US congresswomen refuse to condemn brutal attack on ICE facility.

splinter65

Faugheen wrote: »

Good publicity?

She literally caused him to essentially admit he's a racist.

Anyone who thinks Trump is a shoe-in is a fool. He'll lose Michigan and Wisconsin, and probably Pennsylvania too.

This is an example of how two people can look at the same thing and see two different things.
I’m not keen on either camp.
I’d like to see an independent some day make it past the two party system to get elected.
I’m kind of neutral.
But I’m sorry to burst your bubble, AOC is a disaster. She appears to be looking for the limelight and then getting it, in all the wrong ways....and then whinging and crying when the likes of Fox News very very easily put a spin on her antics to make her seem like a disaster.
That exchange between her and that senior ICE official at the committee hearing when he corrected her and she was left speechless? Disaster. The white jeans and the theatrical tears at the ICE facility when she couldn’t see anyone except some bewildered policemen? Disaster. The Green Deal? Disaster .

Faugheen

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'm talking about the subject of this thread; the opening post. You're bringing in a lot of baggage about Trump which is irrelevant. Take your arguments about him somewhere else. AOC has nothing to do with Trump as she can't even run against him.

I'm talking about people link-dumping from conservative propaganda websites in this very thread about AOC wearing a watch and being outraged by it.

Why aren't you telling those posters using this thread as an AOC bitch-fest to piss off then, if you're so consistent at sticking to the topic at hand and not letting it descend into anything else?

You're happy to let people chat ****e about AOC that's not relevant to this thread but once anybody chats **** about The Donald it's one step too far.

is_that_so

Faugheen wrote: »

I'm not suggesting that at all but go ahead and make things up like a good man.

Read my post, I was talking about those who think he's a shoe-in. I literally said those words.

Warren, Harris, Sanders, even Biden have the potential to beat him. Trump can win Florida and Ohio but still lose.

And I pointed out that nobody does believe that but as incumbent the odds are still in his favour. Biden, Warren or maybe Harris. I don't think people will fall for the Bernie show a second time.

Faugheen

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Bad analogy. And terrible reasoning skills.




No, you're not. My interest in politics is anti-Brexit and anti-hysteria. I'm not a snowflake. One should not need time to release a statement regarding a terrorist attack. It's incredibly partisan in this case, and posters here are extremely biased. Derailment for so many posts and I'm just trying to bring it back to the thread's topic.

Actually if I was a politician and these right-wing propaganda websites were shoving camera's in my face and looking for any reason to spin what I said into something negative, you're damn right I'd tell them I'll be releasing a statement later.

You're taking these outlets at complete face-value here and if you're so anti-hysteria then why are you literally going off what hysteria sites are saying?

Faugheen

Faugheen wrote: »

I'm talking about people link-dumping from conservative propaganda websites in this very thread about AOC wearing a watch and being outraged by it.

Why aren't you telling those posters using this thread as an AOC bitch-fest to piss off then, if you're so consistent at sticking to the topic at hand and not letting it descend into anything else?

You're happy to let people chat ****e about AOC that's not relevant to this thread but once anybody chats **** about The Donald it's one step too far.

I like most read the first couple of pages of a thread and then go to the last couple. I'm not going to drag up posts from 14 pages ago, which were about her faking tears, not a watch.

Even then, I'm not seeing your point. Is it that in any thread, Trump is relevant? Hardly a great hill to die on.

Faugheen

Faugheen wrote: »

Actually if I was a politician and these right-wing propaganda websites were shoving camera's in my face and looking for any reason to spin what I said into something negative, you're damn right I'd tell them I'll be releasing a statement later.

You're taking these outlets at complete face-value here and if you're so anti-hysteria then why are you literally going off what hysteria sites are saying?

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.

Faugheen

[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.

Why are you buying into the hysteria then if you're so against it?

weldoninhio

Faugheen wrote: »

Another thread about men bitching and moaning about a woman who is making the right noises and is sticking it to the old dinosaurs in US politics.

Absolute sad cases.

Haha haha, the former head of ICE literally had to explain to her that entering the country ILLEGALLY, was ILLEGAL. She couldn’t get her head around it. Way to stick it to the man. Hahahaha

Faugheen

Faugheen wrote: »

Why are you buying into the hysteria then if you're so against it?

Do I honestly sound hysterical in any of these posts?

steddyeddy

Deleted User wrote: »

In this case, they find what she doesn't say disgraceful.

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.

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…

victor8600

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.