Politics Candace Owens (and Crowder beef)

[bourbons]

She said “OK, fine” when talking about Hitler’s internal plans (Make Germany Great Again), but clearly said the problem was when he wanted to do outside of Germany. So by definition, when you say “the problem is” what follows is the thing you find bad, not the thing you said before.

Incredible innit. Words and syntax in plain english no longer mean what they mean

Obtuse. You have had 3 goes now, all wrong. You started off by leaving out “But if”. and her explanation of what she means by “make Germany great”, “…and have things run well”. You then substitute your own version of what you say she means by “”make Germany great”, pretending she didn’t give her own explanation. Worse than obtuse, dishonest.

Mate. You've done nothing but substitute your own version of what you say she means in one of the most hilariously obtuse displays I've seen on these boards.

If you're pimping nationalism/decrying globalism and get a question about the terms, (1) you probably don't introduce Hitler as an example and (2) if thats the best framing you can come up with when you do... gee whiz. I dunno, maybe open with "I'm not talking about the sort of extreme/violent/authoritarian/genocidal nationalism espoused by Hitler, for example" as your main differentiator, something along those lines. As opposed to "well the main issue was he acted beyond his own borders".

She probably just misspoke or mangled her point, but we can still be honest about the words that came out of her mouth surely. Not that potentially misspeaking buys her much back - chick is a genuine nutcase, dishonest too, and should be cut very little slack. We're talking about someone who tweeted that 'leftists' were sending mail bombs to democrats as a false flag operation, then when they got a Trump supported for it just deleted the tweets and made no further acknowledgement. Also claimed Soros was paying people to protest for George Floyd lol. More recently she's been on the Russia apologist train, tweeting "russian lives matter" and that Ukraine "wasn't a thing until 1989"

Candace Owens mocked by historian for ‘pure ignorance’ on Ukraine

Ms Owens claimed that ‘Ukraine wasn’t a thing until 1989’

www.independent.co.uk

When you have that kinda grasp on history her decision to touch on Hitler is even more perplexing, Dunning–Kruger effect comes to mind.

 

[Cyg1992]

No you don't.

She's a good looking african american woman, who will say whatever her employers want her to say about any given subject. She ticks multiple boxes; she's good in front of a camera, she's an identity that allows those who employ her to escape censure for her 'opinions', and they get her to say the stuff they'd like to say out loud but can't.

It's rather obvious how she got so famous.

That's what I was alluding to but still cannot see how it could translate to that much fame so quickly.
I first heard of her when she was referenced by the Aussie who shot up the mosques in NZ.
Since then her fame seems to have sky rocketed and it's bonkers to me.

 

[O Grobbecker]

Incredible innit. Words and syntax in plain english no longer mean what they mean


Mate. You've done nothing but substitute your own version of what you say she means in one of the most hilariously obtuse displays I've seen on these boards.

If you're pimping nationalism/decrying globalism and get a question about the terms, (1) you probably don't introduce Hitler as an example and (2) if thats the best framing you can come up with when you do... gee whiz. I dunno, maybe open with "I'm not talking about the sort of extreme/violent/authoritarian/genocidal nationalism espoused by Hitler, for example" as your main differentiator, something along those lines. As opposed to "well the main issue was he acted beyond his own borders".

She probably just misspoke or mangled her point, but we can still be honest about the words that came out of her mouth surely. Not that potentially misspeaking buys her much back - chick is a genuine nutcase, dishonest too, and should be cut very little slack. We're talking about someone who tweeted that 'leftists' were sending mail bombs to democrats as a false flag operation, then when they got a Trump supported for it just deleted the tweets and made no further acknowledgement. Also claimed Soros was paying people to protest for George Floyd lol. More recently she's been on the Russia apologist train, tweeting "russian lives matter" and that Ukraine "wasn't a thing until 1989"

Candace Owens mocked by historian for ‘pure ignorance’ on Ukraine

Ms Owens claimed that ‘Ukraine wasn’t a thing until 1989’

www.independent.co.uk

When you have that kinda grasp on history her decision to touch on Hitler is even more perplexing, Dunning–Kruger effect comes to mind.

I've offered no interpretation of Owen's meaning at all, I don't have to, it's plain and obvious in her words "...make Germany great and have things run well". My criticism is of you and Schneebly11 for trying to interpret that clause as approval of the evil that Hitler and the Nazi regime inflicted on Germany. There's nothing in that or any other part of her comment that remotely suggests that.

 

[bourbons]

I've offered no interpretation of Owen's meaning at all, I don't have to, it's plain and obvious in her words "...make Germany great and have things run well". My criticism is of you and Schneebly11 for trying to interpret that clause as approval of the evil that Hitler and the Nazi regime inflicted on Germany. There's nothing in that or any other part of her comment that remotely suggests that.

You absolutely have. Here;

Of course not, that's her point, if all he wanted to do was to do was to improve Germany, that's fine, but she and we all know that he wanted much more.

Does she? Was that what she see as the issue with Hitler's, that he wanted much more?

Coz she didn't say that - per her own words, "the problem is that he wanted—he had dreams outside of Germany". Its your interpretation that the "but if Hitler just wanted to make Germany great..." part of her statement = her also decrying what was going on in Germany, despite that not being clearly verbalised. Its clearly a more speculative take than my reading, which takes her actual words at face value.

This all started because someone questioned her knowledge and appreciation of history. I mean, I'm sure she's not literally supportive of Hitler's actions within Germany - doesn't change the fact she's pretty reckless in her language and positions as regards history, a trend that continues to the present with the utterly hilarious Ukraine statement.

Unsure why you feel the need to defend her to this degree when we've got the examples we have, its clear she's not a serious person - she just pretends to be.

 

[O Grobbecker]

You absolutely have. Here;


Does she? (know that he wanted much more) Was that what she see as the issue with Hitler's, that he wanted much more?

Coz she didn't say that - per her own words, "the problem is that he wanted—he had dreams outside of Germany". Its your interpretation that the "but if Hitler just wanted to make Germany great..." part of her statement = her also decrying what was going on in Germany, despite that not being clearly verbalised. Its clearly a more speculative take than my reading, which actually does take her words at face value.
...

She says specifically that Hitler wanted much more "he had dreams outside of Germany. He wanted to globalize. He wanted everybody to be German, everybody to be speaking German. Everybody to look a different way."

Her "but if Hitler just wanted to make Germany great..." = her also decrying what was going on in Germany. I've never said that, the words speak for themselves. It's a beginning of an if...then proposition, neutral. The difference is in the next clause which qualifies and explains "make Germany great" i e "make things run well". Nothing to do with what was happening in Germany in the lead up to WW11 at all. No interpretation, her meaning is plain and obvious to anyone not hell bent on deriding her. Why defend her ? She's being attacked by use of selective and edited quotes, confected interpretations of her words for what she didn't say.

 

[bourbons]

She says specifically that Hitler wanted much more "he had dreams outside of Germany. He wanted to globalize. He wanted everybody to be German, everybody to be speaking German. Everybody to look a different way."

Correct. Reads like all he wanted inside Germany was for people to be German. The systematic genocide of Jews within Germany seems a strange thing to specifically omit when talking about the topic, to put it mildly. "He exterminated Jews" should logically be in there alongside her other list of negatives you'd think, it should be the main one in fact.

It actually sounds like she thought that Hitler only started on the Jews once his ambitions grew outside of Germany, pretty bizarre but seems possible for someone with her apparent grasp of history.

No interpretation, her meaning is plain and obvious to anyone not hell bent on deriding her. Why defend her ? She's being attacked by use of selective and edited quotes, confected interpretations of her words for what she didn't say.

No one is attacking her for words she didn't say. Criticisms are expressly based on the words she did say, and there was plenty of criticism from a range of sources at the time. I'm sure they're all just wrong though and you're right

And lol, why on earth would she not be derided at every opportunity? She's a crank. Again;

• 'leftists' were sending mail bombs to democrats as a false flag operation, then when they got a Trump supported for it just deleted her tweets with no further acknowledgement
• Soros was paying people to protest for George Floyd
• "Russian lives matter" and Ukraine "wasn't a thing until 1989"

I can provide more if you like. There's a funny clip of Joe Rogan pretty much getting her to admit her anti-climate change stance is essentially "my feelings don't care about your facts"

 

[Schneebly11]

I can provide more if you like. There's a pretty funny clip of Joe Rogan pretty much getting her to admit her anti-climate change stance is essentially "my feelings don't care about your facts"

The way she talks she sounds like she’s as intelligent as Kim Kardashian. Brainless would be too complimenting of her.

(As an aside this is pre Covid Rogan, before he jumped on the conspiracy bandwagon, if that interview were held today he wouldn’t have pushed back)

She also compared January 6th to the Reichstag fire (saying it was an Antifa/Democrat false flag to steal American’s rights).

Just a conspiracy nutter who’s signal boosted by the online right.

 

[O Grobbecker]

Correct. Reads like all he wanted inside Germany was for people to be German. The systematic genocide of Jews within Germany seems a strange thing to specifically omit when talking about the topic, to put it mildly. "He exterminated Jews" should logically be in there alongside her other list of negatives you'd think, it should be the main one in fact.

It actually sounds like she thought that Hitler only started on the Jews once his ambitions grew outside of Germany, pretty bizarre but seems possible for someone with her apparent grasp of history.


No one is attacking her for words she didn't say. Criticisms are expressly based on the words she did say, and there was plenty of criticism from a range of sources at the time. I'm sure they're all just wrong though and you're right

And lol, why on earth would she not be derided at every opportunity? She's a crank. Again;

• 'leftists' were sending mail bombs to democrats as a false flag operation, then when they got a Trump supported for it just deleted her tweets with no further acknowledgement
• Soros was paying people to protest for George Floyd
• "Russian lives matter" and Ukraine "wasn't a thing until 1989"

I can provide more if you like. There's a funny clip of Joe Rogan pretty much getting her to admit her anti-climate change stance is essentially "my feelings don't care about your facts"

Post 171 " Candace hasn’t indicated she had a problem with Hitler’s actions inside of Germany."

Post 181 "The systematic genocide of Jews within Germany seems a strange thing to specifically omit when talking about the topic, to put it mildly. "He exterminated Jews" should logically be in there alongside her other list of negatives you'd think, it should be the main one in fact.

There are others

 

[bourbons]

Post 171 " Candace hasn’t indicated she had a problem with Hitler’s actions inside of Germany."

Post 181 "The systematic genocide of Jews within Germany seems a strange thing to specifically omit when talking about the topic, to put it mildly. "He exterminated Jews" should logically be in there alongside her other list of negatives you'd think, it should be the main one in fact.

There are others

Ah, you know you're going well when you have to focus on a single line in a post an ignore every other point being made.

Ok yes, we are noting that it seems very strange (to put it mildly) that some acknowledgement of Hitler's genocide is missing from her list of problems with him. We're not suggesting she said something she didn't (eg Hitler was fine), which is what I understood by your "being attacked for words she didn't say" line.

 

[O Grobbecker]

Ah, you know you're going well when you have to focus on a single line in a post an ignore every other point being made.

Ok yes, we are noting that it seems very strange (to put it mildly) that some acknowledgement of Hitler's genocide is missing from her list of problems with him. We're not suggesting she said something she didn't (eg Hitler was fine), which is what I understood by your "being attacked for words she didn't say" line.

She didn't make a list of problems with Hitler, all she said was that his problem was "outside Germany". Look at the context of the statement, either of yours or mine. It was about nationalism and globalisation, not the evils of Nazi Germany. Why would you expect her to make gratuitous comments about something she wasn't talking about ?

 

[bourbons]

She didn't make a list of problems with Hitler, all she said was that his problem was "outside Germany". Look at the context of the statement, either of yours or mine. It was about nationalism and globalisation, not the evils of Nazi Germany. Why would you expect her to make gratuitous comments about something she wasn't talking about ?

I mean... she's the one who brought up Hitler unprompted ¯\(ツ)/¯

You're right, no idea why she'd do that, bizarre. I suppose it kinda fits her approach of "feelings over facts" and speaking authoritatively about things she knows nothing about.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

The Proclamation of the Irish Republic 1916,the Anglo-Irish war ended in 1922, the Constitution enacted in 1937, Ireland joined the EU in 1973, abandonment of Constitutional claim for the whole of the island of Ireland in 1999, the late Queen visited Ireland as a foreign Monarch in 2011 at the invitation of the President, 2018 Agreement that the RAF will protect Irish airspace. That old Britain-Ireland antipathy is fast disappearing. History is to be learned from, not to entrap. I imagine that Irish monarchists have a number of reasons for their preference, old emnity not being one. Owens, Petersen, Price all preach personal responsibility and not being bound by history or stereotypes.

It has disappeared in most ways, and thankfully so. I think there was very little actual hate between the Irish and the English, save for sectarian strife in Northern Ireland and parts of Scotland.

The occupation of the remaining six counties is a matter that will be resolved through the ballot box by referendum now, rather than through physical force.

This is a good thing. This will end it.

 

[O Grobbecker]

It has disappeared in most ways, and thankfully so. I think there was very little actual hate between the Irish and the English, save for sectarian strife in Northern Ireland and parts of Scotland.

The occupation of the remaining six counties is a matter that will be resolved through the ballot box by referendum now, rather than through physical force.

This is a good thing. This will end it.

A Referendum in the North is just the first step, assuming a vote in favour of the Republic even got up, unlikely at present, they've still got to get past the Republic. There's a good chance that the Republic would block reunification in a referendum. I don't know about now but not too many years back, the general consensus seemed to be not wanting anything to do with the maniacs from the North - both sides.

 

[Engimal v3]

I mean... she's the one who brought up Hitler unprompted ¯\(ツ)/¯

You're right, no idea why she'd do that, bizarre. I suppose it kinda fits her approach of "feelings over facts" and speaking authoritatively about things she knows nothing about.

Damn, I'm only 1 minute in but Candace Owens is dumb as hell

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

A Referendum in the North is just the first step, assuming a vote in favour of the Republic even got up, unlikely at present, they've still got to get past the Republic. There's a good chance that the Republic would block reunification in a referendum. I don't know about now but not too many years back, the general consensus seemed to be not wanting anything to do with the maniacs from the North - both sides.

According to this Irish Times article from December 2021;

Large majority of voters favour a united Ireland, poll finds

Strong opposition remains for any change to the national flag or anthem

www.irishtimes.com

...The results suggest that support for Irish unity is broad – 62 per cent say they would vote in favour, with just 16 per cent opposed and 13 per cent saying they don’t know. Eight per cent say they would not vote...

...But though broad, the support for a united Ireland is relatively lukewarm, with a majority of voters happy to see it as a long-term project to which they are well-disposed but do not attach any urgency. Nor are they willing to take steps which might persuade unionists that a united Ireland would be inclusive and reflective of their British identity...

 

[O Grobbecker]

According to this Irish Times article from December 2021;

Thanks, that's interesting, and encouraging. The article below, written by a 25 year old, refers to a poll tasken in mid 2021, probably that quoted in the Irish Times article. It indicates the complexities in the issue.

[URL}https://extra.ie/2021/06/26/news/politics/educated-mature-attitudes-united-ireland[/URL]

 

[Gethelred]

Well if you knew the origins of Antifa you would know how idiotic your statement is!
Something none of you bed wetting soy drinking, useful idiots do! “Lenin’s terminology”

She has been correct about BLM the whole time as well. They have done nothing but harm the black community and turn out to be a fraud! Backed up but the groups IRS statements & self proclaimed marxist leaders becoming property investors specialising in mansions.

Given she is standing up for her own kind the maligned African American people and the scam that BLM has always been it’s ironic how the left belittle her & only continue to be the useful idiots of the puppet masters whilst thinking they are the intellectuals at the same time!

If it was a nutter like AOC or some other person of the left aka another loon is criticised people are branded sexist, racist etc in those special words the left use

I'm only one square away from bingo, don't stop!

 

[bourbons]

Damn, I'm only 1 minute in but Candace Owens is dumb as hell

Haha yep its pretty amazing isn't it. Trump got the US out of bed with the Saudis, saved American jobs, looked after the middle class, and decreased the gap between rich and poor

She's just a shiny face to launder extreme partisan mostly bonkers RWNJ talking points for a more mainstream audience. Kulinski puts it well at the end of the vid - just because she can form a coherent sentence doesn't mean she has the slightest idea what she's talking about.

 

[bourbons]

Something none of you bed wetting soy drinking, useful idiots do! “Lenin’s terminology”

Gee Lenin was onto the bed wetting soy boys early.

Fresh material by the way knackers, finger squarely on the pulse

only continue to be the useful idiots of the puppet masters whilst thinking they are the intellectuals at the same time!

Uncanny description of Owens.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Thanks, that's interesting, and encouraging. The article below, written by a 25 year old, refers to a poll tasken in mid 2021, probably that quoted in the Irish Times article. It indicates the complexities in the issue.

[URL}Opinion: More educated, mature attitudes needed if we want a united Ireland - Extra.ie[/URL]

That's actually a really good article. This

...many people south of the border need to work towards a more mature, accepting understanding of unionist perspectives, stating: 'Something that I came across is that in the Republic, the Protestant and unionist communities are very much in the minority, and it can become a bit of a joke. It's hard from that point of view to wrap your head around the fact that these communities have their own valid perspective on all of this. They're almost seen as a caricature in the south, so there's some growing up that needs to be done in terms of those attitudes...

especially rings true, and I think that a snap poll as soon as Sinn Fein wins government would be a rushed mistake to be honest. The two communities are still feeling each other out and they need to continue doing this. So much good has been achieved since the Good Friday Agreement so far, and there is genuine healing being done across the divides. It's not quite where it needs to be though, and there is a ways yet to go along the road before all communities are ready for a united Ireland.

There can't be a return to violence, and I think it's a great thing that the coming generations, who will have no living memory of 'the Troubles', will be the ones ensuring there is no backsliding.

 

[Frankwalker]

Gee Lenin was onto the bed wetting soy boys early.

Fresh material by the way knackers, finger squarely on the pulse


Uncanny description of Owens.

Ironic the left struggles to understand the basics

 

[Frankwalker]

I'm only one square away from bingo, don't stop!

Did you follow the sequence of numbers called our or just scribble on random squares for bingo?

Nothing like exploiting the minority groups.
Be a proud marxist and become a property mogul of mansions

Tax filings reveal how BLM co-founder spent charity funds

More than $37 million was spent by the foundation on grants, real estate, and charter on private flights, tax documents seen by The Post show.

nypost.com

 

[Gethelred]

Did you follow the sequence of numbers called our or just scribble on random squares for bingo?

Nothing like exploiting the minority groups.
Be a proud marxist and become a property mogul of mansions

Tax filings reveal how BLM co-founder spent charity funds

More than $37 million was spent by the foundation on grants, real estate, and charter on private flights, tax documents seen by The Post show.

nypost.com

Do you consult a dictionary before you pen your posts?

You should.

Bye now.

 

[bourbons]

Ironic the left struggles to understand the basics

Hilarious the right perfectly understands bed wetters and soyboys

 

[sdfc]

Well...

"I became a conservative overnight ... I realized that liberals were actually the racists. Liberals were actually the trolls ... Social Autopsy is why I'm conservative."

Her own words.

That doesn't say what you think it does.