Jump to content

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

markstanco

By markstanco
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Dahobbs

Dahobbs 17437

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, HtownHorn said:

Obama was the president when the Clinton investigation took place. stupid troll attempt.

Was the statute of limitation on this imaginary infraction a year? You're telling me it was a super serious issue that deserved a special counsel, but that it wasn't worth investigating or pursuing the minute after Obama was no longer President? Weird. Almost sounds like maybe it wasn't that serious (or real) to begin with. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 13k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

henrygandorf
henrygandorf

oh, and to add, let's offer up a 'comparable' analogy reversal and see how it fits.  who's the aoc of the right?  jim jordan?  matt gaetz? this is basically like if there was a huge earthquake he

henrygandorf
henrygandorf

some people see 99% and consider that absolutism.  i am one of those people. this is not your wife grabbing your cell phone that you left in the other room.  this is not a quick favor.  this is a

RomaVicta
RomaVicta

Yes, of course. She is the only woman or woman of color the left right (edit) focuses their ire on. There are no other examples. Great point. It's really all intellectual and rational. And usually ver

Posted Images

zork

zork 629

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Was the statute of limitation on this imaginary infraction a year? You're telling me it was a super serious issue that deserved a special counsel, but that it wasn't worth investigating or pursuing the minute after Obama was no longer President? Weird. Almost sounds like maybe it wasn't that serious (or real) to begin with. 

Sounds like a good reason to fire Comey for the way he, at the direction of LLynch, bungled the case at minimum.  Since Obama didn't, Trump did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hobbes2702

hobbes2702 12799

Posted
Posted
30 minutes ago, zork said:

Sounds like a good reason to fire Comey for the way he, at the direction of LLynch, bungled the case at minimum.  Since Obama didn't, Trump did.

So it was a good enough reason to claim they conspired and fire Comey but not a good enough reason to reopen the case huh? Do you guys read the dumb shit you post?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
zork

zork 629

Posted
Posted
Just now, hobbes2702 said:

So it was a good enough reason to claim they conspired and fire Comey but not a good enough reason to reopen the case huh? Do you guys read the dumb shit you post?

Sessions recused himself.  Rosenstein didn't do it.  Firing Comey wasn't wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
EMAWesome

EMAWesome 101

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

Yes, it is a quote. Obviously, in context, she is being mildly hyperbolic  to emphasize how important this issue is to the country's youth. It is clear from reading her Facebook post what she is referencing (the deadline for reducing emissions) and not the literal and sudden end of the world. Good luck with the whole thinking thing. One day it may work for ya. 

Might want to pass this message along to the kids that were trying to take bites out of Feinstein's ass a week or two ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hobbes2702

hobbes2702 12799

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, zork said:

Sessions recused himself.  Rosenstein didn't do it.  Firing Comey wasn't wrong.

He has the right to fire Comey unless he is doing so to obstruct justice which he clearly was but that’s not the point. You seem to think it was so important to fire Comey for his supposed conspiracy with Lynch. Then why wasn’t it important to re-open the investigation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TexArcher

TexArcher 37508

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, zork said:

Sessions recused himself.  Rosenstein didn't do it.  Firing Comey wasn't wrong.

Let's say I own an investment company.  Let's say my Chief Compliance Officer has reason to believe I'm involved in insider trading and starts an investigation.  Then I fire him.  

Is that "not wrong"?

Do you think I'm in any legal trouble for firing him while he was investigating me for a felony?

Now suppose I actually admitted publicly that I fired him because I wanted that investigation to stop.

Do you really not see it?

Edited by TexArcher
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hobbes2702

hobbes2702 12799

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, tjhooker said:

So funny the amount of explaining and backtracking done in this thread. She is a moron.  She understands little of what she is actually talking about.  Countless examples. Of course, all explained away by this or that.  The right has their's too.  It's OK to admit she is just not that smart or at best ill informed. 

Jesus the lack of self awareness here is impressive

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
zork

zork 629

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, TexArcher said:

Let's say I own an investment company.  Let's say my Chief Compliance Officer has reason to believe I'm involved in insider trading and starts an investigation.  Then I fire him.  

Is that "not wrong"?

Do you think I'm in any legal trouble for firing him while he was investigating me for a felony?

I'm saying there was plenty of room to fire him for the actions during the election.  You know Hillary would have canned him.  

Felony what? Felony joking about hacking a server that had long since been removed?  Felony having your campaign hiring a lawyer to conspire with foreign agents to create, or continue to create, a dossier on your campaign opponent?  Like that?

Edited by zork
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChickenSandwich

ChickenSandwich 9798

Posted
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, Pam Cummings said:

It's also highly ironic that the only reason this video appeals to those cretins is because......vagina 

 

I mean isn't it just crazy how the only people who tend to ever bring up race/sex are always Republicans, and always to distract from whatever hair brained point they're trying to make. As if their arguments are shit and the only way they can feel like they've salvaged anything is to make fun of the other person's appearance and not even be creative or funny about that either. 

It’s been 3 years and counting since a Democrat has soponsed or enforced a policy of job creation, economic expanision or lower taxes. 

All we hear is how YOU would give away more tax dollars. Wake up and give the people an actual option. 

Edited by ChickenSandwich
Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18651

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, zork said:

I'm saying there was plenty of room to fire him for the actions during the election.  You know Hillary would have canned him.  

Felony what? Felony joking about hacking a server that has long since been removed?  Felony having your campaign hiring a lawyer to conspire with foreign agents to create, or continue to create, a dossier on your campaign opponent?  Like that?

So the Trump DOJ doesn't prosecute felonies now?

Huh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hobbes2702

hobbes2702 12799

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, zork said:

I'm saying there was plenty of room to fire him for the actions during the election.  You know Hillary would have canned him.  

Felony what? Felony joking about hacking a server that had long since been removed?  Felony having your campaign hiring a lawyer to conspire with foreign agents to create, or continue to create, a dossier on your campaign opponent?  Like that?

No more like felony tax fraud, felony campaign finance violations, felony insurance fraud, felony money laundering. Like that.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
zork

zork 629

Posted
Posted
Just now, hobbes2702 said:

No more like felony tax fraud, felony campaign finance violations, felony insurance fraud, felony money laundering. Like that.

Looks like manafort got caught on the money laundering for sure from well before he was in the campaign.  We'll see on the rest.  Mueller is incoming any day, like tomorrow is Tuesday?  We can wait till it is reported, if it is going to be that is.

Seems like the signals are that Trump will skate from the Mueller findings?  Just speculation of course.  We still have the new Dem investigations ramping up to keep it going. 

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

I guess they don't even want to try to lock her up.

Weird.

Sessions recused, Rosenstein refused.

1 minute ago, hobbes2702 said:

Another in a long list of broken campaign promises. Sad. 

Trump has delivered on some, not all for sure.

This is way off topic of the magical AOC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TexArcher

TexArcher 37508

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

So the Trump DOJ doesn't prosecute felonies now?

Huh.

They're only interested in the felonies those brown people will commit if the wall doesn't go up.

We can't have that caravan of rapists getting in, but the president can grab all the pussies he wants.  Thirteen sexual assault allegations and counting, and the "Party of Family Values" doesn't give a shit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hobbes2702

hobbes2702 12799

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, zork said:

Looks like manafort got caught on the money laundering for sure from well before he was in the campaign.  We'll see on the rest.  Mueller is incoming any day, like tomorrow is Tuesday?  We can wait till it is reported, if it is going to be that is.

Seems like the signals are that Trump will skate from the Mueller findings?  Just speculation of course.  We still have the new Dem investigations ramping up to keep it going. 

Sessions recused, Rosenstein refused.

Trump has delivered on some, not all for sure.

This is way off topic of the magical AOC.

You realize there is physical evidence of trump committing felony campaign finiance violations correct? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TexArcher

TexArcher 37508

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, zork said:

This is way off topic of the magical AOC.

Touche'.

As a left-leaning independent, my two cents are:

1) AOC is young, naive as hell, and mostly harmless.  She should probably shut up more often.  Most of the Dems I know agree with this.

2) The GOP is doing everything it can to make AOC the new face of the Democratic Party because they sure as shit don't want it to be Kamala Harris.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hobbes2702

hobbes2702 12799

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, TexArcher said:

Touche'.

As a left-leaning independent, my two cents are:

1) AOC is young, naive as hell, and mostly harmless.  She should probably shut up more often.  Most of the Dems I know agree with this.

2) The GOP is doing everything it can to make AOC the new face of the Democratic Party because they sure as shit don't want it to be Kamala Harris.

This is correct

Link to comment
Share on other sites
zork

zork 629

Posted
Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Sessions recused himself from investigating Hillary Clinton?

Really?

Sure.  All things Russia related to the campaign.  So I am assuming that means no chance to investigate the British-Russian dossier creation paid for, in part, by the Clinton campaign via their lawyers.  Or perhaps he didn't but certainly Rosenstein didn't.  Probably in deference to Bill and Hillary status as PotUS and first loser bride of PotUS.  Like probably Trump will get being duly elected PotUS with  not enough to convict or impeach stuff.

25 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

You realize there is physical evidence of trump committing felony campaign finiance violations correct? 

you mean like the cases where people paid fines for similar or worse violations?(paying off baby momma with actual campaign is much different than using self funded campaign funds(perhaps who knows since he did self fund a lot) to pay for silence) no big deal.  We'll see though.  Maybe Mueller will make that case!

24 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Good catch

It is sour grapes on my part.  Britain is foreign just like Russia.  (there are differences for sure so don't go there on ally vs non-ally but not enemy; foreign is foreign)  Paying via your campaign and then through a lawyer shouldn't be different.  But it probably is or with enough silence or pleading the 5th and no follow through or will to follow through then nothing happens.

14 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

It is if you don't report it. Which he didn't. 

So give him the fine like Edwards and others got.  No harm, no foul over paying off sluts.  Get real.  Unless they were Russian sluts pissing on him and even that could be because it was really, really cold that night in Moscow.(or wherever he was in town for the talent show, hotel build planning meeting, or whatever golf course or whatever else Trump was doing business in Russia for in the years and years before the campaign)

Edit: maybe the RNC and DNC should establish slush funds like the Congress has to make the sluts go away?(via payments and then keep it hush hush)  I'm actually for full transparency on that Congressional slush fund use.  FULL disclosure of all of that.

18 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

This is correct

AOC is just trying to get people to react and keep her name going.  She is Trump light in that regard.  She is not doing Boston U. Economics dept any favors.  But that is like, just my opinion, man.  She won't be going away any time soon.

Edited by zork
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
zork

zork 629

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Edwards didn't get a fine. He got indicted.

And the lock her up stuff wasn't about Russia at all. 

So he got indicted, as a candidate, he only paid a fine.  Maybe Trump should have to apologize for fucking Stormy and then paying her off:

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99681725

Quote

Geithner Apologizes For Unpaid Tax

...

Treasury Secretary-nominee Timothy Geithner has told a Senate panel at his confirmation hearing that his failure to pay $34,000 in taxes was a careless mistake.

...

Clearly having Cohen manage that payment was just a careless mistake he would have rather not had gone public.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hobbes2702

hobbes2702 12799

Posted
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, zork said:

Sure.  All things Russia related to the campaign.  So I am assuming that means no chance to investigate the British-Russian dossier creation paid for, in part, by the Clinton campaign via their lawyers.  Or perhaps he didn't but certainly Rosenstein didn't.  Probably in deference to Bill and Hillary status as PotUS and first loser bride of PotUS.  Like probably Trump will get being duly elected PotUS with  not enough to convict or impeach stuff.

you mean like the cases where people paid fines for similar or worse violations?(paying off baby momma with actual campaign is much different than using self funded campaign funds(perhaps who knows since he did self fund a lot) to pay for silence) no big deal.  We'll see though.  Maybe Mueller will make that case!

It is sour grapes on my part.  Britain is foreign just like Russia.  (there are differences for sure so don't go there on ally vs non-ally but not enemy; foreign is foreign)  Paying via your campaign and then through a lawyer shouldn't be different.  But it probably is or with enough silence or pleading the 5th and no follow through or will to follow through then nothing happens.

So give him the fine like Edwards and others got.  No harm, no foul over paying off sluts.  Get real.  Unless they were Russian sluts pissing on him and even that could be because it was really, really cold that night in Moscow.(or wherever he was in town for the talent show, hotel build planning meeting, or whatever golf course or whatever else Trump was doing business in Russia for in the years and years before the campaign)

Edit: maybe the RNC and DNC should establish slush funds like the Congress has to make the sluts go away?(via payments and then keep it hush hush)  I'm actually for full transparency on that Congressional slush fund use.  FULL disclosure of all of that.

AOC is just trying to get people to react and keep her name going.  She is Trump light in that regard.  She is not doing Boston U. Economics dept any favors.  But that is like, just my opinion, man.  She won't be going away any time soon.

You’re significantly too uninformed to have any rational discussion with. Learn the facts then come back.

Edited by hobbes2702
Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18651

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, zork said:

So he got indicted, as a candidate, he only paid a fine.  Maybe Trump should have to apologize for fucking Stormy and then paying her off:

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99681725

Clearly having Cohen manage that payment was just a careless mistake he would have rather not had gone public.  

The money laundering and bank fraud are going to make campaign finance violations look quaint.

Edited by David Dennison
Link to comment
Share on other sites
zork

zork 629

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

I can't find any of the Republican talking points in there and was hoping they would point them out for me.

 

22 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Raise your hand if you've actually read AOC's Green New Deal resolution.

For those of you who haven't.

It would probably be better to ask Democrats which specific goals do they believe will actually come to fruition by the Feds grabbing the means of production to achieve said goal or goals and how much cost benefit per X will it add to the nation that will be paying for it?  Will it be via straight taking of the means or imminent domain, or some type of public/private coercion to allow the Feds to control these goals?

There is a ton of gross generality in there, filled with ambiguity and preferring people of color over non for whatever reason going forward.  

The Federal government is not the means to the end for virtually all of the high and mighty ideas in it.  If you want to compete with sustainable farms then you pay to do that like is already happening to a limited extent for those that choose to pay more.  Etc, etc.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18651

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, zork said:

It would probably be better to ask Democrats which specific goals do they believe will actually come to fruition by the Feds grabbing the means of production to achieve said goal or goals and how much cost benefit per X will it add to the nation that will be paying for it?  Will it be via straight taking of the means or imminent domain, or some type of public/private coercion to allow the Feds to control these goals?

There is a ton of gross generality in there, filled with ambiguity and preferring people of color over non for whatever reason going forward.  

The Federal government is not the means to the end for virtually all of the high and mighty ideas in it.  If you want to compete with sustainable farms then you pay to do that like is already happening to a limited extent for those that choose to pay more.  Etc, etc.

Point me to the part where it talks about the Feds grabbing the means of production.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
zork

zork 629

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

Point me to the part where it talks about the Feds grabbing the means of production.

/sarc OK, sure, it is all about just enhancing the current SBA loans, student loans, and solar/wind/hybrid car/zero emission car/ incentives etc, etc, right? 

If the Feds are guaranteeing what the GND is proposing it will certainly affect the Federal ownership balance of many areas of production.  Causing a crowding out affect at minimum as private owners learn they can't compete with a Federal government backed competition.

The following would be hard to do without Federal taking unless it is just an extension of volunteer incentives similar to what currently exist(that might be phasing out at the end of the year):

  • C) meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources, including—
  • (i) by dramatically expanding and upgrading renewable power sources; and

  • (ii) by deploying new capacity;

Of course that is not going to get to 100% or close to it unless there are severe repercussions like fines/penalties/etc which could be seen as, in effect, Federal taking.

I'm not reading a lot of incentives to reach these goals so maybe I am assuming it is taking in any case that incentives or current non-taking programs are not clearly specified.

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

"Imminent (sic)" domain talk is ironic, given what Trump wants to do on our Southern border.  Wall good, environment bad.

Yea, I misspelled it.  The border is a special case.  Securing it is important.  

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
immortal13

immortal13 4059

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

My god this thread is a fucking circus of shit.

Can we get back on track to the important topic of the thread?

Like, what did AOC wear today and was her lipstick too red?

She should probably try not to draw attention to that fucked up grill

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand

Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13546

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, tjhooker said:

The dems didn't read it because you had to pass it to know what was in it or did you forget? 

Drunk History should do a spin-off called Derp History that's just Republicans talking about Obama's citizenship, how Al Gore claimed he invented the internet, the passage of Obamacare, etc...

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85095

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

Drunk History should do a spin-off called Derp History that's just Republicans talking about Obama's citizenship, how Al Gore claimed he invented the internet, the passage of Obamacare, etc...

 

 

LOL would watch

Link to comment
Share on other sites
immamac

immamac 42516

Posted
Posted

This isn't the trump thread, this is the AOC thread - stay on topic. 

 

Sidenote observation (not my moderator opinion): Can't you guys just fucking leave party politics out of this shit and discuss issues/people? I swear reading this disaster of a thread is the reason that this place has turned into an "echo chamber" all you guys do is argue for the sake of argument - IMHO don't fucking post unless you are open to being convinced of another position other than your own. It isn't your fucking duty to convince all of the surlyhorns users on your god damned political agenda, but CR so fuck me right?

  • Like 5
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...