posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

I have read a total of one article about her and I'm already on board.  She may be a nut for all I know.  But at least she has acknowledged that AOC is a child looking for attention - nothing more.  

I'm really curious to see how Democrats will attack a young black, female Republican who is also an immigrant.

Not to say she isn't sincere in her motives, but it's almost a little too convenient and perfect a candidate to challenge AOC.  But, as mentioned, a Repub has no chance in that district.  Now, if AOC switched parties a Democrat would still end-up winning that district.

posted by gut

I'm really curious to see how Democrats will attack a young black, female Republican who is also an immigrant.

Not to say she isn't sincere in her motives, but it's almost a little too convenient and perfect a candidate to challenge AOC.  But, as mentioned, a Repub has no chance in that district.  Now, if AOC switched parties a Democrat would still end-up winning that district.

 

They don't need to.  It's an easy victory and there is no need to give her attention.

posted by like_that

They don't need to.  It's an easy victory and there is no need to give her attention.

Unfortunately I think you are correct.  AOC has turned herself into a major celebrity.  I think that will be enough for her to defeat anyone who challenges her.  

posted by gut

I'm really curious to see how Democrats will attack a young black, female Republican who is also an immigrant.

Not to say she isn't sincere in her motives, but it's almost a little too convenient and perfect a candidate to challenge AOC.  But, as mentioned, a Repub has no chance in that district.  Now, if AOC switched parties a Democrat would still end-up winning that district.

 

See how they treat Candace Owens, same thing except without the added immigrant tag.

I think people especially hate Candace Owens because she switched sides when her anti conservative websites failed. AFTER being hired by turning point she completely changed her views. She sued her high school for discrimination but argues discrimination doesn’t exist. 

posted by geeblock

I think people especially hate Candace Owens because she switched sides when her anti conservative websites failed. AFTER being hired by turning point she completely changed her views. She sued her high school for discrimination but argues discrimination doesn’t exist.

Yeah, I don't think she's a good example.  I think she plays a role.

Many of the talking heads political biases are "fluid".  Meghan Kelley is a good example.  Tucker Carlson is an even better example, because he's a bad actor and doesn't sell that he actually believes half the crap he says.

A lot of your media people really are Ron Burgundy.  People don't want truth in reporting, they want to have their beliefs affirmed - and so most of your media is actually entertainment aimed at filling that demand.

posted by geeblock

I think people especially hate Candace Owens because she switched sides when her anti conservative websites failed. AFTER being hired by turning point she completely changed her views. She sued her high school for discrimination but argues discrimination doesn’t exist. 

Your timeline is wrong. She became conservative and later was hired by Turning Point. I saw some of her videos before her employment with them and they were conservative view points. 

You actually don't know you did it, but you proved my point. She is hated among liberals because she is black and left the plantation of liberalism (her words, not mine so don't call me a racist for using plantation).

posted by gut

Yeah, I don't think she's a good example.  I think she plays a role.

Many of the talking heads political biases are "fluid".  Meghan Kelley is a good example.  Tucker Carlson is an even better example, because he's a bad actor and doesn't sell that he actually believes half the crap he says.

A lot of your media people really are Ron Burgundy.  People don't want truth in reporting, they want to have their beliefs affirmed - and so most of your media is actually entertainment aimed at filling that demand.

I don't know, Meghan Kelley was by far the most liberal prime time host Fox had ever had and she didn't go much further left once she was gone from Fox. I admittedly don't watch Tucker (only see some snippets on youtube) and he is somewhat annoying and plays "gotcha". Was he liberal before his Fox gig? Honest question as I don't know.

Edit: Quick wikipedia look at Carlson shows he has been a conservative commentator his whole career. He was the conservative voice on CNN's Crossfire then had his own show on MSNBC before they went full lefty looney and he was a conservative there too.

posted by jmog

Your timeline is wrong. She became conservative and later was hired by Turning Point. I saw some of her videos before her employment with them and they were conservative view points. 

 

You actually don't know you did it, but you proved my point. She is hated among liberals because she is black and left the plantation of liberalism (her words, not mine so don't call me a racist for using plantation).

Her own Wikipedia page shows her career she wasn’t conservative. Until she was. She lacks credibility and only tweets conservative taking points. She is being used and will be tossed aside when she is no longer needed in my opinion. She has a right to her views and people have the right to listen to her or not. In my opinion her biggest qualification that makes her relative is that she’s black. Other than that she would be useless to the right. 

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

Unfortunately I think you are correct.  AOC has turned herself into a major celebrity.  I think that will be enough for her to defeat anyone who challenges her.  

I think it'll still happen, though.  Political campaigns will still put out commercials and ads, and you've gotta fill the ad with SOMETHING.
 

posted by gut

I'm really curious to see how Democrats will attack a young black, female Republican who is also an immigrant.

Two words:

Uncle. Tom.

Whether or not the liberal side is the most justified for minorities in the US (we can debate that elsewhere; it's not relevant to the point here), it seems to me that it's problematic when society, or even a significant subset of society, doesn't grant an individual the right to arrive at their own conclusions and form their own convictions.  If a POC arrives at the conclusion other than that which is in-step with what is acceptable within the scope of the Democratic Party, they're treated like a traitor.

Obviously, there's a fundamental problem with linking an ACT of betrayal with a conviction concluded in good faith.

It would be disingenuous to say that the Republican Party doesn't have their own problems with views on race, but it seems to me, as an admittedly non-minority in any real way, that denying someone the right to arrive at their own convictions because of their skin tone is just as problematic and needs addressed if you claim the moral high ground on race.

geeblock, I know you catch heat on here for some of your views, but as a POC, I'd like to hear your take on this.  Am I way out in left field, and if so, where did I make the wrong turn?
 

posted by jmog

Edit: Quick wikipedia look at Carlson shows he has been a conservative commentator his whole career. He was the conservative voice on CNN's Crossfire then had his own show on MSNBC before they went full lefty looney and he was a conservative there too.

I'm not saying Tucker isn't a conservative, I'm saying his show/persona is an act.

Most of these shows should have the disclaimer "the views expressed by the host are not his/her own, nor the networks".  They are giving a performance of what their target audience wants to hear.  When you see these people move around to different networks, you'll see their performance adapt to the new target audience.

posted by O-Trap

I think it'll still happen, though.  Political campaigns will still put out commercials and ads, and you've gotta fill the ad with SOMETHING.
 

posted by gut

I'm really curious to see how Democrats will attack a young black, female Republican who is also an immigrant.

Two words:

Uncle. Tom.

Whether or not the liberal side is the most justified for minorities in the US (we can debate that elsewhere; it's not relevant to the point here), it seems to me that it's problematic when society, or even a significant subset of society, doesn't grant an individual the right to arrive at their own conclusions and form their own convictions.  If a POC arrives at the conclusion other than that which is in-step with what is acceptable within the scope of the Democratic Party, they're treated like a traitor.

Obviously, there's a fundamental problem with linking an ACT of betrayal with a conviction concluded in good faith.

It would be disingenuous to say that the Republican Party doesn't have their own problems with views on race, but it seems to me, as an admittedly non-minority in any real way, that denying someone the right to arrive at their own convictions because of their skin tone is just as problematic and needs addressed if you claim the moral high ground on race.

geeblock, I know you catch heat on here for some of your views, but as a POC, I'd like to hear your take on this.  Am I way out in left field, and if so, where did I make the wrong turn?
 

 

I mean I think people feel the same way about Candace Owens as Tomi Lahren. She is a pretty blond and they trot her out there to serve her role. Neither one really has the qualifications to comment on anything really. Candace didn’t even graduate college. 

As far as people of color and the Republican Party. Who have our options been so far? Haven’t had much to choose from. I think people don’t realize that most black people are conservative. Especially in the south. Church membership is very high especially in the south. In my opinion the gop hasn’t really wanted black people to be in the party or part of the party. Not that I’m saying dems are much better. Both parties push the super predator/war or crime every election which usually is bad for poor people and people of Color. So I guess the lack of candidates, lack of policies that provide support for schools and programs that support disadvantaged people I’m not sure why anyone would expect them to. I think certainly rich black people in certain tax brackets vote republican because of tax breaks. 

posted by geeblock

I mean I think people feel the same way about Candace Owens as Tomi Lahren. She is a pretty blond and they trot her out there to serve her role. Neither one really has the qualifications to comment on anything really. Candace didn’t even graduate college. 

As far as people of color and the Republican Party. Who have our options been so far? Haven’t had much to choose from. I think people don’t realize that most black people are conservative. Especially in the south. Church membership is very high especially in the south. In my opinion the gop hasn’t really wanted black people to be in the party or part of the party. Not that I’m saying dems are much better. Both parties push the super predator/war or crime every election which usually is bad for poor people and people of Color. So I guess the lack of candidates, lack of policies that provide support for schools and programs that support disadvantaged people I’m not sure why anyone would expect them to. I think certainly rich black people in certain tax brackets vote republican because of tax breaks. 

But I mean, suppose for example that you had come to the conclusion that most assistance programs were not an overall net benefit for those they're meant to help (maybe you think they perpetuate the generational reliance on them), and so you opposed many of them.  How comfortable would you feel expressing that to other POC?  Suppose you looked at the schools who have gotten more funding over the years and really haven't demonstrated any palpable improvement as a result of it, so you began to oppose those.  Do you think that conviction would be at least able to be discussed with POC, or would you be concerned that you'd immediately be labeled and written off as being something less than a real POC (No True Scotsman)?

Listen, I'm as WASP as they come.  I'm white.  My primary background is Welsh.  I'm Protestant.  I'm cis.  I'm straight.  I have no frame of reference for worrying about being treated in this manner.

But I live in a school system much like the one I described, where the money given to the local school district has risen for decades (and has outpaced inflation, in case that's a concern), and yet, it really hasn't resulted in any improvements. The public school system is still academically failing with an absurdly high truancy rate and cases of violence that are notably higher than the average for public schools in my state.  I have a vested interest in the education of my kids and of the people around me, and yet I don't see any statistical, or even any anecdotal, evidence that the increase in funding has improved anything.  As such, beyond any philosophical objections, I oppose most increases to public school spending on practical grounds, as well.

Were I a POC, would I be able to discuss that position publicly without being ostracized and written off?

posted by geeblock

Her own Wikipedia page shows her career she wasn’t conservative. Until she was. She lacks credibility and only tweets conservative taking points. She is being used and will be tossed aside when she is no longer needed in my opinion. She has a right to her views and people have the right to listen to her or not. In my opinion her biggest qualification that makes her relative is that she’s black. Other than that she would be useless to the right. 

I don't disagree with that, and neither does she. She admits she was a liberal and finally "woke up". Ronald Reagan was the same, was a democrat and switch when he realized things weren't right with the democratic party.

Shoot, my grandpa who just passed away last year at 86 years old. He voted democrat his whole life until just the last 2 POTUS elections, his own words were "they aren't about freedom of speech and helping the working people anymore, they are all about socialism and calling people who aren't with them racists".

So yes, people switch, that wasn't my point. My point was that she switched well before Turning Point. By asserting that she switched sides just for money is a little presumptuous. Do you believe Reagan switched sides for money? Power? Or can people switch sides just because they gain new information and change their minds?

I used to think libertarians were loons, then I actually read more information on them when Ron Paul actually made the most sense in the RNC debates. Once I looked into them I realized I was wrong and fell in line more with the libertarian view point than the Republican.

posted by geeblock

I mean I think people feel the same way about Candace Owens as Tomi Lahren. She is a pretty blond and they trot her out there to serve her role. Neither one really has the qualifications to comment on anything really. Candace didn’t even graduate college. 

As far as people of color and the Republican Party. Who have our options been so far? Haven’t had much to choose from. I think people don’t realize that most black people are conservative. Especially in the south. Church membership is very high especially in the south. In my opinion the gop hasn’t really wanted black people to be in the party or part of the party. Not that I’m saying dems are much better. Both parties push the super predator/war or crime every election which usually is bad for poor people and people of Color. So I guess the lack of candidates, lack of policies that provide support for schools and programs that support disadvantaged people I’m not sure why anyone would expect them to. I think certainly rich black people in certain tax brackets vote republican because of tax breaks. 

You didn't answer his question. Basically 90-95% of African-Americans vote democratic. Whenever any African-American of any prominence comes out and votes for/aligns with republicans they are immediately labeled as an "Uncle Tom".

Why are they labeled as betraying their "race" by coming to a different conclusion/viewpoint? 

posted by jmog

I don't disagree with that, and neither does she. She admits she was a liberal and finally "woke up". Ronald Reagan was the same, was a democrat and switch when he realized things weren't right with the democratic party.

 

Shoot, my grandpa who just passed away last year at 86 years old. He voted democrat his whole life until just the last 2 POTUS elections, his own words were "they aren't about freedom of speech and helping the working people anymore, they are all about socialism and calling people who aren't with them racists".

 

So yes, people switch, that wasn't my point. My point was that she switched well before Turning Point. By asserting that she switched sides just for money is a little presumptuous. Do you believe Reagan switched sides for money? Power? Or can people switch sides just because they gain new information and change their minds?

 

I used to think libertarians were loons, then I actually read more information on them when Ron Paul actually made the most sense in the RNC debates. Once I looked into them I realized I was wrong and fell in line more with the libertarian view point than the Republican.

 

 

I think she’s being used and switched for money. That’s my opinion doesn’t mean it’s right. I don’t like her because I think her page is just gop talking points. Immigrant commits murder.. she will tweet all day. Neonatzi  shoots up somplace. Silence. If you want to be taken seriously then be a serious person in my opinion don’t just spew the same rhetoric I can find on brietbart. 

posted by geeblock

I think she’s being used and switched for money. That’s my opinion doesn’t mean it’s right. I don’t like her because I think her page is just gop talking points. Immigrant commits murder.. she will tweet all day. Neonatzi  shoots up somplace. Silence. If you want to be taken seriously then be a serious person in my opinion don’t just spew the same rhetoric I can find on brietbart. 

Oh she very well maybe being used for money, that doesn't mean she switched "sides" for money like your original post suggested. She may have genuinely switched parties and then the TP folks picked her up to make money. I am not denying that possibility at all. 

posted by O-Trap

But I mean, suppose for example that you had come to the conclusion that most assistance programs were not an overall net benefit for those they're meant to help (maybe you think they perpetuate the generational reliance on them), and so you opposed many of them.  How comfortable would you feel expressing that to other POC?  Suppose you looked at the schools who have gotten more funding over the years and really haven't demonstrated any palpable improvement as a result of it, so you began to oppose those.  Do you think that conviction would be at least able to be discussed with POC, or would you be concerned that you'd immediately be labeled and written off as being something less than a real POC (No True Scotsman)?

Listen, I'm as WASP as they come.  I'm white.  My primary background is Welsh.  I'm Protestant.  I'm cis.  I'm straight.  I have no frame of reference for worrying about being treated in this manner.

But I live in a school system much like the one I described, where the money given to the local school district has risen for decades (and has outpaced inflation, in case that's a concern), and yet, it really hasn't resulted in any improvements. The public school system is still academically failing with an absurdly high truancy rate and cases of violence that are notably higher than the average for public schools in my state.  I have a vested interest in the education of my kids and of the people around me, and yet I don't see any statistical, or even any anecdotal, evidence that the increase in funding has improved anything.  As such, beyond any philosophical objections, I oppose most increases to public school spending on practical grounds, as well.

Were I a POC, would I be able to discuss that position publicly without being ostracized and written off?

I think you can have all those positions and have all those discussions without being seen as racist because look at how you did it. With respect and reasoning as to why you feel that way. Those are all great topics to discuss with many layers. It’s actually easier than you think to not look racist. The reason Obama was able to do things on immigration without controversy was not because he was black, it was because he was respectful. Notice u didn’t have to use terms like “woke” or Paint poor people or inner city folk as lazy, or terrorists or criminals. You look at it and say hey money doesn’t seem to solve this problem, what will. It’s pretty easy and you always do a great job on your posts whether you agree or disa

posted by jmog

Why are they labeled as betraying their "race" by coming to a different conclusion/viewpoint?

When you get people passionate/outraged over a single issue, they become blind to all other issues.  That's everything behind the identity politics ploy.

AOC's handlers (because, let's face it, she doesn't come up with this on her own) comparing border detention centers to concentration camps was not an accident.  Calling Repubs nazi's and fascist is not an accident.  It's intended to make the GOP so appalling that Jewish people won't be able to vote for them.

As I've said before, that's what really pisses them off about Trump.  He plays the game as well as Dems do....and Repubs aren't allowed to play that game.

posted by geeblock

I think you can have all those positions and have all those discussions without being seen as racist because look at how you did it. With respect and reasoning as to why you feel that way. Those are all great topics to discuss with many layers. It’s actually easier than you think to not look racist. The reason Obama was able to do things on immigration without controversy was not because he was black, it was because he was respectful. Notice u didn’t have to use terms like “woke” or Paint poor people or inner city folk as lazy, or terrorists or criminals. You look at it and say hey money doesn’t seem to solve this problem, what will. It’s pretty easy and you always do a great job on your posts whether you agree or disa

His original question was why do African-Americans get labeled as "Uncle Toms" when they change their views and start to backup republican ideas or candidates. They even get labeled as betraying their race. That was O-Trap's original question. 

posted by geeblock

I think you can have all those positions and have all those discussions without being seen as racist because look at how you did it. With respect and reasoning as to why you feel that way. Those are all great topics to discuss with many layers. It’s actually easier than you think to not look racist. The reason Obama was able to do things on immigration without controversy was not because he was black, it was because he was respectful. Notice u didn’t have to use terms like “woke” or Paint poor people or inner city folk as lazy, or terrorists or criminals. You look at it and say hey money doesn’t seem to solve this problem, what will. It’s pretty easy and you always do a great job on your posts whether you agree or disa

So two people can have the same actions, one of them talks well the other is a jerk, that makes one racist and the other not? I know I way over simplified your post but that's essentially why you are saying Obama "got a pass" on having basically the same policies as Trump with regards to the southern border because he was "respectful".

I fully believe that he got a pass because the liberal media will give a pass to any democrat to begin with, but they for SURE weren't going to come down hard on the first African-American candidate. He got a pass mostly because he was a democrat, but partly because he spoke well and partly because he was African-American.

You would have to give me a specific person to answer that because I don’t think it’s universally true. I also should say that these are just my opinions. My situation is unique with my ethnicity and where I grew up so I often have had just as hard of s time fitting in with black people as white people. But I think I’m my mind these are case by case basis.  People still love tiger woods and Michael Jordan for example. I think everyone can agree Ben Carson is just a very awkward weird dude that no one really likes 

posted by geeblock

You would have to give me a specific person to answer that because I don’t think it’s universally true. I also should say that these are just my opinions. My situation is unique with my ethnicity and where I grew up so I often have had just as hard of s time fitting in with black people as white people. But I think I’m my mind these are case by case basis.  People still love tiger woods and Michael Jordan for example. I think everyone can agree Ben Carson is just a very awkward weird dude that no one really likes 

1. Condolezza Rice

2. Ben Carson

3. Allen West

4. Herman Cain

5. Collin Powell

6. 50 Cent

7. Kanye West

8. Stacey Dash

9. Thomas Sowell

10. Michael Steele

I mean I can keep going, but you name a black conservative that is even a little bit in the limelight and they have been called an "Uncle Tom". 

It may not be "universally true" but it darn near is universally true.

I also have no idea how you could say "no one really likes" Ben Carson. He is one of the smartest most soft spoken and talented person on this planet. He is humble and treats everyone with respect...yeah, he's "weird and we don't like him"?

One can disagree with some of his views, but to not "like" Ben Carson is extremely odd given his talents and demeanor towards people.

I don’t know a lot of those in the list. I never heard of 50 cent catching any heat. Condeleeza rice and Colin Powell are well respected as far as I’ve ever known. Kanye said George bush doesn’t care about black people so supporting trump was weird. I also think we have to separate pre-trump/post trump before having that convo. I know some people in that list caught heat for being completely silent for 8 years of Obama but honestly don’t know much about them or who they are.

stacy dash is a no for me tho 

I think the people you mentioned and the fact I don’t know who they are means they really don’t have a connection or get the respect from the black community, so when they join up with the gop I can see why people call them uncle toms in some cases