US congresswomen refuse to condemn brutal attack on ICE facility.

meeeeh

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Anyone involved in politics should know that not condemning a terrorist attack when talking to the other side's media is the worst thing you could possibly do. This is amateur hour stuff.

Is that supported by the same research which underpins your statement that vast majority of people agree with you.

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

They can't possibly. This is a man who called journalists as 'Enemies of the People', incited violence against journalists at his rallies and joked with Putin about having reporters killed.

They don't find anything she says offensive if they aren't offended by the above which is much worse.

Of course they do. Your logic while sound doesn't really apply to reality.

Celticfire

Faugheen wrote: »

She didn't 'refuse', she said she'd have a statement later.

Why are you so outraged and snowflake-y about that?

Am I doing this right?

Did she make that statement yet?

steddyeddy

Deleted User wrote: »

Of course they do. Your logic while sound doesn't really apply to reality.

Nah mate they're just pretending to be offended.

steddyeddy

Dick phelan wrote: »

AOC is a moron with zero understanding of economics or frankly anything, laughable that people think she's the future of anything positive. Omar is a vile anti Semite who now has the nerve to get all offended over getting a taste of her own medicine. Trump's a fool to be saying those things but you know you'd expect someone who was given refuge taken in out of kindness from America would have at least something positive to say about it. But America is so terrible, so awful racist etc. Your from Somalia, America is paradise on earth in comparison, you'd expect her to be more thankful.

But then again so does Trump. He constantly put down America. He himself came from a German family of ill dispute. His grandfather, a draft dodger (:D) was threatened with deportation from Germany as a result of his cowardice. I'd recommend Trump go back to where he came from to fix it but I think Germany's doing OK right now.

meeeeh

meeeeh wrote: »

Is that supported by the same research which underpins your statement that vast majority of people agree with you.

Wtf. Why would anyone even conduct research on when best to not condemn a terrorist attack. If they've done it, fair play. For the rest of us, it's common sense.

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

Nah mate they're just pretending to be offended.

It's not pretending and it's not "offensive". No one offended them.

If you can't see the problem of two members of Congress pulling the silent card on an extremely basic question regarding a domestic terrorist attack, then there's not much point in this continuing. You feel the way you do. I feel the way I do.

I even granted you a compliment to defuse the situation and you ignored it.

steddyeddy

Deleted User wrote: »

It's not pretending and it's not "offensive". No one offended them.

If you can't see the problem of two members of Congress pulling the silent card on an extremely basic question regarding a domestic terrorist attack, then there's not much point in this continuing. You feel the way you do. I feel the way I do.

I even granted you a compliment to defuse the situation and you ignored it.

I do see a problem with it if they're against it, if they're not then they should say that the attack is understandable. What I'm saying is that Trump supporters have little or no right to be offended by any of this. I'm sorry but that lacks credibility.

Danzy

It's unimaginable that a Congress person could not condemn a gunman attacking a facility, which is part of her Govt.

It was purely down to regard for the wife beaters actions that day.

Danzy

steddyeddy wrote: »

I do see a problem with it if they're against it, if they're not then they should say that the attack is understandable. What I'm saying is that Trump supporters have little or no right to be offended by any of this. I'm sorry but that lacks credibility.

For the Democrats the concern with AOC is that the offense is going to be taken in their heartlands. They could care less what Trump supporters think.

That is the danger with AOC and the Squad, their damage is to the Dems base.

splinter65

meeeeh wrote: »

Is that supported by the same research which underpins your statement that vast majority of people agree with you.

The result of the next American presidential election will be a fairly accurate reflection in how many agree with you and how many with ads by google.
The way things look at the moment your in for another let down.

James Brown

Deleted User wrote: »

How "fringe" can you honestly be if you have access to these politicians? It was a simple question requiring a simple answer. Not giving it raises the profile of the journalist's organisation way more.. It's similar to the Barbra Streisand effect.

And honestly, the vast majority like myself would generally look at their refusal as a disgrace. You guys need to realise you are not representative of any population.

It's not at all. The faux outrage at not answering pretty much justifies it IMO.
Well that balances out with Trump banning networks and journalists and ignoring them I suppose, albeit on a much larger scale.

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

I do see a problem with it if they're against it, if they're not then they should say that the attack is understandable. What I'm saying is that Trump supporters have little or no right to be offended by any of this. I'm sorry but that lacks credibility.

Well then, what you're saying is largely irrelevant because this has nothing to do with Trump.

Who cares who has any right to be offended anyways.. People vote the way they will regardless of the legitimacy of their opinions. AOC made a misstep here and a dislike that of that is fine. She's going to be the face of the Dems for the next decade by the looks of it and she should act accordingly. Terrorism is bad. Easy.

James Brown

splinter65 wrote: »

She wasn’t crying at an empty car park she was crying at an entrance to an ICE facility “way over there”? But there were no children or anyone that she saw. The idea of the children in the ICE facility made her cry.
Gotcha.
That put me straight!

I've posted the link debunking it twice, here's a third time...

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/aoc-empty-parking-lot/

We were lied to and told it was a staged photo with fake crying into a parking lot. Now that's debunked, it's that she wasn't close enough....okay so

Matt Barrett

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It's not at all. The faux outrage at not answering pretty much justifies it IMO.
Well that balances out with Trump banning networks and journalists and ignoring them I suppose, albeit on a much larger scale.

Had they answered yes, there would be no story. This is very Streisand. And there is no such thing as "balance". That's a ridiculous idea.

James Brown

Deleted User wrote: »

Had they answered yes, there would be no story. This is very Streisand. And there is no such thing as "balance". That's a ridiculous idea.

No it's not. You don't understand it.
It would be if she tried to hide something and in effect blew it up, this is some chancer asking a question and her not answering. Big deal for sure, the monster. Balance? I assume you are disgusted by Trump so?

Matt Barrett

Matt Barrett wrote: »

No it's not. You don't understand it.
It would be if she tried to hide something and in effect blew it up, this is some chancer asking a question and her not answering. Big deal for sure, the monster. Balance? I assume you are disgusted by Trump so?

I initially posted about AOC giving that reporter legitimacy / an audience. That person clearly has gotten one based on this thread.

Regarding balance, I meant that two bads don't make a right. You can't dismiss one thing because of something separate. This does not balance Trump's behaviour regarding the media whatsoever. It simply doesn't make sense to suggest that we should be subject to incorrect reporting in order to balance out something else.

mad muffin

Vile women. They will rue the day…

Apiarist

splashuum wrote: »

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar have both bizarrely refused to condemn the recent attack on the ICE facility. Radical leftist Willem Van Spronsen who was armed with a semi-automatic weapon also attempted to ignite a propane gas tank near the facility. ...

If you put it like that, it sounds interesting. However, what happened was that the man
1) Had a rifle with him, but have not fired a shot
2) Lit his own car on fire that exploded
3) Attempted to lit a propane tank and failed

For that, the police shot him dead. I condemn the excessive actions of the police.

James Brown

Deleted User wrote: »

I initially posted about AOC giving that reporter legitimacy / an audience. That person clearly has gotten one based on this thread.

Regarding balance, I meant that two bads don't make a right. You can't dismiss one thing because of something separate. This does not balance Trump's behaviour regarding the media whatsoever. It simply doesn't make sense to suggest that we should be subject to incorrect reporting in order to balance out something else.

That person is only getting mileage out of the desperate faux outraged right wing posse, derision from the rest of us.
If Trump said, 'no comment' or ignored a question, I'd have absolutely no problem with it. Surely you've seen that kind of thing a million times? My question was if it disgusts you when AOC did it, Trump must really get your goat.
I'm skirting around the fact that I don't believe it bothers you at all but you're desperately looking to stick something on AOC, like the OP.

feargale

splashuum wrote: »

https://summit.news/2019/06/26/aoc-criticized-for-wearing-600-watch-during-crying-border-photo-op/

Such a genuine compassionate lady crying at a car park.

I wear one that cost about the same. So?

What did DT pay for his? Any pics of it available?

Should the lady have put on one from a one pound shop for the occasion?

Faugheen

splinter65 wrote: »

The result of the next American presidential election will be a fairly accurate reflection in how many agree with you and how many with ads by google.
The way things look at the moment your in for another let down.

So if he gets less votes than his opponent like last time what will that say?

Matt Barrett

Matt Barrett wrote: »

That person is only getting mileage out of the desperate faux outraged right wing posse, derision from the rest of us.
If Trump said, 'no comment' or ignored a question, I'd have absolutely no problem with it. Surely you've seen that kind of thing a million times? My question was if it disgusts you when AOC did it, Trump must really get your goat.
I'm skirting around the fact that I don't believe it bothers you at all but you're desperately looking to stick something on AOC, like the OP.

Yeah, I think he's a buffoon. It's not "faux outrage".. I have no deep-down reason to care about this. I just think it's a really bad thing for them to do.

Out of interest, do you condemn the attack? I assume you do but just answer anyway.


Edit for your edit: Yes it's annoying that AOC is getting so much traction. I'm a Sanders guy and extremely left in my views. The US for better or for worse influences the entire world culturally. She is screwing with that and would be best ignored for a while.

James Brown

feargale wrote: »

I wear one that cost about the same. So?

What did DT pay for his? Any pics of it available?

Should the lady have put on one from a one pound shop for the occasion?

They slag her off for dressing in white, even though they all wore white in protest. It's not like she wore this...could you imagine the faux outrage?

notobtuse

Oh boy! The drama continues. Congressman Al Green (D), for the third time, filed articles of impeachment last night, and claims Trump’s tweets about AOC and the other three freshmen Democrats (The Squad) are a “high misdemeanor.” Nancy Pelosi has worked hard against impeachment because she knows it will just look like a vindictive measure on the democrats part for Trump winning the election, and will appear very bad in voters minds (see Clinton's impeachment)… and will simply help to reelect Trump. Removing Trump will never pass the Senate. Pelosi will, as usual, have most democrats vote to table the measure, in order to keep the impeachment noise alive. But I’m hearing republicans might just side with Green, initially, and force a up or down vote on the matter. This will kill any chances in tough areas around the country for democrats if they vote on impeachment, and probably give the House back to the GOP. It's heating up to be a very fun afternoon… at least until 5pm EST. Politics is such fun!

James Brown

Deleted User wrote: »

Yeah, I think he's a buffoon. It's not "faux outrage".. I have no deep-down reason to care about this. I just think it's a really bad thing for them to do.

Out of interest, do you condemn the attack? I assume you do but just answer anyway.

I don't know anything about it. Was he abusing children or taking children away from their parents at the time? It would colour my opinion.

James Brown

notobtuse wrote: »

Oh boy! The drama continues. Congressman Al Green (D), for the third time, filed articles of impeachment last night, and claims Trump’s tweets about AOC and the other three freshmen Democrats (The Squad) are a “high misdemeanor.” Nancy Pelosi has worked hard against impeachment because she knows it will just look like a vindictive measure on the democrats part for Trump winning the election, and will appear very bad in voters minds (see Clinton's impeachment)… and will simply help to reelect Trump. Removing Trump will never pass the Senate. Pelosi will, as usual, have democrats vote to table the measure, in order to keep the impeachment noise alive. But I’m hearing republicans might just side with Green, initially, and force a up or down vote on the matter. This will kill any chances in tough areas around the country for democrats if they vote on impeachment, and probably give the House back to the GOP. It's heating up to be a very fun afternoon… at least until 5pm EST. Politics is such fun!

Pelosi should step aside. Trump should be impeached if there are any ethics within the U.S. government.

notobtuse

Matt Barrett wrote: »

They slag her off for dressing in white, even though they all wore white in protest. It's not like she wore this...could you imagine the faux outrage?

I remember all the faux outrage over the First Lady wearing that designer coat. It dominated media coverage for about a week.

Matt Barrett

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I don't know anything about it. Was he abusing children or taking children away from their parents at the time? It would colour my opinion.

I edited the post if you want to reply to that. But this one really just told me all I need to know about you. You seem to live in a bizarre world of whataboutery where you can only manage one line of thought as if anything in that line negates other stuff in the same line.

Pretty much done here. Bed time.

James Brown

notobtuse wrote: »

I remember all the faux outrage over the First Lady wearing that designer coat. It dominated media coverage for about a week.

No 'faux' means 'false', that was outrage. And quite right. She wore a coat saying "I really don't care, do you?". Bit above wearing white at a wear white protest or looking past a carpark at a detention center or not answering a question from ALT right media.

Igotadose

Getting Trump on the stand and perjuring himself left and right about why he fired Comey, among many other possible topics, would be great entertainment and I think actually weaken his chances at reelection. I can see it happening, Clinton was tried on seriously weak charges versus "I fired this guy because I was worried about whether they'd find dirt on me, and I did my best to block the investigation."

James Brown

Deleted User wrote: »

I edited the post if you want to reply to that. But this one really just told me all I need to know about you. You seem to live in a bizarre world of whataboutery where you can only manage one line of thought as if anything in that line negates other stuff in the same line.

Pretty much done here. Bed time.

No whataboutery. You seem confused by a number of terms. I'm very anti-violence. The facts would colour the level of condemnation. How foolish would I be to comment on something I know nothing about?

notobtuse

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Pelosi should step aside. Trump should be impeached if there are any ethics within the U.S. government.

Having Pelosi in charge is good for the GOP. Impeachment can happen regardless of any, or no ethics in the government. All it takes is which party has the largest numbers in the House. Removal is the responsibility of the Senate.

Matt Barrett

Matt Barrett wrote: »

No whataboutery. You seem confused by a number of terms. I'm very anti-violence. The facts would colour the level of condemnation. How foolish would I be to comment on something I know nothing about?

Your condemnation and general opinion of a terrorist attack seem to rest upon whether or not that person committed other crimes similar to another individual.. If I'm reading correctly?

Happy, and hopeful, to be told that I'm wrong in that.

James Brown

Deleted User wrote: »

Your condemnation and general opinion of a terrorist attack seem to rest upon whether or not that person committed other crimes similar to another individual.. If I'm reading correctly?

Happy, and hopeful, to be told that I'm wrong in that.

I don't know if it was a terrorist attack do I? A man attacked another man, that's bad. How's that for you? Give me a link and I'll give you a full report.

EDIT:

Is this the guy shot and killed by the cops for throwing incendiary devices and having a rifle? If so it's a shame he was killed but he put himself in harms way. He should have pursued peaceful means. He was wrong IMO. How's that?

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/briannasacks/ice-detention-attack-killed-washington-antifa-manifesto

notobtuse

Igotadose wrote: »

Getting Trump on the stand and perjuring himself left and right about why he fired Comey, among many other possible topics, would be great entertainment and I think actually weaken his chances at reelection. I can see it happening, Clinton was tried on seriously weak charges versus "I fired this guy because I was worried about whether they'd find dirt on me, and I did my best to block the investigation."

Comey was a partisan hack, who lied and abused his office. Rosenstein was totally correct in his recommendation to have Comey fired. And regarding Clinton... lying to Grand Jury is anything but a weak charge. And Clinton was disbarred for it.

Danzy

victor8600 wrote: »

If you put it like that, it sounds interesting. However, what happened was that the man
1) Had a rifle with him, but have not fired a shot
2) Lit his own car on fire that exploded
3) Attempted to lit a propane tank and failed

For that, the police shot him dead. I condemn the excessive actions of the police.

He was trying to blow up a propane tank with several thousand litres of fuel, the fireball from that would have been seen from a long way.

He was killed before he could kill and at least he can't beat his wife anymore.

Danzy

notobtuse wrote: »

Having Pelosi in charge is good for the GOP. Impeachment can happen regardless of any, or no ethics in the government. All it takes is which party has the largest numbers in the House. Removal is the responsibility of the Senate.

Trumps dream is for an impeachment effort.

Igotadose

notobtuse wrote: »

Comey was a partisan hack, who lied and abused his office. Rosenstein was totally correct in his recommendation to have Comey fired. And regarding Clinton... lying to Grand Jury is anything but a weak charge. And Clinton was disbarred for it.

Like I said, put Trump on the stand and we'll learn what Comey did, or didn't do. There's been nothing under oath from Trump about it. Plus once you're on the stand, who knows what kind of Q & A will happen - maybe they'll be asking about tax returns by then, they're making their way to Congress.

notobtuse

Igotadose wrote: »

Like I said, put Trump on the stand and we'll learn what Comey did, or didn't do. There's been nothing under oath from Trump about it. Plus once you're on the stand, who knows what kind of Q & A will happen - maybe they'll be asking about tax returns by then, they're making their way to Congress.

Putting any president on the stand under oath will only invoke the Clinton/Democratic Gameplan going forward. "I don't recall' being the standard answer for any problematic question.

circadian

Ethan Late Transmission wrote: »

It is a well known fact that genuine emotion and the wearing of mid-range watches are mutually exclusive, what a fcuking cnut!

Seriously the stuff that people think are some kind of checkmate against AOC is hilarious, I know eff all about her I just keep seeing right-wing raving about her dancing in college, wearing a watch etc. I have to assume there's no actual substantive dirt on her if people are reduced to pretending things like that are big deals, god knows they're looking for anything to undermine her.

That's exactly it. It's in the realm of Tan suits and Dijon mustard.

James Brown

Danzy wrote: »

Trumps dream is for an impeachment effort.

Likely right but it's Trump, he's likely to put his foot in it. Either way a line has been crossed and there should be consequences.

James Brown

splashuum wrote: »

https://summit.news/2019/06/26/aoc-criticized-for-wearing-600-watch-during-crying-border-photo-op/

Such a genuine compassionate lady crying at a car park.

Sad boss, seriously. That it?

notobtuse

circadian wrote: »

That's exactly it. It's in the realm of Tan suits and Dijon mustard.

The AOC dancing outrage thing was a manufactured story made up by the media against conservatives. We actually thought she looked good dancing and was merely doing what any college student would do. Also, we don’t want AOC to go… we most definitely want her to stick around. We just want to make sure people know the crazy and stupid stuff she says and does… that the media usually hides to protect democrats... unless forced to report on.

The only thing AOC has to worry about at the moment is the investigation into campaign finance fraud on her part that is currently going on... and garbage disposals.

weldoninhio

steddyeddy wrote: »

But then again so does Trump. He constantly put down America. He himself came from a German family of ill dispute. His grandfather, a draft dodger (:D) was threatened with deportation from Germany as a result of his cowardice. I'd recommend Trump go back to where he came from to fix it but I think Germany's doing OK right now.

Ah, so I take it you agree with 16 year olds being conscripted??

James Brown

notobtuse wrote: »

The AOC dancing outrage thing was a manufactured story made up by the media against conservatives. We actually thought she looked good dancing and was merely doing what any college student would do. Also, we don’t want AOC to go… we most definitely want her to stick around. We just want to make sure people know the crazy and stupid stuff she says and does… that the media usually hides to protect democrats... unless forced to report on.

The only thing AOC has to worry about at the moment is the investigation into campaign finance fraud on her part that is currently going on... and garbage disposals.

You're a hack boss.
'We', you speak for the right? It's not West Side story ffs.
I saw with my own eyes Republican's taking the piss out of her over that video. She took ownership of it.
The woman ran rings around pharma. You come off as a Conway type/Fox conspiracy theorist with a right wing bias.
You've no credibility with me anyway.

steddyeddy

weldoninhio wrote: »

Ah, so I take it you agree with 16 year olds being conscripted??

You are fake news buddy!

meeeeh

Matt Barrett wrote: »

No 'faux' means 'false', that was outrage. And quite right. She wore a coat saying "I really don't care, do you?". Bit above wearing white at a wear white protest or looking past a carpark at a detention center or not answering a question from ALT right media.

Outrage around that jacket was just as ridiculous as it's most of the outrage around AOC. It was intentionally misrepresented that she doesn't care about the children she was visiting. It was stupid for her to wear that jacket but a lot of reaction was pure gutter journalism. There is too much nonsense written about Melania Trump's clothing. Frankly media should butt out she is not elected or paid by US government.

There are two sides in this and frankly both are trading nonsense and slinging mud at each other.

As for Trump impeachment it's not gonna happen. When Clinton was impeached it lost republicans votes, it's much better to attack in the campaign.

Pedro K

notobtuse wrote: »

AOC is fascinating to watch, politically. Every time she opens her mouth we get a new lesson in stupidity and ignorance. Luckily I’m older and won’t be around to see someone like AOC run America into the ground, if the likes of her are our future. Feel sorry for my kids, though.

Your pal, Trump, misspelled "smoking" as smocking twice in a tweet. He referred to the prince of Wales as the prince of Whales. He misspelled hamburgers. He thinks the Moon is a part of Mars. He referred to Puerto Rico as an "island surrounded by water, big water, ocean water." He couldn't pronounce origins. Finally, and perhaps worst of all, he thought that there were airports in 1781.

Do go on, however, about how AOC gives lessons in stupidity.

meeeeh

splinter65 wrote: »

The result of the next American presidential election will be a fairly accurate reflection in how many agree with you and how many with ads by google.
The way things look at the moment your in for another let down.

What has that to do with someone being dim enough to think their opinion stands for public opinion or best way to approach something.

As for election I think Trump has good chance of winning but we don't know yet who the opposition will be. You might be confident enough that someone who scraped over the line in last election, has fairly low approval ratings will easily win without knowing who he is running against. I'm not.