Did Elder manipulate them in a white supremacy argument, then?
The article doesnât say Elder is a white supremacist.
the article say that Elder views on black crime are heavily shaped by debunked talking points pushed by white nationalists and those views will greatly effect the black population of CA.
1 Like
Ok. They donât stick to what he said, they make analogies or references to what someone else said and throw it in an article about Elder.
Classic smear.
Having just checked out Taylorâs website, I would say some allegations about him may be supported. Off hand, I would not vote for him. But then, he isnât running.
Donât worry, weâre used to it. Weâve heard libs talk. 
1 Like
Deflection noted.
1 Like
Not a deflection, just easing your concern for us. 
1 Like
He did say that slaveholders should have received reparations, thatâs kinda weird.
The man is an out and out racist.
Allan
Well they did lose their property.
Many before the war were pro compensation for freed slaves.
Nothing wrong with that stance. It was measured and the right thing to do.
Once they went seceded and attacked fort Sumter over that, the compensation question was null and void.
The south should have negotiated an end to slavery, not fought a war over it.
Allan
She referred to Mr. Elder as having a white supremacist world view.
I donât agree with him on at least one issue, but white supremacist world view?! 
Thatâs a gratuitous statement, youâve provided no examples, quotes or links.
You can do better than that. âCâmon manâ.
When do Jeremiah Wright and âScrewy Louieâ Farrakhan get their âout and out racistâ T-shirts?
1 Like
And I just checked out the context of Elder making the statement about compensation, and avoiding the civil war by offering compensation was part of that contextâŚmentioning slavery ended in Britain by offering compensation.
The other context was to make the argument that no one should get reparations at this point, not to actually argue for slaveholder compensation. He never argued that there should be such reparations at the current time.
Whether you agree with his statements or not, it is clear they are being taken out of context and misrepresented for political purposes.
Youâre right, but itâs a stupid argument. If descendants of slaveowners asked for reparations, proponents of reparations for descendants of slaves would tell them no because slavery is evil and their slaveholder ancestorsâ claims were morally illegitimate.
Unsure why you would thing I support racists.
I donât.
If you start a thread on those two people I will tell ya.
Allan
It was a stupid argument mostly because it opened itself up so easily for people to falsely claim he wanted reparations for slave holders.
No, thatâs not the most important reason for it being a stupid argument.
Sure it is. The proof is in the claim made.
What?
Here is some from a Candace Owens interview on July 18th.
âSo, when people talk about reparations, do they really want to have that conversation? Because like it or not, slavery was legal. Their legal property was taken away from them after the Civil War, so you could make an argument that the people that are owed reparations are not only just Black people but also the people whose quote âpropertyâ was taken away after the end of the Civil War,â he added.
See where it says âafter the civil warâ
The time to offer compensation was before the war not after it.
It would be like the Japanese or the Germans wanting reparations after the war world 2.
The time for things like that are before a war not after.
Allan
