Maxine Waters calls Tucker racist for asking how she can afford multi-million dollar home representing extremely impoverished district

[IAMX 3,055]

 

 

Of course, she thinks its effective in 2017 to introduce her own narrative and call someone racist because they dared put her wealth into question, while this is a constant thing with the left on Trump.

 

Tucker Carlson tore into Rep. Maxine Waters Monday night after

she accused him of racism for asking how a lawmaker can afford to live in a $4.3 million home.

The Daily Caller co-founder first pointed out on his show several weeks ago that Waters, who has served in public office for nearly 40 years, lives in one of the richest neighborhoods in Los Angeles despite representing one of the poorest.

Waters was asked about the disparity in a New York Times Magazine interview and accused Carlson of being “racist” for questioning how an African-American woman acquired her wealth.

“So where did the money [for the house] come from?” Carlson asked again. “Maybe she borrowed it from family members. Since 2006 she’s paid her own daughter $600,000 from campaign funds.”

“Then there’s her husband who was once the director of One United Bank,” he continued. “Never heard of it? Well in 2008 One United Bank got a $12 million tax bill bailout after Waters convince the treasury department to take up the case.”

“One liberal group ranked Waters as one of the most corrupt members of Congress. We are withholding judgment on that,” Carlson concluded. “We’ve asked Waters on this show many times to explain and we’re going to keep asking.”

 

What? You dare question my ethics? Racism! 

 

Yeah, good luck with that. 

[bcking 3,157]

In 2013 OneUnitedBank had over 600 million in assets, and her husband was once the Director.

 

It seems pretty obvious to me without asking how she can afford to live in a 4 million dollar home. I imagine her husbands salary was more than enough.

[IAMX 3,055]

1 minute ago, bcking said:

In 2013 OneUnitedBank had over 600 million in assets, and her husband was once the Director.

 

It seems pretty obvious to me without asking how she can afford to live in a 4 million dollar home. I imagine her husbands salary was more than enough.

So should be a simple answer right? 

[bcking 3,157]

36 minutes ago, IAMX said:

So should be a simple answer right? 

Some questions don't really need to be asked.

 

If someone has a low paying job, but is married to someone wealthier, it seems rather pointless to question how they can afford their house. It is typical for a married couple to use both of their assets when living together. You wouldn't ask my wife, who is currently unemployed, how she affords to own a home, drive a car and eat food.

 

I know very little about this woman so I looked her up briefly. First off, her current husband was never "Director of One United Bank", as Carlson states (Fake news?). Her current husband is a former NFL football player. She divorced her first husband in 1972 (Doesn't really fit with the "corruption" card Carlson wants to play regarding One United Bank in 2008...over 30 years later).

 

I'd say a woman who divorces a director of a large wealthy bank, and then marries a former NFL player, doesn't need to be questioned on how she owns a 4 million dollar home. That is quite modest if you ask me.

 

Edited July 25, 2017 by bcking

[IAMX 3,055]

22 minutes ago, bcking said:

Some questions don't really need to be asked.

Of a publicly elected official? 

 

Well then.. I presume no one needs to question the wealth of the Trump family.

 

But, I assume you're talking different standards for different people depending on which party they're in.

Edited July 25, 2017 by IAMX

[bcking 3,157]

1 minute ago, IAMX said:

Of a publicly elected official? 

 

Well then.. I presume no one needs to question the wealth of the Trump family.

 

But, I assume you're talking different standards for different people depending on which party they're in.

You quote my very first sentence. Was it too hard to read the rest?

 

As I said I know little about her, and a quick google search did bring up some issues involving corruption. Questioning the cost of her house though is fairly infantile and pointless, in my opinion. I also love how you gloss over the fact that Carlson was spreading some "fake news" about her husband who had an imaginary job at a bank.

 

A better comparison would be to question how Melania Trump rides around in a private jet and barely works. How can she afford all that? Something dark and sinister must be going on...

[IAMX 3,055]

12 minutes ago, bcking said:

You quote my very first sentence. Was it too hard to read the rest?

 

As I said I know little about her, and a quick google search did bring up some issues involving corruption. Questioning the cost of her house though is fairly infantile and pointless, in my opinion. I also love how you gloss over the fact that Carlson was spreading some "fake news" about her husband who had an imaginary job at a bank.

 

A better comparison would be to question how Melania Trump rides around in a private jet and barely works. How can she afford all that? Something dark and sinister must be going on...

So questioning Melania Trump's wealth is okay, even though she's not an elected official..

 

But questioning an elected official is not okay..

 

 

You're just proving Tucker's point.

Edited July 25, 2017 by IAMX

[bcking 3,157]

5 minutes ago, IAMX said:

So questioning Melania Trump's wealth is okay, even though she's not an elected official..

 

But questioning an elected official is not okay..

 

 

You're just proving Tucker's point.

I'm not saying you should question Melania's wealth, I'm saying the opposite (It's seriously sad that this needs to be spelled out for you). It would be silly to question Melania's ability to afford her lifestyle, just like it is silly to question ANYONE without first evaluating whether it is outside the means of their partner.

 

You can't take one person in isolation. There may still be corruption going on, but as I've said from the beginning using her 4 million dollar house as evidence is pretty darn weak.

 

Also, once again (would still like your response on this) - Great "fake news" Carlson spewed out. Her husband was never the director of a bank. Totally fake. Just fake news. Oh my god fake fake fake  (It feels good to act "Presidential"...)

Edited July 25, 2017 by bcking

[IAMX 3,055]

4 minutes ago, bcking said:

I'm not saying you should question Melania's wealth, I'm saying the opposite (It's seriously sad that this needs to be spelled out for you). It would be silly to question Melania's ability to afford her lifestyle, just like it is silly to question ANYONE without first evaluating whether it is outside the means of their partner.

 

You can't take one person in isolation. There may still be corruption going on, but as I've said from the beginning using her 4 million dollar house as evidence is pretty darn weak.

 

Also, once again (would still like your response on this) - Great "fake news" Carlson spewed out.

Questioning the wealth of someone when they represent an extremely impoverished district they don't even live in, and who cry about the wealth of others, is not out of bounds whatsoever. 

 

And honestly I'm not sure what you're even trying to argue, other than Tucker used the data he has in a way that befits his narrative, which every pundit does. Guess pundits are reporters now. Guess it isn't surprising since the left get their news from Bill Maher, Samantha Bee, John Oliver, etc.

 

Now.. I wonder how Tucker is racist for calling Maxine Waters out for her hypocrisy.

Edited July 25, 2017 by IAMX

[bcking 3,157]

2 minutes ago, IAMX said:

Questioning the wealth of someone when they represent an extremely impoverished district they don't even live in, and who cry about the wealth of others, is not out of bounds whatsoever. 

 

And honestly I'm not sure what you're even trying to argue, other than Tucker used the data he has in a way that befits his narrative, which every pundit does.

He used fake data. Tucker is fake news. The fakiest. Super fake. Just the most fake ever (I'm even more Presidential now )

 

Questioning the wealth of an individual who is married to someone wealthy is like questioning why your tea is hot after you put boiled water in it. You can question it, but it makes you look rather silly and it won't get you very far. 

Edited July 25, 2017 by bcking

[IAMX 3,055]

2 minutes ago, bcking said:

He used fake data. Tucker is fake news. The fakiest. Super fake. Just the most fake ever (I'm even more Presidential now )

 

Questioning the wealth of an individual who is married to someone wealthy is like questioning why your tea is hot after you put boiled water in it. You can question it, but it makes you look rather silly and it won't get you very far. 

Questioning the wealth of an individual in an extremely poor district (one they don't live in) who questions the wealth of others.. you're glossing over that part, for obvious reasons. Along with the fact that this person labels it racism.. because apparently black people are immune to criticism of any kind.

Edited July 25, 2017 by IAMX

[bcking 3,157]

1 minute ago, IAMX said:

Questioning the wealth of an individual in an extremely poor district (one they don't live in) who questions the wealth of others.. you're glossing over that part, for obvious reasons.

The fact that she doesn't live in the district she represents is nothing special. At least 20 other Representatives fit that bill. There is no requirement in the constitution.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/04/21/at-least-20-members-of-the-house-are-registered-to-vote-outside-their-districts/?utm_term=.52eefc2bcd89

 

She is free to represent a district she doesn't live in, as long as those people have voted for her. The disparity between her wealth and the wealth of the district she represents is an issue for the voters in that district to consider. 

 

As I've already said, if you want to point out and discuss issues of possible corruption that is fine. Just questioning how much her home is worth and how she specifically can afford it is not a smart way to go about doing it. There are a number of reasons for that which all seem to go over Carlson (and your own) head. Honestly these issues should be pretty obvious and apparent to anyone who has ever owned a home. I don't agree with her calling him a racist, because I think the proper word would have been "idiot".

 

1. Joint ownership - You can't just look at her salary as a Congresswoman in isolation. She owns the home jointly with her husband. What is her husband worth? What are his assets? As a former NFL player he may do quite well for himself (It was difficult to find specific data, and his career was several decades ago).

2. Home value - The statement that the house is "worth 4 million dollars" does not mean it is worth that. Those are estimates since the house is not for sale. Estimates vary widely. Some websites say it is worth 3 million dollars. You don't know what it is worth until you sell it.

3. Buying price - As far as I can tell, she has lived in the house for approximately 15 years. It is going to be impossible to find exactly what they paid for it, but based on a listing I could find from when it was for sale, it was listed for around 2 million at that time. Presumably they got it for less but I don't know what the market was doing 15 years ago in LA.

 

Carlson can question it if he wants, but it makes him look like he is uninformed and desperate to talk about something. He ends up falling back on "fake news" (Her husband was a director of One United Bank, which is fake).

[IAMX 3,055]

5 minutes ago, bcking said:

The fact that she doesn't live in the district she represents is nothing special. At least 20 other Representatives fit that bill. There is no requirement in the constitution.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/04/21/at-least-20-members-of-the-house-are-registered-to-vote-outside-their-districts/?utm_term=.52eefc2bcd89

 

She is free to represent a district she doesn't live in, as long as those people have voted for her. The disparity between her wealth and the wealth of the district she represents is an issue for the voters in that district to consider. 

 

As I've already said, if you want to point out and discuss issues of possible corruption that is fine. Just questioning how much her home is worth and how she specifically can afford it is not a smart way to go about doing it. There are a number of reasons for that which all seem to go over Carlson (and your own) head. Honestly these issues should be pretty obvious and apparent to anyone who has ever owned a home. I don't agree with her calling him a racist, because I think the proper word would have been "idiot".

 

1. Joint ownership - You can't just look at her salary as a Congresswoman in isolation. She owns the home jointly with her husband. What is her husband worth? What are his assets? As a former NFL player he may do quite well for himself (It was difficult to find specific data, and his career was several decades ago).

2. Home value - The statement that the house is "worth 4 million dollars" does not mean it is worth that. Those are estimates since the house is not for sale. Estimates vary widely. Some websites say it is worth 3 million dollars. You don't know what it is worth until you sell it.

3. Buying price - As far as I can tell, she has lived in the house for approximately 15 years. It is going to be impossible to find exactly what they paid for it, but based on a listing I could find from when it was for sale, it was listed for around 2 million at that time. Presumably they got it for less but I don't know what the market was doing 15 years ago in LA.

 

Carlson can question it if he wants, but it makes him look like he is uninformed and desperate to talk about something. He ends up falling back on "fake news" (Her husband was a director of One United Bank, which is fake).

Maybe you can teach Maxine to take this approach instead of the one she took, as it makes Carlson look better by doing so. Of course, this doesn't address anything with regard to his criticism of her corruption problem, just the parts of the argument you felt compelled to rebut, but I can't say I disagree with the parts you did bother to give rebuttal to. 

 

I think this is a microcosm of the Trump issue.. Trump would honestly look like garbage if it weren't for the left looking that much worse than he is. Trump knows, and as an intelligent marketer, much like Obama was, he fully knows how to take advantage of the lefts stupidity. How little they understand they'd find a lot more support if they'd stop acting like idiots, and Trump, Carlson, et al. wouldn't even stand a chance.

 

 

Edited July 25, 2017 by IAMX

[bcking 3,157]

4 minutes ago, IAMX said:

Maybe you can teach Maxine to take this approach instead of the one she took, as it makes Carlson look better by doing so. Of course, this doesn't address anything with regard to his criticism of her corruption problem, just the parts of the argument you felt compelled to rebut, but I can't say I disagree with the parts you did bother to give rebuttal to. 

 

I think this is a microcosm of the Trump issue.. Trump would honestly look like garbage if it weren't for the left looking that much worse than he is. Trump knows, and as an intelligent marketer, much like Obama was, he fully knows how to take advantage of the lefts stupidity. How little they understand they'd find a lot more support if they'd stop acting like idiots, and Trump, Carlson, et al. wouldn't even stand a chance.

 

 

As I've said multiple times I know very little about her, so I am "bothering" to give a rebuttal specifically to the story content. The story headlines/content was regarding Carlson questioning how she can afford the home she lives in, so I focused on that. There are likely far better ways to suggest she is corrupt, but Carlson didn't choose to focus on those. He focused on her house, and then focused on a bit of "fake news" by claiming her husband was a former director of a bank that she supported in 2008. The sad fact is there is a reasonable concern regarding corruption in that case, but it doesn't have anything to do with her husband being a former Director. He had an investment in the bank, which is the source of the corruption claim. It is Carlson's job to get his facts right otherwise he needs to be lumped into the "Fake Media" that Trump is so quick to demonize.

 

While I agree with you that there are idiots on the left, I would not consider Trump an "intelligent marketer" by any means. Someone has to have a half-way decent reputation to be considered that. He has the lowest reputation of any President at the same stage in office in history. He has one of the worst reputations among other Western countries. Those aren't the signs of an "intelligent marketer".

 

He is still where he is for a combination of reasons. One may be that the left can't quite get their act together, but another large part of it is he has a large enough group that will blindly follow him and claim he does no wrong.

[IAMX 3,055]

32 minutes ago, bcking said:

As I've said multiple times I know very little about her, so I am "bothering" to give a rebuttal specifically to the story content. The story headlines/content was regarding Carlson questioning how she can afford the home she lives in, so I focused on that. There are likely far better ways to suggest she is corrupt, but Carlson didn't choose to focus on those. He focused on her house, and then focused on a bit of "fake news" by claiming her husband was a former director of a bank that she supported in 2008. The sad fact is there is a reasonable concern regarding corruption in that case, but it doesn't have anything to do with her husband being a former Director. He had an investment in the bank, which is the source of the corruption claim. It is Carlson's job to get his facts right otherwise he needs to be lumped into the "Fake Media" that Trump is so quick to demonize.

 

While I agree with you that there are idiots on the left, I would not consider Trump an "intelligent marketer" by any means. Someone has to have a half-way decent reputation to be considered that. He has the lowest reputation of any President at the same stage in office in history. He has one of the worst reputations among other Western countries. Those aren't the signs of an "intelligent marketer".

 

He is still where he is for a combination of reasons. One may be that the left can't quite get their act together, but another large part of it is he has a large enough group that will blindly follow him and claim he does no wrong.

Okay, about the marketing thing..

 

Remove the element of the left and their irrationality. 

 

Does Trump get elected? Do the Republicans win every special election? Pretty easy answer -- no.

 

Trump's intelligent marketing isn't in his "reputation" by the media's standards. It's gaining approval by showing how utterly nuts the other side is. Don't mistake his marketing prowess for approval for his persona as the left typically do -- they're the exact reason why persona driven marketing works as proof with Obama and now Trump. That's why they constantly fail to grasp what makes Trump effective. Without the left and Dems being far worse than Trump, there's a snowballs chance in hell Trump wins any of the rust belt states, and loses other states like NC, FL, IA, and so on.

 

Anyways, in regards to "fake media", "fake news" and whatever you're trying to get at, you're not making any sense with this.