link to his mother's passing, but this event and hearing him talk are far from being a diagnosis for mentally ill. He had a fair discussion with TMZ, just a couple poor choice of words. Hopefully, this clarifies more and I'll apologize for not taking this approach sooner.
 
The slavery comment was really out there, but the full discussion shows he makes a willing argument that suggests people stop hating and try talking for a change. He seems to imply he is willing to support Trump bc he wants to work with him to solve issues Kanye is passionate about.

His notion about the media isn’t exactly wrong either. White man shoots a black man and the media blows it up, but doesn’t do anything to demonstrate how severe black on black crime is, and why those trying to fix it aren’t in the spotlight.

The reaction to his words though, are far more shocking. The man should be allowed to support whoever he wants without being labeled mentally ill or having some Crip call for violence against him.
Speaking of black on black crime, Kanye is putting his money (and time) where his mouth is and bringing the Donda Social program to Chicago along with several high profile friends.
Apparently, Donda Social, which appears to be named after Kanye's late mother, Donda West, will look to take a very hands-on approach to city improvement. Members of the group will look to visit the Chi's more impoverished areas and workshop ideas to help out the city's residents. Of course, they'll also lend their financial support, which is something Chance has done a lot of the last year or so. Yusef also says the group will look to draw attention to issues plaguing Chicago and hopefully affect some sort of political changes. Here's to Yeezy and company reaching their goal.

But he said something titillating, didn't go along with the herd and is saying some positive things about the politically incorrect candidate so we must focus on that instead! Off with his head!
 
I'll apologize for not taking this approach sooner.
I appreciate that, and I apologize if the quickness with which I resort to sarcasm salted the air. It's my default, and it doesn't help that the subject (mental illness) is something in which I have a vested interest.

Relevant text was cited as such because it pertained to the subject to which I was responding. There's nothing else behind it.

Now...I maintain that I believe there's something to the notion (not diagnosis) of mental illness being a possible explanation for Kanye's behavior, in part or as a whole. If one delves deeper than what is currently "trending," one finds that the notion has indeed been present for a while; whether it be genuine and sympathetic, informed [by the genuine and sympathetic] but derogatory, or stand-alone as the suggested knee-jerk insult akin to "that's gay" or "that's retarded" (all three of which, as a basis for insult, I find completely unnecessary and offensive--but I suppose that's the point--and you (not you, but anyone whose prerogative is to do so) can call me PC or overly sensitive...fine...my position is informed by my experiences).

Back to Kanye being Kanye, whatever's behind it. It's really difficult to take present remarks at face value simply because of past remarks (some not nearly so distant as those previously mentioned), and his history of seesawing makes me question the sincerity of his less polarizing remarks. He may say he wants people to talk and to love, but it's always going to have been after something else.

And he may well have respectable causes that mean something to him, which I think is great, because he does have a platform, and I'd hate for that platform to be used for ill or for naught, but I question his choice of compatriots in the venture. There are plenty of individuals out there with a great deal of clout, who don't have this cloud looming over them. However seeking the aid of those individuals won't garner so much attention, and clearly not all of the attention is positive. Sincere motivations would cause one to reconsider the choice in light of the negative attention it would surely bring.
 

Simpsons_07_01_P5.jpg


"...the number-one box office draw from 1939 through 1940!"

"Wow! Spanning two decades."

I'm guessing the Democrats are shaking in their boots hoping it isn't true.

It's Daily Caller, which is about as accurate as Mother Jones, Huffington Post, and the Springfield Shopper.

But he said something titillating, didn't go along with the herd and is saying some positive things about the politically incorrect candidate so we must focus on that instead! Off with his head!

Yes, there's always been conservative black folks, usually for religious reasons, some for economic reasons.
 
Last edited:
Trump is no longer a candidate, no matter how many campaign rallies at which he continues to speak.

His current approval is 51%. How can he not be candidate for reelection for another term?
(Not that I would vote for him. He lost me when he went back on his campaign promises and went neocon.)
 
It's Daily Caller, which is about as accurate as Mother Jones, Huffington Post, and the Springfield Shopper.
To be fair, as unattractively partisan as the Caller's readership seems to be judging by the comments below the article, the Reuters data on which it's based seems to bear out its conclusion as far as this latest poll is concerned.
 
To be fair, as unattractively partisan as the Caller's readership seems to be judging by the comments below the article, the Reuters data on which it's based seems to bear out its conclusion as far as this latest poll is concerned.

But...the sample size and methodology.
 
But...the sample size and methodology.
Which would be down to Reuters and not the Daily Caller.

Whether or not they and their supporters are justified in trumpeting this blip as a hugely significant endorsement of Trump's policies is of course quite another matter.
 
Which would be down to Reuters and not the Daily Caller.

Whether or not they and their supporters are justified in trumpeting this blip as a hugely significant endorsement of Trump's policies is of course quite another matter.

Just about any news outlet can - and usually will - skew the numbers to support the lies and damned lies.

How were the questions phrased? "Would you not want to not support a leader who has access to a space force that may or may not exist and hangs around pornstars because he is open to black male?"
 
Just about any news outlet can - and usually will - skew the numbers to support the lies and damned lies.

How were the questions phrased? "Would you not want to not support a leader who has access to a space force that may or may not exist and hangs around pornstars because he is open to black male?"
I have no idea. All I'm trying to say is that if the numbers have been skewed in this instance, then it's Reuters doing the skewing, not the Caller.
 
https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/02/politics/nobel-peace-prize-republicans/index.html
I don't know if this means he's officially nominated but the ball is rolling:
A group of President Donald Trump's most ardent supporters in the House of Representatives have sent a letter to the Norwegian Nobel Committee, formally nominating the President for a Nobel Peace Prize. The nomination was spearheaded by Indiana's Rep. Luke Messer, who is locked in a fierce GOP primary battle in the Hoosier State for a Senate seat. In the letter, Messer and his Republican colleagues endorse Trump's nomination by arguing that he deserves the award because of his work to end the Korean War and bring peace to the peninsula.
 
Guess they'll need to try for next year then. But if Trump were to win it, during whatever year, it'd be about as big of a joke as Obama winning it.
 
Back