Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[jimmyjazz 45,978]

It's not her fucking kid.  Let's say, for whatever reason, your best friend, who honored you by asking you to be godparent for their daughter, asked for help getting their kid into a charter school.

If you can expedite it, are you actually going to say "well, I don't think charter schools are the ultimate solution to public school disparities, so no, I refuse to help you"?

If you said that, you'd be an asshole.  You know, like most Republicans.

[Pig Bellmont 8,719]

31 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

It's not her fucking kid. 

Thank you. 

[hayden_horn 11,362]

32 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

It's not her fucking kid. 

 

Just now, Pig Bellmont said:

Thank you. 

the point is that it doesn't matter if it was her kid. if the public school system isn't getting the job done, she's not being a hypocrite to enroll her kid in a charter school while at the same time advocating to improve the public school system.

but the outrage is not about anything real. it's just more outrage noise from republicans. they don't care about the truth. they care about kicking the hornet's nest in their base, getting them all stirred up on social media.

[elfenix 34,312]

4 hours ago, Pig Bellmont said:

What’s the scandal?

she corruptly used her connections as a bartender to get the kid into a school

[wildcat09 29,355]

1 hour ago, woohorn said:

Weren't there a bunch of articles referenced explaining how SHE wants charter schools eliminated because she thinks they are destroying public schools?

Unless I am missing the sarcasm, it's do as I say, not as I do, i.e., politics as usual.

[Tom 2,959]

9 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

 

the point is that it doesn't matter if it was her kid. if the public school system isn't getting the job done, she's not being a hypocrite to enroll her kid in a charter school while at the same time advocating to improve the public school system.

but the outrage is not about anything real. it's just more outrage noise from republicans. they don't care about the truth. they care about kicking the hornet's nest in their base, getting them all stirred up on social media.

 

...

Edited February 25, 2020 by Tom
Dammit, nevermind. Wildcat just beat me to it.

[Lurch 5,931]

So, yeah, good bump GRHorn. Well played.

[pacman 7,359]

All this bs does is make me like her more....

GRHorn right now...

[gmr548 16,580]

Trumpkins are so fucking aggy with their little obsession over her. Jesus.

[Mrs Whiggins 13,050]

Ocasio-Cortez and Ted Cruz are battling on Twitter again. Here's the play by play:

She made these tweets below regarding VP Pence and his past record with healthcare.

Cruz responds with these tweets. Couldn't resist the I'm a male and you're not tweet.

And here is her response, not sure I like her ending, but stay tuned...

 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,874]

shut the fuck up, Ted

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

43 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Ocasio-Cortez and Ted Cruz are battling on Twitter again. Here's the play by play:

She made these tweets below regarding VP Pence and his past record with healthcare.

Cruz responds with these tweets. Couldn't resist the I'm a male and you're not tweet.

And here is her response, not sure I like her ending, but stay tuned...

 

Cruz is such a fucking beating.  Is there a single Republican that seems capable of making a friend in real life?

Her response took her off track though.  The proper response would have been stating that, while she would be more qualified than Pence, she isn't qualified to be the one in charge of the coronavirus response either.  Instead, she fell right into Cruz' trap, defended her own credentials, and let him change the subject.  The subject isn't climate change, abortions, gender identity, or AOC's education.

Edited February 28, 2020 by FondrenRoad

[hpslugga 4,062]

7 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Cruz is such a fucking beating.  Is there a single Republican that seems capable of making a friend in real life?

Her response took her off track though.  The proper response would have been stating that, while she would be more qualified than Pence, she isn't qualified to be the one in charge of the coronavirus response either.  Instead, she fell right into Cruz' trap, defended her own credentials, and let him change the subject.  The subject isn't climate change, abortions, gender identity, or AOC's education.

Totally agree with this. It doesn’t remove the egg from his face nor the tail between his legs, but there was even a better course she could have taken.

[sheeeit 129]

i do enjoy coming back to this thread occasionally.  She is not in my district and if her district likes her and wants to keep electing her then more power to them.  But this constant drum beat of her being smart is really amusing to me.  She constantly touts her econ degree and cum laude achievement.  But let me ask you guys a hypothetical:

Lets say you are interviewing candidates for an econ job and she comes in.  You chat a bit and she seems reasonably well spoken and eager.  In the course of the interview you ask her about the low unemployment rate we are seeing now and she responds with "well it is only low because people are working two jobs".  You look up from her resume a bit startled and ask her to elaborate and she says "and it is skewed because people are working 50-60 hour weeks".  Now both your eyebrows are arched and your head tilted a bit.  You say ok, how do you feel about the Amazon announcement for NYC and she says "i am so against it, why dont we use those billions for teacher pay and infrastructure instead"  At that point you would politely stand up and thank her for coming in.  Then after she left you would put her resume in the trash and probably vent to your colleagues on the quality of graduates today.

Now maybe if she was an art major or engineering major or english or something, those dumb comments above would be somewhat understandable.  But she touts herself as a cum laude econ major.  Just look up the classes required to to earn that degree.  It is impossible that she was not taught about unemployment rates and tax incentives for businesses.  Impossible. 

She is just not that smart.  Doesn't mean she cant be a successful politician as lots of them are not very smart.   

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,874]

ok, cool. hookem

[Incredulity 11,675]

3 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

i do enjoy coming back to this thread occasionally.  She is not in my district and if her district likes her and wants to keep electing her then more power to them.  But this constant drum beat of her being smart is really amusing to me.  She constantly touts her econ degree and cum laude achievement.  But let me ask you guys a hypothetical:

Lets say you are interviewing candidates for an econ job and she comes in.  You chat a bit and she seems reasonably well spoken and eager.  In the course of the interview you ask her about the low unemployment rate we are seeing now and she responds with "well it is only low because people are working two jobs".  You look up from her resume a bit startled and ask her to elaborate and she says "and it is skewed because people are working 50-60 hour weeks".  Now both your eyebrows are arched and your head tilted a bit.  You say ok, how do you feel about the Amazon announcement for NYC and she says "i am so against it, why dont we use those billions for teacher pay and infrastructure instead"  At that point you would politely stand up and thank her for coming in.  Then after she left you would put her resume in the trash and probably vent to your colleagues on the quality of graduates today.

Now maybe if she was an art major or engineering major or english or something, those dumb comments above would be somewhat understandable.  But she touts herself as a cum laude econ major.  Just look up the classes required to to earn that degree.  It is impossible that she was not taught about unemployment rates and tax incentives for businesses.  Impossible. 

She is just not that smart.  Doesn't mean she cant be a successful politician as lots of them are not very smart.   

[elfenix 34,312]

Edited February 28, 2020 by elfenix

[washparkhorn 9,939]

1 hour ago, sheeeit said:

i do enjoy coming back to this thread occasionally.  She is not in my district and if her district likes her and wants to keep electing her then more power to them.  But this constant drum beat of her being smart is really amusing to me.  She constantly touts her econ degree and cum laude achievement.  But let me ask you guys a hypothetical:

Lets say you are interviewing candidates for an econ job and she comes in.  You chat a bit and she seems reasonably well spoken and eager.  In the course of the interview you ask her about the low unemployment rate we are seeing now and she responds with "well it is only low because people are working two jobs".  You look up from her resume a bit startled and ask her to elaborate and she says "and it is skewed because people are working 50-60 hour weeks".  Now both your eyebrows are arched and your head tilted a bit.  You say ok, how do you feel about the Amazon announcement for NYC and she says "i am so against it, why dont we use those billions for teacher pay and infrastructure instead"  At that point you would politely stand up and thank her for coming in.  Then after she left you would put her resume in the trash and probably vent to your colleagues on the quality of graduates today.

Now maybe if she was an art major or engineering major or english or something, those dumb comments above would be somewhat understandable.  But she touts herself as a cum laude econ major.  Just look up the classes required to to earn that degree.  It is impossible that she was not taught about unemployment rates and tax incentives for businesses.  Impossible. 

She is just not that smart.  Doesn't mean she cant be a successful politician as lots of them are not very smart.   

Appreciate the post, but let's flesh out the premise a bit through an economics lens. 

I think all of good faith can agree the ubiquitous precarity faced by most in this nation resulted from a shift of revenue from workers to capital in the last 40 years. Agree?

And most are too confident in that shift because they have internalized market ideology. Agree?  (Heilbroner's 1988 book, Behind the Veil of Economics, explored the issue well).

AOC attempts to open up the "internalized market ideology" to scrutiny and alternatives in the political sphere. What is wrong with that approach?

 

 

[Dnaguy 12,002]

2 hours ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Ocasio-Cortez and Ted Cruz are battling on Twitter again. Here's the play by play:

She made these tweets below regarding VP Pence and his past record with healthcare.

Cruz responds with these tweets. Couldn't resist the I'm a male and you're not tweet.

And here is her response, not sure I like her ending, but stay tuned...

 

Their egos should just fuck already.

[TwiceHorn 31,496]

1 hour ago, sheeeit said:

i do enjoy coming back to this thread occasionally.  She is not in my district and if her district likes her and wants to keep electing her then more power to them.  But this constant drum beat of her being smart is really amusing to me.  She constantly touts her econ degree and cum laude achievement.  But let me ask you guys a hypothetical:

Lets say you are interviewing candidates for an econ job and she comes in.  You chat a bit and she seems reasonably well spoken and eager.  In the course of the interview you ask her about the low unemployment rate we are seeing now and she responds with "well it is only low because people are working two jobs".  You look up from her resume a bit startled and ask her to elaborate and she says "and it is skewed because people are working 50-60 hour weeks".  Now both your eyebrows are arched and your head tilted a bit.  You say ok, how do you feel about the Amazon announcement for NYC and she says "i am so against it, why dont we use those billions for teacher pay and infrastructure instead"  At that point you would politely stand up and thank her for coming in.  Then after she left you would put her resume in the trash and probably vent to your colleagues on the quality of graduates today.

Now maybe if she was an art major or engineering major or english or something, those dumb comments above would be somewhat understandable.  But she touts herself as a cum laude econ major.  Just look up the classes required to to earn that degree.  It is impossible that she was not taught about unemployment rates and tax incentives for businesses.  Impossible. 

She is just not that smart.  Doesn't mean she cant be a successful politician as lots of them are not very smart.   

The problem with your whole argument is that economics, even at a terminal degree level, rarely if ever supplies a "correct answer" to anything but theoretical problems.  All it does is create theories and arguments about real world policies and their effects.

There is no absolutely correct way to account for the employment rate, or whether the tax incentive package to Amazon was a good deal.  Her arguments in your little hypothetical are not objectively wrong, you just don't like them.

Arguments like washpark made.

Edited February 28, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[tx 3 putt 77,073]

Ted Cruz sucks at life, very well known fact 

[sheeeit 129]

25 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The problem with your whole argument is that economics, even at a terminal degree level, rarely if ever supplies a "correct answer" to anything but theoretical problems.  All it does is create theories and arguments about real world policies and their effects.

There is no absolutely correct way to account for the employment rate, or whether the tax incentive package to Amazon was a good deal.  Her arguments in your little hypothetical are not objectively wrong, you just don't like them.

Arguments like washpark made.

Um, you don't seem to get it.  I am not criticizing her beliefs or her "arguments".   I am criticizing how a cum laude econ major could go on TV multiple times bashing the unemployment figures by arguing things that have no bearing, whatsoever, on the unemployment rate.  Working 2 jobs has exactly zero impact on the unemployment rate.  Someone working 10 jobs still just gets counted as being employed.  I am saying she is not smart because she doesn't even know how the unemployment rate is calculated.  The number of hours worked also has exactly zero bearing on how the unemployment rate is calculated.  She tried to downplay the employment numbers by arguing something that has no bearing on the unemployment rate.  This is basic 2+2=4 stuff.  And she did it multiple times.

Similarly, she actually thought that NYC was going to write a check to Amazon for billions of dollars.  It is just laughable and stupid.  It is perfectly fine to argue whether state tax breaks and incentives are a good tool or not, but she did not even know how they work.  And again, this is from a cum laude econ major.  And she just confidently asserted these things without even knowing how stupid she sounded.  Do you think that is  a smart person?

I am pretty sure you are an attorney so think of it like this, everyone ridicules that guy on here who said circumstantial evidence is not permissible, and rightfully so.  A dumb thing to say for sure but i doubt the guy was a lawyer or went to law school.  If you were interviewing a recent law school graduate and they claimed that circumstantial evidence was not permissible, you would rightly consider them stupid and not even consider hiring them.  Especially if they professed their nonsense passionately.  As if they really, really understood the issue and had developed a solid understanding of their position.  You would just sigh and move on to the next interview.

[NWBuck 8,571]

 

[David Dennison 18,923]

2 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Um, you don't seem to get it.  I am not criticizing her beliefs or her "arguments".   I am criticizing how a cum laude econ major could go on TV multiple times bashing the unemployment figures by arguing things that have no bearing, whatsoever, on the unemployment rate.  Working 2 jobs has exactly zero impact on the unemployment rate.  Someone working 10 jobs still just gets counted as being employed.  I am saying she is not smart because she doesn't even know how the unemployment rate is calculated.  The number of hours worked also has exactly zero bearing on how the unemployment rate is calculated.  She tried to downplay the employment numbers by arguing something that has no bearing on the unemployment rate.  This is basic 2+2=4 stuff.  And she did it multiple times.

Similarly, she actually thought that NYC was going to write a check to Amazon for billions of dollars.  It is just laughable and stupid.  It is perfectly fine to argue whether state tax breaks and incentives are a good tool or not, but she did not even know how they work.  And again, this is from a cum laude econ major.  And she just confidently asserted these things without even knowing how stupid she sounded.  Do you think that is  a smart person?

I am pretty sure you are an attorney so think of it like this, everyone ridicules that guy on here who said circumstantial evidence is not permissible, and rightfully so.  A dumb thing to say for sure but i doubt the guy was a lawyer or went to law school.  If you were interviewing a recent law school graduate and they claimed that circumstantial evidence was not permissible, you would rightly consider them stupid and not even consider hiring them.  Especially if they professed their nonsense passionately.  As if they really, really understood the issue and had developed a solid understanding of their position.  You would just sigh and move on to the next interview.

She's going to be a candidate for president some day. She might even be the nominee.

Let that sink in.

[TwiceHorn 31,496]

5 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Um, you don't seem to get it.  I am not criticizing her beliefs or her "arguments".   I am criticizing how a cum laude econ major could go on TV multiple times bashing the unemployment figures by arguing things that have no bearing, whatsoever, on the unemployment rate.  Working 2 jobs has exactly zero impact on the unemployment rate.  Someone working 10 jobs still just gets counted as being employed.  I am saying she is not smart because she doesn't even know how the unemployment rate is calculated.  The number of hours worked also has exactly zero bearing on how the unemployment rate is calculated.  She tried to downplay the employment numbers by arguing something that has no bearing on the unemployment rate.  This is basic 2+2=4 stuff.  And she did it multiple times.

Similarly, she actually thought that NYC was going to write a check to Amazon for billions of dollars.  It is just laughable and stupid.  It is perfectly fine to argue whether state tax breaks and incentives are a good tool or not, but she did not even know how they work.  And again, this is from a cum laude econ major.  And she just confidently asserted these things without even knowing how stupid she sounded.  Do you think that is  a smart person?

I am pretty sure you are an attorney so think of it like this, everyone ridicules that guy on here who said circumstantial evidence is not permissible, and rightfully so.  A dumb thing to say for sure but i doubt the guy was a lawyer or went to law school.  If you were interviewing a recent law school graduate and they claimed that circumstantial evidence was not permissible, you would rightly consider them stupid and not even consider hiring them.  Especially if they professed their nonsense passionately.  As if they really, really understood the issue and had developed a solid understanding of their position.  You would just sigh and move on to the next interview.

Alright.  I had forgotten about her "write a check" thing, that was pretty ludicrous.

Otherwise, I think her employment argument, or as I read it, is who cares if we have full employment if the jobs are shit.

And, I think it's debatable whether tax incentives are worth a shit.  You notice only certain jurisdictions seem to be willing to whore themselves out lately (Arlington, Wisconsin) and a lot of whore projects aren't working out too well.  Dallas got fucked on the AA deal.

That said, I don't share most political notions with her.  But she is a breath of fresh air as a general proposition.

[Earl Haffler 597]

20 minutes ago, NWBuck said:

 

She is a little cutie pie, tho.

[sheeeit 129]

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Alright.  I had forgotten about her "write a check" thing, that was pretty ludicrous.

Otherwise, I think her employment argument, or as I read it, is who cares if we have full employment if the jobs are shit.

And, I think it's debatable whether tax incentives are worth a shit.  You notice only certain jurisdictions seem to be willing to whore themselves out lately (Arlington, Wisconsin) and a lot of whore projects aren't working out too well.  Dallas got fucked on the AA deal.

That said, I don't share most political notions with her.  But she is a breath of fresh air as a general proposition.

I don't disagree with this.  But that was not her argument on unemployment.  The argument you made above is perfectly valid.  She was directly asked about the low unemployment rate and she directly argued that it was only low because some people were working 2 jobs.  She argued that people working 2 jobs actually skewed the numbers and made the rate artificially lower somehow.   Obviously working 2 jobs has no bearing at all on how the rate is calculated.  

I agree that tax incentives are debatable.  It depends completely on the terms of the deal and the environment involved.  But Amazon was only going to realize incentives (there were some smaller direct grants they would receive that were available to any company locating there and not unique to amazon) if they hit massive employment numbers and tax numbers.  NYC was going to be positive billions of dollars on the deal with amazon.  They, NYC, might just realize 15 billion in tax revenue versus 18 billion but the city would have been way ahead and it cost them nothing.  A "smart" person and a cum laude econ major had to know this unless that person was pretty dense.

Again, I am not arguing whether or not she was right about the amazon deal being good for nyc.  I am arguing that she was arguing against the deal, passionately, using arguments that were not even remotely germane to the issue and showed an almost complete ignorance of the basic economics involved in the deal.

I actually do think people like her are probably good for our politics.  We need diverse opinions.  She represents the wishes/views of her constituents.  But it is just so intellectually lazy and ignorant when people try and argue that someone might think she is not that smart simply because she is a woman or brown or some other nonsense.  I happen to not think she is very smart because she touts herself as a cum laude econ major and then when she opens her mouth she says things that are fundamentally stupid  and show that she doesnt even know the basics of the major she graduated with.  Not her opinions or subjective arguments.  Just basic objective principles.

[elfenix 34,312]

y'all should probably watch the interview

https://www.pbs.org/video/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-barhhq/

[hobbes2702 13,045]

3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

The problem with your whole argument is that economics, even at a terminal degree level, rarely if ever supplies a "correct answer" to anything but theoretical problems.  All it does is create theories and arguments about real world policies and their effects.

There is no absolutely correct way to account for the employment rate, or whether the tax incentive package to Amazon was a good deal.  Her arguments in your little hypothetical are not objectively wrong, you just don't like them.

Arguments like washpark made.

Y u do dis? He’s a troll

[henrygandorf 29,192]

On 2/25/2020 at 12:07 PM, jimmyjazz said:

If you can expedite it, are you actually going to say "well, I don't think charter schools are the ultimate solution to public school disparities, so no, I refuse to help you"?

If you said that, you'd be an asshole.  You know, like most Republicans.

i'm kinda torn here.

because sure, i agree with your assessment of republicans being assholes.  but refusing to help a kid over potential issues with optics or hypocrisy doesn't exactly vibe with republican behavior either.  optics only apply to the other guy.

also your first sentence actually implies some sort of principle or integrity behind the belief.  yep, definitely torn.

[jimmyjazz 45,978]

10 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

i'm kinda torn here.

because sure, i agree with your assessment of republicans being assholes.  but refusing to help a kid over potential issues with optics or hypocrisy doesn't exactly vibe with republican behavior either.  optics only apply to the other guy.

also your first sentence actually implies some sort of principle or integrity behind the belief.  yep, definitely torn.

I think I typed that with a more stream of consciousness approach.  I wasn't really trying to imply "if A=B and B=C then A=C".

I mostly just wanted to call Republicans assholes.

[Mrs Whiggins 13,050]

Ted has responded:

 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,874]

*your

[Mrs Whiggins 13,050]

Good catch!

[elfenix 34,312]

" as the oracle of science, " he said, in the most insulting way possible

anyway, due to undercounting by the oil industry of its flaring and leaking issues, the US (which was below average in % emissions decrease in the latest reported year) is almost certainly far worse at GHG emissions than reported vs our peers.

[Mrs Whiggins 13,050]

With respect to question 2, it is always medically, scientifically, and factually correct to say 'fetus.' While many parents (and doctors deferring to the wishes of their patient) will say unborn child or baby, if Ted weren't being so smug he would know that.

[RDCanecutter 26,452]

Vs. Ted's Real Smart Talk, AOC missed a chance to say something basic in Spanish, just to see if the Canadian could keep up.

[Underdog 28,711]

The Y chromosome for Ted = Yellow, right?

[NWBuck 8,571]

I think I would have been tempted to respond with

"Thanks for your concern about the pain of children. I'm looking up the most recent research so that we can both have accurate information about stages of fetal gestation.

While I'm doing that, perhaps you can help with our project by providing the answer to a related question: At what age does science tell us that an born child stop feeling physical pain?

Is it before they're put into cages, during an illness that their parents are unable to afford to have addressed, or when they become emotionally numb due to the trauma that comes from yet another school shooting drill?

Thanks for the affirmation of my "science fair" successes, and kudos to you on your successful spinal removal surgery!"

[workswithseed 2,112]

6 hours ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

ok, cool. hookem

Fucking pleb.

[hobbes2702 13,045]

3 hours ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

*your

This should literally be her only response. Just this.

[StruggleBus 3,922]

That whole sequence was like watching a retard fight. But I did give a little chuckle at the science fair comment.

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

6 hours ago, sheeeit said:

Um, you don't seem to get it.  I am not criticizing her beliefs or her "arguments".   I am criticizing how a cum laude econ major could go on TV multiple times bashing the unemployment figures by arguing things that have no bearing, whatsoever, on the unemployment rate.  Working 2 jobs has exactly zero impact on the unemployment rate.  Someone working 10 jobs still just gets counted as being employed.  I am saying she is not smart because she doesn't even know how the unemployment rate is calculated.  The number of hours worked also has exactly zero bearing on how the unemployment rate is calculated.  She tried to downplay the employment numbers by arguing something that has no bearing on the unemployment rate.  This is basic 2+2=4 stuff.  And she did it multiple times.

Similarly, she actually thought that NYC was going to write a check to Amazon for billions of dollars.  It is just laughable and stupid.  It is perfectly fine to argue whether state tax breaks and incentives are a good tool or not, but she did not even know how they work.  And again, this is from a cum laude econ major.  And she just confidently asserted these things without even knowing how stupid she sounded.  Do you think that is  a smart person?

I am pretty sure you are an attorney so think of it like this, everyone ridicules that guy on here who said circumstantial evidence is not permissible, and rightfully so.  A dumb thing to say for sure but i doubt the guy was a lawyer or went to law school.  If you were interviewing a recent law school graduate and they claimed that circumstantial evidence was not permissible, you would rightly consider them stupid and not even consider hiring them.  Especially if they professed their nonsense passionately.  As if they really, really understood the issue and had developed a solid understanding of their position.  You would just sigh and move on to the next interview.

And yet you support Trump who has no understanding whatsoever about any topic at all yet opines as an expert on everything. 

I get it. You hate brown people. Especially brown women. You dont ever chime in to comment about the idiot in the white house because he is a white man. More importantly to you though, is that he maintains your rent seeking middle man industry because he is an idiot. 

The real problem has always been you though.  You dont add value to society.  Youre a leach.  A middleman taker that siphons away the value that others produce.  You are the fat that needs to be cut out and you know it.  

[washparkhorn 9,939]

Ted forgot the little science fair he mocks is actually a prestigious international science competition. AOC placed second in the world in her category. Notable alumni include:

• 13 Nobel Prize winners
• 2 Fields Medal recipients
• 13 National Medal of Science recipients
• 2 Enrico Fermi Award winners
• 23 MacArthur Foundation Fellows
• 3 Albert Lasker Basic Medical Research Award winners
• 5 Breakthrough Prize winners
• 11 National Academy of Engineering inductees
• 42 National Academy of Sciences inductees
• 56 Sloan Research Fellows

AOC may not fit someone's "stereotype" of what an intelligent human beings looks like, but science has shown skin color does not determine intelligence. Likewise, there are brilliant young people who did not grow up with a silver spoon in their mouths. 

You should be proud of your fellow Americans, not punch down. 

[jimmyjazz 45,978]

4 hours ago, washparkhorn said:

You should be proud of your fellow Americans, not punch down. 

I like to think of Ted as Canadian.

[Brandywine 1,316]

On 2/28/2020 at 5:33 PM, Mrs Whiggins said:

Ted has responded:

 

Ted talks like someone who’s got the hots for her. 

[hpslugga 4,062]

33 minutes ago, Brandywine said:

Ted talks like someone who’s got the hots for his own unfounded ego

FIFY

[sheeeit 129]

On 2/28/2020 at 8:55 PM, FondrenRoad said:

And yet you support Trump who has no understanding whatsoever about any topic at all yet opines as an expert on everything. 

I get it. You hate brown people. Especially brown women. You dont ever chime in to comment about the idiot in the white house because he is a white man. More importantly to you though, is that he maintains your rent seeking middle man industry because he is an idiot. 

The real problem has always been you though.  You dont add value to society.  Youre a leach.  A middleman taker that siphons away the value that others produce.  You are the fat that needs to be cut out and you know it.  

Lulz.  Stupid is as stupid types.  This response is precisely why this place is such a cesspool.  Your entire reply makes absolutely no sense and just makes outlandish nonsensical claims that you made up in your own simple mind.

I have called trump a stupid idiot probably 50 times on this site.  I think thats enough.  This is a thread about AOC.  You obviously cant defend her so you just deflect as usual.

I don't have any idea what a "rent seeking middle man industry is".  I am not sure I even want to know but I admit to being curious.  What is it that you think I do? 

[WhatTheBuck 28,788]

Any chance she's pregnant? Watching her on Seth Meyers and her dress is kind of blousy and her breasts look huge.

[tx 3 putt 77,073]

15 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

her breasts look huge.

Go on