Social Candace Owens has been dropped from The Daily Wire.

[fedoriswar37]

She used to be on the left

Candace Owens
Dave Rubin
Tulsi Gabbard

All were on the left but moved to the right because it was more lucrative.

Or , because the left moved farther and farther away from reality.

 

[fedoriswar37]

Not surprised. Everybody knows if you even slightly criticize Isreal you'll be blacklisted from all conservative media.

 

[Sweater of AV]

C'mon now, take a guess. It's pretty obvious why.

*Why any intelligent person would listen to someone like Candace Owens is beyond me.

 

[nostradumbass]

The disparity between the alleged small proportion of liberals versus the alleged high proportion of liberal media is unsustainable. You're adding more caveats to your original post, which helps in eroding the validity of it.

Doesn't sound like you have much to contribute, or even which part you're disputing. You haven't cited anything suggesting the country has more liberals than moderates or conservatives, and your rebuttal to the media being to the left of the rest of the country was "but the Washington Times", with a fraction of the circulation of the NYT or WaPo.

This isn't really difficult stuff, the largest media outlets are reflective of the places they're headquartered, which are Washington DC and NYC, both of which are far to the left of the rest of the country.

This aligns pretty damn well with polling on trust in the media by political affiliation, which would contradict any claim you're vaguely trying to make that the media is somehow conservative or reflective of the country rather than the places they're headquartered.

 

[ShadowRun]

He definitely was not. I don't really see how you're maintaining that. You didn't see the show, OK, but what about what I said? The name of the show was a reference to right-wing attacks on socially liberal positions, and he called himself a libertarian (and not a Kropotkinite--we're talking right-wing libertarianism).

I know you're not going to try to be accurate because your intention is to troll. But if you did, you'd see I was clearly correct.

You're being really ridiculous with this and I hope your realize it. I searched politically incorrect and this is the first clip that comes up, he is for gay marriage. That is not a libertarian point of you. I bet 5 years ago you would of not said that about him but since he does not bend the knee to the extreme left with the wokeism he gets outcasted,.


As far as what you said well go ahead and solve the mystery instead of playing the semantics game, that I predicted.

 

[chardog]

we all know why she was axed. Not the biggest candice fan, but the recent macron's wife stuff was entertaining and funny, even if I believe she's wildly off.

it's their loss, I dont see them as some unstoppable juggernaut, they needed her, not the other way around.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You're being really ridiculous with this and I hope your realize it.

I think if you ever watched the show, you would realize that what I'm saying isn't even controversial. You still haven't really even addressed the two points I made.

I searched politically incorrect and this is the first clip that comes up, he is for gay marriage. That is not a libertarian point of you.

What? That is a libertarian view.

I bet 5 years ago you would of not said that about him but since he does not bend the knee to the extreme left with the wokeism he gets outcasted,.

In what sense is he "outcasted"? I said that he's a normal Democrat. I guess you think that means he's the devil, but I don't agree. I just noted that he has moved left (or the right has gotten more extreme so he doesn't fit in anymore).

As far as what you said well go ahead and solve the mystery instead of playing the semantics game, that I predicted.

I don't know what you're saying. I think a lot of rightists just say "you're playing semantics" when they don't have a real argument to make.

 

[helltoupee]

It doesn't have to go through the companies. When you see charts of donations from companies, it's usually aggregated individual donations from employees. So all XYZ employee contributions are combined in the chart and it will say "XYZ donated $X to the candidate." It’s illegal for corporations to donate to federal campaigns, and there are restrictions on state campaigns (depends on the state). There are some workarounds, but the info you usually see is aggregated employee donations, and the reason companies go both ways is that different employees donate in different ways.

I'll ask again since I feel like I'm missing something here.

What mechanism is in place by corporate America that allows employees to make political contributions?

Or are you saying when an individual makes a political contribution, they somehow list who their employer is on the donation itself that identifies who they work for? Otherwise how do these charts you speak of parse out the information of x corporation giving to x political party? Where do they get that kind of data of who works where?

At first I thought you were suggesting that employees donate through their employer, as in it's a tax deductible donation that shows up as a deduction on their paycheck, and subsequently the W-2 at the end of the year reflects as much. The only instance I've seen is for the United Way and a few other non-profits. As stated, I've never once seen a political contribution appearing on someone's W-2.

So the only thing left is that an employee makes a political contribution on their own, outside of the employer, and on the donation itself they list who their employer is? I will confess I've never personally made a political contribution and don't know what the form/process looks like, but the few I have seen simply ask for a name and money - nothing about listing who your employer is....what am I missing? How do these charts determine which employees of which corporations are making political contributions?

 

[Loiosh]

*Why any intelligent person would listen to someone like Candace Owens is beyond me.

Respect the effort, but intelligent people can be disingenuous.

They can listen to her and quote her, framing what she says as the black opinion on black people.

 

[ShadowRun]

I think if you ever watched the show, you would realize that what I'm saying isn't even controversial. You still haven't really even addressed the two points I made.


What? That is a libertarian view.

In what sense is he "outcasted"? I said that he's a normal Democrat. I guess you think that means he's the devil, but I don't agree. I just noted that he has moved left (or the right has gotten more extreme so he doesn't fit in anymore).

I don't know what you're saying. I think a lot of rightists just say "you're playing semantics" when they don't have a real argument to make.

Libertarian view is they want government control about marriages and what happens in bedrooms?

That is not a right wing libertarian position at all.

Do you remember in 2016/17 saying CNN gave more favorable coverage for Trump > Hillary. Anything close to that? If I got to search this messed up forum to find it I will.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I'll ask again since I feel like I'm missing something here.

What mechanism is in place by corporate America that allows employees to make political contributions?

I'm not really following you. Why wouldn't workers be allowed to make political contributions? That's a First Amendment thing, no? How would having a job cause you to lose that?

Or are you saying when an individual makes a political contribution, they somehow list who their employer is on the donation itself that identifies who they work for?

Yeah. There are also lists by "industry" that do the same thing.

Otherwise how do these charts you speak of parse out the information of x corporation giving to x political party? Where do they get that kind of data of who works where?

Disclosure forms. So like, here's reporting on that kind of thing:

The most liberal and conservative tech companies, ranked by employees' political donations

Netflix employees send 98% of their political contributions to Democrats, while those at Qualcomm split theirs evenly between parties.

www.cnbc.com

The figures you see there are not donations by the companies themselves (i.e., management using funds generated by the companies). It's just the total of all donations from employees.

So the only thing left is that an employee makes a political contribution on their own, outside of the employer, and on the donation itself they list who their employer is?

Yes.

 

[brothir]

Doesn't sound like you have much to contribute, or even which part you're disputing. You haven't cited anything suggesting the country has more liberals than moderates or conservatives, and your rebuttal to the media being to the left of the rest of the country was "but the Washington Times", with a fraction of the circulation of the NYT or WaPo.

This isn't really difficult stuff, the largest media outlets are reflective of the places they're headquartered, which are Washington DC and NYC, both of which are far to the left of the rest of the country.

This aligns pretty damn well with polling on trust in the media by political affiliation, which would contradict any claim you're vaguely trying to make that the media is somehow conservative or reflective of the country rather than the places they're headquartered.

I've clearly stated twice before that the suggestion that large parts of the media are liberal whereas liberals are a small part of the US population is incoherent. The Washington Times is roughly 40% of Washington Post, whereas Fox News is substantially larger than its closest competitors. Using those limited examples it seems to balance out, which possibly indicates that liberals favor reading news compared to watching news, but also that media in total is roughly balanced between liberal and conservative.

I've never made the claim that "the media is somehow conservative", and since the largest media outlets are nationally available, even internationally, that has some necessary implications in terms of whom they want to sell to, how much money they can make and consequently how large they can be.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Libertarian view is they want government control about marriages and what happens in bedrooms?

??? Supporting SSM doesn't mean that people are forced to be gay. You realize that, right? Just that people can marry who they want to. Definitely a libertarian position.

Do you remember in 2016/17 saying CNN gave more favorable coverage for Trump > Hillary. Anything close to that? If I got to search this messed up forum to find it I will.

Not related to this thread, but CNN made a bunch of decisions in 2016 that had the effect of biasing coverage for Trump. They aired live, unedited rally footage (basically free advertising--should have been called a campaign contribution), replaced their Republican contributors with more pro-Trump ones (including Lewandowski, who had an active non-disparagement clause--which is highly unethical), gave a bizarre amount of coverage to the email story, etc. I would agree that there was a lot more negative info about Trump coming out, though.

 

[Sinister]

Or , because the left moved farther and farther away from reality.

No, people like Rubin, Tim Pool, and Owens just go from getting attention as upstarts to becoming "pick me" grifters. They ultimately go where the money is. Candace is the black woman who says it's ok to hate "black culture." Rubin is the gay guy who says it's ok to hate gays. Knowles is the closeted bisexual who wore women's clothes on camera who now says he was the most manly guy at Harvard, Tim Pool is her street protesting skatepunk who is now in favor of corporate heirarchy... and who is perpetually single yet sees fit to comment on what relationships should be in society. People only listen to these goons because they feel they validate their prejudices. The left is egalitarian, which upsets people who are not any time anyone advocates for their idea of "social degenerates."

 

[nostradumbass]

I've clearly stated twice before that the suggestion that large parts of the media are liberal whereas liberals are a small part of the US population is incoherent. The Washington Times is roughly 40% of Washington Post, whereas Fox News is substantially larger than its closest competitors. Using those limited examples it seems to balance out, which possibly indicates that liberals favor reading news compared to watching news, but also that media in total is roughly balanced between liberal and conservative.

I've never made the claim that "the media is somehow conservative", and since the largest media outlets are nationally available, even internationally, that has some necessary implications in terms of whom they want to sell to, how much money they can make and consequently how large they can be.

I see, so you just have no idea how distribution works. Did you think these newspapers were distributed evenly across the country?

• According to The New York Times readership demographics, 91% of its readers identify as Democrats.
• 49% of Americans believe Times is a trustworthy news source.
• The number of print subscribers dropped by 7.4% in 2020.
• Between 2000 and 2020, The New York Times’ daily circulation decreased by 55.7%.

Unsurprisingly, The New York Times’ readership numbers are the highest in the State of New York. The Sunday edition in 2020 circulated 207,188 copies there. California is another of the paper’s strongholds, with 101,061 copies of the Sunday issue in circulation.



In all, people identified in federal campaign finance filings as journalists, reporters, news editors or television news anchors — as well as other donors known to be working in journalism — have combined to give more than $396,000 to the presidential campaigns of Clinton and Trump, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis.


Nearly all of that money — more than 96 percent — has benefited Clinton: About 430 people who work in journalism have, through August, combined to give about $382,000 to the Democratic nominee, the Center for Public Integrity’s analysis indicates.

 

[Madmick]

I'm not conflating anything, they literally rank individuals by their wealth (since it's their most popular product, they now have categories for the charts ranging from the original outright wealth to the wealthiest sports stars and even social media/tik tok celebrities) and promote the unhindered pursuit and creation of that wealth in the climbing of that hierarchy. That's been the overarching nature of their articles all the way back to when it was primarily news for investors. There's nothing vague about it. That is what their business development is about, climbing up that wealth hierarchy. They were advertising a "Future of Wealth Summit" here last year about it. Plenty of data on the dynamics of wealth concentration. Not a critical examination.
"Success Global Media".
Bad as the Prosperity Doctrine preachers.
They are quite transparent in that they document and support the hierarchy of wealth by promoting it as natural and desirable. I have no idea what they publish that could be considered to have a left-wing bias which outweighs that focus, but if it exists it certainly is not as well known or widely consumed as their "wealthiest" lists and it's certainly not the topics they advertise.

Yes, you're clearly conflating wealth as a "natural" "hierarchy" with the business aims of the magazine. This is absurd.

First, let's correct your ignorance. Steve Forbes's father didn't found the magazine as you implied in a previous post. His grandfather E.B. Forbes did. The magazine was founded back in 1917, and was the only business magazine in the country with the explicit reason for its conception a desire by Forbes to offer unbiased business advice to readers. It was not affiliated with either party, and didn't seek to be. The Forbes 400 wasn't added until the 1980's, and the reason they kept it was because it was the only list of its kind, and a huge success with readers. More importantly, this list isn't intended as a hierarchy to be preserved. It's merely a hierarchy that is documented. The reason is interests people is precisely for the opposite reason; because it is dynamic.

The magazine caters to entrepreneurs. It is not surprising a liberal like yourself conflates the mere enterprise of entrepreneurship with "a natural hierarchy" of wealth, but no, quite simply no, this is a stupefying conflation. If the goal of the magazine were to preserve a "natural" "hierarchy" it would not obsessively print about startups, movers & shakers, and all other concerns related to disruptive new markets. The magazine doesn't seek to entrench a group of people of any specific party, race, class, religion, nationality, or any other unifying trait as the wealthy. It seeks only to inform those who seek business success on how to better achieve it. This doesn't even necessarily entail wealth as the primary goal. That depends on the reader.

Let's cut to the jib. To contend that a magazine focused on helping its readers succeed better in business is by definition "right-wing" because its editorial staff accepts that economic competition exists is tantamount to arguing that the industry of business itself is right-wing. Any exchange of goods where profit is sought is suddenly "right-wing".

By this logic, Bloomberg is inherently a right-wing publication. This is drivel. Vacuous nonsense.

 

[Mack Yancy]

What are some racial realities about Candace Owens that we 'can't ignore' @CyberRubberDuck @BearGrounds ?

 

[helltoupee]

I'm not really following you. Why wouldn't workers be allowed to make political contributions? That's a First Amendment thing, no? How would having a job cause you to lose that?


Yeah. There are also lists by "industry" that do the same thing.


Disclosure forms. So like, here's reporting on that kind of thing:

The most liberal and conservative tech companies, ranked by employees' political donations

Netflix employees send 98% of their political contributions to Democrats, while those at Qualcomm split theirs evenly between parties.

www.cnbc.com

The figures you see there are not donations by the companies themselves (i.e., management using funds generated by the companies). It's just the total of all donations from employees.

Yes.

Well I guess I learned something new - I've just never seen a political contribution document/form that requires or makes available a field that has the contributor list who their employer might be, and also would've never guessed that people would readily supply that info. I thought all the donation forms wanted was a name, money, and some kind of verification that you are over 18.

Here's Biden webpage for political donations:

https://secure.actblue.com/donate/a...EVGYmUeI5VkgrK2yQhRH0BRVWR3ZHRgMaAoabEALw_wcB

I don't see anywhere where someone has to list their employer and/or industry. So how can graphs be created identifying employees of company X and who they contribute to?

I'm not trying to give you a hard time, I sincerely can't figure out what I'm missing here.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Well I guess I learned something new - I've just never seen a political contribution document/form that requires or makes available a field that has the contributor list who their employer might be, and also would've never guessed that people would readily supply that info. I thought all the donation forms wanted was a name, money, and some kind of verification that you are over 18.

Here's Biden webpage for political donations:

https://secure.actblue.com/donate/a...EVGYmUeI5VkgrK2yQhRH0BRVWR3ZHRgMaAoabEALw_wcB

I don't see anywhere where someone has to list their employer and/or industry. So how can graphs be created identifying employees of company X and who they contribute to?

I'm not trying to give you a hard time, I sincerely can't figure out what I'm missing here.

Might depend on the job. I have to run any political contributions or stock purchases through my company's compliance site. That's pretty common, though not for all jobs. I'm in finance so there are heavier regs. I know people in healthcare who also have to do that.

 

[spamking]

Candace Owens out at Daily Wire

Conservative commentator Candace Owens is out at the Daily Wire, the company announced Friday. In a social media post on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, Daily Wire co-founder Jeremy Bore…

thehill.com

Conservative commentator Candace Owens is out at the Daily Wire, the company announced Friday.

In a social media post on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, Daily Wire co-founder Jeremy Boreing wrote “Daily Wire and Candace Owens have ended their relationship.”

Boreing did not provide any additional details on what led to the separation. The Hill has reached out to the Daily Wire for additional comment.