Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[tx 3 putt 76401]

Im not sure how Schumer keeps her in her lane 

she’s done a great job given her age and will only get better 

all the recent presidents couldn’t have handled it at her age. 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

If the goal is to simply have a majority in the Senate, they wouldn't spend a penny defending Schumer from a primary challenger.

But that's not their goal.

On second thought, I don't know whether they would need to anyway. I'm not sure she can win a top level statewide race without compromising on her positions.  There's a reason NYC Dems are mostly progressive, but statewide Dems are mostly Cuomotive.  Progressives have been able to win down ballot races like AG though, so maybe. 

Even in her progressive district, her house primary win was super strategic, was the only race on the ballot, and avoided a Senate or Presidential race which would have turned out a lot of incumbent voters. It's a different ballgame running in the higher profile race. 

There's no other obvious stepping stone for her between Rep and President besides Senator. I guess mayor of NYC, but while mayors often run for President, they never come close to winning it. Her best bet may be angling for power in the house. 

[bad_teammate 13132]

Break the machine and all bets are off.

If AOC's goal is just to become president then it's pointless. The goal is to break the power of the wealthy across the country, which she could do in NY.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Break the machine and all bets are off.

If AOC's goal is just to become president then it's pointless. The goal is to break the power of the wealthy across the country, which she could do in NY.

Not as a house rep, she can't.  You're also misreading upstate. The middle of the state is pretty much Trump country. Upstate cities are more Cuomo/Schumer country.  The primary for Senator won't be sheltered. It will be a heavily publicized race and turnout will favor Schumer. I think she would have a better shot at Gillibrand. Upstate Dems aren't as interested in defending her and she kind of looked like shit in her Presidential run which has caused city Dems and progressives to lose interest. 

And nobody can break the power of the wealthy from NY.  NY has already shown a willingness to vote for candidates who will address income inequality.  Schumer and Gillibrand included, btw   They have no power.  Meanwhile Mitch McConnell from the smaller poor state of Kentucky is the most powerful person in this country.  Until poor people in poor states vote for their own self interests, we have what we have. The founders gave them extraordinary voting power to correct injustices. They've used it to elect tyrants instead. We need a Kentucky AOC. The squad is from 2 left wing states and 2 swing states.  They are mostly preaching to the choir. 

 

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

There's a would-be Squad entry from Texas: Jessica Cisneros is gunning for Henry Cuellar's seat

[Pato del Muerto 52342]

Even in 2028 if she ran my guess is her age would draw comparisons to JFK. Feels like that would go badly for her as romanticized as he is, but she’s got 8 more years to pad her resume. 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

8 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Even in 2028 if she ran my guess is her age would draw comparisons to JFK. Feels like that would go badly for her as romanticized as he is, but she’s got 8 more years to pad her resume. 

She may not want to be President. It's a shit job, imo, especially if you want to effect change. Presidents are also done politically after their terms are over, so if she does run it will be 20 years down the road. 

Also, she will still have to face primaries in 2020 and 2022. She will be helped by incumbency and the Presidential race on the ballot in 2020 and faces a number of opponents but the main challenger is an anti-gay, although still fairly popular, Democratic Latino city councilman and pastor, so AOC will probably win.  People in her district also overwhelmingly supported the Amazon deal which is the reason why there are so many challengers, but I don't think any of the challengers will be able to use that to overcome their own imperfections. The only one who isn't a complete unknown is the anti-gay one.  But if he can get socially conservative Latinos to turn out, he may win. Only a very small part of the district actually contains the gentrifiers that make up her core voters, and the turnout is going to be a hell of a lot higher than 25,000 in a Presidential election year. 

2022 will really be where we see if she will have a long political career. Schumer may be on the ballot if another Dem runs.  Otherwise she is alone on it which makes it ripe for the steal using the very same method she used against Crowley.

[Hank Scorpio 17723]

I think it's more likely that she has a high ranking position in the Central Committee since she has been a strong supporter of Genera Secretary Sanders. 

[washparkhorn 9935]

17 minutes ago, Hank Scorpio said:

I think it's more likely that she has a high ranking position in the Central Committee since she has been a strong supporter of Genera Secretary Sanders. 

Scary . . . so scary. What ever will you do?

Killer Mike's video will scare you even more. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ikgh4JbAWUU

 

[Tom 2959]

On 1/31/2020 at 9:00 PM, Pato del Muerto said:

So she turns 35 a couple weeks before the 2024 election. I guess you only have to be 35 by Inauguration Day?  Even so, you want a 35 year old as potus?  The dems would back a 34 year old candidate?

I would prefer not to have a 35-year-old president, but I'd gladly take a 35-year-old millennial 10 times out of 10 over some mush brained 75 year old Trump or Biden with their degenerative brain disease.

[Skyline 325]

1 hour ago, Tom said:

I would prefer not to have a 35-year-old president, but I'd gladly take a 35-year-old millennial 10 times out of 10 over some mush brained 75 year old Trump or Biden with their degenerative brain disease.

Well said. I think the ideal needs to be around 45-60 years of age, but older people vote more and essentially decide candidates. They will usually pick someone closer to their own age. 

[Hook1997 5289]

2 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Even in 2028 if she ran my guess is her age would draw comparisons to JFK. Feels like that would go badly for her as romanticized as he is, but she’s got 8 more years to pad her resume. 

Is this serious?  People actually want someone who two years ago was a bartender and couldn’t name the branches of government after she was elected to run for president??!!?  Can neither side find a actual good candidate for fuck sake?  

Edited February 2, 2020 by Hook1997

[FondrenRoad 4378]

28 minutes ago, Hook1997 said:

Is this serious?  People actually want someone who two years ago was a bartender and couldn’t name the branches of government after she was elected to run for president??!!?  Can neither side find a actual good candidate for fuck sake?  

That's classist as fuck.  Who cares if she was a bartender?  Its a job that requires social skills that are applicable to being a representative.  She can talk to anyone comfortably and make personal connections with people while doing so.  She also performed well in college which shows she has the book smarts.  That combined is better than "growing" daddy's Manhattan real estate business at a rate that significantly underperforms Manhattan real estate value increases over the same time period, performing poorly in school even with daddy buying your way in and interfering with the grading process, and being unable to make a friend or make a personal connection with anyone that isn't being paid to talk to you.  Or being a lawyer like the rest of Congress, most of whom are smart, but many of whom lack social skills and stump like trained robots rather than people.

As for the rest, 2028 will be 10 years after she was elected the first time.  She will have a service record that speaks for itself.  Your classism regarding her having been a bartender won't even matter at that point.

[Hook1997 5289]

20 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

That's classist as fuck.  Who cares if she was a bartender?  Its a job that requires social skills that are applicable to being a representative.  She can talk to anyone comfortably and make personal connections with people while doing so.  She also performed well in college which shows she has the book smarts.  That combined is better than "growing" daddy's Manhattan real estate business at a rate that significantly underperforms Manhattan real estate value increases over the same time period, performing poorly in school even with daddy buying your way in and interfering with the grading process, and being unable to make a friend or make a personal connection with anyone that isn't being paid to talk to you.  Or being a lawyer like the rest of Congress, most of whom are smart, but many of whom lack social skills and stump like trained robots rather than people.

As for the rest, 2028 will be 10 years after she was elected the first time.  She will have a service record that speaks for itself.  Your classism regarding her having been a bartender won't even matter at that point.

She did so good in school studying politics that she couldn’t name the branches of government, I know 6 year olds who didn’t major in politics in college that know that, I mean come on let’s get real she’s not that bright.  She also has no clue how economics work.   Being a bartender that has social skills shouldn’t be the top skill of a freaking president.  Also not sure what the Trump stuff has to do with it?  I said can’t either find a decent candidate....

Edited February 2, 2020 by Hook1997

[washparkhorn 9935]

16 minutes ago, Hook1997 said:

She did so good in school studying politics that she couldn’t name the branches of government, I mean come on let’s get real she’s not that bright.  She also has no clue how economics work.   Being a bartender that has social skills shouldn’t be the top skill of a freaking president.  Also not sure what the Trump stuff has to do with it?  I said can’t either find a decent candidate....

Mr. Pedantic Ninja. And Hunter S. Thompson would take a dump on your avatar.  

Without substance, of course, but  . . .

Edited February 2, 2020 by washparkhorn

[Tom 2959]

15 minutes ago, Hook1997 said:

She did so good in school studying politics that she couldn’t name the branches of government I know 6 year olds who didn’t major in politics in college that know that, I mean come on let’s get real she’s not that bright.  She also has no clue how economics work.   Being a bartender that has social skills shouldn’t be the top skill of a freaking president.  Also not sure what the Trump stuff has to do with it?  I said can’t either find a decent candidate....

 

You're clinging to some gaffe she made well over a year ago to judge her entire political potential.  Conservatives love them some gaffes.  Next do 57 States for us, FCHorn.

 

[Hook1997 5289]

5 minutes ago, Tom said:

 

You're clinging to some gaffe she made well over a year ago to judge her entire political potential.  Conservatives love them some gaffes.  Next do 57 States for us, FCHorn.

 

I could go on to countless gaffe’s on economics and how the things she has said and proposed make no sense but if people actually think she’s a good candidate for president then none of it will change their minds at this point.  It’s not a small gaffe either for someone who studied politics in college or for anyone who’s gone to college even or wants to be president for fucks sake to not understand the basic of the basics about government.  If  that’s your girl, good for you lol. 

Edited February 2, 2020 by Hook1997

[jimmyjazz 45560]

2 minutes ago, Hook1997 said:

I could go on to countless gaffe’s on economics and how the things she has said and proposed make no sense but if people actually think she’s a good candidate for president then none of it will change their minds at this point.  It’s not a small gaffe either for someone who studied politics in college or for anyone who’s gone to college even...   If that’s your girl, good for you lol. 

I will take AOC and her Cum Laude degree in econ and international relations over your dumb ass 10 days out of 10.  For fuck's sake, grow up.

And it's "gaffes", Ace.

Edited February 2, 2020 by jimmyjazz

[washparkhorn 9935]

3 minutes ago, Hook1997 said:

I could go on to countless gaffe’s on economics and how the things she has said and proposed make no sense but if people actually think she’s a good candidate for president then none of it will change their minds at this point.  It’s not a small gaffe either for someone who studied politics in college or for anyone who’s gone to college even or wants to be president for fucks sake to not understand the basic of the basics about government.  If  that’s your girl, good for you lol. 

Nothing says intelligence like someone calling grown women - "girls."  

 

[Hook1997 5289]

14 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I will take AOC and her Cum Laude degree in econ and international relations over your dumb ass 10 days out of 10.  For fuck's sake, grow up.

And it's "gaffes", Ace.

Can you read??  Who’s my guy? 😂  I like how you just assume...
Blind partisanship like yours is part of the problem.  

Edited February 2, 2020 by Hook1997

[washparkhorn 9935]

1 minute ago, Hook1997 said:

Can you read??  Who’s my guy? 😂

Any alpha?

[FondrenRoad 4378]

54 minutes ago, Hook1997 said:

She did so good in school studying politics that she couldn’t name the branches of government, I know 6 year olds who didn’t major in politics in college that know that, I mean come on let’s get real she’s not that bright.  She also has no clue how economics work.   Being a bartender that has social skills shouldn’t be the top skill of a freaking president.  Also not sure what the Trump stuff has to do with it?  I said can’t either find a decent candidate....

And yet here you are talking about a single gaffe she made while I've never seen you in any of the Trump threads condemning one of any of his 100 million gaffes, lies, or misinterpretations. 

She also isn't a candidate for President currently so I'm not sure how she relates to the Dems finding a "decent candidate" for President. There is another thread for Democratic candidates for President which, not surprisingly, you aren't on either. 

So she made a gaffe and owns up to it, she misunderstands a single thing about the Amazon deal, isn't a one person fount of all knowledge, and actually listens to ideas from other people. Horrible, I know.  We used to have Presidents who could write the encyclopedia blindfolded, right? She's exactly the same thing as a person who seems unable to comprehend anything at all, lies excessively, cares about nothing but his own personal gain, and never owns up to his mistakes. Yeah, AOC and Trump. 2 equally terrible choices for President in 2020. 

So I guess you're like the advanced scout, sent in by Limbaugh, or whomever, to start the negative campaign on her early so by the time she runs twenty years from now, y'all can pretend you're "tired" of her. But the decades long Hillary attack campaign you guys ran did work so may as well use it again. 

Edited February 2, 2020 by FondrenRoad

[hobbes2702 12846]

1 hour ago, Hook1997 said:

I could go on to countless gaffe’s on economics and how the things she has said and proposed make no sense but if people actually think she’s a good candidate for president then none of it will change their minds at this point.  It’s not a small gaffe either for someone who studied politics in college or for anyone who’s gone to college even or wants to be president for fucks sake to not understand the basic of the basics about government.  If  that’s your girl, good for you lol. 

Ohhhh yes tell us about the economics.

[hobbes2702 12846]

46 minutes ago, Hook1997 said:

Can you read??  Who’s my guy? 😂  I like how you just assume...
Blind partisanship like yours is part of the problem.  

Stupidity is a much bigger problem. 

[tx 3 putt 76401]

Her biggest voting block isn’t even old enough to Vote yet. Chew on that 

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

She's green, but hopefully she is learning from her mistakes (as we all should). Personally, I prefer someone who has been in a position of serving customers, perhaps they have obtained some perspective as it relates to service, customers (the public), low income wages, etc. She is 7 years younger than Matt Gaetz (not that he has Presidential aspirations) so she is already ahead of the curve as far as I'm concerned, cause he is a lying doofus and waaay ahead of Rick Perry. She's spunky and I like that. Time will tell and a lot can happen between now and then.

[jimmyjazz 45560]

1 hour ago, Hook1997 said:

Can you read??  Who’s my guy? 😂  I like how you just assume...
Blind partisanship like yours is part of the problem.  

Can you point to my party or my support for AOC?  Come on, you know you want to.

[Hook1997 5289]

2 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

And yet here you are talking about a single gaffe she made while I've never seen you in any of the Trump threads condemning one of any of his 100 million gaffes, lies, or misinterpretations. 

She also isn't a candidate for President currently so I'm not sure how she relates to the Dems finding a "decent candidate" for President. There is another thread for Democratic candidates for President which, not surprisingly, you aren't on either. 

So she made a gaffe and owns up to it, she misunderstands a single thing about the Amazon deal, isn't a one person fount of all knowledge, and actually listens to ideas from other people. Horrible, I know.  We used to have Presidents who could write the encyclopedia blindfolded, right? She's exactly the same thing as a person who seems unable to comprehend anything at all, lies excessively, cares about nothing but his own personal gain, and never owns up to his mistakes. Yeah, AOC and Trump. 2 equally terrible choices for President in 2020. 

So I guess you're like the advanced scout, sent in by Limbaugh, or whomever, to start the negative campaign on her early so by the time she runs twenty years from now, y'all can pretend you're "tired" of her. But the decades long Hillary attack campaign you guys ran did work so may as well use it again. 

Once again who’s Y’all? You are right you haven’t seen me in those threads so you have no clue who I back but of course you jump to conclusions like the rest of the political lemmings, being on a side is more important then actual believes and opinions now I know but try not to follow the flock always and think for yourself...  It’s not about a small gaffe as you say, it was a question on the branches of government answered wrong from someone who majored in fing politics and that people in this thread were talking about her running for president in the future..   So that’s where finding a decent candidate comes from.

 

2 hours ago, hobbes2702 said:

Ohhhh yes tell us about the economics.

 Where to start?  A easy one, her green deal plan.  No greenhouse gasses and all renewable energy in ten years is not only impossible but would crush our economy.  I’m all for transitioning but ten years ain’t happening.  

[hobbes2702 12846]

1 hour ago, Hook1997 said:

Once again who’s Y’all? You are right you haven’t seen me in those threads so you have no clue who I back but of course you jump to conclusions like the rest of the political lemmings, being on a side is more important then actual believes and opinions now I know but try not to follow the flock always and think for yourself...  It’s not about a small gaffe as you say, it was a question on the branches of government answered wrong from someone who majored in fing politics and that people in this thread were talking about her running for president in the future..   So that’s where finding a decent candidate comes from.

 

 Where to start?  A easy one, her green deal plan.  No greenhouse gasses and all renewable energy in ten years is not only impossible but would crush our economy.  I’m all for transitioning but ten years ain’t happening.  

Tell us why. You seem to know more about economics than the cum laude economics graduate.

[Hook1997 5289]

3 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Tell us why. You seem to know more about economics than the cum laude economics graduate.

I know the branches of government and have since I was in elementary school, evidently Boston College political majors don’t learn much about government obviously...   I also know switching to all renewables before 2020 is not only impossible right now but would cripple the US economy especially by her way of paying for it...   After that just google her quotes on economics and tell me she’s smart actually if you think so after that. 

[hobbes2702 12846]

7 minutes ago, Hook1997 said:

I know the branches of government and have since I was in elementary school, evidently Boston College political majors don’t learn much about government obviously...   I also know switching to all renewables before 2020 is not only impossible right now but would cripple the US economy especially by her way of paying for it...   After that just google her quotes on economics and tell me she’s smart actually if you think so after that. 

So you have no substance?

[Tom 2959]

1 hour ago, Hook1997 said:

  It’s not about a small gaffe as you say, it was a question on the branches of government answered wrong from someone who majored in fing politics and that people in this thread were talking about her running for president in the future.

 

What was the question and who was asking it?  Have you even watched the video you're criticizing her over?

It was a small gaffe because while, yes, what she said was wrong about something every American should know, it came off like somebody tripping and stumbling over their own words or having a brain fart.  Everyone has misspoken in their lives and said one thing while meaning something else.  You have, too, but unlike Cortez you probably don't have thousands of people hanging on your every public statement ready to pounce and criticize you for any mistake.  But just like I'm confident Barack Obama knew exactly how many states were in the U.S. when he said "57 states," I'm confident AOC also does actually know what the branches of government are.  

I'd bet the house that she knows more about basic government than you considering it's been a daily part of her life for a couple of years now.

[TDunk 590]

55 minutes ago, Hook1997 said:

I know the branches of government and have since I was in elementary school, evidently Boston College political majors don’t learn much about government obviously...   I also know switching to all renewables before 2020 is not only impossible right now but would cripple the US economy especially by her way of paying for it...   After that just google her quotes on economics and tell me she’s smart actually if you think so after that. 

 

Kind of hard to switch to renewables before 2020 since... time happens.  Also, Boston University.  I know the point is "multiple branches of Government", but there are multiple Universities in cities.  

Edited February 3, 2020 by TDunk

[FondrenRoad 4378]

2 hours ago, Hook1997 said:

Once again who’s Y’all? You are right you haven’t seen me in those threads so you have no clue who I back but of course you jump to conclusions like the rest of the political lemmings, being on a side is more important then actual believes and opinions now I know but try not to follow the flock always and think for yourself...  It’s not about a small gaffe as you say, it was a question on the branches of government answered wrong from someone who majored in fing politics and that people in this thread were talking about her running for president in the future..   So that’s where finding a decent candidate comes from.

 

 Where to start?  A easy one, her green deal plan.  No greenhouse gasses and all renewable energy in ten years is not only impossible but would crush our economy.  I’m all for transitioning but ten years ain’t happening.  

Y'all is you and the rest of the conservatives who offer up bullshit false equivalences.  You're completely dishonest.  I'll say it again. AOC is not currently running for President.  She isn't proof that the Dems can't find a "decent candidate" for President because she isn't even a candidate for President. If you were truly looking to vote for anyone but Trump, you'd be in the Democrats 2020 thread browsing through the actual candidates in the display cabinet. Instead, you're fucking full of shit and here talking about someone who may never run for President at all and isn't even currently constitutionally qualified to do so. 

You've taken slorch Trump vote justification excuse making to another level.  At least Hillary was actually running when she was used as justification. I assume slorch has managed to look at actual Democratic candidates this year too. You're like 10 times worse. If you can't justify your Trump vote with yourself then maybe you're the problem rather than a representative from another state who isn't even running against Trump. 

And even in this post, you are lying about being "all for transitioning" off greenhouse gasses. Instead, you are trying to use her optimistic timeline as an excuse to never even start that transition.  And I'm almost certain you've supported military action with far more optimistic but impossible timelines. 

Tl;Dr. Just shut the fuck up and vote for Trump like you want to.  Let the planet burn like you want it to. Not sure why you assholes feel the need to justify that vote to other people. Talk to your shrink about that.  

[Hook1997 5289]

2 hours ago, Hook1997 said:

I know the branches of government and have since I was in elementary school, evidently Boston College political majors don’t learn much about government obviously...   I also know switching to all renewables before 2020 is not only impossible right now but would cripple the US economy especially by her way of paying for it...   After that just google her quotes on economics and tell me she’s smart actually if you think so after that. 

You’re right I meant 2030... like she said.

1 hour ago, FondrenRoad said:

Y'all is you and the rest of the conservatives who offer up bullshit false equivalences.  You're completely dishonest.  I'll say it again. AOC is not currently running for President.  She isn't proof that the Dems can't find a "decent candidate" for President because she isn't even a candidate for President. If you were truly looking to vote for anyone but Trump, you'd be in the Democrats 2020 thread browsing through the actual candidates in the display cabinet. Instead, you're fucking full of shit and here talking about someone who may never run for President at all and isn't even currently constitutionally qualified to do so. 

You've taken slorch Trump vote justification excuse making to another level.  At least Hillary was actually running when she was used as justification. I assume slorch has managed to look at actual Democratic candidates this year too. You're like 10 times worse. If you can't justify your Trump vote with yourself then maybe you're the problem rather than a representative from another state who isn't even running against Trump. 

And even in this post, you are lying about being "all for transitioning" off greenhouse gasses. Instead, you are trying to use her optimistic timeline as an excuse to never even start that transition.  And I'm almost certain you've supported military action with far more optimistic but impossible timelines. 

Tl;Dr. Just shut the fuck up and vote for Trump like you want to.  Let the planet burn like you want it to. Not sure why you assholes feel the need to justify that vote to other people. Talk to your shrink about that.  

Once again read what started my comment about the presidential run and my comments after?  At this point I’m not sure you can read.....   Are you seriously still talking like you know wtf I think or who I am supporting, yes, yes you are obviously....  Jesus you are a blind partisan person, I feel sorry for you cause you can’t think for yourself, bless you.  Or you just jump to conclusions always without facts?  That seems more your speed really.    Not everyone is attacking you, chill you might overheat 

Edited February 3, 2020 by Hook1997

[washparkhorn 9935]

3 minutes ago, Hook1997 said:

Are you seriously still talking like you know wtf I think or am supporting.  Jesus you are a blind partisan person, I feel sorry for you cause you can’t think for yourself, bless you. Lol

Stop emoting and provide analysis or facts.

AOC meant the three chambers of power where elected officials preside - the House, the Senate and the Presidency (and presumably you know the Supreme Court is not elected). She immediately corrected herself, but Betas in the Trump world ran with it like a dog who found a dried up piece of shit and thought it was a bone. 

Who meets your criteria for an intelligent politician. Name one and tell us why. Discuss policy. Stop emoting. 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

42 minutes ago, Hook1997 said:

You’re right I meant 2030... like she said.

Once again read what started my comment about the presidential run and my comments after?  At this point I’m not sure you can read.....   Are you seriously still talking like you know wtf I think or who I am supporting, yes, yes you are obviously....  Jesus you are a blind partisan person, I feel sorry for you cause you can’t think for yourself, bless you.  Or you just jump to conclusions always without facts?  That seems more your speed really.    Not everyone is attacking you, chill you might overheat 

I can read shithead. You said the GOP and Dems can't find decent presidential candidates and used AOC as an example of the Dems failures in that department.  In fact, it's the only reason you are here at all. To talk about AOC as a presidential candidate and how much you hate her. But mostly just to talk about how much you hate her. We were talking about her potential 10 years down the road. You, being completely dishonest, are attempting to use her as an example of a democratic candidate right now. 

It also looks like you have only posted a single time anywhere else in the cloak room which was a single incoherent post that seems to back Romney's witnesses vote. Was that an attempt at misdirection or did you just mix up the Russian to English translation?  Other than that post, you're practically a bot.

My critiques of AOC are not too far above your first entry into this thread.  The algorithm that brought you here probably even used them in it's decision to send you as a troll. I'm certainly no partisan in her favor.  I'm simply pointing out that your transparent "both sides" argument is garbage, and the fact that you keep making that argument means you're garbage. AOC isn't a perfect human being. Nobody is. She also isn't a complete piece of shit like Trump. It's that simple. And really, I owe an apology to pieces of shit for comparing them to Trump. Shit is better than him. 

There's a whole thread of actual Dem Presidential candidates. Go put your two cents in there if you're a real person. I won't hold my breath though. 

Edited February 3, 2020 by FondrenRoad

[tx 3 putt 76401]

2020 AOC is just as, if not more so, qualified as 2016 IMpotus 

[washparkhorn 9935]

3 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

2020 AOC is just as, if not more so, qualified as 2016 IMpotus 

99.9% who post on this political board are more qualified than Donald. 

Donald ran because Obama spited him. If reelected, he may give up the role and hand it over to Pence so he can do it his way. 

If you haven't studied her more carefully than snippets from the haters in both parties on Twitter, corporate media, Facebook, and Rush/Sean/O'Reilly/the View . . ., you owe it to yourself to learn more about her and her policies. She is an FDR Democrat - who celebrates our differences and asks for equal treatment. That should not be a problem in this nation. 

With Amazon, too many districts provide it corporate socialism for the promise of jobs. For low paid Amazon workers, the company is quite horrible. Should we be subsidizing that conduct?

Amazon is having a deflationary effect on the economy. Deflation devastates an economy. No?

That was AOC's stand against Amazon in a nutshell. Is she wrong when looking at the big picture?

Bezos is the wealthiest man in the world. Is he above reproach?

[jimmyjazz 45560]

7 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

2020 AOC is just as, if not more so, qualified as 2016 IMpotus 

Well, except for that 35 YO part, but otherwise yes.

[jimmyjazz 45560]

I do find it telling that the racist, misogynist crowd who is scared shitless of browns and wimmens will seize upon single poorly-phrased talking points made in passing by a brown woman but somehow are unconcerned with the daily barrage of lies and outright stupidity put forth by POTUS.  Odd.

[Brisketexan 104628]

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

I do find it telling that the racist, misogynist crowd who is scared shitless of browns and wimmens will seize upon single poorly-phrased talking points made in passing by a brown woman but somehow are unconcerned with the daily barrage of lies and outright stupidity put forth by POTUS.  Odd.

Oh, they're also VERY concerned by sexual morality.  Much tsk-tsking about the Super Bowl halftime show....but all good with slavishly worshiping a POTUS who brags about grabbing women by the pussy and paying off porn stars he fucked.

If I had my way, someday there will be another monument on the National Mall - it will be the Monument to Conservative Hypocrisy.  Problem is, I don't know if there will be enough room for it.

[jimmyjazz 45560]

Well, J Lo did grab her crotch, which is strictly prohibited unless it's POTUS.

[hayden_horn 11360]

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

I do find it telling that the racist, misogynist crowd who is scared shitless of browns and wimmens will seize upon single poorly-phrased talking points made in passing by a brown woman but somehow are unconcerned with the daily barrage of lies and outright stupidity put forth by POTUS.  Odd.

yeah, i think it's a bit more than that, but you are completely right.

the thing is, we are going to have to rely on her generation to fix our country after the boomers are done trashing it. i think they know what they have done and are doing, and are acting out like a pre-teen would, trying to call out every hypocrisy they see in their parents. the older whites cannot understand aoc, because that is not how this country is run. look at the republican caucus as compared to the democratic one. old white dudes vs a strikingly diverse (in race, age, and gender) group of people with progressive ideas. the old whites are dying, but they are salting the fucking earth before they relinquish any square foot of it.

Edited February 3, 2020 by hayden_horn

[tx 3 putt 76401]

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

I do find it telling that the racist, misogynist crowd who is scared shitless of browns and wimmens will seize upon single poorly-phrased talking points made in passing by a brown woman but somehow are unconcerned with the daily barrage of lies and outright stupidity put forth by POTUS.  Odd.

by the time she's 35, that racist, misogynist crows will be out numbered. that's driving that crowd today

[Brisketexan 104628]

14 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

yeah, i think it's a bit more than that, but you are completely right.

the thing is, we are going to have to rely on her generation to fix our country after the boomers are done trashing it. i think they know what they have done and are doing, and are acting out like a pre-teen would, trying to call out every hypocrisy they see in their parents. the older whites cannot understand aoc, because that is not how this country is run. look at the republican caucus as compared to the democratic one. old white dudes vs a strikingly diverse (in race, age, and gender) group of people with progressive ideas. the old whites are dying, but they are salting the fucking earth before they relinquish any square foot of it.

Spot-on.

And yeah, it pisses me off like hell as a member of Gen-X -- we just don't have the numbers to turn the tide.  The best we can do is to try to hold the line in strategic spots so that when the reinforcements show up, they have some ground to fight from.  We're just fucking holding Bastogne right now....and honestly, I don't know if we'll ultimately succeed.  It may be that the Millennials have to start the whole fucking thing all over, and land at Normandy all over again, because we ultimately weren't able to hold a single fucking inch of ground for them.  Because the highlighted language above.

[hayden_horn 11360]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Spot-on.

And yeah, it pisses me off like hell as a member of Gen-X -- we just don't have the numbers to turn the tide.  The best we can do is to try to hold the line in strategic spots so that when the reinforcements show up, they have some ground to fight from.  We're just fucking holding Bastogne right now....and honestly, I don't know if we'll ultimately succeed.  It may be that the Millennials have to start the whole fucking thing all over, and land at Normandy all over again, because we ultimately weren't able to hold a single fucking inch of ground for them.  Because the highlighted language above.

to the republican party

nuts

the rest of us

[wildcat09 29258]

19 hours ago, Hook1997 said:

She did so good in school studying politics that she couldn’t name the branches of government, I know 6 year olds who didn’t major in politics in college that know that, I mean come on let’s get real she’s not that bright.  She also has no clue how economics work.   Being a bartender that has social skills shouldn’t be the top skill of a freaking president.  Also not sure what the Trump stuff has to do with it?  I said can’t either find a decent candidate....

This is a post insulting someone else's intelligence.

[Bama Chick 28596]

I do find it telling that the racist, misogynist crowd who is scared shitless of browns and wimmens will seize upon single poorly-phrased talking points made in passing by a brown woman but somehow are unconcerned with the daily barrage of lies and outright stupidity put forth by POTUS.  Odd.

Brown vaginas attached to a very smart person with actual life experience are somehow more detrimental than an orange mushroom penis attached to a narcissistic moron whose never earned anything he didn’t inherit to a specific type of male.

Funny how that works.

[High Plains Drifter 10978]

23 hours ago, Hook1997 said:

I know the branches of government and have since I was in elementary school, evidently Boston College political majors don’t learn much about government obviously...   I also know switching to all renewables before 2020 is not only impossible right now but would cripple the US economy especially by her way of paying for it...   After that just google her quotes on economics and tell me she’s smart actually if you think so after that. 

 

I know six year olds who understand that ten years from now is 2030, not 2020, and they don't even have college degrees!