Candice Owen For President

[rushmc 23]

Wow

 

she is amazing!

Edited April 17, 2019 by rushmc

[yobnoc 142]

6 minutes ago, rushmc said:

Wow

 

she is amazing!

Which Candace Owens?  The 2015 version?

In 2015, Owens was CEO of the website Degree180, a marketing agency that offered consultation, production and planning services.

The website included a blog which frequently posted anti-conservative and anti-Trump content, including mockery of his penis size.

In a 2015 column that Owens wrote for the site she criticized conservative Republicans, writing about the "bat-shit-crazy antics of the Republican Tea Party", adding, "The good news is, they will eventually die off (peacefully in their sleep, we hope), and then we can get right on with the OBVIOUS social change that needs to happen, IMMEDIATELY."

 

Or the opportunist version of late?

Owens has appeared on fringe conspiracy websites, such as InfoWars.

In May 2018, Owens suggested that "something bio-chemically happens" to women who do not marry or have children

In October 2018, Owens launched the Blexit movement...... Shortly after the launch, The Daily Beast found that approximately 16 percent of the total tweets using the #blexit hashtag were from Twitter accounts associated with the promotion of Russian disinformation.

 

The one who says that racism isn't a real thing in America?

In April 2018, Connecticut NAACP president Scot X. Esdaile, who had defended Owens when she was the victim of an alleged hate crime in 2007 and helped her receive a $37,500 settlement, was interviewed by Mic. He was "shocked" to learn that Owens had become conservative

Later on, talking about the NAACP:

Owens stated:

I mean, the NAACP is one of the worst groups for black people. All they do is jump on a platform, and they never talk about real issues that are facing the black community. It’s all about PR for them, so I’m sure if they’re involved then it’s got to be absolute BS

 

Owens made international headlines in March 2019 when she was named in the manifesto of the gunman who committed the Christchurch mosque shootings as the person who "influenced [him] above all"

 

So...Who *is* she, really?  Looks like just another gross opportunist to me.

 

[gowlerk 2,274]

1 hour ago, yobnoc said:

So...Who *is* she, really?  Looks like just another gross opportunist to me.

Hey, everyone needs heroes. Who do you suppose Marc would choose to crush on?

[DJL 235]

10 hours ago, gowlerk said:

Hey, everyone needs heroes. Who do you suppose Marc would choose to crush on?

I wonder what Billy V will think why he finds out she had sex with someone 20 years ago.

[BIGUN 1,483]

On 4/16/2019 at 9:26 PM, yobnoc said:

Or the opportunist version of late

The version of late. She saw the error of her ways and, "became a conservative overnight ... I realized that liberals were actually the racists. Liberals were actually the trolls ... Social Autopsy is why I'm conservative." That one. 

[billvon 3,111]

5 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

The version of late. She saw the error of her ways and, "became a conservative overnight ... I realized that liberals were actually the racists. Liberals were actually the trolls ... Social Autopsy is why I'm conservative." That one. 

I know, right!  Liberals dislike Nazis and white supremacists.  What a bunch of racists.  She became a conservative overnight once she realized that Nazis and white supremacists are actually very fine people.

[BIGUN 1,483]

3 hours ago, billvon said:

She became a conservative overnight once she realized that Nazis and white supremacists are actually very fine people.

Perhaps listening to what she has to say about the "why" of liberals are racists; rather than what others say about her. She brings up some good points - not saying she's correct all the time. But, on the point of nationalism != facism; I think she does a good job. 

IMO, she is trying to connect the dots of "nationalism" with that of "constitutional patriotism" and before we get too far off the rails with that comment - in the sense of how Germany had to transition from its past after WWII. A way to lean more towards democracy and forgive themselves for their past and look more towards the future. (granted, she's not making a very good case on her talking points).

For example. Every time someone brings up reparations for slavery in the south. This is usually done by the liberal side - but the emotional response it evokes is not conducive to harmonizing relations across colors. It's about guilt and wanting everyone to feel that sense of guilt and then asking everyone to pay for it.       

But, when she speaks of racism - she identifies to liberals their positions as racist for trying to be anti-racist. She believes that liberals push the anti-racist agenda so much; that it highlights and project others being of different race, creed, color, etc.

Is she an opportunist for the flip - perhaps. Time will tell.        

[billvon 3,111]

35 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

 

But, when she speaks of racism - she identifies to liberals their positions as racist for trying to be anti-racist. She believes that liberals push the anti-racist agenda so much; that it highlights and project others being of different race, creed, color, etc.

So if you are opposed to racism too much you are a racist?  Fascinating.  If you love the US too much, you hate it?  If you are very tough on crime, you are a criminal?  If you become too good at 4-way, you are bad at it?  Sounds like new age woo.

[BIGUN 1,483]

17 minutes ago, billvon said:

So if you are opposed to racism too much you are a racist? 

It was a paragraph, not a sentence. You're not in the habit of cherry-picking a third of what someone said. 

[billvon 3,111]

59 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

It was a paragraph, not a sentence. You're not in the habit of cherry-picking a third of what someone said. 

So when she speaks of racism - she identifies to liberals their positions as racist for trying to be anti-racist?  She believes that liberals push the anti-racist agenda so much that it highlights and project others being of different race, creed, color, etc?

So if someone is opposed to sexual assault and rape, and identify cases where women (and sometimes even men) were raped, and condemn them loudly and frequently - they are (somewhat) pro rape?  Because if they push your anti-rape agenda so much, it can highlight and project onto women that they are at risk, and that means they don't really oppose rape?

So if a conservative speaks against illegal immigration loudly and frequently - and they identify to liberals their positions as being pro-illegal-immigrant - they are pushing their immigration agenda so much that it highlights and projects their own support for illegal immigration?

Nope, even taking the whole paragraph almost verbatim doesn't help it make any more sense.  Being against something strongly is not being for it, nor does it suggest that you are helping the issue you oppose.

She may well have some good ideas.  But if this is representative of her thought process, she's a loon.

[BIGUN 1,483]

52 minutes ago, billvon said:

So when she speaks of racism

1. Reactance can cause the person to adopt or strengthen a view or attitude that is contrary to what was intended, and also increases resistance to persuasion.

2. When people feel that their freedom to choose an action is threatened, they get an unpleasant feeling called ‘reactance’. This also motivates them to perform the threatened behavior, thus proving that their free will has not been compromised.

[jakee 1,594]

6 hours ago, BIGUN said:

1. Reactance can cause the person to adopt or strengthen a view or attitude that is contrary to what was intended, and also increases resistance to persuasion.

2. When people feel that their freedom to choose an action is threatened, they get an unpleasant feeling called ‘reactance’. This also motivates them to perform the threatened behavior, thus proving that their free will has not been compromised.

So you're proving Bill's point. Your recent actions here on this site are indeed anti-wall and pro-illegal immigration.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

11 hours ago, BIGUN said:

1. Reactance can cause the person to adopt or strengthen a view or attitude that is contrary to what was intended, and also increases resistance to persuasion.

2. When people feel that their freedom to choose an action is threatened, they get an unpleasant feeling called ‘reactance’. This also motivates them to perform the threatened behavior, thus proving that their free will has not been compromised.

Sure. It's the typical reaction of a little kid.

When told 'you can't do that', they dig their heels in and want to do it more. 

OTOH, treating people who don't look like 'you' (editorial 'you', not specifically you) like garbage, trampling all over their rights, even killing them is not right. Not now, not ever. 

Pointing out that people are doing this is calling attention to the action. Not to the difference in the races. 

To pretend that calling attention to racism is 'bad' and actually increases the racism due to 'reactance' is a load of garbage.

You seem to take offense at the idea that some people think you are racist. You may not be, I don't know you in person. 

But to promote that sort of idea, to pretend that the 'liberals' are increasing racism by raising awareness of it says a lot. 

[billvon 3,111]

4 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

To pretend that calling attention to racism is 'bad' and actually increases the racism due to 'reactance' is a load of garbage.
 

I used this example elsewhere, but we've seen this in action before.  Martin Luther King's activism caused a great deal of strife.  His support for lunch counter sit-ins angered a great many people who felt that they had already done enough for the cause of civil rights, and shouldn't have to worry about a black person sitting next to them at lunch.   His support for striking workers angered people who felt they were already bending over backwards to hire black people; them demanding access to bathrooms was going too far.  Why couldn't they be happy with all they had been given?  Why were they so ungrateful?

A great many people thought this.  His marches often resulted in violence from protesters who had "had enough."  His famous "I have been to the mountaintop" speech almost didn't happen because of a bomb threat made against an airline he was planning to use to get to Memphis.  And of course the next day he was murdered.

Afterwards there was a level of civil violence not seen since the Civil War.  The "King Riots" as they were called, killed 40 and injured 2500.  His enemies used this as proof that his words cause violence, and since he had preached nonviolence all his supporters were hypocrites.

Still, today it would be hard to find someone who cared about civil rights who would claim that MLK should have kept his mouth shut because of the reactance his words caused.  It can be very hard for people to hear that they are being racist, and they often get very angry upon hearing it - because everyone wants to be the hero in their own story.  But it is critical that they hear it.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

28 minutes ago, billvon said:

  It can be very hard for people to hear that they are being racist, and they often get very angry upon hearing it - because everyone wants to be the hero in their own story.  But it is critical that they hear it.

Lots of them simply refuse to hear it. 

 

I know a number of people who say crap along the lines of "I'm not racist, but black people always try to con me." 

They then try to justify it by claiming that more black people than white people have tried to con them (or steal from them. or whatever). It's just how 'those people' are. 

Yet if you point out that that statement is self-contradicting, and putting a trait (particularly a negative trait) on them because of their skin color, they get very defensive.

It's a bit odd, but where I live is extremely racist. Incredibly insular. Virtually zero minorities. There was an exhibit on display at the county museum a couple years ago. It turns out that shortly after the Civil War, there was a small but thriving black community here. It was gone shortly after the turn of the century, and by the depression, it was a "Sundown Town". Black people best be gone before dark. 

https://www.postcrescent.com/story/life/2014/08/17/museum-exhibit-focuses-black-experiences-fox-cities/14126187/

 

When the Hmong showed up in the 70s (as I noted in the "sanctuary cities" thread), there was a lot of hatred. Some overt, but mostly not. I know a couple landlords were threatened that the neighbors would burn their rental houses down if they rented to 'those people'. 
Lots of people claimed their dogs were stolen, rocks through windows, car tires slashed, that sort of crap.

The shooting range I'm part of went through a 'leadership struggle'  a bit later. The long-time president (and founding member) died, and there was a faction that put 'their' guy up for president. One of his ideas was banning Hmongs. They didn't speak or read good enough English to understand the rules and range commands (really). While it was true that some had limited language skills, those were usually the older guys, and they almost always had a 'young'un' along with them who would interpret. 
That it wasn't a real problem, along with the fact that it would likely be illegal didn't deter that group. Fortunately, they didn't take control and they all went elsewhere (good riddance).

[wmw999 2,587]

4 hours ago, billvon said:

I used this example elsewhere, but we've seen this in action before.  Martin Luther King's activism caused a great deal of strife.  His support for lunch counter sit-ins angered a great many people who felt that they had already done enough for the cause of civil rights, and shouldn't have to worry about a black person sitting next to them at lunch.   His support for striking workers angered people who felt they were already bending over backwards to hire black people; them demanding access to bathrooms was going too far.  Why couldn't they be happy with all they had been given?  Why were they so ungrateful?

My father told me about his evolution on this issue (he was born in 1918, so he was an established adult for much of the civil rights era, and served on a segregated ship in WW2). He grew up in the northeast; in fact the president of his high school class had been African American. But still there was almost no social interaction, even there. It just didn’t happen. 

He told me that at the time he thought that things were progressing well, what with Brown vs Board, and the integration of the services, and thought that maybe “they” were pushing too hard, and not letting things come to pass. 

He said that in retrospect, as someone who had no idea of what it was like to live as a minority in the US, he was dead wrong. I always respected his willingness to question his beliefs and attitudes, and this helped confirm it. 

I wouldn’t be surprised if there are a lot of retrospective opinion changes; I just hope some of them come with self-reflection, rather than self-delusion. 

Wendy P. 

[BIGUN 1,483]

9 hours ago, billvon said:

Afterwards there was a level of civil violence not seen since the Civil War.  The "King Riots" as they were called, killed 40 and injured 2500.  His enemies used this as proof that his words cause violence, and since he had preached nonviolence all his supporters were hypocrites.

Still, today it would be hard to find someone who cared about civil rights who would claim that MLK should have kept his mouth shut because of the reactance his words caused.  It can be very hard for people to hear that they are being racist, and they often get very angry upon hearing it - because everyone wants to be the hero in their own story.  But it is critical that they hear it.

Well put. Have a great weekend. Everybody.  

[Coreece 190]

22 hours ago, billvon said:

It can be very hard for people to hear that they are being racist, and they often get very angry upon hearing it - because everyone wants to be the hero in their own story.  But it is critical that they hear it. 

Good post overall, and very well put.  I'd also add that it's critical in identifying/addressing implicit bias that's supposedly within all of us - even well raised, well trained, and well intentioned individuals.

Having said that, I can see how being falsely accused of racism based merely on the perception/exploitation of racism can be rather frustrating.  In such cases, I'd say any ensuing anger is justified.  Unfortunately tho, such anger will be perceived as racist, leading to even more frustration and exacerbating the situation.

[Coreece 190]

20 hours ago, wmw999 said:

He told me that at the time he thought that things were progressing well, what with Brown vs Board, and the integration of the services, and thought that maybe “they” were pushing too hard, and not letting things come to pass. 

He said that in retrospect, as someone who had no idea of what it was like to live as a minority in the US, he was dead wrong.

I think the main difference/problem with today is that "They" represents a large portion of people that also "have no idea what it's like to live as a minority,"  and thus have a problem identifying and resolving issues facing the black community.

 

20 hours ago, wmw999 said:

I wouldn’t be surprised if there are a lot of retrospective opinion changes; I just hope some of them come with self-reflection, rather than self-delusion. 

 

Here's a pretty decent article from The Atlantic that does just that. 

What African Americans lost by aligning with the Democratic Party

"Northern liberals pioneered what scholars now call “colorblind racism.” That’s when racially neutral language makes extreme racial inequalities appear to be the natural outcome of innocent private choices or free-market forces rather than intentional public policies like housing covenants, federal mortgage redlining, public housing segregation, and school zoning.

"Democratic lawmakers drafted civil-rights legislation that would challenge Jim Crow laws in the South while leaving de facto segregation in the North intact."

“People have to understand that although the civil-rights bill was good and something for which I worked arduously, there was nothing in it that had any effect whatsoever on the three major problems Negroes face in the North: housing, jobs, and integrated schools…the civil-rights bill, because of this failure, has caused an even deeper frustration in the North.” Today’s protest movements against second-class citizenship in Baltimore, Ferguson, Oakland, and elsewhere are in part a legacy of the unresolved failures of civil-rights legislation."

"This poses the biggest problem for black voters today, which is that Democrats running for state or national office aspire to win black votes without appearing to be beholden to black voters.  This is especially true of the three Democratic presidents since Kennedy and Johnson. "

 

I've been saying similar things for the past several years with the hope of finally addressing the issue, but I didn't really have a full understanding, nor the words to explain it so eloquently.  I think addressing this is going to be a very important issue for Democrats moving forward into 2020, and I'm glad more people are starting to recognize it.