Elections Larry Elder vs Gavin Newsom

[ElKarlo]

What was the lie? The MSM that you are crying about pretty much quoted him verbatim and the interview is up for anyone to watch themselves.

Is it a mainstream media lie just because the newscasters didn't put a retarded partisan spin on how we shouldn't take him at his own world?

No. It’s obvious misinterpretation and taking a quote that was thrown out to make a point and using it alone is dishonest. You know it, but you refuse to believe it because you are a sortie an hack and a water boy

 

[Darkballs]

You should absolutely take him at his word. Which is why anyone can see that he isn't arguing that slave owners deserve reparations.

But he most certainly did argue that.

Sure, you put it in a context (not sure that it was needed) where someone first asked him about reparations and only then did he make the argument that white slave owners could also be included in that discussion because they suffered an economic loss.

Where exactly is the distortion by the media?

 

[Darkballs]

No. It’s obvious misinterpretation and taking a quote that was thrown out to make a point and using it alone is dishonest.

You know it, but you refuse to believe it because you are a sortie an hack and a water boy

And what further context did you need before you feel that you would be able to process Elder's shitty take on reparations?

I mean the question was his stance on it, at which point he brought up white slave owners getting reparations based on strictly the economic loss theory.

How would that preamble change how you viewed his statement? You claim that this was deceptive. How do you think your desired context would change his meaning in any way?

You know it, but you refuse to believe it because you are a sortie an hack and a water boy

And to think you teach english for a living.

 

[ElKarlo]

And what further context did you need before you feel that you would be able to process Elder's shitty take on reparations?

I mean the question was his stance on it, at which point he brought up white slave owners getting reparations based on strictly the economic loss theory.

How would that preamble change how you viewed his statement? You claim that this was deceptive. How do you think your desired context would change his meaning in any way?



And to think you teach english for a living.

To think you’re a functioning human being. Yes out of context quoting which intentionally change his intentions and point isn’t dishonest at all. Whatever water boy. I bet you do this hack nonsense for the lolz. If you actually believe it, you are so low that I don’t even need to make fun of you anymore than I already am.

 

[Darkballs]

To think you’re a functioning human being. Yes out of context quoting which intentionally change his intentions and point isn’t dishonest at all.

Then why are you unable to explain how this changes the context of Elder's statements?

Elder went into a stupid rant about how since white slave owners suffered an economic loss, maybe they should be entitled to reparations. So in order for you to process that statement, you need the media to first inform you of what? If you were in charge of that editorial board and had the authority to add any more information to that quote, what do you feel would be necessary for someone to properly understand it, and how do you feel the MSM (really, you can't narrow it down any further) is being dishonest.

 

[SmilinDesperado]

I mean, if we're gonna start going by world view and such, Newsome is a complete shit face. Keeping his winery open while all the others are shut down is, in and if itself, worse than anything Elder has ever said or ever done. Its an egregious overstep of political authority and it's one of those things that mark you as the absolute worst kind of politician you can be. That's even disregarding ignoring his own policies while children are going to school over zoom and or telling people to avoid being with family on Thanksgiving while he disregards his own masking mandates. That's pure douche baggery.

Now, that's just if you wanna play the "his views don't align with Mine" game. These actions show Newsome will think of himself before anything else.

I admit, I haven't seen all of Elders speeches and whatnot, but is he actually running on a platform to make minimum wage 0? Or is that something he's talked about that you disagree with? Because those are two different things. He can have lots of ideas you don't agree with, but run in a platform that can coincide with your current desires, at least for the time. It feels like you're going off what you think of the guy rather than what he's saying he wants to do as Governor.

Like I said easier, he's pro life, but that's unlikely to make any practical difference to abortion in California even if he were elected.

I don't see how one can ignore world view. That shows me their character, and how they are likely to lead. It's as, if not more important than what they say they are going to do.
As I said, I'm not defending Newsom or saying he's great. But, at the end of the day, the choice is Newsome or Elder--and I have to weigh which one of these shit sandwiches better align with what my beliefs are.
I definitely don't agree that Newsome keeping his winery open is worse than anything that Elder has ever said.
I recognize his hypocrisy. I don't like it. But at the end of the day, that hypocrisy is far less dangerous to me, has less of an effect on me, than someone with Elder's world views.

If the environment, social programs, and education are what are most important to me---which is a bigger hurdle, Newsome's hypocrisy over his winery and COVID restrictions, or Elder's belief that the climate change is a "crock"', that there aren't systemic problems that contribute to crime and racism, or his general belief that the free market is going to address things like healthcare and education?
As bad or hypocritical as Newsome could get, he isn't diametrically opposed to the things I care most about.

Elder said he wasn't running on a campaign of making minimum wage 0, but that is what he believes. If he believes that, then how could he govern in a way that's not going to favor policies that would favor that goal? He's not going to champion policies to raise the minimum wage if his belief is that it should be zero.
I'm curious, do you think what a candidate believes or says doesn't matter, so long as they have something else written on their campaign website?
I checked out Elder's website, and it's a lot of "Im going to fix this, and fix that". It's vague on what he actually would do.
Elder telling me how bad Newsome is, is not enough for me to vote for Elder.

This goes the same in reverse. If abortion was the number one issue that you cared about, and you have a shitty Democrat and a shitty Republican to choose from---even if you're not a political person, you're going to choose the Republican.
Newsome is a hypocrite, Pelosi is a hypocrite, but Elder doesn't even believe in what I believe in.

 

[ElKarlo]

Then why are you unable to explain how this changes the context of Elder's statements?

Elder went into a stupid rant about how since white slave owners suffered an economic loss, maybe they should be entitled to reparations. So in order for you to process that statement, you need the media to first inform you of what? If you were in charge of that editorial board and had the authority to add any more information to that quote, what do you feel would be necessary for someone to properly understand it, and how do you feel the MSM (really, you can't narrow it down any further) is being dishonest.

He was using that as a example of where does reparations end. Who gets paid and to what degree, it’s murky and that was his example. But you eat this nonsense up, believing he was actually calling for that because cnn told you that was what was up. Same with Hunter , you fell for all the lines and all the smoke screens. You’re incredibly easily swayed and fooled by all this. All the while you still think they are being honest. Which is hilarious and just shows how far into being a human centipede you are

 

[Darkballs]

He was using that as a example of where does reparations end. Who gets paid and to what degree, it’s murky and that was his example. But you eat this nonsense up, believing he was actually calling for that because cnn told you that was what was up.

What are you even crying about? Not a single MSM representation of Elder's quote claims that it came out of nowhere and that it was some developed policy plan or anything. In fact, pretty much all of them gave the quote in it's proper context, which was a stupid answer to a question about reparations in general.

Do you have a specific news report that you found to be untrustworthy? Can you give us an example of one that you felt was deceiving? Because this has all the hallmarks of you complaining about something that didn't even happen. And that's a perfect segway into....

Same with Hunter , you fell for all the lines and all the smoke screens. You’re incredibly easily swayed and fooled by all this. All the while you still think they are being honest. Which is hilarious and just shows how far into being a human centipede you are

We've already been over the Hunter Biden laptop CT. I'm pretty staunch in my position that anyone who believed that one was an idiot. And that was almost a year ago. To still believe it now, to the degree that you would mock others who don't, is a level of stupidity only reserved for those that teach english abroad.

 

[ElKarlo]

What are you even crying about? Not a single MSM representation of Elder's quote claims that it came out of nowhere and that it was some developed policy plan or anything. In fact, pretty much all of them gave the quote in it's proper context, which was a stupid answer to a question about reparations in general.

Do you have a specific news report that you found to be untrustworthy? Can you give us an example of one that you felt was deceiving? Because this has all the hallmarks of you complaining about something that didn't even happen. And that's a perfect segway into....



We've already been over the Hunter Biden laptop CT. I'm pretty staunch in my position that anyone who believed that one was an idiot. And that was almost a year ago. To still believe it now, to the degree that you would mock others who don't, is a level of stupidity only reserved for those that teach english abroad.

Lol and that just proves how dumb and awful you are. You basically just tao danced “I love the msm human centipede, feed me excrement! I gobble it all down”

 

[James Bomb]

To former pseudo-libertarians like Elder, it’s perfectly rational to value property rights over human rights since Rand cultists essentially believe that human freedom flows from being able to own as much private property as possible.

To normal people without brain rot, that’s dumb as fuck, but that’s what they believe.

There’s also a certain elitism and anti-poor sentiment there that gels far too well with slavery as a practical concept. Better the makers exploit the takers, because if it was the other way around, John Galt would just leave society and we’d all lose out.

 

[Darkballs]

Lol and that just proves how dumb and awful you are. You basically just tao danced “I love the msm human centipede, feed me excrement! I gobble it all down”

Honest question:

When you were growing up, did you parents force you to wear a helmet if you went outside?

 

[ElKarlo]

Honest question:

When you were growing up, did you parents force you to wear a helmet if you went outside?

Enjoy your fecal matter you really do love it. And it’s funny that you believe the Hunter laptops were fake despite there being zero evidence of that. HC

 

[Bob Gray]

But he most certainly did argue that.

Sure, you put it in a context (not sure that it was needed) where someone first asked him about reparations and only then did he make the argument that white slave owners could also be included in that discussion because they suffered an economic loss.

Where exactly is the distortion by the media?

Arguing a position and believing it are two different things. That's literally why you use the phrase "you could make an argument".

The point is, he doesn't believe slave owners should have gotten reparations. He never has and never will. Yet people are acting like he said "I believe slave owners should have gotten reparations" which is incredibly dishonest.

Honestly, Im pretty sure you know this which is why even in your post you're saying he did "argue" that, which no one is denying. Criticize him for making a bad argument all you want, but attributing the opinion to him is either dishonest, ignorant, or both.

 

[Darkballs]

Arguing a position and believing it are two different things. That's literally why you use the phrase "you could make an argument".

The point is, he doesn't believe slave owners should have gotten reparations. He never has and never will. Yet people are acting like he said "I believe slave owners should have gotten reparations" which is incredibly dishonest.

So let me get this straight:

People reported that Elder answered a question about reparations with his quip about how white slave owners could also be entitled to reparations. That happened. You think that the reporting misled people into believing Elder believed what he said, when in reality you don't think he meant it?

What exactly do you think the media needed to preface that story with? A big disclaimer that read "Notice! This was Larry's answer to a question, but who knows what he really thinks!", or "Ladies and gentlemen, be warned, Elder is responding to a question."

Same challenge to you then: Why don't you show us where the deception is? Give us an example of a MSM take on Elder's comments and how you felt they were deceptive. Because everyone else here saw those quotes in their appropriate context, and every single person (except you and elkarlo) were able to deduce that Elder's response came from a question he was asked about reparations in general.

 

[Bob Gray]

So let me get this straight:

People reported that Elder answered a question about reparations with his quip about how white slave owners could also be entitled to reparations. That happened. You think that the reporting misled people into believing Elder believed what he said, when in reality you don't think he meant it?

What exactly do you think the media needed to preface that story with? A big disclaimer that read "Notice! This was Larry's answer to a question, but who knows what he really thinks!", or "Ladies and gentlemen, be warned, Elder is responding to a question."

Same challenge to you then: Why don't you show us where the deception is? Give us an example of a MSM take on Elder's comments and how you felt they were deceptive. Because everyone else here saw those quotes in their appropriate context, and every single person (except you and elkarlo) were able to deduce that Elder's response came from a question he was asked about reparations in general.

Let me get this straight. You do literally think Elder believes slave owners should have been compensated? This is a yes or no question.

 

[Darkballs]

Let me get this straight. You do literally think Elder believes slave owners should have been compensated? This is a yes or no question.

Well I can only judge him by the comments he's made on the subject that I'm aware of. To that effect, he's stated that white people could be subject to reparations based on their economic loss. So clearly Elder believes that there are circumstances where former slave owners could be compensated. What did you think? That this answer was only meant to be a vague hypothetical, and the media that printed his direct quote was somehow dishonest?

We were talking about the media being deceptive. You think them mentioning Larry's quote regarding reparations was deceitful, because by printing the question and answer, the media tricked people into believing that Elder supported reparations for white slave owners, because Elder had just made an argument for awarding them reparations.

So I'm asking you, what additional context did you need? Every bit of print media I saw on the subject stated 1) that this was a statement made by Elder during an interview; 2) included the question he was asked; and 3) quoted Elder directly.
Is it necessary for that interviewer to claim, in big bold letters, something to the effect of "Despite us quoting Elder in his own words, we are here to let our readers know that maybe Larry, despite saying one thing, really meant the complete opposite, and that maybe the position he is advocating here is one that he secretly doesn't support."

Because most of us are able to read direct questions and answers and deduce their plain meaning. Conservatives, desperate to explain any stupid answer given by one of their own, often insist that we've got it all wrong.

 

[Bob Gray]

Well I can only judge him by the comments he's made on the subject that I'm aware of. To that effect, he's stated that white people could be subject to reparations based on their economic loss. So clearly Elder believes that there are circumstances where former slave owners could be compensated. What did you think? That this answer was only meant to be a vague hypothetical, and the media that printed his direct quote was somehow dishonest?

We were talking about the media being deceptive. You think them mentioning Larry's quote regarding reparations was deceitful, because by printing the question and answer, the media tricked people into believing that Elder supported reparations for white slave owners, because Elder had just made an argument for awarding them reparations.

So I'm asking you, what additional context did you need? Every bit of print media I saw on the subject stated 1) that this was a statement made by Elder during an interview; 2) included the question he was asked; and 3) quoted Elder directly.
Is it necessary for that interviewer to claim, in big bold letters, something to the effect of "Despite us quoting Elder in his own words, we are here to let our readers know that maybe Larry, despite saying one thing, really meant the complete opposite, and that maybe the position he is advocating here is one that he secretly doesn't support."

Because most of us are able to read direct questions and answers and deduce their plain meaning. Conservatives, desperate to explain any stupid answer given by one of their own, often insist that we've got it all wrong.

That's a lot of words for "yes".

You're already being disengenuous. He didn't say "white people". He said slave owners. The majority of which were white, but not entirely.



"So clearly Elder believes that there are circumstances where former slave owners could be compensated"


This is stupid. You're still dancing around semantics without taking a stand. "Circumstances" where slave owners "could be compensated"? Wow, way to nail him down.

You understand they were talking about reparations, right? And Elder is against reparations? So when he says "How far do you want to take this argument", he is referring to the argument that he does not agree with (reparations). So taking the argument a step further (the same argument he already disagrees with) is not saying he agrees. You know this. Honestly, you do.

As for the media deception, just look up "elder slave owner" and see what the headlines are.

Well, you won't do it so let me do it for you:



Do you see how the media headlines aren't dancing around semantics like you are? They're outright saying "Elder says slave owners deserve reparations", which is a completely dishonest bastardization of what he actually said.

Or they're saying he's arguing it, which he isn't. He's saying if you take the argument of reparations (an argument he disagrees with) you could stretch it to slave owners too. But he isn't making this argument, he's demonstrating why it's a bad argument.

You've done this same tactic before. We all have. Taking someones argument and applying it to something else, something they wouldn't actually agree with despite the argument being the same.

Like I said. Criticize the analogy all you want. But that's not what's happening and that's not even what you're doing. You're trying to pretend this is something he believes.

 

[StoneColdSteveAustin]

That's a lot of words for "yes".

You're already being disengenuous. He didn't say "white people". He said slave owners. The majority of which were white, but not entirely.



"So clearly Elder believes that there are circumstances where former slave owners could be compensated"


This is stupid. You're still dancing around semantics without taking a stand. "Circumstances" where slave owners "could be compensated"? Wow, way to nail him down.

You understand they were talking about reparations, right? And Elder is against reparations? So when he says "How far do you want to take this argument", he is referring to the argument that he does not agree with (reparations). So taking the argument a step further (the same argument he already disagrees with) is not saying he agrees. You know this. Honestly, you do.

As for the media deception, just look up "elder slave owner" and see what the headlines are.

Well, you won't do it so let me do it for you:
View attachment 880150


Do you see how the media headlines aren't dancing around semantics like you are? They're outright saying "Elder says slave owners deserve reparations", which is a completely dishonest bastardization of what he actually said.

Or they're saying he's arguing it, which he isn't. He's saying if you take the argument of reparations (an argument he disagrees with) you could stretch it to slave owners too. But he isn't making this argument, he's demonstrating why it's a bad argument.

You've done this same tactic before. We all have. Taking someones argument and applying it to something else, something they wouldn't actually agree with despite the argument being the same.

Like I said. Criticize the analigy all you want. But that's not what's happening and that's not even what you're doing. You're trying to pretend this is something he believes.

lmfao you’ve been defending this stupid shit for over a week straight now. Aren’t you tired defending a fucking idiot like Larry Elder.


His life has been spent saying dumb shit all over the place. You should be ashamed of yourself

 

[Bob Gray]

lmfao you’ve been defending this stupid shit for over a week straight now. Aren’t you tired defending a fucking idiot like Larry Elder.


His life has been spent saying dumb shit all over the place. You should be ashamed of yourself

I guess the big question is why people are so stupid it takes over a week to explain something so simple to them.

 

[StoneColdSteveAustin]

I guess the big question is why people are so stupid it takes over a week to explain something so simple to them.

The problem here is that you’re wrong and this isn’t a one off type of thing.if it was I’d give him and you a pass. The problem is Elder has spent a career saying equally dumb shit.


He’s anti science, anti intellectualism, he’s a religious kook and hardcore trumper. Is there a worse combination of things on earth?


And here you sit defending his stupidity like he’s your father or something. It’s sad and pathetic