For instance looking at the discussion on the editor’s ‘talk page’ and the Bitcoin Cash article’s revisions page many of the arguments and edits revolve around calling the cryptocurrency … comment content based on politics or personal opinions.
In an interview with Bloomberg TV, the CEO of Adidas said that rapper Kanye West was still an “important part” of the company’s strategy, even after the performer’s comments about slavery.
However, he did stress that “there clearly are some comments we don’t support” and that he plans to discuss the matter with Kanye at some point.
Wait, what did Kanye say?
During an appearance on TMZ on Tuesday, West volunteered that he thought it was the mentality of African slaves that kept them from being free.
“When you hear about slavery for 400 years — for 400 years?! — that sounds like a choice,” he said. “Like, you was there for 400 years and it’s all y’all? You know, it’s like we’re mentally in prison. I like the word prison ’cause slavery goes too — too direct to the idea of blacks.”
These comments, predictably, created swift backlash. West tried to address this outrage on Twitter, by seeming to double down on his original point. He wrote in a series of tweets:
To make myself clear. Of course, I know that slaves did not get shackled and put on a boat by free will. My point is for us to have stayed in that position even though the numbers were on our side means that we were mentally enslaved. They cut out our tongues so we couldn’t communicate to each other. I will not allow my tongue to be cut.
These tweets have since been deleted.
What did the Adidas CEO say?
Adidas CEO Kasper Rørsted was confronted with West’s comments during an interview on Bloomberg TV.
Rørsted at first tried to stick to a standard non-answer:
We neither comment nor speculate about every single comment that our external creators are making. Kanye has been and is a very important part of our strategy, and has been a fantastic creator. And that’s where I’m gonna leave it, I’m not gonna comment on every comment he or anyone else is making. That’s pretty much the party line at this stage.
Upon further questioning, Rørsted volunteered that he did not think that the incident would hurt his company:
If you look at our overall numbers, last year we did almost $25 billion, we’re a very large company. And Kanye and the “Yeezy” is a very important part of our brand. You know from a revenue standpoint less so, but it’s a very important part of how we promote our products, particularly in the U.S. and other parts of the world. … So while Kanye is a very important part of the Adidas brand, Adidas is a large global company with a very, very strong presence around the world, and will continue to perform well.
When he was pressed again about how Kanye’s comments were less easy to dismiss than most celebrity missteps, Rørsted replied that while he had not spoken to Kanye but he did plan on having “conversations” with him in the future:
I saw the comment as you have seen it. I haven’t had any conversation with Kanye within the last 24 hours, to be honest, because we have the earnings around. And we’re — it’s very clear to us that we’re a sports company, and we want to change people’s lives through sport, which is a very important part of course, then we will have conversations. But I do want to focus on the core, what the company’s about is delivering the best sporting goods products in the world, and having our consumers buy those products, and that’s what’s happening right now in the marketplace.
While he stressed how important West was to his brand, Rørsted also added that “there clearly are some comments we don’t support.”
Jared Taylor and Paul Kersey comment on the settlements both by Starbucks and the city of Philadelphia to Donte Robinson and Rashon Nelson. They also discuss the AmRen conference, the Central American caravan of “asylum seekers,” the no-longer-boy scouts, the use of big data in “predictive policing,” and how an ancestry DNA database helped solve a 30-year-old string of murders.
Black Americans, contrary to popular belief, can hold widely diverse and opposing opinions on political issues, says the Comment Nation’s Josephine Mathias. In fact, a 2012 study that used data from the American National Elections Studies found that 45 …
Rudy Giuliani dropped what many are calling a bombshell during an interview on Fox News Channel’s Hannity, saying that President Donald Trump paid back his personal attorney, Michael Cohen, the $130,000 paid to porn star Stormy Daniels.
And while Giuliani was adamant that the pay off didn’t involve campaign money, the revelation sent the left into a frenzy because Trump stated on April 6 that he was not aware of the payment — even Fox News’ Laura Ingraham, a former defense attorney, said “that’s a problem,” but is there a simple explanation that’s being missed?
In a panel discussion Wednesday night on FNC’s The Ingraham Angle, contributor Byron York suggested that Giuliani “may not have thought this whole thing through,” prompting an interesting reply from Ingraham.
“If you go on ‘Hannity,’ you better think it through,” she said. “I love Rudy, but they better have an explanation for that, that’s a problem.”
Giuliani told Hannity that the $130,000 payment was “perfectly legal.”
“That money was not campaign money, sorry,” he claimed. “I’m giving you a fact now that you don’t know. It’s not campaign money. No campaign finance violation.”
When Hannity asked if this was because the money was “funneled” through Cohen’s law firm, the former mayor said, “Funneled it through the law firm, and the President repaid him.”
But Giuliani would also say Trump “didn’t know the specifics” of the payment.
Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., a participant on Ingraham’s panel, had a ready explanation that proved to be much closer to the truth, based on a later clarification by Giuliani.
“I don’t think somebody with President Trump’s income level writes all of his checks, you know what I mean?” he told Ingraham. “It would not surprise me if he authorized a payment and it gets lost in the shuffle. I know that sounds crazy perhaps on a certain level but here’s a guy with a massive income and he’s dealing with a lot of things.”
In a later interview with the Washington Post, Giuliani insisted the disclosure was no gaffe, saying he discussed it with Trump beforehand.
With the anti-Trump forces whipped into a lather over the possibility that Trump has been caught in a lie, Giuliani added more context to his comment with Fox News’ John Roberts — which is being described as “damage control” by the media.
“Rudy Giuliani told me that while
@realDonaldTrump reimbursed Cohen for the $130k SD payment, POTUS didn’t know what the money was used for. Giuliani says Cohen merely told the President he had “expenses” for which POTUS reimbursed him,” Roberts tweeted.
Rudy Giuliani told me that while @realDonaldTrump reimbursed Cohen for the $130k SD payment, POTUS didn’t know what the money was used for. Giuliani says Cohen merely told the President he had “expenses” for which POTUS reimbursed him.
— John Roberts (@johnrobertsFox) May 3, 2018
The payment is being described in the media as a “loan” because Trump reimbursed Cohen and anti-Trump forces insist it is related to his campaign, which will ensure wall-to-wall coverage.
But there’s so much vagueness in Giuliani’s revelation. In the end, it’s more likely to serve as another rabbit hole the president’s detractors will go chasing down in their quest to destroy him.