Where did the left dig this psycho up?

[Some Guy]

I think they're pretty spot-on with how Ocasio-Cortez is the direction that the democrats are going. She may not be a de-facto leader but she is in terms of her policies and her thought process. Just look at how popular Bernie was/is.

The rest is obvious. It's The Daily Wire. It's a conservative news source. I'm a Ben Shapiro fan but his site is needlessly biased in the way you pointed out.

Bernie's never been a Democrat, so as I said that all remains to be seen. His campaign did show that there are definitely factions of more and less conservative, but where the giant squid of the party goes with that is future unknown.

I'm really not familiar with the Daily Wire or Ben Shapiro. I just judged it on the content I saw.

The party is and has been moving further left, as evidenced exactly by Bernie. He's an "independent" because his positions were always considered too far to the left for the democrat party. Now, he and his ideas are pretty mainstream democrat, and if you ask just about anyone who voted democrat if he or Hillary was a better candidate, they'd say Bernie. Tom Perez and Keith Ellison as leaders of the DNC are pretty hard left, Ellison moreso.

Any people who subscribe to an even slightly traditional view of what the parties are have been left behind. Republicans have lined up behind Trump(ism) cause he actually won while democrats have moved rather hard left in the last couple of years but it was happening under Obama as well. That's just reality. I'd like to see those that have been cast out by their respective parties recognize the virtue of promoting everyone's individual rights and get behind the Libertarian party.

Insofar as one exists....

Bernie doesn't "evidence" anything. To the degree he finds support among Democrats, it suggests that that contingent would like it to move that way, but you'll also recall that the machine of that part rejected that movement and rigged its selection to favor the old established center-right candidate, so where some sector of its members wish the party to move, and where it actually does move, are two different things, at least thus far.

As anyone who's familiar with world politics knows, we don't have a 'hard left' party. We do, but not any influential ones, just as we don't effectively have a Libertarian party. To the extent these assessments can be generalized we have an entrenched Duopoly that sits with one foot on the right and the other foot on the center-right, and an Electrical College that ensures it stays that way and nobody else gets in. That pretty much guarantees variant swings to either side are kept to a minimum and we get and endless string of mediocrity.

Bernie doesn't fit either foot of that two-poled pillar, which is why he's not affiliated with either, so he took the closest one and tried to drag it out to the side. While his supporters were all for it, the party establishment wasn't, so it didn't happen.

Matter of fact the same thing happened to the Republican Party in 1912, a year with many intriguing parallels.

By the way there's no such thing as a "democrat party". There is however a Democratic Party. The idea that it's 'hard left' is laughable. If you're standing in Philadelphia you can say that Pittsburgh is to your west. You cannot however declare Pittsburgh is "THE West" since there's so much more west beyond it.

I guess we disagree with what is considered "hard left." In my book, there's not much harder left than a warm embrace of socialism. So while you're right that the democratic party establishment screwed Bernie to push Hillary into the candidacy, they're reaction to losing has been "oh i guess we weren't left enough."

The Bernie and Hillary saga was only less than two years ago, so that 'reaction' hasn't even played out yet. Far as I know we have no idea who they'll be running next round, and I doubt they do either.

The DNC is now run by people who are more embracing of socialism and more and more open socialists are winning nominations and congressional seats under the blue banner. More and more rhetoric coming from democrats and socialists are aligning quite neatly. To claim that the democratic party is center-right is a flat wrong. A good example is how there's not a single national democrat who's pro-life anymore: they've all been purged from the party. That's just one of many examples.

How exactly did Alexandra Ocasio-Cortéz --- who by my math is still one (1) person --- get transmogrified into the plural? How indeed did a wannabe candidate who hasn't even been in an election yet get morphed into the entire "the left"? Which is where I started on this fallacious bullshit title....

Seems to me when you have to blow up your points like some kind of inner tube ready for a stream, you didn't have much of a point to start with. We've got a single candidate pluralized and expanded into the entire "the left". We've got projections of who a political party nominated in the future. That sort of bloated hyperexaggeration is not exactly solid ground to build on.

I could dig up all kinds of articles about more democrat candidates who's run for and some who's won special congressional races. You can look at the rhetoric coming from many candidates and the outlets that support them.

Hell, look at what Schumer and Hillary said about illegal immigration not too long ago. They both said that we can't have people coming here illegally. That the american people need to know we're focused on them and not "illegal aliens." And that we shouldn't normalize illegal immigration by calling them "undocumented workers", we should call them what they are: illegal aliens. I'm paraphrasing here but it's certainly out there. Now: they're for a mostly open border policy, wouldn't dare call someone an illegal alien and wouldn't even fund border security in exchange for a DACA renewal when the opportunity arose. I mentioned how democrats have completely purged all their anti-abortion members.

 

[Pogo]

Bernie's never been a Democrat, so as I said that all remains to be seen. His campaign did show that there are definitely factions of more and less conservative, but where the giant squid of the party goes with that is future unknown.

I'm really not familiar with the Daily Wire or Ben Shapiro. I just judged it on the content I saw.

The party is and has been moving further left, as evidenced exactly by Bernie. He's an "independent" because his positions were always considered too far to the left for the democrat party. Now, he and his ideas are pretty mainstream democrat, and if you ask just about anyone who voted democrat if he or Hillary was a better candidate, they'd say Bernie. Tom Perez and Keith Ellison as leaders of the DNC are pretty hard left, Ellison moreso.

Any people who subscribe to an even slightly traditional view of what the parties are have been left behind. Republicans have lined up behind Trump(ism) cause he actually won while democrats have moved rather hard left in the last couple of years but it was happening under Obama as well. That's just reality. I'd like to see those that have been cast out by their respective parties recognize the virtue of promoting everyone's individual rights and get behind the Libertarian party.

Insofar as one exists....

Bernie doesn't "evidence" anything. To the degree he finds support among Democrats, it suggests that that contingent would like it to move that way, but you'll also recall that the machine of that part rejected that movement and rigged its selection to favor the old established center-right candidate, so where some sector of its members wish the party to move, and where it actually does move, are two different things, at least thus far.

As anyone who's familiar with world politics knows, we don't have a 'hard left' party. We do, but not any influential ones, just as we don't effectively have a Libertarian party. To the extent these assessments can be generalized we have an entrenched Duopoly that sits with one foot on the right and the other foot on the center-right, and an Electrical College that ensures it stays that way and nobody else gets in. That pretty much guarantees variant swings to either side are kept to a minimum and we get and endless string of mediocrity.

Bernie doesn't fit either foot of that two-poled pillar, which is why he's not affiliated with either, so he took the closest one and tried to drag it out to the side. While his supporters were all for it, the party establishment wasn't, so it didn't happen.

Matter of fact the same thing happened to the Republican Party in 1912, a year with many intriguing parallels.

By the way there's no such thing as a "democrat party". There is however a Democratic Party. The idea that it's 'hard left' is laughable. If you're standing in Philadelphia you can say that Pittsburgh is to your west. You cannot however declare Pittsburgh is "THE West" since there's so much more west beyond it.

I guess we disagree with what is considered "hard left." In my book, there's not much harder left than a warm embrace of socialism. So while you're right that the democratic party establishment screwed Bernie to push Hillary into the candidacy, they're reaction to losing has been "oh i guess we weren't left enough."

The Bernie and Hillary saga was only less than two years ago, so that 'reaction' hasn't even played out yet. Far as I know we have no idea who they'll be running next round, and I doubt they do either.

The DNC is now run by people who are more embracing of socialism and more and more open socialists are winning nominations and congressional seats under the blue banner. More and more rhetoric coming from democrats and socialists are aligning quite neatly. To claim that the democratic party is center-right is a flat wrong. A good example is how there's not a single national democrat who's pro-life anymore: they've all been purged from the party. That's just one of many examples.

How exactly did Alexandra Ocasio-Cortéz --- who by my math is still one (1) person --- get transmogrified into the plural? How indeed did a wannabe candidate who hasn't even been in an election yet get morphed into the entire "the left"? Which is where I started on this fallacious bullshit title....

Seems to me when you have to blow up your points like some kind of inner tube ready for a stream, you didn't have much of a point to start with. We've got a single candidate pluralized and expanded into the entire "the left". We've got projections of who a political party nominated in the future. That sort of bloated hyperexaggeration is not exactly solid ground to build on.

I could dig up all kinds of articles about more democrat candidates who's run for and some who's won special congressional races. You can look at the rhetoric coming from many candidates and the outlets that support them.

Hell, look at what Schumer and Hillary said about illegal immigration not too long ago. They both said that we can't have people coming here illegally. That the american people need to know we're focused on them and not "illegal aliens." And that we shouldn't normalize illegal immigration by calling them "undocumented workers", we should call them what they are: illegal aliens. I'm paraphrasing here but it's certainly out there. Now: they're for a mostly open border policy, wouldn't dare call someone an illegal alien and wouldn't even fund border security in exchange for a DACA renewal when the opportunity arose. I mentioned how democrats have completely purged all their anti-abortion members.

Now you've shifted lanes from "the left" into "democrats [sic]". And you've completely stepped around the questions of how a single woman running for office magically expand into the entire collective "left" and/or pluralizes herself, and how we're predicting future nominations that haven't happened yet.

What do you wanna go with here, "the left" or "Democrats"? You're kind of all over the map.

 

[FA_Q2]

The point stands untouched.

Except For You
Who Thinks You Have A Point To Make ??

The subject is running for a Congressional seat in New York, which has zero connection to Cleveland or to Idaho. Check back tomorrow, and it still won't.

Yet Here You Are
10pgs Later
Still Irrelevantly Ranting
About How Irrelevant It All Is To You

OK, Great....Got It
Better Now ??

BTW, The Subject Of The Thread
For Everyone Except You Is:

Socialist Candidates Openly Running As Democrats

What's Irrelevant Is Where They Are
Or, Your Point....

All right, WAY damn funnier than I put it. LOL

Meh --- far as I can see he's just whining that he can't touch my point.

That being (again) the simple observation that here's a whole lot of wags from Cleveland and Texas and Idaho melting down like the wicked witch of the west about a Congressional candidate who has zero to do with their own districts.

WHY that's interesting is because it says much about their power trips to control what other people are doing with their own choices. Other people who are nowhere remotely near them and who have no more representation than they have for themselves. That, the power trip, is what I'm observing here.

And they have no answer for it. Just whiny gainsaying about "you have no point", because "they have no counterpoint".

Only because you are ignoring the actual point here. She does not have 'zero' to do with their districts because she is representative of the types of candidates that the democrats are running all over the nation let alone those that look to be front runners in the next presidential election. You may disagree with that position though there is AMPLE evidence that the left is now openly embracing a MUCH more hard tact to socialism.

Your example is out of your district is not a counterpoint to that observation - it is an attempt to sidestep the observation entirely.

 

[FA_Q2]

You're off on the "new face of the democratic party." If she's not most representative of what the party is, where it's going and what it stands for, then who is? Elected office doesn't really matter in this context, her election is a forgone conclusion so it's just a matter of time. It's a hyperbolic statement of course but it's not too far off.

The "democratic" socialists of America say they want the Nordic model, basically. But part of what defines that model is free markets that are used to pay for a welfare state. They contradict themselves on that when they say they want to tax and regulate businesses to pay for their programs. They can say what they want all day long but it's just not believable. It's like when conservatives say they're for fiscally responsible.

I clicked a thankyou for a well-reasoned and sober post.

The "new face" phrase was secondary of course but used to illustrate the article's overemphasized slant. The fact that they would take somebody unknown three months ago and try to morph her into far far more than she is, demonstrates the paucity of whatever argument will follow and in effect shoots their own text in the proverbial foot from the mendacity factor. Where said party goes in future or how closely she ends up aligning with it all remains to be seen, and conjecture, but clearly they have blown up their subject to be far more important than she is for the purpose of demonizing the greater whole on the basis of a Composition Fallacy -- which in order to execute they'll need a bona fide representative, ergo they "create" one. So that's the point there.

The greater point there of course was the even more mendacious morphing of her term from "Democratic Socialist" into "socialist". These dishonest weasel-words belie a boatload of what the writer's agenda is.

I think they're pretty spot-on with how Ocasio-Cortez is the direction that the democrats are going. She may not be a de-facto leader but she is in terms of her policies and her thought process. Just look at how popular Bernie was/is.

The rest is obvious. It's The Daily Wire. It's a conservative news source. I'm a Ben Shapiro fan but his site is needlessly biased in the way you pointed out.

Bernie's never been a Democrat, so as I said that all remains to be seen. His campaign did show that there are definitely factions of more and less conservative, but where the giant squid of the party goes with that is future unknown.

I'm really not familiar with the Daily Wire or Ben Shapiro. I just judged it on the content I saw.

The party is and has been moving further left, as evidenced exactly by Bernie. He's an "independent" because his positions were always considered too far to the left for the democrat party. Now, he and his ideas are pretty mainstream democrat, and if you ask just about anyone who voted democrat if he or Hillary was a better candidate, they'd say Bernie. Tom Perez and Keith Ellison as leaders of the DNC are pretty hard left, Ellison moreso.

Any people who subscribe to an even slightly traditional view of what the parties are have been left behind. Republicans have lined up behind Trump(ism) cause he actually won while democrats have moved rather hard left in the last couple of years but it was happening under Obama as well. That's just reality. I'd like to see those that have been cast out by their respective parties recognize the virtue of promoting everyone's individual rights and get behind the Libertarian party.

Insofar as one exists....

Bernie doesn't "evidence" anything. To the degree he finds support among Democrats, it suggests that that contingent would like it to move that way, but you'll also recall that the machine of that part rejected that movement and rigged its selection to favor the old established center-right candidate, so where some sector of its members wish the party to move, and where it actually does move, are two different things, at least thus far.

Of course he does. How can you state that a candidate running for the lead position of the democrat party was openly socialist and was someone that would not have been allowed on stage 10 years ago let alone damn near win. And what have we seen since Bernie? A SHARP increase in the number of openly socialistic democratic candidates. To state that is not the direction of the party is utterly ignoring everything that has happened after 2016.

As anyone who's familiar with world politics knows, we don't have a 'hard left' party. We do, but not any influential ones, just as we don't effectively have a Libertarian party. To the extent these assessments can be generalized we have an entrenched Duopoly that sits with one foot on the right and the other foot on the center-right, and an Electrical College that ensures it stays that way and nobody else gets in. That pretty much guarantees variant swings to either side are kept to a minimum and we get and endless string of mediocrity.

Bernie doesn't fit either foot of that two-poled pillar, which is why he's not affiliated with either, so he took the closest one and tried to drag it out to the side. While his supporters were all for it, the party establishment wasn't, so it didn't happen.

I would point out that it DID happen. Just because Bernie did not win does not mean the entire party did not go further toward his political stance. They clearly are as Trump has shown the power that appealing to your base can have even when much of the nation is not on board.

 

[WillMunny]

The left dug her up from underneath a rock, where they get all their heroes, each more loathsome than the last.

 

[Pogo]

I clicked a thankyou for a well-reasoned and sober post.

The "new face" phrase was secondary of course but used to illustrate the article's overemphasized slant. The fact that they would take somebody unknown three months ago and try to morph her into far far more than she is, demonstrates the paucity of whatever argument will follow and in effect shoots their own text in the proverbial foot from the mendacity factor. Where said party goes in future or how closely she ends up aligning with it all remains to be seen, and conjecture, but clearly they have blown up their subject to be far more important than she is for the purpose of demonizing the greater whole on the basis of a Composition Fallacy -- which in order to execute they'll need a bona fide representative, ergo they "create" one. So that's the point there.

The greater point there of course was the even more mendacious morphing of her term from "Democratic Socialist" into "socialist". These dishonest weasel-words belie a boatload of what the writer's agenda is.

I think they're pretty spot-on with how Ocasio-Cortez is the direction that the democrats are going. She may not be a de-facto leader but she is in terms of her policies and her thought process. Just look at how popular Bernie was/is.

The rest is obvious. It's The Daily Wire. It's a conservative news source. I'm a Ben Shapiro fan but his site is needlessly biased in the way you pointed out.

Bernie's never been a Democrat, so as I said that all remains to be seen. His campaign did show that there are definitely factions of more and less conservative, but where the giant squid of the party goes with that is future unknown.

I'm really not familiar with the Daily Wire or Ben Shapiro. I just judged it on the content I saw.

The party is and has been moving further left, as evidenced exactly by Bernie. He's an "independent" because his positions were always considered too far to the left for the democrat party. Now, he and his ideas are pretty mainstream democrat, and if you ask just about anyone who voted democrat if he or Hillary was a better candidate, they'd say Bernie. Tom Perez and Keith Ellison as leaders of the DNC are pretty hard left, Ellison moreso.

Any people who subscribe to an even slightly traditional view of what the parties are have been left behind. Republicans have lined up behind Trump(ism) cause he actually won while democrats have moved rather hard left in the last couple of years but it was happening under Obama as well. That's just reality. I'd like to see those that have been cast out by their respective parties recognize the virtue of promoting everyone's individual rights and get behind the Libertarian party.

Insofar as one exists....

Bernie doesn't "evidence" anything. To the degree he finds support among Democrats, it suggests that that contingent would like it to move that way, but you'll also recall that the machine of that part rejected that movement and rigged its selection to favor the old established center-right candidate, so where some sector of its members wish the party to move, and where it actually does move, are two different things, at least thus far.

Of course he does. How can you state that a candidate running for the lead position of the democrat party was openly socialist and was someone that would not have been allowed on stage 10 years ago let alone damn near win. And what have we seen since Bernie? A SHARP increase in the number of openly socialistic democratic candidates. To state that is not the direction of the party is utterly ignoring everything that has happened after 2016.

So much errorage in such a short space....

Part the First:
Bernie was not running for the "lead position of the 'democrat [sic] party" (which does not exist). The lead position of the Democratic Party would be its Chair, not its candidate. Sanders never joined the party per se; he simply ran for the position of being its candidate. Party membership isn't necessary to be a candidate. A political party is like which car you drive. You drive because it's going to be faster than walking -- but you don't have to actually own a car to drive one.

Second (third) Sanders has never averred to be a "socialist"; he's specifically described his outlook as "Democratic socialist" and defined what that means.

But again, Sanders has never been, is not now, and probably never will be a Democrat. In fact he began his electoral history by unseating an entrenched Democrat (in Burlington), and has run against them ever since, literally. Matter of fact in at least one year the state Republicans and the state Democrats ran a joint candidate against him, and he still won.

So all of this next-Monday-morning quarterbacking is plugging a whole lot of dynamics into one's speculation that ain't there to plug in.

As anyone who's familiar with world politics knows, we don't have a 'hard left' party. We do, but not any influential ones, just as we don't effectively have a Libertarian party. To the extent these assessments can be generalized we have an entrenched Duopoly that sits with one foot on the right and the other foot on the center-right, and an Electrical College that ensures it stays that way and nobody else gets in. That pretty much guarantees variant swings to either side are kept to a minimum and we get and endless string of mediocrity.

Bernie doesn't fit either foot of that two-poled pillar, which is why he's not affiliated with either, so he took the closest one and tried to drag it out to the side. While his supporters were all for it, the party establishment wasn't, so it didn't happen.

I would point out that it DID happen. Just because Bernie did not win does not mean the entire party did not go further toward his political stance. They clearly are as Trump has shown the power that appealing to your base can have even when much of the nation is not on board.

Again, no elections have happened since that campaign save for some state replacement offices and local stuff. So which way the party goin' Billy is in the future and as yet, unknown. All that's left is mere speculation. "What happened after 2016" --- simply has not taken place yet.

 

[Pogo]

The point stands untouched.

Except For You
Who Thinks You Have A Point To Make ??

The subject is running for a Congressional seat in New York, which has zero connection to Cleveland or to Idaho. Check back tomorrow, and it still won't.

Yet Here You Are
10pgs Later
Still Irrelevantly Ranting
About How Irrelevant It All Is To You

OK, Great....Got It
Better Now ??

BTW, The Subject Of The Thread
For Everyone Except You Is:

Socialist Candidates Openly Running As Democrats

What's Irrelevant Is Where They Are
Or, Your Point....

All right, WAY damn funnier than I put it. LOL

Meh --- far as I can see he's just whining that he can't touch my point.

That being (again) the simple observation that here's a whole lot of wags from Cleveland and Texas and Idaho melting down like the wicked witch of the west about a Congressional candidate who has zero to do with their own districts.

WHY that's interesting is because it says much about their power trips to control what other people are doing with their own choices. Other people who are nowhere remotely near them and who have no more representation than they have for themselves. That, the power trip, is what I'm observing here.

And they have no answer for it. Just whiny gainsaying about "you have no point", because "they have no counterpoint".

Only because you are ignoring the actual point here. She does not have 'zero' to do with their districts because she is representative of the types of candidates that the democrats are running all over the nation let alone those that look to be front runners in the next presidential election. You may disagree with that position though there is AMPLE evidence that the left is now openly embracing a MUCH more hard tact to socialism.

Your example is out of your district is not a counterpoint to that observation - it is an attempt to sidestep the observation entirely.

Feel free to demonstrate said "pattern" rather than simply asserting that one exists, but the fact remains the subject runs for the constituents of HER district; while the rep for Cleveland runs for the constituents of THAT district; the Idahoan for THAT district, etc etc etc. It's always been that way. They're trying to float Composition Fallacy and you seem to be trying to help them do it.

.....YET another perfect example of which lies right above between my posts and yours, in 145.

You don't see this? I mean, it's coming in like clockwork. Not sure how you can find a way to ignore it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Second (third) Sanders has never averred to be a "socialist"; he's specifically described his outlook as "Democratic socialist" and defined what that means.

But again, Sanders has never been, is not now, and probably never will be a Democrat.

Okay so what you;re saying is that Sanders who is a Democrat Socialist is not a Democrat or a Socialist. Gotcha.

 

[gtopa1]

Damn......she has really set off Conservatives to the point of five threads a day

She is doing what she is expected to do

Bring Joy to the Hearts of Trump supporters???

Greg

 

[Pogo]

Second (third) Sanders has never averred to be a "socialist"; he's specifically described his outlook as "Democratic socialist" and defined what that means.

But again, Sanders has never been, is not now, and probably never will be a Democrat.

Okay so what you;re saying is that Sanders who is a Democrat Socialist is not a Democrat or a Socialist. Gotcha.

Eloquently put, thank you.

I should hire you to edit my longwindedness into the succinct.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

WATCH: Ocasio-Cortez Caught Misleading About Her Campaign, Political Issues

The new face of the Democratic Party lied about her campaign and showed an extreme lack of knowledge about political issues in an embarrassing interview this week on Comedy Central.

Socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez appeared on "The Daily Show" with host Trevor Noah where she claimed that she has not taken money from corporations or political action committees (PACs) and suggested that she has not taken money from private equity firms.



Socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez claims she is different because she doesn't accept money from corporations and private equity firms.

Ocasio-Cortez has taken $3,399 from JPMorgan Chase & Co (a corporation) and $2,700 from Elevation Partners (a private equity firm).




Some of Ocasio-Cortez's top donors include Justice Democrats, a regular PAC which gave $7,706 to her campaign; J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., a corporation that gave $3,399 to her campaign; and Elevation Partners, a private equity firm that gave $2,700 to her campaign.

Ocasio-Cortez later made three false statements within the span of one-minute about Seattle's minimum wage, wages earned by American citizens, and the size of the U.S. population.

First, Ocasio-Cortez claimed that Seattle's $15 minimum wage was an example of a $15 minimum wage not hurting an economy, despite the fact that studies have actually shown that it has significantly hurt Seattle's economy.

Next, Ocasio-Cortez claimed: "One of the biggest problems that we have is 200 million Americans make less than $20,000 a year. That’s 40 percent of this country."

For starters, MRCTV notes that "if 200 million Americans equates to 40 percent of the country, that’d mean there are a whopping 500 million Americans in total. Except that there aren’t – there are about 328 million, meaning that 200 million would make up about 61 percent of the total national population, not 40."




Her claim that 200 million Americans make less than $20,000 a year is off by tens of millions of people as U.S. Census Bureau statistics show that approximately 28 million American households live on incomes of $25,000 or less and the median household income is over $57,000.

In the most ridiculous part of the interview, Ocasio-Cortez struggled mightily to come up with a rational and coherent explanation of how to pay for her dreams of large government programs.


Axios reporter Jonathan Swan also noted her completely false claims at the end of the segment about the U.S. military:

Is or does that include The welfare group.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The point stands untouched.

Except For You
Who Thinks You Have A Point To Make ??

The subject is running for a Congressional seat in New York, which has zero connection to Cleveland or to Idaho. Check back tomorrow, and it still won't.

Yet Here You Are
10pgs Later
Still Irrelevantly Ranting
About How Irrelevant It All Is To You

OK, Great....Got It
Better Now ??

BTW, The Subject Of The Thread
For Everyone Except You Is:

Socialist Candidates Openly Running As Democrats

What's Irrelevant Is Where They Are
Or, Your Point....

All right, WAY damn funnier than I put it. LOL

Meh --- far as I can see he's just whining that he can't touch my point.

That being (again) the simple observation that here's a whole lot of wags from Cleveland and Texas and Idaho melting down like the wicked witch of the west about a Congressional candidate who has zero to do with their own districts.

WHY that's interesting is because it says much about their power trips to control what other people are doing with their own choices. Other people who are nowhere remotely near them and who have no more representation than they have for themselves. That, the power trip, is what I'm observing here.

And they have no answer for it. Just whiny gainsaying about "you have no point", because "they have no counterpoint".

Question: how many other Dem candidates get the attention this girl has been getting? You don't see us talking about any other ones, do you?

She is transcending because she's a Socialist and she looks good to some guys. It's no different if somebody from the KKK defeated a long-term Republican in a primary for a congressional seat. Or are you trying to say you would follow your own advice and never mind him because he's running for a seat a thousand miles away from where you live?

Don't be such a hypocrite.

 

[Reasonable]

WATCH: Ocasio-Cortez Caught Misleading About Her Campaign, Political Issues

My goodness
And she’ll probably win in one of those sheep districts

But strangely enough you say nothing about Putin’s bitch making 3400 documented false statements. Why is that?

 

[Pogo]

The point stands untouched.

Except For You
Who Thinks You Have A Point To Make ??

The subject is running for a Congressional seat in New York, which has zero connection to Cleveland or to Idaho. Check back tomorrow, and it still won't.

Yet Here You Are
10pgs Later
Still Irrelevantly Ranting
About How Irrelevant It All Is To You

OK, Great....Got It
Better Now ??

BTW, The Subject Of The Thread
For Everyone Except You Is:

Socialist Candidates Openly Running As Democrats

What's Irrelevant Is Where They Are
Or, Your Point....

All right, WAY damn funnier than I put it. LOL

Meh --- far as I can see he's just whining that he can't touch my point.

That being (again) the simple observation that here's a whole lot of wags from Cleveland and Texas and Idaho melting down like the wicked witch of the west about a Congressional candidate who has zero to do with their own districts.

WHY that's interesting is because it says much about their power trips to control what other people are doing with their own choices. Other people who are nowhere remotely near them and who have no more representation than they have for themselves. That, the power trip, is what I'm observing here.

And they have no answer for it. Just whiny gainsaying about "you have no point", because "they have no counterpoint".

Question: how many other Dem candidates get the attention this girl has been getting? You don't see us talking about any other ones, do you?

She is transcending because she's a Socialist and she looks good to some guys. It's no different if somebody from the KKK defeated a long-term Republican in a primary for a congressional seat. Or are you trying to say you would follow your own advice and never mind him because he's running for a seat a thousand miles away from where you live?

Don't be such a hypocrite.

I can't very well practice "hypocrisy" on the basis of some strawman you just made up, now can I?

I have my own rep to elect. Other people's reps are none of my business, just as mine ain't theirs.
Not rocket surgery.

Again, what I find revealing is how y'all wags from 500, 1000, 2500 miles away want to decide what other people are doing with their own local reps. It says a lot.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Damn......she has really set off Conservatives to the point of five threads a day
She is doing what she is expected to do

We realize you believe her to be a modern day genius......you're doing what you are expected to do.
But you should listen to the consensus. To avoid future embarrassment.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

But strangely enough you say nothing about Putin’s bitch making 3400 documented false statements. Why is that?

It's Reasonable that you are Putin's Bitch......we can believe that.
Only 3400 today? You're falling behind your normal daily quota.

 

[tyroneweaver]

WATCH: Ocasio-Cortez Caught Misleading About Her Campaign, Political Issues

My goodness
And she’ll probably win in one of those sheep districts

But strangely enough you say nothing about Putin’s bitch making 3400 documented false statements. Why is that?

ya

WATCH: Ocasio-Cortez Caught Misleading About Her Campaign, Political Issues

My goodness
And she’ll probably win in one of those sheep districts

But strangely enough you say nothing about Putin’s bitch making 3400 documented false statements. Why is that?

bu bu bu but trump

 

[deanrd]

Damn......she has really set off Conservatives to the point of five threads a day

She is doing what she is expected to do

Nothing like a poster from Idaho wetting his pants about a Congressional candidate from Queens.

What is that --- 2500 miles?

You could say a brazilian miles and they wouldn't know the difference.

 

[Rambunctious]

I've already seen a Sanders Cortez 2020 bumper sticker.....

 

[Pogo]

Damn......she has really set off Conservatives to the point of five threads a day

She is doing what she is expected to do

Nothing like a poster from Idaho wetting his pants about a Congressional candidate from Queens.

What is that --- 2500 miles?

You could say a brazilian miles and they wouldn't know the difference.

De qualquer forma é um longo caminho, certo.