Lefties are so cute, how they think the monsters they create won’t eat them.
Join LibraryThing to post.
Politico: Ocasio-Cortez backs campaign to primary fellow Democrats
The incoming congresswoman endorses an effort by the group Justice Democrats to make the House Democratic Caucus more liberal and diverse by taking on incumbents.
Ocasio-Cortez joins climate change sit-in at Pelosi’s office.
Bonus: Ocasio-Cortez claims she was recently mistaken for a Congressional intern and implies this is RACISM! and/or SEXISM!
Dem Spouse + Member luncheon were at the same time today. I was sent to spouse event.
She’s probably just lying, as one does when one needs a rush of victim crack.
But on the off chance that it actually happened...
You can’t brag about being the youngest woman ever elected to Congress, and also shriek about being mistaken for an intern.
Narcisisstic little asshole.
Women’s march cancelled for being too white.
The organizers’ press release explains,
“Up to this point, the participants have been overwhelmingly white, lacking representation from several perspectives in our community. Instead of pushing forward with crucial voices absent, the organizing team will take time for more outreach.”
And yet lefties stomped conservative ass in the most recent national election.
And what if they continue to stomp conservative ass in 2020? Well the whining by all the butt-hurt righties will just get louder about the cruelty of life and how evil is triumphing and so forth.
Wake up and smell your own shit, righties. trump and company are full bore in the process of destroying the republican party for god damn good. Just sit back and enjoy the show and STFU about socialism. Socialism is coming soon to a town near you.
Yeah! "Our strength is in our (racial/ethnic) diversity" works! Who knew!?
LOL! I love this shit!
..."the participants have been overwhelmingly white" ...
I feel their pain. I, too, have found that each and every time I've been personally involved in some social action, protest movement, etc., I've always been 'overwhelmingly white'.
Feminist kicked out of bar because she was wearing a T-shirt that defined a woman as an “adult human female.”
>3 Carnophile:: She’s probably just lying, as one does when one needs a rush of victim crack.
Baseless accusation much? We have no evidence to support her being a liar. On the other hand:
"“This building the wall should have been done by all of the presidents that preceded me, and they all know it,” he said during a news conference. “Some of them have told me that we should have done it.”"
Yeah, except not so much. The four living ex-presidents pulled that rug out from under Mr. T, didn't they?
>9 amysisson: "She’s probably just lying, as one does when one needs a rush of victim crack."
Baseless accusation much? We have no evidence to support her being a liar.
WRONG. We have innumerable examples of lefties issuing false accusations of racism, sexism, etc. Leftists do it constantly. See my posts in this thread starting here for just some of the many examples.
Wrong again. If the last million people you meet who were wearing purple turtlenecks say, "I was born in Lisbon," and turn out to be lying, then the next person you meet who is wearing purple turtleneck and says, "I was born on Lisbon" is also very probably lying.
It's called empiricism.
Did you ever study probability in maths? (or math, as I believe you say across the Pond).
The gambler's fallacy is the opposite of what I said, as you two would have seen if you'd actually read the first paragraph of the link in #15.
1. Do you have specific evidence of Ocasio-Cortez lying?
2. What is your response to the fact that Trump lied about what the ex-Presidents didn't say?
>18 amysisson: 1. Do you have specific evidence of Ocasio-Cortez lying?
Rather than lying, I think she believes everything she says. She's fantastic. Best Democrat representative in years, and I'm glad she's the new face of the Democrat party.
"I think she believes everything she says."
Yeah? So? I believe I could say, with equal accuracy, the same thing about a whole slew of people you wouldn't approve--they, too, actually believed all or very nearly all of what they said or wrote or, today, what they're saying and writing:
Ayn Rand comes to mind, for example. A whole "rogues' gallery" of elected officials: Democrats and Republicans in the U.S., Tories and, alas, Labour party members in the U.K. Tony Blair, hard to beat for being despicable--but it's possible--is another example. The Clintons, the insufferably smug Obamas--I'm convinced that they really believe the smug, ingratiating bilge they routinely spew at private addresses before their wealthy, high-fee paying audiences.
Hitler and Churchill were both people of stubborn conviction; each believed firmly in an ideology which informed and drove his policy-decisions. But their general aims were irreconcilable in nearly all aspects except one of note: both believed in a future dominated by ever evolving and ever more controlling technological prowess combined, inevitably, with ever more rationalized administrative practices in an elite-dominated world of social, political and economic "Mandarins" who rule the world's social and business affairs in their respective domains. Ayn Rand, too, subscribed to this view. Still, at the time, Britain was fortunate to have seen Atlee replaced by Churchill and, similarly, Americans fortunate--if we can apply that term to a world careening into World War II--to have seen Hoover (who was, as a business administrator, extremely accomplished and astute) replaced by Franklin Roosevelt.
For another quite interesting angle on the pitfalls of people who, without a doubt, believe what they're saying, see this important reading:
>21 proximity1: Still, at the time, Britain was fortunate to have seen Atlee replaced by Churchill... if we can apply that term to a world careening into World War II
I think you meant Churchill replaced Chamberlain, not Attlee (in 1940, in a world in which World War II had already begun).
To complicate matters, Attlee then replaced Churchill (in 1945), and Churchill then replaced Attlee (in 1951, long after the world had careened out of World War II).
At its essence, an astute recognition underpins this thread's idea--
in its spirit, I recommend the following reading and YouTube listening; these things, which in one way or another turn around what Anand Giridharadas refers to as the "Aspen consensus".
Read, listen and consider:
First and foremost, listen to this address presented at the Aspen Institute:
Anand Giridharadas presents "The Thriving World, the Wilting World, and You"
(from "World Affairs" Conversations that matter) Anand Giridharadas: Are Elites Really Making the World a Better Place?
WINNERS TAKE ALL: The Elite Charade of Changing the World
The New Yorker : Gospels of Giving for the New Gilded Age || Are today’s donor classes solving problems—or creating new ones? |
By Elizabeth Kolbert | American Chronicles | August 27, 2018 Issue
>18 amysisson: Do you have specific evidence of Ocasio-Cortez lying?
Certainly. See #10.
What is your response to the fact that Trump lied about what the ex-Presidents didn't say?
I don't know about that alleged lie. In any case, this thread is about lefties' pets eating them. To quote krolik, "No need to change the subject."
>19 johnthefireman: Maybe you didn't read the next few paragraphs?
I did. You didn’t, apparently. You certainly didn’t read down to the “Reverse position,” per Wikipedia:
After a consistent tendency towards tails, a gambler may also decide that tails has become a more likely outcome. This is a rational and Bayesian conclusion, bearing in mind the possibility that the coin may not be fair; it is not a fallacy.Which is the kind of argument I was making.
Stop pretending that you don’t understand the notion of basing beliefs on evidence.
If I tried, if I actually tried, I don’t think I could successfully bait lefties into *literally* arguing that evidence is irrelevant.
All my best baiting of lefties occurs unintentionally.
Pretending that you don’t understand the notion of basing beliefs on evidence is the sort of thing that made me call you the most intellectually dishonest person I know.
Even for a leftist, the level of this kind of behavior from you is remarkable.
>24 krolik: She's become the face of the party especially among conservatives. Seriously, my Republican friends on Facebook can't stop talking about her.
Please. It was the left that started pimping her, even before the primary she won to become the Dem candidate. See, e.g., the New York Times's coverage last summer.
The fact that the left couldn't resist making this FUCKING IDIOT the face of their party is just another one of the enjoyable auto-foot-shootings of the left.
The people I was referring to do not read or care about the New York Times. But your remark about pimping is of a piece with their attitude toward this person.
Of course. And I missed that because I'm not acquainted enough with the opinions of TrippB to have caught the point you saw.
I haven't bothered--till now--to even pay attention to her, what she says and thinks and the facts of her background.
Apparently, she has about as much in "roots" in the Bronx as the Clintons did when Bill parachuted into the borough with Hillary so that she could run for office "from New York."
Some of her policy positions are fine. But they aren't new. They've been plain common sense for decades or even many generations. If the political order was going to allow such things, they'd have happened a long time ago. So why haven't they happened? The answer to that question is what Giriharadas—and others like him—is talking about. In a way, this extremely fortunate young woman, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, with her great expectations and ambitions is, really, exactly what Anand Giriharadas is talking about when he explains what the "Aspen consensus" elite love and why they love it.
That topic deserves fuller, dedicated treatment in threads devoted to these issues. To quote Giriharadas, (from
(from "World Affairs" Conversations that matter) Anand Giridharadas: Are Elites Really Making the World a Better Place? )
* fake "change": i.e. addressing social ills through phony, superficial designs which ultimately leave the circumstances unchanged because, to actually effect real change would demand a redress of wide and deep injustice--and doing that would always seriously threaten the wealth, privileges and power of the ruling elite.
Giriharadas estimates (from his reading) that in the five-county San Francisco area, there are approximately 7400-and-something homeless people. In the same area there are 74 billionaires. There are, then, if accurate, around 100 homeless people there for each billionaire.
>30 krolik: The people I was referring to do not read or care about the New York Times.
Note I said, "See, e.g., the New York Times..."
The left started pushing Ocasio-Cortez. Maybe there's some buyer's remorse about it now, but it's too late.
Jtf, I think it just has to be put down to one of those bizarre things the human mind can't decipher. You want proof? Okay, check out this 300+ post thread that ended last April. Somewhere in there is evidence Ocasio-Cortez is a liar...Plus you might consider plain fatigue, as he is at war with South Sudan, as explained on another thread.
Sure, the left is pushing her. I don't doubt that. And they're pushing other new faces, too, like Tlaib, Finkenauer and Omar. There's boosterism all over the place. Milking the moment for all they can.
My point in earlier posts, if you can get the chip off your shoulder that obstructs your head, is that in the examples I'm referring to of the "right" (which in other aspects I thought was more varied than you suggest--this is weird shit, me inviting you to be more nuanced about the right), has especially zeroed in on and anointed Ocasio-Cortez as their poster child, their fear figure, and object of two-minutes hate.
This is what intrigues me, and maybe you could school my ignorant liberal ass. Why her and not some of these others, who, ideologically, probably aren't significantly different. What accounts for your demonstrated attraction (repulsion) to Ocasio-Cortez?
FWIW Fox News and conservatives are absolutely obsessed with Ocasio-Cortez. They can't stop talking about her. They've completely misrepresented what she's talking about on taxes. They make out as if she wants to tax everyone at a 70% tax rate. That would only be true if everyone were earning $10,000,000.00 a year. I don't know about other people around here--I know these people exist but I've never met one--so the truth is her tax idea is aimed at a small sub-percentage of the 1%--the biggest earners of all in the United States---those who control well over 50% of the wealth of the nation. Why this outrages people on the right so much is beyond me but it does.
Interesting tidbit about Kentucky Senator Rand Paul I heard today. The libertarian who is dead set against government health care has gone north of the border to have a hernia procedure done at an Ontario hospital whose profits come out of Canada's National Health care system. Go fucking figure. We've heard all these horror stories down here about how horrible Canada's health care system is and how terrible their hospitals are because of it. Really Rand!
>36 krolik: No. The left thrust her into the spotlight, not the right.
I've never heard of Finkenauer, and I never heard of Tlaib until she made the "impeach the motherfucker" comment.
>38 Carnophile: I guess it depends what the spotlight is. Ocasio-Cortez thrust herself into prominence and the media took note. The 'left' has had a wide range of responses--the more progressive left is excited, the Democrats in general are a little nervous. Anderson Cooper is concerned about a return to 50s through 70s progressive tax rates. The 'right' is nervous to spiteful.
This issue exposes the rift among Democrats: https://theintercept.com/2019/01/15/la-teachers-strike-charter-schools/
Here is another indication that the 'left' is not Nancy Pelose: https://theintercept.com/2019/01/10/house-committee-assignments-democrats/
>39 RickHarsch: the 'left' is not Nancy Pelose
Ah yes, that old myth of a monolithic organised "left".
I don't think AOC minds being a focus of attention because it's a way for her to get some ideas out. I don't think she's really 'thrusting' herself out--more like media people and pundits are thrusting themselves at her . If people (especially conservatives) would chill out a bit--they might keep in perspective that she has just been a congresswoman for a few days and that there are 434 other House members. That said I do wish there were a lot more like minded congress people like her but the Democratic Socialist wing of the Democratic party is kind of small.
>41 lriley: It seems to me there is good reason for conservatives to...what's the opposite of chill out? warm in? They have good reason to be concerned, because Ocasio-Cortez has people THINKING about taxation again, and the vast majority of voters would realize that they would benefit a great deal from a re-institution of an Eisenhower era progressive tax. The truth of taxation has been fogged in for decades, but plenty of people are still around who benefitted in the 70s from progressive taxation and Fox may not have enough coal left ot operate its fog machine...
#42--not to get me wrong--I'm all for what Ocasio-Cortez has in mind. That said I don't think the Democratic party is at all interested in bringing any such tax legislation to a vote at least at this time and probably not for a long time. All in all the Democratic party is much too conservative of a party for that. In any case there are a bunch of things that the great majority of the public would be for--such as national health care---the politicians know what the polling says and hear what their constituents say but are past masters at ignoring, obfuscating and putting off to another day. In any case with this Republican POTUS and this Republican Senate that is not going anywhere for the coming two years.
Hopefully though a lot more people like AOC will run for Congress in 2020--that could make a difference.
But as you say history for a lot of people is foggy. Used to be a time when many Republicans believed in a progressive tax system too--like President Eisenhower. Nixon twice tried to give the country a National Health Care system.
From Ocasio-Cortez to Pelosi it is all good. The far left, the near left, the center moderates, and the majority of U.S. voters who are basically sane will unite to crush the orange fat traitor in 2020 like the motherfucking bug that he is - assuming he is still around then.
During the Eisenhower administration the super rich were taxed at something like 70 or 80 per cent and no one raised much of a fuss. After all the exemptions allowed the super rich actually paid much less than that, as would be the case in the future if taxes were increased on them to the same degree.
Again, separating the republican and trumpian lies from actual reality is the issue to be addressed - continually.
trump is not a mere motherfucker - he is a stupid lying motherfucking huckster moron. That will be his everlasting legacy.
1. A new Rasmussen poll (a super conservative poll) found that if Ocasio-Cortez were old enough to run and were selected as the Democratic nominee in 2020 she would get 40 per cent to trump's 43 with 17 per cent undecided.
Pretty good for an admitted socialist as determined by a conservatively biased poll.
2. Pelosi, in effect, has now informed the fat orange traitor that there will be no SOTU address until the government is opened. Pelosi calls the shots as to what happens in the House chambers. Bet the fat orange traitor wasn't aware. What a motherfucking dipshit moron he is.
This topic is not marked as primarily about any work, author or other topic.