Political Roundtable Part XXIV

[pancakes3]

i don't think the russians ever hoped to have a manchurian candidate. the most they were hoping for is to divide the country and throw the executive branch into political chaos, which is mission accomplished.

also, putin loves playing "whatabout" with other countries with respect to bad news, so as to make Russia look better. playing "whatabout" with Trump is easy, and makes the Russian feel good about their leadership when they really shouldn't.

[stilldropin20]

Is this where we're supposed to coddle the very smart conservatives and tell them their views are rock solid and totally thought out?

No, its where you can logically explain why majority only matters to you when it benefits you, and no other time.

wanting majority rule doesn't mean implementing policies that can only benefit a majority of the people.

some people are capable of wanting policies in place, that even if it's to their detriment, can benefit others.

if a class of 30 kids all vote to raise the cost of milk to subsidize the 5 kids in the class that can't afford milk is both the majority making a decision that does not directly benefit the majority of the class.

or you can put policies in place where the 5 kids that cant afford milk now have available jobs...and they just have to apply, show up, get paid, and pay for their own milk. Which would give that child a whole lot more autonomy in life. A whole lot more confidence. Do you think that child wants to show up to school every single day knowing that the other kids are buying him or her lunch? I would not. I would rather go to another school where i can work half of the day to pay for my own milk.

I mean maybe you never used food stamps at the store? Maybe you never stood in a free cheese line at church? Maybe you never got the free lunch in school?

I did.

It was embarrassing. So much so that I would purposefully "time the line" every day to go last. And then sometime not eat altogether when some straggler would show up last in line behind me.

Now what if that kids parents are also choosing not to work? Just so that child can suffer the embarrassment of that free carton of milk everyday?

I say that That child does NOT want to feel indebted into his or her class mates. thats child does NOT want to get in line and say "thank you" every day for his or her free lunch. And instead that child would rather have an economy that provides his or her parents with work and an economy and regulations that keeps the cost of milk low for everyone.

I could also make a strong argument that the child that grows up with a free lunch from his classmates would not be as well adapted as a child that grows up with parents that showed him or her how to pay for their own costs of living.

lastly, I would be willing to bet my last dollar that The 5 children that get free stuff from their classmates may not compete as hard against those other kids Both academically and in sports which would lesson their quaulity of life both during school and after school. You are teaching dependence. You are teaching victimhood. I prefer to teach children to be victors...especially the poor kids!!!!
(sorry doc)

[I_Like_Dirt]

also, putin loves playing "whatabout" with other countries with respect to bad news, so as to make Russia look better. playing "whatabout" with Trump is easy, and makes the Russian feel good about their leadership when they really shouldn't.

It's easy but it's not actually helping him. Putin isn't actually super popular at home and he's far more popular amongst Trump-supporters.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-why-putins-popularity-is-sinking-despite-his-best-efforts/

Putin's poised to invade Ukraine again, though, and I'm assuming he's hoping that will help his popularity for a while. Those kinds of prices tend to come with consequences if there is any significant degree of cost associated with them. Invading Iraq made Bush Jr. very popular and anyone who suggested it was a bad idea very unpopular yet in the long run it worked out the other way around. Russia is different in it's own way, to be sure, but left to their devices, much like everyone else, people will wonder why their lot isn't better in comparison and the answer is obvious. Russia's population is shrinking rather significantly and Putin is making some costly long-term economic moves for short-term political gains in a system inherently rigged to give him an advantage out of the gates.

[pancakes3]

No, its where you can logically explain why majority only matters to you when it benefits you, and no other time.

wanting majority rule doesn't mean implementing policies that can only benefit a majority of the people.

some people are capable of wanting policies in place, that even if it's to their detriment, can benefit others.

if a class of 30 kids all vote to raise the cost of milk to subsidize the 5 kids in the class that can't afford milk is both the majority making a decision that does not directly benefit the majority of the class.

or you can put policies in place where the 5 kids that cant afford milk now have available jobs...and they just have to apply, show up, get paid, and pay for their own milk. Which would give that child a whole lot more autonomy in life. A whole lot more confidence. Do you think that child wants to show up to school every single day knowing that the other kids are buying him or her lunch? I would not. I would rather go to another school where i can work half of the day to pay for my own milk.

I mean maybe you never used food stamps at the store? Maybe you never stood in a free cheese line at church? Maybe you never got the free lunch in school?

I did.

It was embarrassing. So much so that I would purposefully "time the line" every day to go last. And then sometime not eat altogether when some straggler would show up last in line behind me.

Now what if that kids parents are also choosing not to work? Just so that child can suffer the embarrassment of that free carton of milk everyday?

I say that That child does NOT want to feel indebted into his or her class mates. thats child does NOT want to get in line and say "thank you" every day for his or her free lunch. And instead that child would rather have an economy that provides his or her parents with work and an economy and regulations that keeps the cost of milk low for everyone.

I could also make a strong argument that the child that grows up with a free lunch from his classmates would not be as well adapted as a child that grows up with parents that showed him or her how to pay for their own costs of living.

lastly, I would be willing to bet my last dollar that The 5 children that get free stuff from their classmates may not compete as hard against those other kids Both academically and in sports which would lesson their quaulity of life both during school and after school. You are teaching dependence. You are teaching victimhood. I prefer to teach children to be victors...especially the poor kids!!!!
(sorry doc)

if this is you engaging in good faith, then i have no interest in engaging with you.

[daoneandonly]

Is this where we're supposed to coddle the very smart conservatives and tell them their views are rock solid and totally thought out?

No, its where you can logically explain why majority only matters to you when it benefits you, and no other time.

wanting majority rule doesn't mean implementing policies that can only benefit a majority of the people.

some people are capable of wanting policies in place, that even if it's to their detriment, can benefit others.

if a class of 30 kids all vote to raise the cost of milk to subsidize the 5 kids in the class that can't afford milk is both the majority making a decision that does not directly benefit the majority of the class.

I see your point, but then cant we say the same for the electoral college and senate, that the current structure helps states like Wyoming and Montana? That the argument for majority shouldnt hold true here as well?

[stilldropin20]

Just as you find that your tolerance is crossed with the std quote above I find my tolerance crossed when Gtn and pointgod consistently attach judgements like “deplorable, idiot, dumb, lemmings, despicable, evil, etc. to posters that challenge their views. That’s their MO and has been since they’ve joined the thread. I’ve tried to politely make the point that that behavior forecloses any useful discussion on important topics. Which, btw may very well be their intent.

popper, I genuinely and truthfully believe that the current iteration of the GOP is entirely illegitimate and fraught with grifter charlatans. Like, when I call them 'Deplorables' or 'idiots' it's because I honestly believe they fit those descriptions, and I don't think their beliefs should be validated because they don't actually represent anything honest or moral. For example:

• The tax cuts were a handout for the wealthy at the expense of the middle class (and the deficit!)
• Privatizing and deregulating unquestionably leads to really bad results and only serves billionaires and corporations
• All GOP machinations regarding healthcare in the last decade have been totally dishonest and depraved
• Climate change denialism is depraved and wrong and a symptom of moral rot brought on by Citizens United
• The NRA is a terrorist group
• All of the GOP-led wars are 100% wrong and evil (Dems share plenty of guilt here)
• The GOP elected Trump, a fascist reality show clown who proudly knows nothing

Neocons like you tend to associate the GOP with Romney or Kasich or GHWB, but in reality those days are over. Trump is your party now and you seem to be doing a bunch of mental gymnastics in an effort to ignore that fact and ignore what has happened to the GOP over the last decade or so.

Like at some point you need to decide if you're a full blown Deplorable or if you're just a rube buying what the Koch Brothers Paul Ryan is selling. Or, just leave the party and rethink some of this stuff!

Trust me I really tried on this board with right wingers, I really did. Even with STD I tried to be reasonable and point out to him his misleading statements, but I quickly realized that he’s just one of the countless MAGA trolls that you find on the internet. His act is not unique or new and I’ve seen it countless times before. What else but an idiot can you call someone who trumpets in unsubstantiated conspiracy theories like the Clintons killing Seth Rich or Uranium One? I actually don’t care about his insults because frankly I see STD for what he is a deeply insecure, man child. However if he’s going to continually just post lies and misleading then he’s not looking to have an honest discussion and nobody on this board owes him anything. This goes for anyone on this board that makes contradictory or misleading statements. I’ve had words with TGW as well many times but Ill also give him and1s if he makes a sound argument even if I don’t agree.

But everything that you’ve posted about the Republican Party is true. They’ve eschewed their principles to bow down and kiss up to Trump. The same party that claims to care about children is fine with babies in cages, the same party that claims to care about the military is fine with a transgendered ban and deporting people that have served, they claim to care about family values but support a serial cheater and sexual predator. I could go on but the list of hypocrisies are too long. If the Republican Party stayed true to its principles you’d have more Rick Wilsons and Steve Smhidts who may agree with some Trump policies but would admit it’s not worth the cost to the country and frankly the world. So when I call Republicans deplorables and morally bankrupt I’m only holding them to the standards that they themselves have set. But people like Popper want it both ways, they want to get what they see are benefits of voting for Trump but they don’t want to feel bad about it. I think most right wing posters on this site are fine people but their politics are too toxic to have any type of reasonable conversation with them.

I guarantee you that they won’t be able to respond to my post without:

1) Bringing up Obama and Clintons
2) Saying both sides are equally to blame
3) Engaging in whataboutism
4) Saying I’m generalizing Republicans
5) Talking about Trumps tone, when the problem is clearly more than tone
6) Insert any other silly rhetorical arguments

i confuse you and GTN becauwe you and 1 each others almost every single post. but neither of you have carried genuine engagement with me.

In fact your insidious and divisive posts brought this entire board down into the dumpster fire...true...i came along and eventually poured the litter fluid on the fire. But there are times that i wanted to answer DCkings (not run away as he claims) but you and pointgod would jump on his message with flame wars so the discussion never occurred. I pissed DCkings off. I didn't mean to. He responded in kind. Which eventually made me respond in kind.

Meanwhile, other posters such as Jwiz and wizardspride would just spam the board with trump hate.

Combined with the relentless attacks on Nate33, popper and others I stepped in. You and others called him a racist often among many other terrible things. So i stepped in some dudu and took a few on the chin to allow Nate and other conservatives more freedom to post. yes, there was some method to my madness. sorry not sorry if you didn't see that coming.

Nate is one of the smartest and most diligent posters in this thread. I apologize to him(and to the entire board) to have drowned everyone out a bit with so much noise but i did so because i realized a few jackasses up in here just wanted a fist fight instead of a discussion.

Now if you and pointgod are (finally) ready to have a discussion without calling people names...then lets have that discussion.

but here's a hint: demanding we answer for "such and such" day to day political spin is not a discussion. We dont owe you anything. And definitely not answer for everything trump says or does. So when we dont answer you or dont respond to your political spin it doesn't give you the right to call us names.

And that goes for the entire board...if you truly want a discussion then stop posting your political spin...memes, tweets, etc. etc.

liberals, if you want to deal in "truths" dont cite liberal sources.

Conservatives the same, dont cite conservative sources. thats why i often make a point to cite the NYtimes, or CNN whenever possible...because it means that even they cant run from the "truth" anymore.

We should all try to cite neutral sources. that eliminates the NYtimes, CNN, MSNBC, FOX, Breitbart, daily mail, etc etc . except when a lib uses a conservative site or when a conservative cites a liberal source.

otherwise? its all just noise. its all just spin. You are not analyzing anything. just venting and marketing for "your side."

[stilldropin20]

wanting majority rule doesn't mean implementing policies that can only benefit a majority of the people.

some people are capable of wanting policies in place, that even if it's to their detriment, can benefit others.

if a class of 30 kids all vote to raise the cost of milk to subsidize the 5 kids in the class that can't afford milk is both the majority making a decision that does not directly benefit the majority of the class.

or you can put policies in place where the 5 kids that cant afford milk now have available jobs...and they just have to apply, show up, get paid, and pay for their own milk. Which would give that child a whole lot more autonomy in life. A whole lot more confidence. Do you think that child wants to show up to school every single day knowing that the other kids are buying him or her lunch? I would not. I would rather go to another school where i can work half of the day to pay for my own milk.

I mean maybe you never used food stamps at the store? Maybe you never stood in a free cheese line at church? Maybe you never got the free lunch in school?

I did.

It was embarrassing. So much so that I would purposefully "time the line" every day to go last. And then sometime not eat altogether when some straggler would show up last in line behind me.

Now what if that kids parents are also choosing not to work? Just so that child can suffer the embarrassment of that free carton of milk everyday?

I say that That child does NOT want to feel indebted into his or her class mates. thats child does NOT want to get in line and say "thank you" every day for his or her free lunch. And instead that child would rather have an economy that provides his or her parents with work and an economy and regulations that keeps the cost of milk low for everyone.

I could also make a strong argument that the child that grows up with a free lunch from his classmates would not be as well adapted as a child that grows up with parents that showed him or her how to pay for their own costs of living.

lastly, I would be willing to bet my last dollar that The 5 children that get free stuff from their classmates may not compete as hard against those other kids Both academically and in sports which would lesson their quaulity of life both during school and after school. You are teaching dependence. You are teaching victimhood. I prefer to teach children to be victors...especially the poor kids!!!!
(sorry doc)

if this is you engaging in good faith, then i have no interest in engaging with you.

okay...i hate it when GTN and Pointgod expect me to jump through all kinds of mental gymnastic where they try to lead me along their logic trails as if i dont see right through it. so please trust me when i say I am not doing that at all.

So i simply ask why? Can you simply state the reasons you feel this is not a good faith argument? I can tell you that I truly believe in the principle of teaching children to fish than giving them free fish. And not for me...but for them. Its a "thrill of victory" kind of thing. And i truly believe it makes for happier human beings.

[Pointgod]

wanting majority rule doesn't mean implementing policies that can only benefit a majority of the people.

some people are capable of wanting policies in place, that even if it's to their detriment, can benefit others.

if a class of 30 kids all vote to raise the cost of milk to subsidize the 5 kids in the class that can't afford milk is both the majority making a decision that does not directly benefit the majority of the class.

or you can put policies in place where the 5 kids that cant afford milk now have available jobs...and they just have to apply, show up, get paid, and pay for their own milk. Which would give that child a whole lot more autonomy in life. A whole lot more confidence. Do you think that child wants to show up to school every single day knowing that the other kids are buying him or her lunch? I would not. I would rather go to another school where i can work half of the day to pay for my own milk.

I mean maybe you never used food stamps at the store? Maybe you never stood in a free cheese line at church? Maybe you never got the free lunch in school?

I did.

It was embarrassing. So much so that I would purposefully "time the line" every day to go last. And then sometime not eat altogether when some straggler would show up last in line behind me.

Now what if that kids parents are also choosing not to work? Just so that child can suffer the embarrassment of that free carton of milk everyday?

I say that That child does NOT want to feel indebted into his or her class mates. thats child does NOT want to get in line and say "thank you" every day for his or her free lunch. And instead that child would rather have an economy that provides his or her parents with work and an economy and regulations that keeps the cost of milk low for everyone.

I could also make a strong argument that the child that grows up with a free lunch from his classmates would not be as well adapted as a child that grows up with parents that showed him or her how to pay for their own costs of living.

lastly, I would be willing to bet my last dollar that The 5 children that get free stuff from their classmates may not compete as hard against those other kids Both academically and in sports which would lesson their quaulity of life both during school and after school. You are teaching dependence. You are teaching victimhood. I prefer to teach children to be victors...especially the poor kids!!!!
(sorry doc)

if this is you engaging in good faith, then i have no interest in engaging with you.

Put the kids to work!

[JWizmentality]

Why do Repubs have such a hard on for AOC?

It's kinda similar to that kindergarten bully who teases the new girl but secretly has a huge crush on her.

[pancakes3]

or you can put policies in place where the 5 kids that cant afford milk now have available jobs...and they just have to apply, show up, get paid, and pay for their own milk. Which would give that child a whole lot more autonomy in life. A whole lot more confidence. Do you think that child wants to show up to school every single day knowing that the other kids are buying him or her lunch? I would not. I would rather go to another school where i can work half of the day to pay for my own milk.

I mean maybe you never used food stamps at the store? Maybe you never stood in a free cheese line at church? Maybe you never got the free lunch in school?

I did.

It was embarrassing. So much so that I would purposefully "time the line" every day to go last. And then sometime not eat altogether when some straggler would show up last in line behind me.

Now what if that kids parents are also choosing not to work? Just so that child can suffer the embarrassment of that free carton of milk everyday?

I say that That child does NOT want to feel indebted into his or her class mates. thats child does NOT want to get in line and say "thank you" every day for his or her free lunch. And instead that child would rather have an economy that provides his or her parents with work and an economy and regulations that keeps the cost of milk low for everyone.

I could also make a strong argument that the child that grows up with a free lunch from his classmates would not be as well adapted as a child that grows up with parents that showed him or her how to pay for their own costs of living.

lastly, I would be willing to bet my last dollar that The 5 children that get free stuff from their classmates may not compete as hard against those other kids Both academically and in sports which would lesson their quaulity of life both during school and after school. You are teaching dependence. You are teaching victimhood. I prefer to teach children to be victors...especially the poor kids!!!!
(sorry doc)

if this is you engaging in good faith, then i have no interest in engaging with you.

okay...i hate it when GTN and Pointgod expect me to jump through all kinds of mental gymnastic where they try to lead me along their logic trails as if i dont see right through it. so please trust me when i say I am not doing that at all.

So i simply ask why? Can you simply state the reasons you feel this is not a good faith argument? I can tell you that I truly believe in the principle of teaching children to fish than giving them free fish. And not for me...but for them. Its a "thrill of victory" kind of thing. And i truly believe it makes for happier human beings.

- the analgoy was made in response to the delineation of majority rule, which you ignore and hijack to make it about welfare
- your hijacking then led you to make the assertion that 6 year olds should work for their lunch money, which is facially absurd
- you then go back to your tired schtick of telling us your life story, which somehow makes you an authority, and then casting aspersions on others. actually, i was a free lunch kid up until the 6th grade. it sucked. i'll say this though, for me the shame of eating a broke ass lunch v. not eating any lunch v. eating a free lunch are all pretty much the same. poor people will always feel shame. there's no extra shame in knowing i'm part of a free lunch program or not because at the end of the day, the shame comes from being poor. and for a kid, there'd be infinitely more shame to be part of some sort of kiddie janitorial program.
- you make some sort of argument that free lunch kids will fall into some sort of shame spiral and be **** athletes or students, which is unfounded at best. again, poor kids that lack self esteem lack so because of poverty, not because of entitlement programs. you're operating under the same delusion that Kanye is, that welfare somehow traps people in a cycle of poverty as opposed to other issues such as broken families, the hidden costs of being poor, unequal distribution of job opportunities in inner cities, housing costs, etc.

so really your posting hasn't changed much, especially in substance. you're still in your own mind, thinking your big thoughts, and requires a massive amount of energy on the opposing side to even frame an argument and get back to zero, much less delve into an argument substantively.

you pull the same "well my life experience is X, therefore i'm better suited to Y" bullcrap, which is just exhausting.

and as always, you write in a way that's fraught with false dichotomies, especially with regard to motivation. "i prefer to teach children to be victors" means that others who think differently wants to teach children to be losers. you say that parents are choosing not to work, so that the child can suffer embarrassment needlessly. it's psychotic. it goes to your lack of empathy.

if this is your attempt to be thoughtful, civil, and cordial? you're bad at it.

[pancakes3]

No, its where you can logically explain why majority only matters to you when it benefits you, and no other time.

wanting majority rule doesn't mean implementing policies that can only benefit a majority of the people.

some people are capable of wanting policies in place, that even if it's to their detriment, can benefit others.

if a class of 30 kids all vote to raise the cost of milk to subsidize the 5 kids in the class that can't afford milk is both the majority making a decision that does not directly benefit the majority of the class.

I see your point, but then cant we say the same for the electoral college and senate, that the current structure helps states like Wyoming and Montana? That the argument for majority shouldnt hold true here as well?

it's the difference between how a decision is made v. what decision is made.

the "how" should be done via majority rule. that includes how elections are held, how votes are counted, and how laws are made.

the "what" goes to the actual decisions that the government makes. the content of the laws can affect minorities, so long as the majority agrees to it.

going back to the milk analogy, the "how" was in the system wherein a majority of the class makes decisions. the "what" is that milk prices will benefit the minority exclusively.

[daoneandonly]

Why do Repubs have such a hard on for AOC?

It's kinda similar to that kindergarten bully who teases the new girl but secretly has a huge crush on her.

perhaps its the comparing of her election victory to the civil rights movement that ppl find insulting. She won an election against odds, good for her, not quite the same as fighting for people to be treated equally and not be judged based on their skin tone.

[Jamaaliver]

George H.W. Bush Modeled the Kinder, Gentler and More Colorful GOP That Could Have Been

The 41st president’s own family gave him reason to work toward a more inclusive and diverse Republican Party.




When Bill de Blasio featured his mixed race family in political ads during his run for mayor in 2013, it was considered groundbreaking, even coming from a Democrat in New York City .

Yet George H.W. Bush had done the same thing decades before, as a Republican on the national stage. His son Jeb met his wife Columba in Mexico as a teenager, and eventually brought her to America where they married. Though such a union hardly seems noteworthy today, it certainly was nearly a half century ago.

During the 1988 presidential campaign he featured his daughter-in-law and grandchildren in a Spanish language political ad that closed with Bush saying:

“As president, I have a lot of reasons to help Hispanics everywhere, because I’ll be answering to my grandkids, not just to history.”

His connection to communities of color through his family highlights Bush’s complex and largely overlooked racial legacy.

Behind the scenes, the first President Bush was known to push for racial and ethnic diversity in high profile roles in a way that seems common sense today, but wasn’t decades ago. After the Bush transition team reached out to former congressman Manuel Lujan, Jr. about a cabinet post, Lujan recalled that he turned down the role, but ultimately accepted after then President-elect Bush personally reached out to him. Lujan would become the first Latino secretary of the interior.

Though it’s hard to imagine now, there was surprise among political watchers when President Bush selected General Colin Powell as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, choosing him over more experienced military personnel. Powell was obviously qualified and as anyone reading this knows went on to become one of the political world’s brightest stars. But more than one GOP source has told me over the years that while President Bush wasn’t a cheerleader for liberal affirmative action policies, you could call him a pioneer of what is now called “The Rooney Rule.”

Bush was known to be conscientious of asking for qualified minority candidates to be included for consideration to fill major roles. This was allegedly one of the ways Colin Powell went from unlikely candidate, to the first black chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Conscientiousness over racial and ethnic diversity would emerge as a defining trait of the Bush political dynasty.

The second President Bush’s cabinet was not only significant for its racial diversity (a number of his cabinet posts were filled by the first Latino, or Asian-American or black American in that role) but he pushed forward on efforts to find bipartisan and humane compromises to resolve the country’s immigration debate. Profile after profile would note the personal connection the Bush family had to the issue because of, well… their own family.

In a career that boasted many impressive accomplishments, this may prove one of the most impactful parts of President Bush’s legacy.

The Daily Beast

[Jamaaliver]

Why do Repubs have such a hard on for AOC?

It's kinda similar to that kindergarten bully who teases the new girl but secretly has a huge crush on her.

I have wondered the same thing for months. Conservative TV talks about her more than progressive news media.

Leave that child alone...she is insignificant, inexperienced and not worth the effort/time they're putting in to take her down.

[JWizmentality]

Why do Repubs have such a hard on for AOC?

It's kinda similar to that kindergarten bully who teases the new girl but secretly has a huge crush on her.

perhaps its the comparing of her election victory to the civil rights movement that ppl find insulting. She won an election against odds, good for her, not quite the same as fighting for people to be treated equally and not be judged based on their skin tone.

Except she really didn't and you don't actually care about it. This is why I can't converse with you people. You have no gaddamn clue what she said do you? You haven't bothered to look at the actual quote yourself. You just regurgitate what you heard on Fox or some other garbage so before I can even have an honest discussion with any of you I have to fact check you...and even then most of you refuse to accept basic facts.

It's not worth my time.

[JWizmentality]

Why do Repubs have such a hard on for AOC?

It's kinda similar to that kindergarten bully who teases the new girl but secretly has a huge crush on her.

I have wondered the same thing for months. Conservative TV talks about her more than progressive news media.

Leave that child alone...she is insignificant, inexperienced and not worth the effort/time they're putting in to take her down.

How dare you.

At this point I'd take off my white glove and smack you.

[Pointgod]

Why do Repubs have such a hard on for AOC?

It's kinda similar to that kindergarten bully who teases the new girl but secretly has a huge crush on her.

AOC represents everything the current Republican Party hates. She’s a woman, she’s a person of color and I think most of all she’s not afraid to call Republicans on their bull in a way that might actually wake up their base. Just look at this post below:

Read on Twitter

Now imagine if Republican voters actually started voting in their interests instead of continually shooting themselves in the foot.

[Pointgod]

Why do Repubs have such a hard on for AOC?

It's kinda similar to that kindergarten bully who teases the new girl but secretly has a huge crush on her.

perhaps its the comparing of her election victory to the civil rights movement that ppl find insulting. She won an election against odds, good for her, not quite the same as fighting for people to be treated equally and not be judged based on their skin tone.

Except she really didn't and you don't actually care about it. This is why I can't converse with you people. You have no gaddamn clue what she said do you? You haven't bothered to look at the actual quote yourself. You just regurgitate what you heard on Fox or some other garbage so before I can even have an honest discussion with any of you I have to fact check you...and even then most of you refuse to accept basic facts.

It's not worth my time.

Now now. Remember you have to be civil to people who aren’t trying to argue in good faith.

[Jamaaliver]

How dare you.

At this point I'd take off my white glove and smack you.

LOL

and at this point, I'd probably deserve it.

My point is that she is still just a congresswoman-ELECT. She hasn't even taken office yet.

There's no reason for them to spend this much time reporting on her when she hasn't even taken office.

She seems like a good kid. But at least wait until she gets sworn in before crucifying or canonizing her.

[JWizmentality]

How dare you.

At this point I'd take off my white glove and smack you.

LOL

and at this point, I'd probably deserve it.

My point is that she is still just a congresswoman-ELECT. She hasn't even taken office yet.

There's no reason for them to spend this much time reporting on her when she hasn't even taken office.

She seems like a good kid. But at least wait until she gets sworn in before crucifying or canonizing her.

So you're saying I should take down my AOC memorabilia wall?