SC - US Senate candidate: "You have to treat white people like shit"

Joined
Aug 31, 2007
Messages
117,702
What This Senate Candidate Is Caught on Tape Saying Is So Bad Her Fellow Democrats Want Her to Drop Out

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2022/09/09/krystle-matthews-project-veritas-n2612865

9 Sept 2022

U.S. Senate candidate and South Carolina state Rep. Krystle Matthews doubled down on comments she made in a leaked audio recording arguing white people needed to be treated like “sh*t.”

Her disparaging remarks were made in an undercover Project Veritas recording, which shows her at a restaurant speaking to an unidentified reporter about her radical beliefs.

“My district is slightly Republican, and it's heavily white. I'm no stranger to white people, I'm from mostly white town. And let me tell you one thing. You ought to know who you’re dealing with, like you gotta treat them [white people] like sh*t, like I mean, that’s the only way they’ll respect you,” she says.

Matthews, who is taking on Sen. Tim Scott in November, goes on to say white people are like children.

“I keep them right here -- like under my thumbs. That’s where I keep it, like you have to,” she continues. “Otherwise, they get out of control -- like kids. So, you know, like, for me I know other people are tip-toeing around them [white people]. And I’m like, ‘Yo, that’s some white sh*t. I ain’t doing that.’”

Matthews also criticized Sen. Bernie Sanders for the way he "They be like, ‘Well, I’m just gonna say some white sh*t.’ And that was my problem with Bernie [Sanders]. Because he was talking to an all-black crowd, and he was afraid to say black sh*t. I said, ‘If I’m talking to an all-black crowd, I’m saying black sh*t. Now if you don’t like it, you get your ass up and leave.’”



Rather than apologize, Matthews stood by her comments in a lengthy statement.

“Aren’t you tired of politicians selling out our communities, spitting on our working families, and exploiting the rights of our women and children? While taking community pictures and kissing our babies, our favorite legislators wash their hands and sweep what our community needs under the rug. What would you call that? I call that SH**, and my mother raised me to treat something exactly how it is!” she said in a statement, according to Live 5 News. So when I stated to that undercover journalist … in that satirical MAGA Powered news outlet Project Veritas, ‘to treat these MAGA Republicans like SH**.’ I SAID WHAT I SAID! Play the whole tape ‘PROJECT VERITAS’ so the people will know who I was referring to. Regardless of race, I love everyone. One thing you can learn from Project Veritas’ first audio attack on me is obviously, I have no biases towards a certain ethnic group. I expressed my disgust for Black legislators who exhibit the same hypocrisy as MAGA Republicans. This is why I am challenging MAGA’s favorite Black legislator, Tim Scott. Understand I never proposed to be an orthodox candidate. I’m a community advocate who the people favored enough to have me take the seat of a Republican incumbent.”
 
More bullsh|t where politicians sling sh|t at each other, and the People still have no clue what policies they support/oppose.

It's Campaign Season, Tim has a 90%. The threshold should be at least that every single year. His lifetime average is not even 70%, which makes him a SHILL.

Score Congress
68% Lifetime
90% 117th (2021-2022)
40% 116th (2019-2020)
50% 115th (2017-2018)
62% 114th (2015-2016)
87% 113th (2013-2014)
78% 112th (2011-2012)

https://thenewamerican.com/freedom-index/legislator/s001184/


Does that mean I would ever support Matthews? Not-on-your-life. But I sure as hell wouldn't support SHILL Scott either. No worries, most folks will, because of the racial bickering, and they wouldn't think of rocking the boat now with another better candidate.

Congrats ahead of time, Tim Scott (R-Shill). After elections, maybe you'll beat your own record and go from a 40% down to a 30%.
 
Last edited:
Isn't this this woman who also solicited shill donations from drug dealers?
 
Why does the thread title put quotation marks around something that isn't a quote?

I translated it from Ebonics/Millennial Newspeak into Standard English.

Rep. Krystle Matthews said:

"like, you gotta treat them, [white people], like shit"

My headline said:

"You have to treat white people like shit"

Her words, exactly as she spoke them, are at 10 to the 12 second mark:

 
OK. But those brackets there mean someone supplied words she didn't say.

Except for autistic people, there's not any meaningful difference between "I'm no stranger to white people, ... you gotta treat them like shit" and "you gotta treat [white people] like shit."

It's an accurate quote.
 
OK. But those brackets there mean someone supplied words she didn't say.

Seriously...you're going to grammar Nazi me over that?

Seriously?

Using Square Brackets in Quotes

Writers use brackets in academic writing to add information to a quote without changing the meaning of the sentence.

This means that the writer can add words, if necessary, to make the sentence clearer or add a correction or comment to quoted material.

Normally, a quotation must be presented exactly as it was spoken or written. The square bracket allows the writer to fix mistakes, add explanatory information, change a quote to fit in a sentence, or add emphasis to a word through bold or italics.

https://grammar.yourdictionary.com/punctuation/how-to-use-brackets-in-grammar.html

So, what's your purpose here?

To prove I'm an asshole? Too fucking late, that's a given, even the wife thinks I'm an asshole.

To correct a blatant misrepresentation? You saw and heard her with your own eyes and ears. Are you claiming the PV video is ginned up or fake?

Or to throw up a bunch of FUD to protect this woman's statement because you agree with it? That wouldn't surprise me. What would be a career ending gaffe for a white man is nothing more than speaking truth to power if done by a colored woman, amirite?
 
Last edited:
I can only imagine the reaction leftists would have if some Republican US Senate candidate said this.
 
Except for autistic people, there's not any meaningful difference between "I'm no stranger to white people, ... you gotta treat them like shit" and "you gotta treat [white people] like shit."

It's an accurate quote.

You just did the same thing by adding that ellipsis there to make it look like the antecedent of the pronoun was "white people" in the original context. If it's that clear that she was talking just generically about how you have to treat any and all white people, then you shouldn't have to alter her words to "clarify" her into saying that.

The video in the OP started playing the recording in the middle of her talking, and it isn't clear what the antecedent actually was. Later on the OP she claims that she was misrepresented, that she was talking about MAGA Republicans, and she challenged them to play the whole tape. If they're not willing to play the whole tape, then I'd say she's probably right that they deliberately misrepresented her. In any rate, just quote the actual words, and if in the actual words she actually used she didn't say what you wanted to make it look like she said, then oh well.
 
Last edited:
You just did the same thing by adding that ellipsis there to make it look like the antecedent of the pronoun was "white people" in the original context. If it's that clear that she was talking just generically about how you have to treat any and all white people, then you shouldn't have to alter her words to "clarify" her into saying that.

The video in the OP started playing the recording in the middle of her talking, and it isn't clear what the antecedent actually was. Later on the OP she claims that she was misrepresented, that she was talking about MAGA Republicans, and she challenged them to play the whole tape. If they're not willing to play the whole tape, then I'd say she's probably right that they deliberately misrepresented her. In any rate, just quote the actual words, and if in the actual words she actually used she didn't say what you wanted to make it look like she said, then oh well.

The antecedent is clear and obvious. She can claim to have misspoken but she can't claim to have been misquoted.

"Just quote the actual words"

Why? The meaning is the same regardless, and one requires less keyboard strokes. Her "actual words" are in the video if people like you care.
 
You just did the same thing by adding that ellipsis there to make it look like the antecedent of the pronoun was "white people" in the original context. If it's that clear that she was talking just generically about how you have to treat any and all white people, then you shouldn't have to alter her words to "clarify" her into saying that.

The video in the OP started playing the recording in the middle of her talking, and it isn't clear what the antecedent actually was. Later on the OP she claims that she was misrepresented, that she was talking about MAGA Republicans, and she challenged them to play the whole tape. If they're not willing to play the whole tape, then I'd say she's probably right that they deliberately misrepresented her. In any rate, just quote the actual words, and if in the actual words she actually used she didn't say what you wanted to make it look like she said, then oh well.

She said them.

After referencing white people numerous times.

Who is them?

Aliens?

Dogs?

Grasshoppers?

If I said:

"People on Ron Paul forums are jerks. We know people on Ron Paul Forums are jerks, we have known it all along. I often post with Ron Paul forums people. And you have to treat them like jerks".

There would be no doubt whatsoever that I meant "Ron Paul Forum people" when I said "them".

And no editor or proofreader in the English speaking world would have an issue if I was quote thusly:

Anti Federalist is on the record as saying "You have to treat [Ron Paul Forum people] like jerks."

Aside from making smoke, what are you trying to do here?
 
The antecedent is clear and obvious. She can claim to have misspoken but she can't claim to have been misquoted.

Except for the parts where people add or remove words from her actual quotes in order to "clarify" them. In those instances, she was misquoted.
 
Last edited:
Probably certain white people in particular.

If it's that obvious, then why was there any need to change her words? Let the actual quote stand on its own. Then it's all on her.

Were you aware that the number of characters this software allows in thread titles is limited?
 
Back
Top