Candace Owens Has Got it Going On!

Sportsfan24

Active member
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
12,686
Reaction score
8
Points
36
A very very high percentage of Black people that change political affiliations become Republicans. Why would that be surprising?

I guess straw man arguments are a conservative thing/staple? I never said black people becoming Republicans was surprising.

Aside from that your position is more than intellectually dishonest. That would be a high percentage of a very, very, very small number. The real question is why is that umber so small? The answer is because the GOP is the home of racists.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
19,451
Reaction score
2,754
Points
113
Huh? That would be a high percentage of a very, very, very small number. The real question is why is that umber so small? The answer is because the GOP is the home of racists.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yeah sporty, that’s the point!

The answer to your question of “why” is b/c Democrats have convinced minorities that they care more for them and prove it by promising to redistribute wealth and opportunity to them. Unfortunately, redistribution of wealth doesn’t work to create more opportunity. It works to create dependency.

Personal commitment and family investment creates more opportunity, which can then be turned into achievement and personal success that creates wealth. Some minorities are waking up to the fallacy of the Democrat Party’s fake promises.

Nice of you to prove the point that was recently discussed regarding insults, like racists vs idiots. One has significance, the other is a throwaway insult. A fine example.
 

Sportsfan24

Active member
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
12,686
Reaction score
8
Points
36
Yeah sporty, that’s the point!

The answer to your question of “why” is b/c Democrats have convinced minorities that they care more for them and prove it by promising to redistribute wealth and opportunity to them. Unfortunately, redistribution of wealth doesn’t work to create more opportunity. It works to create dependency.

Personal commitment and family investment creates more opportunity, which can then be turned into achievement and personal success that creates wealth. Some minorities are waking up to the fallacy of the Democrat Party’s fake promises.

Nice of you to prove the point that was recently discussed regarding insults, like racists vs idiots. One has significance, the other is a throwaway insult. A fine example.

The point being it’s commendable that only a small percentage a blacks are willing to prostitute themselves for money by affiliating with a racist party.

Throw away line? Nah, truthful line. Everyone that is a Republican is NOT a racist. Everyone that is a Republican is while knowing that their party panders to racist and is led by a racist. Bury your head in the sand all you want.

Keep rolling with minorities are too stupid to realize what’s in their own best interest. It’s a blatant racist comment and further reasoning why black folks don’t want anything to do with your party. You can’t even hold a conversation without saying something racist.

Keep voting for the rich dude who’s supposedly pro American yet colluded with a foreign government in our election, launders money.....hell the dude doesn’t even marry American women. [emoji1]




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
19,451
Reaction score
2,754
Points
113
I guess straw man arguments are a conservative thing/staple? I never said black people becoming Republicans was surprising.

Aside from that your position is more than intellectually dishonest. That would be a high percentage of a very, very, very small number. The real question is why is that umber so small? The answer is because the GOP is the home of racists.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Still missing the target on your edited version. I’m pointing out the obvious high percentage of Black people that are Democrats, and that if they change to another traditional party, it almost has to be to Republican. Nothing strawman about that.

That’s ok. I’ve missed sarcasm too. :cool:
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
19,451
Reaction score
2,754
Points
113
The point being it’s commendable that only a small percentage a blacks are willing to prostitute themselves for money by affiliating with a racist party.

Throw away line? Nah, truthful line. Everyone that is a Republican is NOT a racist. Everyone that is a Republican is while knowing that their party panders to racist and is led by a racist. Bury your head in the sand all you want.

Keep rolling with minorities are too stupid to realize what’s in their own best interest. It’s a blatant racist comment and further reasoning why black folks don’t want anything to do with your party. You can’t even hold a conversation without saying something racist.

Keep voting for the rich dude who’s supposedly pro American yet colluded with a foreign government in our election, launders money.....hell the dude doesn’t even marry American women. [emoji1]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I’m referring to “idiots” as the throwaway insults, not racist. Racist is a significant insult.

I’m rolling with “Minorities are too stupid...”? Now that is a strawman.

If you can’t interpret what I’m actually saying, how do you know that I’m racist?

Again, I didn’t vote for Trump. I would vote for him now, though.
 

Sportsfan24

Active member
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
12,686
Reaction score
8
Points
36

Since you brought it up; I casually speculated without being specific, about the financial incentive to being an outspoken black republican.

https://www.theroot.com/your-girl-candace-owens-ran-a-trump-bashing-website-les-1826071683

Candace is certainly suspect. If the GOP really wanted the black vote. They would push the Tara Setmayers and Shermichael Singletons to the forefront.

Oh.....my.....god.... it IS possible to hold a viewpoint contrary to Blacklives matter without sounding like a Trump clone.
https://youtu.be/nUlGGzlT720


https://youtu.be/TwRr4wsGNlU

https://youtu.be/9ZnAMSNVbdY






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Sportsfan24

Active member
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
12,686
Reaction score
8
Points
36
Still missing the target on your edited version. I’m pointing out the obvious high percentage of Black people that are Democrats, and that if they change to another traditional party, it almost has to be to Republican. Nothing strawman about that.

That’s ok. I’ve missed sarcasm too. :cool:

Opps. That (sarcasm) passed clean over my head.[emoji1]

The reality is because black people in general are really, really, reality religious one would think the GOP would be home to the majority of black people or least half.

There is an obvious reason why that isn’t the case and is absolutely nothing to do with black people being sheep or too stupid to know what’s in our best interest.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Sportsfan24

Active member
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
12,686
Reaction score
8
Points
36
In no way do I endorse Farrakhan’s views but holy crap this is a really big deal.He has just aligned himself with Trump’s administration. What is going on in the black community right now is unprecedented. Flag this. It’s relevant. https://t.co/gXKr60VuEa— Candace Owens (@RealCandaceO) May 25, 2018

You have to keep in mind Farrakhan and his ilk represent the black community about as much as David Duke represents the white community.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
9,787
Reaction score
1,363
Points
113
Opps. That (sarcasm) passed clean over my head.[emoji1]

The reality is because black people in general are really, really, reality religious one would think the GOP would be home to the majority of black people or least half.

There is an obvious reason why that isn’t the case and is absolutely nothing to do with black people being sheep or too stupid to know what’s in our best interest.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
...the Democrats endorse speaking in tongues...[emoji41][emoji57]
 

LesBolstad

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
5,448
Reaction score
1,309
Points
113
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
13,788
Reaction score
4,387
Points
113
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 

Ogee Oglethorpe

Over Macho Grande?
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
10,245
Reaction score
1,841
Points
113
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

I've got news for you, Kanye; you're far from alone. People like you have been duped into supporting one side or the other for decades.
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
13,788
Reaction score
4,387
Points
113
This intelligent, free thinking, black woman is making waves. A must follow on Twitter. The loony left is losing their collective mind over Kanye West's support.

"Far right? Allow me to clarify: I believe the black community can do it without hand-outs. I believe the Democrats have strapped us to our past to prevent us from our futures. And I won’t stop fighting until all black Americans see that.
I’m not far right—I’m free." - Candice Owens

"You don't have to agree with Trump but the mob can't make me not love him. We are both dragon energy. He is my brother. I love everyone. I don't agree with everything anyone does. That's what makes us individuals. And we have the right to independent thought." - Kanye

More about Candice: https://www.essence.com/news/candace-owens-kanye-west-conservative

The only thing Hitler did wrong was invading Poland, apparently:

<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
13,788
Reaction score
4,387
Points
113
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
47,959
Reaction score
3,226
Points
113
The only thing Hitler did wrong was invading Poland, apparently:

<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

a) I've always thought she was kind of a joke and an opportunist, not a principled conserv/libertarian
b) it was a dumb answer but not the worst one ever, she was trying to make a point that Hitler's nationalism wasn't the problem.
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
13,788
Reaction score
4,387
Points
113
a) I've always thought she was kind of a joke and an opportunist, not a principled conserv/libertarian
b) it was a dumb answer but not the worst one ever, she was trying to make a point that Hitler's nationalism wasn't the problem.

Even if we ignore the fact that her example for why "Hitler's nationalism wasn't the problem" was only that he invaded other countries, the fact is that nationalism has historically been very tied to ethnicity and religion. Most early nationalist movements were centered around consolidating political entities of similar ethnicity/religion and/or throwing off control from another ethnicity/religion. Pretending that Hitler's theory of nationalism is the outlier is ahistorical. You can argue the means he used to effect that nationalism were historically extreme, but his goals were not.

If Trumpists or others want to argue against interventions abroad (as Owens does here,) that's fine, but that's not nationalism. That's non-interventionism. Instead people want it both ways. They want to use the term nationalism to stoke the visceral reaction of those who are naturally afraid of "the other," while at the same time not having to answer for all of the ugliness that implies.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
19,451
Reaction score
2,754
Points
113
a) I've always thought she was kind of a joke and an opportunist, not a principled conserv/libertarian
b) it was a dumb answer but not the worst one ever, she was trying to make a point that Hitler's nationalism wasn't the problem.
I’ve never been that impressed with Owens as I think she’s pretty into herself, but justthenarrative‘s interpretation and bastardization of what she said isn’t what she said. She tried to simplify and shorten her comments about nationalism in regard to Hitler’s association with the definition, and doing that and understating Hitler’s history never really works out.

She wasn’t saying Hitler’s nationalism wasn’t ok JUST for attempting to take it outside of Germany. She just did a really poor job of explaining it and defining the totality of his evil.

But JTN doesn’t want to miss an opportunity to exaggerate the importance of this, especially when things aren’t going great for the Left in recent days.
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
13,788
Reaction score
4,387
Points
113
I’ve never been that impressed with Owens as I think she’s pretty into herself, but justthenarrative‘s interpretation and bastardization of what she said isn’t what she said. She tried to simplify and shorten her comments about nationalism in regard to Hitler’s association with the definition, and doing that and understating Hitler’s history never really works out.

She wasn’t saying Hitler’s nationalism wasn’t ok JUST for attempting to take it outside of Germany. She just did a really poor job of explaining it and defining the totality of his evil.

But JTN doesn’t want to miss an opportunity to exaggerate the importance of this, especially when things aren’t going great for the Left in recent days.

You're hearing what you want to hear. She explicitly says that if he'd not wanted to expand his ambitions outside Germany, it would have been "ok, fine."
(emphasis added)

"Whenever we say nationalism the first thing that people think about, at least in America, is Hitler. You know, he was a National Socialist, but if Hitler just wanted to make Germany great and make things run well, OK, fine. The problem is that he wanted, he had dreams outside Germany. He wanted to globalize. He wanted everybody to be German, everybody to be speaking German, everybody to look a different way. That's not, to me, that's not nationalism. So, in thinking about how it could go bad down the line, I don't really, I don't really have an issue with nationalism. I really don't. I think that it's OK. It's important to retain your country's identity and to make sure that what's happening here, which I think is incredibly worrisome, in terms of just the decrease in the birth rate that we're seeing in the UK, is what you kind of want to avoid. So I have no problems with nationalism, it's globalism I try to avoid."

She's very clearly drawing a distinction between globalism and nationalism and saying that anything that's not globalist is fine. I don't think she meant to explicitly say that the Holocaust was acceptable, but she very clearly says that globalism was the biggest problem Hitler had.

I'm not bastardizing anything she's saying. People who want to defend her are giving her comments a positive interpretation. The words she ACTUALLY SAID were very clearly a defense of Hitler's domestic policy. It's fine to interpret her words more positively than that, but it's just factually incorrect to argue that's not what she said.

I'd also point out that her little tidbit about birthrates completely betrays her real intentions. She's not worried about global interventions so much as she is about having Western countries become more diverse.
 
Last edited:

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
47,959
Reaction score
3,226
Points
113
Even if we ignore the fact that her example for why "Hitler's nationalism wasn't the problem" was only that he invaded other countries, the fact is that nationalism has historically been very tied to ethnicity and religion. Most early nationalist movements were centered around consolidating political entities of similar ethnicity/religion and/or throwing off control from another ethnicity/religion. Pretending that Hitler's theory of nationalism is the outlier is ahistorical. You can argue the means he used to effect that nationalism were historically extreme, but his goals were not.

If Trumpists or others want to argue against interventions abroad (as Owens does here,) that's fine, but that's not nationalism. That's non-interventionism. Instead people want it both ways. They want to use the term nationalism to stoke the visceral reaction of those who are naturally afraid of "the other," while at the same time not having to answer for all of the ugliness that implies.

It may be historically tied to it, but that's not what the word means. I don't think she stated that his version is an outlier. Nationalism doesn't mean take over the world. And nationalism doesn't mean exterminate ethnic or religious minorities. We have other words for those things.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
47,959
Reaction score
3,226
Points
113
You're hearing what you want to hear. She explicitly says that if he'd not wanted to expand his ambitions outside Germany, it would have been "ok, fine."
(emphasis added)



She's very clearly drawing a distinction between globalism and nationalism and saying that anything that's not globalist is fine. I don't think she meant to explicitly say that the Holocaust was acceptable, but she very clearly says that globalism was the biggest problem Hitler had.

I'm not bastardizing anything she's saying. People who want to defend her are giving her comments a positive interpretation. The words she ACTUALLY SAID were very clearly a defense of Hitler's domestic policy. It's fine to interpret her words more positively than that, but it's just factually incorrect to argue that's not what she said.

I'd also point out that her little tidbit about birthrates completely betrays her real intentions. She's not worried about global interventions so much as she is about having Western countries become more diverse.

Again, you are playing loose with what she said. It's obviously an incomplete and bad response, but she's saying had Hitler just wanted to make Germany great and implement socialism, fine. That's not a defense of the holocaust obviously.

Look, I think it's not at all fine to want to implement socialism in Germany and destroy the rights of all Germans.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
19,451
Reaction score
2,754
Points
113
And, IMO, she was confining her remarks about Hitler to nationalism, not ALL of his evil.

After all, the topic WAS nationalism, not Hitler.
 

GopherJake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
18,056
Reaction score
1,939
Points
113
It may be historically tied to it, but that's not what the word means. I don't think she stated that his version is an outlier. Nationalism doesn't mean take over the world. And nationalism doesn't mean exterminate ethnic or religious minorities. We have other words for those things.
We have other words for what goes on in Venezuela, but you don't mind tagging the entire thing with "socialism."
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
13,788
Reaction score
4,387
Points
113
Again, you are playing loose with what she said. It's obviously an incomplete and bad response, but she's saying had Hitler just wanted to make Germany great and implement socialism, fine. That's not a defense of the holocaust obviously.

Look, I think it's not at all fine to want to implement socialism in Germany and destroy the rights of all Germans.

Who's playing loose? She didn't say "socialism." She explicitly drew the distinction with extending beyond Germany. She could have easily contrasted something positive Hitler did (?) with the Holocaust, but she didn't. She contrasted him "want[ing] to make Germany great and make things run well" with "dreams outside Germany." The sentences are back-to-back. She said "The problem is that he wanted, he had dreams outside Germany." She did not say, "The problem is that he wanted to implement socialism," or "the problem is that he wanted to murder Jews." She didn't even say, "a problem is that he wanted, he had dreams outside Germany."

Again, it's fine to try to have a positive interpretation of what she said. It's not fine to pretend that the guy who first linked a video and then quoted her exact words is the one "playing loose."
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
13,788
Reaction score
4,387
Points
113
It may be historically tied to it, but that's not what the word means. I don't think she stated that his version is an outlier. Nationalism doesn't mean take over the world. And nationalism doesn't mean exterminate ethnic or religious minorities. We have other words for those things.

This is exactly what I'm saying. PEople just want to throw out everything nationalism means so they can skirt some fine line.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/patriotism-vs-nationalism

There are still obvious areas of overlap: we define patriotism as “love for or devotion to one’s country” and nationalism in part as “loyalty and devotion to a nation.” But the definition of nationalism also includes “exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups.” This exclusionary aspect is not shared by patriotism.

In one respect, the insanities of 1947 are reverberating now with growing Hindu nationalism in a professedly secular India.
–Kashmir Monitor, 14 Aug. 2017

Today, more than two decades into a democratic South Africa, Afrikaner nationalism has been severely diminished and along with it the standing of Afrikaans in the public sector.
—The New Age (Johannesburg, South Africa), 2 May 2017

Founded in 2014—two years after Burma experienced religiously motivated riots largely targeting the Muslim minority—and now with sub-chapters across the country, Ma Ba Tha has become virtually synonymous with Buddhist nationalism.
—Asia News Monitor (Bangkok), 7 Jul. 2017

Over the last few years, however, a strong contender in the form of Tamil nationalism has emerged because Tamil Nadu got into river water disputes with all the neighbouring states and the neighbours did not seem to care much for Dravidian niceties although Telugus, Kannadigas and Malayalis are putatively Dravidian.
—The Times of India (New Delhi), 4 Mar. 2017

In U.S. usage nationalism is now perhaps most frequently associated with white nationalism, and has considerably negative connotations.


https://www.thestreet.com/politics/what-is-nationalism-14642847

Nationalism centers on a country's culture, language, and often race. It may also include shared literature, sports, or the arts, but is primarily driven by cultural associations. And, it promotes the nation at the expense of others. Nationalist countries or leaders don't join international organizations or associations, and maintain a superior view of themselves to the detriment of other nations. Nationalism has a positive view of conquering other nations as it sees itself as the ultimate nation. Any ideologies that undercut or contradict the nation are opposed.

Nationalism, in its extreme forms, has led to genocide, the Holocaust, and, more specifically, the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia in the 1990s.

Again, if people want to promote non-interventionism, call it non-interventionism. But you can tell from Owens' discussion of birthrates that's not what she means.

I'd also point out that globalism is what stopped Hitler.
 
Last edited:

LesBolstad

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
5,448
Reaction score
1,309
Points
113
Good Lord, what a dumb discussion. Of course, any time a Loony Lefty can associate a conservative with Hitler it's all systems go.
 
Top Bottom