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

[Dashinka 26,210]

1 minute ago, bcking said:

I was going to wait while I was back at my office to reply since I'm in a conference on my phone.

 

Hopefully people on these forums recognise that I will openly admit when I'm wrong. I've done so in the past and will continue to do so. As I said at the beginning, I knew very little about this woman before this thread.

 

When I quickly googled her husband the articles (I think I read 2) stated he owned shares, they didn't specify he was on the board (great poignant example of misinformation that isn't wrong, but just misleading). I read those and ran with it. That is why I said the issue with the bank has valid corruption concerns, I just didn't have complete information.

 

Obviously I am wrong. Thank you for pointing it out.

 

If a doctor makes a false statement on a news channel without anyone properly correcting him/her, the channel is peddling in fake news (in my opinion). I'm blanking on his name but there is a particular snake oil/CT surgeon salesman who has a TV show that comes to mind. He can stick to his show, but if CNN, Fox etc... What him on one of their news shows and let him spew nonsense, that's fake news in my eyes because they allow him to spread misinformation as if it is true (he tends to not make statements with any hint of doubt, he claims things are absolutely true/effective). They have a responsibility to do more than that.

Admitting an error in CEHST!  Reported!

 

[bcking 3,157]

47 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Admitting an error in CEHST!  Reported!

 

You know I disagree with you (and IAMX) on a lot (most?) things, but in most situations we are dealing with opinions.

 

When we are dealing with facts, I see no reason to somehow "double down" and continue to argue I'm in the right. I'm clearly wrong. It was a very stupid error (even googling now I find the information easily...I need to review my google search techniques I guess lol).

[IAMX 3,055]

Whats funny is I never even argued whether or not the guy was a director. 

 

My issue is calling someone racist for asking a valid question.

 

Then of course, the fake news thing for a pundits show that isn't news.

 

If the left weren't busy throwing TDS tantrums they'd actually find we agree a lot on the issues, and in fact, with some of bckings posts here I do agree with some of the stuff he posts, it just had nothing to do with the premise of the thread.

 

Edited July 25, 2017 by IAMX

[bcking 3,157]

57 minutes ago, IAMX said:

Whats funny is I never even argued whether or not the guy was a director. 

 

My issue is calling someone racist for asking a valid question.

 

Then of course, the fake news thing for a pundits show that isn't news.

 

If the left weren't busy throwing TDS tantrums they'd actually find we agree a lot on the issues, and in fact, with some of bckings posts here I do agree with some of the stuff he posts, it just had nothing to do with the premise of the thread.

 

Please be aware that I was operating under the (now clearly incorrect) assumption that the facts were that her husband had never been Director. I realize that I was incorrect, but at the time I believed that was the fact.

 

The reality is still that there is a 'fact' when it comes to this kind of situation. Whether or not he was a Director is not subject to opinion. It is a fact. That is while I readily admitted my mistake, because I can't argue against facts. As you pointed out you never disputed whether or not it was a fact, so your non-sense about how it wasn't fake news was just that - nonsense. It doesn't matter if someone is a pundit, or a news anchor. If they are providing misinformation, they are spreading "fake news". In this case Carlson wasn't spreading fake news because I was actually the one with my facts wrong. That doesn't mean he can, in the future, make statements that aren't factually correct and get away with it (well he can get away with it, but he shouldn't). The same goes for anyone else, including CNN, Wapo etc... I don't really care. Bottom line - Pundits are still liable for facts that they misrepresent.

 

The original premise of the thread was to discuss the interaction between Carlson and Walters. I've already stated on here that I agree that calling him a racist is out of line and hurts her case. I originally only wanted to point out additionally that I think Carlson's questioning her ability to afford her house was out of line. There zero evidence to suggest that her house is somehow a sign of corruption. It wasn't racist to bring it up, it was just stupid. Given her husband's past history, and the fact that they have lived in their home for over a decade, the price of their home is well within what would be reasonable for them to be able to afford. 

 

So I don't think Carlson was on the right track when questioning her home ownership, but also don't think Walters should have responded by calling him "racist". She would have been better off calling him idiot, though that wouldn't have helped her much either. A simple "I jointly own my home with my husband. We purchased the house 15 years ago, the value has increased substantially during that time, and my husband has a history of doing quite well in investments and in his prior career as an NFL player."

Edited July 25, 2017 by bcking

[IAMX 3,055]

Just now, bcking said:

Please be aware that I was operating under the (now clearly incorrect) assumption that the facts were that her husband had never been Director. I realize that I was incorrect, but at the time I believed that was the fact.

 

The reality is still that there is a 'fact' when it comes to this kind of situation. Whether or not he was a Director is not subject to opinion. It is a fact. That is while I readily admitted my mistake, because I can't argue against facts. As you pointed out you never disputed whether or not it was a fact, so your non-sense about how it wasn't fake news was rather confusing. It doesn't matter if someone is a pundit, or a news anchor. If they are providing misinformation, they are spreading "fake news". In this case Carlson wasn't spreading fake news because I was actually the one with my facts wrong. That doesn't mean he can, in the future, make statements that aren't factually correct and get away with it (well he can get away with it, but he shouldn't). The same goes for anyone else, including CNN, Wapo etc... I don't really care.

 

The original premise of the thread was to discuss the interaction between Carlson and Walters. I've already stated on here that I agree that calling him a racist is out of line and hurts her case. I originally only wanted to point out additionally that I think Carlson's questioning her ability to afford her house was out of line. There zero evidence to suggest that her house is somehow a sign of corruption. It wasn't racist to bring it up, it was just stupid. Given her husband's past history, and the fact that they have lived in their home for over a decade, the price of their home is well within what would be reasonable for them to be able to afford. 

 

So I don't think Carlson was on the right track when questioning her home ownership, but also don't think Walters should have responded by calling him "racist". She would have been better off calling him idiot, though that wouldn't have helped her much either. A simple "I jointly own my home with my husband. We purchased the house 15 years ago, the value has increased substantially during that time, and my husband has a history of doing quite well in investments and in his prior career as an NFL player."

A simple answer said matter of fact like as this would have made this entire thing do a 180, in fact, wouldn't have even been a thread about it.

[bcking 3,157]

3 minutes ago, IAMX said:

A simple answer said matter of fact like as this would have made this entire thing do a 180, in fact, wouldn't have even been a thread about it.

Ya of course I agree with you on that. She was rather quick to pull the "R" card, as many people are these days. Doesn't mean racism doesn't exist, but lack of intelligence is far more rampant and easier to pick apart. She should have schooled him on air by mentioning the age of the house, the list price when she purchased it, the increase in property value, the inherent inaccuracies in assuming property value when the house is not for sale and some reference to the finances of her husband and how it is not unusual for married couples to jointly own homes. 

Edited July 25, 2017 by bcking

[Dashinka 26,210]

15 hours ago, bcking said:

Ya of course I agree with you on that. She was rather quick to pull the "R" card, as many people are these days. Doesn't mean racism doesn't exist, but lack of intelligence is far more rampant and easier to pick apart. She should have schooled him on air by mentioning the age of the house, the list price when she purchased it, the increase in property value, the inherent inaccuracies in assuming property value when the house is not for sale and some reference to the finances of her husband and how it is not unusual for married couples to jointly own homes. 

The hypocrisy of Rep. Waters is in full view.  In her life, she worked hard, advanced herself, and now with her husband is able to afford a nice life.  Instead of teaching that mentality to her constituents, she portrays them to be more like people stuck in their situation caused by rich people/corporations (like herself and her husband) and only the Government (run by the Dems of course) can take care of her constituents. 

[IAMX 3,055]

1 hour ago, Bill & Katya said:

The hypocrisy of Rep. Waters is in full view.  In her life, she worked hard, advanced herself, and now with her husband is able to afford a nice life.  Instead of teaching that mentality to her constituents, she portrays them to be more like people stuck in their situation caused by rich people/corporations (like herself and her husband) and only the Government (run by the Dems of course) can take care of her constituents. 

Catering to the constituency as they all do. 

 

Not the hero her district needs but the one it deserves. 

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

1 minute ago, IAMX said:

Catering to the constituency as they all do. 

Not the hero her district needs but the one it deserves. 

I really hope she has a good a challenger next year and gets voted out of office. Supposedly there is a Hispanic Republican that is going to take her own and hopefully win. Which if y'all don't know her areas that she represents has had a very BIG demographic shift in the last two decades. The district used to be primarily a African-American district and now it is primarily a Hispanic district, which in some cases are actively pushing black people out of neighborhoods.