Post: #26

Don Lemon is such a hilariously cucked faggot. Any chance he gets he has to mention that HE is the one asking the questions and you better follow his lead or he'll cut the conversation to commercial. I think in every interview I've heard him in he threatened to cut to commercial and always actually did. What a woman

Post: #27

^@Suits

In that instance Clarke would have been better off relying on his own wealth of experience and the audience's assumption that unlike Lemon, Clarke has actually been in the thick of it before.

Lemon was drawing a veteran alpha male warrior into an intellectual debate around the findings of some limp dick Harvard hack. Warning sirens?

Clarke should have said "well you can trust in the politically motivated number crunching of an academic if you want. I've been on the street and I know how these things work in real life."

That's a message that would resonate with the vast majority of the audience and cripple Lemon's ability to argue the point in his home turf.

Post: #28

(07-18-2016 01:34 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  ^@Suits

In that instance Clarke would have been better off relying on his own wealth of experience and the audience's assumption that unlike Lemon, Clarke has actually been in the thick of it before.

He would have, but he didn't.

Post: #29

(07-17-2016 11:43 PM)Suits Wrote:  

(07-17-2016 11:12 PM)Eastside Wrote:  TLDW: David Clarke destroys Don Lemon and makes him look like a little girl.

He didn't destroy Don Lemon at all. I watch the video hoping that he would, but Sherriff Clarke reveals himself as someone who just picks and chooses the information that he wants to believe and ignores that which doesn't strengthen his case, a common phenomena in many people, regardless of which side of the isle they are on.

First, Lemon was knowledgeable about the results of a recent research study that Clarke was clearly clueless about. Then, towards the end, Lemon calmly points out that Clarke is derailing the conversation, by refusing to answer questions and asking off-topic questions himself instead.

When Clarke doesn't improve his change his behavior, Lemon politely, but firmly ends the interview.

If anything, Lemon destroyed Clarke.

Suits, I like you, but you're wrong with this comment.

Clarke vs. Lemon

Lemon refused to answer any questions, not just the yes/no responses.

-2:00 "let's just keep the volume down". Clarke didn't raise his voice from the previous statement he made.

-Lemon actually interrupted Clarke at 1:20. Clarke spoke slightly before Lemon. This is the first instance in the interview where there was no pause between either speaking and them speaking in close interval.

-"Do we know that generally law enforcements officers are racist" asked by Clarke. Lemon replied; "Go on", as if not knowing that was it, but he did. How do I know that? Because it was an evasive move. CNN is the prime perpetrator of spreading the narrative of "endemic"/"systemic" racism in policing with Lemon being one of the biggest perpetrators.

-Data supports that police treat blacks different than whites:
Lemon cited the president, a small sample study from a Harvard professor and Washington Post.
Clarke didn't specifically name it, but he cited the DOJ and compiled studies. Even legitimate watchdog groups back the claims of Clarke.

-"Black people are treated more aggressively by law enforcement officers" A subjective and non-sourced claim.

CNN being called out by Clarke on a lot of its past rhetoric is what led to Lemon being on the run for the entirety of this interview.

Remember what news channel was front and center are encouraging the burning and looting of a city. It was CNN. Not even MSNBC was as guilty of condoning the extreme acts and messages of BLM as normal or understandable. It was CNN and MSNBC that perpetuated the myth of hands up don't shoot.

Overall, Lemon comes off shaken to even the casual viewer. He's jumping around in his seat, accusing his opponent of errors that he himself is making and refuting his own points.
-------------------------------------------



I knew CNN messed up when I saw the title of this thread. I've seen Sheriff Clarke on Fox News repeatedly and would never suspect that CNN would make the mistake of even allowing him on air once. If you've seen Clarke be interviewed before, you know that he wouldn't play into the frame of sandboxed, pseudo-intellectual rhetoric. The interview appeared to not get off the ground because Lemon couldn't operate outside of his rehearsed responses and preloaded talking points.

Honestly when Clarke said; [chuckle] "You don't believe that do you?" and leered at Lemon, I expected a more antagonistic following. The commercial break huddle was probably used to calm him down. Lemon could have let him decompress some of his stronger points to mellow the sheriff. I also imagine that Clarke, as a cop, instinctively has alarm bells go off in his head when people tell him he's coming off aggressive. He's a blue collar man in a violent profession. Reactions to his verbal and physical communication are taken seriously. He may have unjustly pacified himself some after this point.

Post: #30

I'm surprised Lemon even cares about BLM, he is usually one of the biggest uncle Toms on TV.

Post: #31

(07-18-2016 02:10 AM)Sidney Crosby Wrote:  I'm surprised Lemon even cares about BLM, he is usually one of the biggest uncle Toms on TV.

He was born in Baton Rouge and has noted he went to high school with people on both sides of the violence.
So maybe he doesn't care about BLM per se.

Post: #32

Lemon is nothing more than a well spoken tap dancing effeminate pretty boy negro in a suit. He got his shit handed to him black MAN in this segment.

Sure, he kept his soft tone/frame throughout the interview, but that doesn't give him any credibility.

Post: #33

(07-18-2016 02:10 AM)Sidney Crosby Wrote:  I'm surprised Lemon even cares about BLM, he is usually one of the biggest uncle Toms on TV.

Post: #34

I've read the study and I lean more towards Quintus' analysis than Suits'. The most important part of the study is that police officers don't shoot Blacks more often than Whites. In fact, police are 25% less likely to shoot Blacks.

When Lemon said cops treat Blacks more aggressively, the exact wording of the study was something like, "cops are more likely to put their hands on Black suspects", which is a far cry from "aggressive policing".

Perfect rhetoric from Clarke would've been, "Which is more violent and aggressive: shooting people or putting your hands on them?" Followed by, "It's a shame that both you and the hate group Black Lives Matter forget that shooting someone is way more violent than putting hands on someone. You don't get to bury the fact that BLM falsely believes that police shoot Blacks more, and you don't get to bury that my brothers in uniform were shot - not aggressively shoved or hands put on."

I can't comment on what someone who hasn't read that study would think, but Suits, fast forward to the last five seconds of the video. The close up of a Don Lemon doesn't look like a victorious happy man, but of a tired defeated one.

Post: #35

After watching this a second time I can only assume that Suits is either trolling or was blinded by a handsome man in a suit. No way he is that retarded to think that Lemon actually destroyed Clarke. If so, then I need to get to China. Those bitches must be real easy.

Post: #36

Hahaha...Lemon comes off as a giant weasel who is just trying to provoke a normal, testosterone filled, red blooded American male into going off.

Which is normal for Lemon. I don't know what video Suits watched.

Of course it's not going to win over weasels that like watching Lemon. Weasels are on Hillary's side, just look at the neo-con migration.

*Edit: I think I see where Suits is coming from. Suits is biased because of SLM, Suits Lives Matter. He just sees a man in uniform arguing with a man in a suit, so obviously the man in the suit is correct.

Suits, I think you need to recuse yourself due to a pre existing style bias.

Post: #37

I've seen Sheriff Clarke in better condition. He looks tired and angry.

That guy is an experienced officer and knows the data. There is no epidemic of police killing blacks.

Quote:In 2015, police killings of blacks accounted for approximately 4 percent of homicides of blacks. Police killings of unarmed blacks accounted for approximately 0.6 percent of homicides of blacks. The overwhelming majority of black homicide victims (93 percent from 1980 to 2008) were killed by blacks.

source


Blacks are killing blacks, not cops.

Post: #38

@Sidney Crosby:

I agree with you. I'm surprised myself that he cares about BLM. Don Lemon has to be one of the biggest uncle tom, tap-dancing, shucking and jiving Black man on TV. So I have no idea what everybody here is talking about. Don Lemon is hated in the Black community. If Malcolm X were alive today he would call Don Lemon a tap-dancing uncle tom house negro who loves being around his master.

Don Lemon was actually being neutral in this interview citing a Harvard study, because he usually sides with law enforcement and not BLM on this issue. He is known for lecturing Black people on dressing better and among other things. Black people hate him.

David Clarke held his own though. But Don Lemon is far from being a BLM supporter.

Post: #39

I can see both sides. On one hand, Lemon seems pretty intimidated and uncomfortable. Seating them side-by-side makes it even more obvious. It was also obvious that he wouldn't answer any of the questions Clarke was throwing out because he knew it didn't fit his narrative.

On the other hand, Clarke could have been more cogent. It's good to control the frame, but he comes across as slightly beligerent in the second half of the interview when he simply refuses to answer any direct questions.

Plus, there were a few instances where Lemon threw up some softball shit that could've easily been hit right back in his face. For instance, when he tried to claim that they didn't know the Baton Rouge shooter's motives.

That was an underhand, coach pitch right across the plate, but Clarke just starts talking about BLM again without connecting the two.

The fact that Clarke (the interviewee) controlled the entire interaction gives him the upperhand, but I wouldn't say he "destroyed" Lemon. He got his points across but he could've done more damage by actually addressing some of the things Lemon said more directly.

On a related note, it seems like Don Lemon has more of these interactions than any journalist I can think of. He's always getting bullied in interviews and having to threaten to end it.

Post: #40

@ Enigma and Sidney

Assuming you are black, do you also consider Clarke an "uncle-tom."

Dunno if you support BLM or not, but any insight into what BLM supporters think of black non-BLM supporters?

Post: #41

Go Sheriff David Clarke!

Post: #42

Lemon flip flopped on that Harvard study! Suits, how was he "more informed".

He mentions the Harvard study as important when he is mentioning only half of it, which suits his point, then when he realizes that the Sheriff knows about the whole study, he back tracks and says that the study was not conclusive, when he just tried to use it to make an argument!

Post: #43

(07-18-2016 01:34 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  Lemon was drawing a veteran alpha male warrior into an intellectual debate around the findings of some limp dick Harvard hack. Warning sirens?

Well said!

Post: #44

(07-18-2016 08:25 AM)Brown Pride Wrote:  @Sidney Crosby:

I agree with you. I'm surprised myself that he cares about BLM. Don Lemon has to be one of the biggest uncle tom, tap-dancing, shucking and jiving Black man on TV. So I have no idea what everybody here is talking about. Don Lemon is hated in the Black community. If Malcolm X were alive today he would call Don Lemon a tap-dancing uncle tom house negro who loves being around his master.

Don Lemon was actually being neutral in this interview citing a Harvard study, because he usually sides with law enforcement and not BLM on this issue. He is known for lecturing Black people on dressing better and among other things. Black people hate him.

David Clarke held his own though. But Don Lemon is far from being a BLM supporter.

Blacks crying "house negro!" has no metric on where people actually stand on the political fence. Blacks will conveniently dismiss past actions of people like Lemon (who I mentioned helped lead the death march on Ferguson) when it's timing of a narrative is unfitting.


Funny also how people like Bill Cosby gets thrown to the wolves when he tells them they need pull their pants up, but before then he had been cited by the "look us black men are classy/successful too" crowd. No one is allowed to speak for the all the black community if it's critical of them, but they sure are allowed to speak for them if they're defending them. Strange

Post: #45

They must have done a lot of chair adjustments. Lemon ( a homosexual by the way) is about a foot shorter than Clarke.

Post: #46

Do you guys think the average viewer can see through Lemon's bullshit? At the beginning of the interview all that stuff insinuating that Clarke was just going to talk over him and argue, and then threatening to kick him off the show.

Ok, is that socially savvy positioning, or NLP or some shit?

Whatever, he couldn't even look Clarke in the eye.

Do you think people fall for that, that mean girl sort of insinuating?

That stuff seems really superficial to me and obviously rude and manipulative, that Tony Robbins obvious false frame stuff. It only works if you are emotionally a weakling and instantaneously side with whoever pretends to be in charge.

I am not sure if people in general are as stupid as they are portrayed, and if they are not, then they, like me, were put out by how Lemon started the whole thing.

Who does that? You invited Clarke on your show for the interview, and all of that setting the acceptable bounds of speech should have been done pre-interview, and doing it on camera was just grandstanding and playing to the bleachers.

And threatening to kick him off the show? It wasn't like he crashed the set. He was invited. You don't talk like that to a guest.

I get what Suits is saying. Clarke didn't demolish him like we'd like. He is a man of action not a sophist.

I just felt like Lemon exposed himself as complete fake in the first few minutes of the interview, and consequently, nothing he said afterward failed to be suspect. It didn't matter to me if he made Clarke say "umm" or be at a loss of words here and there.

So before you can say who came out on top of that one, you have to decide whether or not people can see through that fake superficial bullshit.

Post: #47

Lemon is the epitome of the modern effeminate metrosexual man.

Reminded me of the Roosh--Dr. Oz "discussion."

Cunning, evasive, and playing semantic games with well-practiced feigned ignorance tactics.

It would be hard to keep your composure with someone like this, never mind "debate" them in their little hen-house with their rigged system.

You wonder if it's even worth doing these TV appearances. But I think it is. Even though it's a rigged game, someone has to say something.

Post: #48

(07-18-2016 01:26 AM)Suits Wrote:  

(07-18-2016 01:07 AM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  

(07-18-2016 12:04 AM)Suits Wrote:  

(07-17-2016 11:54 PM)GlobalMan Wrote:  Suits, Lemon has been one of the bigger shills for BLM, having no problem with expressing his personal opinion and implying that what they're doing is right and justified- So when he now tried to pretend he doesn't have any opinion on the matter and saying "I'm just a reporter" and "you're off topic" it was pure hypocritical faggotry, that's what people are getting at. Lemon has no problem letting people who support this garbage go off on tangents.

Lemon may be the biggest dick every and deserving of being called out, but I think the effort by Clarke, however justified, failed.

All I'm saying is that based on this short segment alone, Lemon comes off as far more knowledgeable than Clarke.

I watched the clip hoping that Clarke would deliver a verbal ass-kicking, but that wasn't what I witnessed. That may be because Lemon is a cunning and slippery snake and it doesn't make him right about the issues he supports, just because he managed to come out of one exchange without being the clear loser.

My point is that we have to be careful not to let our biases color what we see. The only way that we can defeat an evil enemy is by being completely honest with ourselves and aware of the impressions we and others in our camp make.

If you want to win over moderates who might side with reason, we need to do more than simply be right. We also have to give the appearance of being correct.

In this one example, it's my impression that Clarke doesn't come across as the best advocate we could hope for. To say that he "destroyed Lemon" would require some stretching of the imagination, although it's also fair to say that beside being unaware of the conclusions actually reached by a study he claims to have read, he doesn't come off looking all too terrible.

But I'm concerned that anyone would reach the conclusion that Clarke "destroyed" Lemon.

Please provide details of how exactly Don Lemon came out looking knowledgeable in this exchange, outside of the mere assertion that he did.

From what I saw, the only part of the "debate" that consisted of actual analysis or data and that could be construed as one side displaying more "knowledge" than the other centered around Lemon asserting that there does exist data showing blacks are unfairly targeted by police.

Lemon then brought up a Harvard study. After Lemon brought up the Harvard study, Clark pointed out that the Harvard study actually shows the opposite of what Lemon claims, namely that there is no difference between unjustified shootings of blacks and whites.

And what was Lemon's response to being caught out? He immediately sought to dismiss the validity of the Harvard study that he himself brought up to prove data exists! by saying it only sampled a handful of police departments and could not be taken as definitive proof of anything. Nigga please. That was complete self ownage and I can't believe anyone sees it otherwise. The rest of the exchange centered around Clark shotgunning his own talking points to an audience of millions over Lemon's feeble protestations. Guess what: feebly protesting a stream of truths without being able to refute any of them doesn't make you a victor.

Clarke: And you know this...there is no data, there is no research that proves any of this nonsense.
Lemon: You need to be more specific about what data and what nonsense we are talking about.
Clarke: .........that.......................law enforcement officers treat black males different..................than white males in policing.............in these urban centers
Lemon: There is data that supports that.
Clarke: There is no data.
(A few lines of dialogue, where Lemon references sources that Clarke quickly and confidently shoots down. Lemon does not persist further and temporarily, it appears that Clarke has the upper hand).
Lemon: There is also research from a Harvard professor that also shows that black people are treated more aggressively by police officers
Clarke: No, you are.......wrong....in your interpretation of that Harvard study, because I read the study and that's not what he said. He said he was surprised to find......
Lemon: He said that he was surprised to find that in shoots of the most severe, he found no evidence that there was a difference. Also, it should be noted that that study had a very small sampling of police departments across the country; many people did not find it credible, but it is also interesting that IN that research, he found that blacks were treated different when it came to aggressive policing, but for the most aggregious shootings, he found no difference...that's what that study showed.
Clarke. Well, (sounding confused) based on just generally or are we talking about high crime areas? Because let's go back to.....(changes subject, never returns to refute Lemon's claim, which if you've read the study, was a completely accurate statement based on that research).

In conclusion, Lemon successfully tears down Clarke's claim that there is no evidence and Clarke is unable to provide a rebuttal.

In the text in red above, Sheriff Clarke calls this faggot out as a liar, then the faggot admits he was lying. Faggot never expected Sheriff Clarke to have read that Harvard study and neither did most of CNN's viewers. Faggot underestimated Sheriff Clarke's intelligence and diligence in research. Faggot also rudely interrupted Sheriff Clarke once he realized that he underestimated him so I have no idea where you get off saying faggot is "polite". Sheriff Clarke owned this faggot in that debate and he beat him at his own faggy game of hyper-intellectual bullshit. Sheriff Clarke simply out-classed this faggot.

EDIT: Furthermore, when faggot starts talking about "a very small sampling" he is actually ATTACKING THE CREDIBILITY OF A STUDY THAT HE HIMSELF BROUGHT INTO THE DISCUSSION. This is a tired worn-out tactic of SJW academics where they bleat like stuck lambs that "Oh the n was was too small in that study. I WANT A BIGGER N!" As if their unhappiness with the sample size suddenly trashes the study's credibility. But note that the faggot is perfectly comfortable with the study's sample size when the findings fit his narrative. Faggot got owned. Sheriff Clarke called bullshit and then proved it was bullshit.

Post: #49

(07-18-2016 12:00 PM)Ghost Tiger Wrote:  EDIT: Furthermore, when faggot starts talking about "a very small sampling" he is actually ATTACKING THE CREDIBILITY OF A STUDY THAT HE HIMSELF BROUGHT INTO THE DISCUSSION. This is a tired worn-out tactic of SJW academics where they bleat like stuck lambs that "Oh the n was was too small in that study. I WANT A BIGGER N!" As if their unhappiness with the sample size suddenly trashes the study's credibility. But note that the faggot is perfectly comfortable with the study's sample size when the findings fit his narrative. Faggot got owned. Sheriff Clarke called bullshit and then proved it was bullshit.

One thing that I've noticed from debating liberals on another forum I frequent is that they ALWAYS attack the source if it goes against their narrative and NEVER attack the source if it supports their narrative.

And they will also almost never admit that a news oulet leans left. I think most people here can admit that sites like Brietbart, Fox News, Drudge, etc. are conservative leaning, but I've had liberals deny that even MSNBC, WaPo, etc. are liberal.

Post: #50

(07-18-2016 02:51 AM)WarMachine Wrote:  

(07-18-2016 02:10 AM)Sidney Crosby Wrote:  I'm surprised Lemon even cares about BLM, he is usually one of the biggest uncle Toms on TV.

I don't know what you're face palming about, the black community hates Lemon and he is an Uncle Tom, that isn't debatable.