Republicans Are Extremely Fearful of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[Meathead]

They are fearful because, finally, they have to contend with an unabashed liberal progressive that's fighting for the people. Moreover, she's a woman, so they won't be able to just come out her any type of way.

And the best part is, she know exactly how to counter their foolishness.

Yes Republicans, she's coming, and HELL'S coming with her!!!

Any other thoughts on why Republicans are left quaking in their boots over this. one. little. woman?

If you do a search on the USMB of "Ocasio-Cortez" you get a DOZEN PAGES of threads on her with most calling the young twenty something terrible names.

When she voted in the house, over a hundred Republican full grown MEN booed her. They booed her. No one else, just her.

They are terrified of this young lady.

They posted a video of her and her college friends dancing as a homage to the Breakfast Club and Republicans tried to turn it into, into, I don't know, something?

But look at the comments. People saying she's pretty, she has friends, she looks like she's having fun. It reminds me of Cruz trying to somehow smear Beto with this picture:

And it backfired because, he looks good, looks cool and people posted this picture of Cruz:

Well, here's her golden opportunity. She can capitalize on the attention to display courage and political wisdom, outline a smart course the country should take, and emerge a truly powerful politician, or she can continue spouting inane socialist ideas and fade into a punchline. Of course, she could do a press conference braying like a donkey and her supporters would swear it was the most erudite thing they ever heard.

She's got a problem. She's not pretty enough to be a wallflower, but not smart enough to be taken seriously.

 

[toomuchtime_]

They are terrified of this young lady.

She is very dangerous to them because she resonates with Americans. She recently floated the idea of recording all meetings with lobbyists and releasing them to the press. And why not? The people’s business should be done in the sunlight.

She is an airhead who clearly has no understanding of any of the issues. She poses no threat to Republicans but may have significant nuisance value to the Democrat leadership.

 

[danielpalos]

equal protection of the law is a worthy social goal.

We already have that. That's not what you mean.

we should have no people living on the street. employment is at the will of either party in our at-will employment States. Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment. It is public policy for capital convenience. Eminent domain applies. An public policy constitutes an public use.

 

[hadit]

equal protection of the law is a worthy social goal.

We already have that. That's not what you mean.

we should have no people living on the street. employment is at the will of either party in our at-will employment States. Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment. It is public policy for capital convenience. Eminent domain applies. An public policy constitutes an public use.

We already have equal protection under the law. Your battle doesn't even address that. And before you try, you have no right to be paid if you won't take a job.

 

[danielpalos]

equal protection of the law is a worthy social goal.

We already have that. That's not what you mean.

we should have no people living on the street. employment is at the will of either party in our at-will employment States. Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment. It is public policy for capital convenience. Eminent domain applies. An public policy constitutes an public use.

We already have equal protection under the law. Your battle doesn't even address that. And before you try, you have no right to be paid if you won't take a job.

At-will employment - Wikipedia

 

[hadit]

equal protection of the law is a worthy social goal.

We already have that. That's not what you mean.

we should have no people living on the street. employment is at the will of either party in our at-will employment States. Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment. It is public policy for capital convenience. Eminent domain applies. An public policy constitutes an public use.

We already have equal protection under the law. Your battle doesn't even address that. And before you try, you have no right to be paid if you won't take a job.

At-will employment - Wikipedia

Likei said, at will just means you can quit. It doesn't mean you're guaranteed payment if you refuse to work.

 

[danielpalos]

equal protection of the law is a worthy social goal.

We already have that. That's not what you mean.

we should have no people living on the street. employment is at the will of either party in our at-will employment States. Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment. It is public policy for capital convenience. Eminent domain applies. An public policy constitutes an public use.

We already have equal protection under the law. Your battle doesn't even address that. And before you try, you have no right to be paid if you won't take a job.

At-will employment - Wikipedia

Likei said, at will just means you can quit. It doesn't mean you're guaranteed payment if you refuse to work.

equal protection of the law is a social concept. i don't expect the right wing to care, until they can profit from it.

 

[hadit]

We already have that. That's not what you mean.

we should have no people living on the street. employment is at the will of either party in our at-will employment States. Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment. It is public policy for capital convenience. Eminent domain applies. An public policy constitutes an public use.

We already have equal protection under the law. Your battle doesn't even address that. And before you try, you have no right to be paid if you won't take a job.

At-will employment - Wikipedia

Likei said, at will just means you can quit. It doesn't mean you're guaranteed payment if you refuse to work.

equal protection of the law is a social concept. i don't expect the right wing to care, until they can profit from it.

No, it's a legal concept. No wonder you can't get it right.

 

[danielpalos]

we should have no people living on the street. employment is at the will of either party in our at-will employment States. Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment. It is public policy for capital convenience. Eminent domain applies. An public policy constitutes an public use.

We already have equal protection under the law. Your battle doesn't even address that. And before you try, you have no right to be paid if you won't take a job.

At-will employment - Wikipedia

Likei said, at will just means you can quit. It doesn't mean you're guaranteed payment if you refuse to work.

equal protection of the law is a social concept. i don't expect the right wing to care, until they can profit from it.

No, it's a legal concept. No wonder you can't get it right.

you have no argument; being frivolous at the expense of the Poor, is all the right wing knows how to do.

 

[hadit]

We already have equal protection under the law. Your battle doesn't even address that. And before you try, you have no right to be paid if you won't take a job.

At-will employment - Wikipedia

Likei said, at will just means you can quit. It doesn't mean you're guaranteed payment if you refuse to work.

equal protection of the law is a social concept. i don't expect the right wing to care, until they can profit from it.

No, it's a legal concept. No wonder you can't get it right.

you have no argument; being frivolous at the expense of the Poor, is all the right wing knows how to do.

I'm not even making an argument. I'm simply pointing out your error. No wonder you want to jump back into your comfort zone.

Here's the bottom line. Learn it and live it: Equal protection under the law does not mean you're guaranteed being paid if you refuse available work. It just doesn't, no matter how many times you run away and come back, saying it all over and over again.

 

[Ambivalent1]

They are terrified of this young lady.

She is very dangerous to them because she resonates with Americans. She recently floated the idea of recording all meetings with lobbyists and releasing them to the press. And why not? The people’s business should be done in the sunlight.

The ONLY people she "resonates" with are the young and ill-educated like yourself.

 

[rightwinger]

Ocasio Cortez seems to take it all in stride. She has an answer for each Republican attack and laughs it off and mocks them

 

[elektra]

yes, we fear the stupid

 

[danielpalos]

At-will employment - Wikipedia

Likei said, at will just means you can quit. It doesn't mean you're guaranteed payment if you refuse to work.

equal protection of the law is a social concept. i don't expect the right wing to care, until they can profit from it.

No, it's a legal concept. No wonder you can't get it right.

you have no argument; being frivolous at the expense of the Poor, is all the right wing knows how to do.

I'm not even making an argument. I'm simply pointing out your error. No wonder you want to jump back into your comfort zone.

Here's the bottom line. Learn it and live it: Equal protection under the law does not mean you're guaranteed being paid if you refuse available work. It just doesn't, no matter how many times you run away and come back, saying it all over and over again.

it does if that is equal protection of the law. in any case, it is more cost effective. only the right wing complain about better solutions at lower cost.

 

[hadit]

Likei said, at will just means you can quit. It doesn't mean you're guaranteed payment if you refuse to work.

equal protection of the law is a social concept. i don't expect the right wing to care, until they can profit from it.

No, it's a legal concept. No wonder you can't get it right.

you have no argument; being frivolous at the expense of the Poor, is all the right wing knows how to do.

I'm not even making an argument. I'm simply pointing out your error. No wonder you want to jump back into your comfort zone.

Here's the bottom line. Learn it and live it: Equal protection under the law does not mean you're guaranteed being paid if you refuse available work. It just doesn't, no matter how many times you run away and come back, saying it all over and over again.

it does if that is equal protection of the law. in any case, it is more cost effective. only the right wing complain about better solutions at lower cost.

You are simply wrong. If you think you are right, please cite the legal expert who says so. Of course you will not.

Face it, you simply don't get paid if you refuse to take available work, and you should not.

 

[danielpalos]

equal protection of the law is a social concept. i don't expect the right wing to care, until they can profit from it.

No, it's a legal concept. No wonder you can't get it right.

you have no argument; being frivolous at the expense of the Poor, is all the right wing knows how to do.

I'm not even making an argument. I'm simply pointing out your error. No wonder you want to jump back into your comfort zone.

Here's the bottom line. Learn it and live it: Equal protection under the law does not mean you're guaranteed being paid if you refuse available work. It just doesn't, no matter how many times you run away and come back, saying it all over and over again.

it does if that is equal protection of the law. in any case, it is more cost effective. only the right wing complain about better solutions at lower cost.

You are simply wrong. If you think you are right, please cite the legal expert who says so. Of course you will not.

Face it, you simply don't get paid if you refuse to take available work, and you should not.

are you claiming we need to abolish employment at will?

 

[Lakhota]

Dancing can be good...or bad...

 

[hadit]

No, it's a legal concept. No wonder you can't get it right.

you have no argument; being frivolous at the expense of the Poor, is all the right wing knows how to do.

I'm not even making an argument. I'm simply pointing out your error. No wonder you want to jump back into your comfort zone.

Here's the bottom line. Learn it and live it: Equal protection under the law does not mean you're guaranteed being paid if you refuse available work. It just doesn't, no matter how many times you run away and come back, saying it all over and over again.

it does if that is equal protection of the law. in any case, it is more cost effective. only the right wing complain about better solutions at lower cost.

You are simply wrong. If you think you are right, please cite the legal expert who says so. Of course you will not.

Face it, you simply don't get paid if you refuse to take available work, and you should not.

are you claiming we need to abolish employment at will?

I'm claiming it doesn't mean what you want it to mean. Even your own sources disagree with you. And you're not citing any legal experts, as I said you wouldn't.

 

[Correll]

Dancing can be good...or bad...

Every President, republican and democrat has sough good relations with Saudi Arabian for sound national security reasons.


Your complaint that Trump did it, is something that only someone completely ignorant could make.

 

[danielpalos]

you have no argument; being frivolous at the expense of the Poor, is all the right wing knows how to do.

I'm not even making an argument. I'm simply pointing out your error. No wonder you want to jump back into your comfort zone.

Here's the bottom line. Learn it and live it: Equal protection under the law does not mean you're guaranteed being paid if you refuse available work. It just doesn't, no matter how many times you run away and come back, saying it all over and over again.

it does if that is equal protection of the law. in any case, it is more cost effective. only the right wing complain about better solutions at lower cost.

You are simply wrong. If you think you are right, please cite the legal expert who says so. Of course you will not.

Face it, you simply don't get paid if you refuse to take available work, and you should not.

are you claiming we need to abolish employment at will?

I'm claiming it doesn't mean what you want it to mean. Even your own sources disagree with you. And you're not citing any legal experts, as I said you wouldn't.

The law itself is self-explanatory. The right wing merely prefers to be frivolous with the Poor.