Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tells Colbert she gives ‘zero’ f---s about Dem pushback

[Teh One Who Knocks]

By Adam Shaw | Fox News


https://i.imgur.com/uDcrLrcl.jpg

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-NY, brushed off criticism from establishment Democrats on Monday, saying she gave “zero” f---s about the pushback to her radical push in Congress since she took office in January.

Ocasio-Cortez was interviewed by talk show host Stephen Colbert, who mentioned the resistance she was facing from some within her party to her combative and radically left-wing stances on certain issues such as a Green New Deal and Medicare-for-all.

“Now, congresswoman, for you and other freshmen members of Congress, you're getting a fair amount of pushback, privately and publicly, from more established members of even your own party saying ‘wait your turn, go slow, don't ask for so much so fast right now, you're new, wait your turn for everything and don't make waves,'" Colbert said.

“On a scale from zero to some, how many f---s do you give?” he later asked.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8ZeWDEBzoc

“I think it’s zero,” Ocasio-Cortez responded.

Ocasio-Cortez, who has become something of a media star since she ousted longtime Rep. Joe Crowley in a primary last year, has shot back before at critics from within her party before.

Politico reported this month that parts of the caucus are mounting an operation to bring her into line, and warning her to stop “sniping” inside the tent.

“She needs to decide: Does she want to be an effective legislator or just continue being a Twitter star?” one House Democrat told the outlet. “There’s a difference between being an activist and a lawmaker in Congress.”

That sentiment was echoed by former Sen. Joe Lieberman, who said on Fox Business Network that Ocasio-Cortez should not be the future of the party.

“With all respect,” he told Fox Business’ Neil Cavuto, “I certainly hope she’s not the future and I don’t believe she is.”

But Ocasio-Cortez swiped back with a snarky: “New party, who dis?” (a play on “new phone, who dis?” a meme people use to pretend not to know who a texter is).
1083759782098583553
As for the Politico article, she tweeted a quote from comic book writer Alan Moore: “None of you understand. I'm not locked up in here with YOU. You're locked up in here with ME.”

She also appeared in a video lending her support to the grassroots Justice Democrats, who backed her longshot bid against Crowley and runs a campaign to oust incumbent Democrats in favor of more liberal replacements.

“There’s a lot of people in the Democratic caucus. When we are courageous enough to puncture the silence on an issue, they will move,” she says.

“You can make 10 years worth of change in one term if you’re not afraid,” she later adds.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

By Ryan Saavedra - The Daily Wire


https://i.imgur.com/aErDFJel.jpg

Socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) railed against the media on Tuesday about how they reported comments that she made last night on "The Late Show with Stephen Colbert," suggesting that she was a victim of racial and gender discrimination in the process.

"Now, congresswoman, for you and other freshman members of Congress, you're getting a fair amount of pushback from even members of your own party saying 'wait your turn, go slow, don't ask for so much so fast right now, you're new, wait your turn for everything and don't make waves,'" Colbert said.

"I want to ask this question in a respectful manner, knowing also that you're from Queens, so you will understand this question," Colbert continued. "On a scale from zero to some, how many f***s do you give?"

"I think it’s zero," Ocasio-Cortez responded.

When multiple news outlets reported on the exchange, reporting it as the young representative saying she gives "zero f***s," she took to Twitter to blast the outlets for "misattribution" and pushing a "false quote."

Ocasio-Cortez launched into her complaint against media outlets by ascribing the "misattribution" to sexist and racist stereotypes about "brown women cursing."

"I actually didn’t say this, so while I know 'brown women cursing' drives clicks, maybe you accurately quote the whole exchange instead of manipulating people into thinking I said this sentence instead of just the word 'zero,'" Ocasio-Cortez said.
1087750219788419074
She specifically called out Politico over the issue, suggesting that the outlet frequently traffics in such stereotypical "manipul[ation]."

"In a shock to no one, @politico is also running with the misattribution as well," she tweeted. "Here’s what actually happened: I was asked a question on a late-night show and answered with the word 'zero.'"
1087752966667464704
She also slammed the New York Post for pushing the "false quote," which she said is an example of how "news hysteria" begins.

"And here’s the @nypost not only running with the false quote, but adding an angry photo to boot: This is how news hysteria develops out of nothing at all," Ocasio-Cortez again falsely claimed.
1087755710379839495
WATCH:
1087823971045629953
Ocasio-Cortez recently garnered national headlines after she claimed without evidence that the world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change.

The 29-year-old bartender turned socialist politician also recently embraced the anti-Semitic Women's March after the Democratic National Committee (DNC), leftist groups, and top Democratic lawmakers abandoned the group over its anti-Semitism.

[DemonGeminiX]

I should have put her on my death list.

:-k

[RBP]

I thought she was from the Bronx?

[DemonGeminiX]

2 years. Just 2 years of her shooting her mouth off and maybe the people that voted her in will wake the fuck up.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

I thought she was from the Bronx?

She gives zero fucks where you think she's from :hand:

[Teh One Who Knocks]

2 years. Just 2 years of her shooting her mouth off and maybe the people that voted her in will wake the fuck up.

https://i.imgur.com/1CEUNbn.jpg

[PorkChopSandwiches]

2 years. Just 2 years of her shooting her mouth off and maybe the people that voted her in will wake the fuck up.

Doubtful

[Hal-9000]

I imagine those beautiful eyes getting all full of tears and mascara when I forcibly throat-bone her. Saliva/mascara/tears....the cornerstones of a healthy relationship where I'm in charge :tup:

[Teh One Who Knocks]

I imagine those beautiful eyes getting all full of tears and mascara when I forcibly throat-bone her. Saliva/mascara/tears....the cornerstones of a healthy relationship where I'm in charge :tup:

:snapout:

[Teh One Who Knocks]

https://i.imgur.com/uDcrLrcl.jpg https://i.imgur.com/1paldAa.jpg

[Hal-9000]

Yee-haw it's a farmyard ho-down! :dance:



https://i.imgur.com/cKa7uSp.jpg

[Teh One Who Knocks]

I imagine those beautiful eyes getting all full of tears and mascara when I forcibly throat-bone her. Saliva/mascara/tears....the cornerstones of a healthy relationship where I'm in charge :tup:

She gives zero fucks about you wanting to molest her :hand:

[Hal-9000]

She gives zero fucks about you wanting to molest her :hand:

:hand: Her name will be abbreviated to S.S. (submissive slave)

Democratic women of color love being told what to do by older men. (and I'll be smirking..)

[lost in melb.]

2 years. Just 2 years of her shooting her mouth off and maybe the people that voted her in will wake the fuck up.

They love her. She the left's Trump. :hand:

And most importantly, where will I [edit: and Hal] get my [our] masturbation material from?

[Godfather]

A guy on reddit (take it as you will) said that Fox news talks about this girl for hours a week. Do you think all this attention and daily headlines pointing out her knowledge gaps and often blatant stupidity is actually having the unintended effect of blasting her to front & center attention? She's on Colbert. She's on the Oversight Committee. She's got press, good or bad, every day, and she can't even run in 2020... seems like ignoring her would be far more beneficial rather than giving her free rent in the headlines and the minds of voters.

[DemonGeminiX]

The liberal media loves her as well. She's all over the place with respect to the media spectrum.

[perrhaps]

2 years. Just 2 years of her shooting her mouth off and maybe the people that voted her in will wake the fuck up.

Doesn't seem to make a difference to the Trumpsters here.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Doesn't seem to make a difference to the Trumpsters here.

You could always take a dozen or so illegals into your home and send all your extra money to the Treasury and pretend that Hillary won :dunno:

[RBP]

A guy on reddit (take it as you will) said that Fox news talks about this girl for hours a week. Do you think all this attention and daily headlines pointing out her knowledge gaps and often blatant stupidity is actually having the unintended effect of blasting her to front & center attention? She's on Colbert. She's on the Oversight Committee. She's got press, good or bad, every day, and she can't even run in 2020... seems like ignoring her would be far more beneficial rather than giving her free rent in the headlines and the minds of voters.

Completely agree. We have enetered the Instagram age of politics.

https://i.imgur.com/HWgS5dM.jpg?1 https://i.imgur.com/OKwlNeu.jpg

[RBP]

Doesn't seem to make a difference to the Trumpsters here.

I am pro Kamala Harris for President. Does that count?

[Teh One Who Knocks]

I am pro Kamala Harris for President. Does that count?

:serious:

[RBP]

:serious:

In the same way that I wanted Hillary to beat Obama in 2008. My quote was "she can't win a national election. But that dude just might"

The further left the candidate, the less likely we have a liberal president.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

In the same way that I wanted Hillary to beat Obama in 2008. My quote was "she can't win a national election. But that dude just might"

The further left the candidate, the less likely we have a liberal president.

I doubt the Ugandan Giant could win the primaries and make it to the general. Too hard to really handicap the race at this point since they're all starting to come out of the woodwork.

[RBP]

I called it for Kamala (pronounced Comma-la) last year. Staying with my horse (excuse the AOC pun).

[RBP]

Doesn't seem to make a difference to the Trumpsters here.

Can you define that? I haven't encountered anyone here that blindly follows the cult of personality. Most of us don't even like the guy. But on policy? He's right more than he's wrong. And the new left is off the deep end.

So what makes us "Trumpsters"?

[DemonGeminiX]

... cult of personality...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0VNLhyuxg0

[DemonGeminiX]

For the record, I keep saying "if the guy would just shut the fuck up...", but yeah, he has been right on policy, for the most part. There's a few things that I'm kinda unhappy about, and 1 or 2 that I'm ruthlessly unhappy about...

[RBP]

For the record, I keep saying "if the guy would just shut the fuck up...", but yeah, he has been right on policy, for the most part. There's a few things that I'm kinda unhappy about, and 1 or 2 that I'm ruthlessly unhappy about...

I am convinced that the left has blinders to separation of man from policy. I disagreed with 90% of Obama's policies, and for that I was a racist.

My response to people crying in Grant Park in Chicago on Obama's election day was "this won't end well".

[Teh One Who Knocks]

I am convinced that the left has blinders to separation of man from policy. I disagreed with 90% of Obama's policies, and for that I was a racist.

My response to people crying in Grant Park in Chicago on Obama's election day was "this won't end well".

Exactly, where is it written that to like his policies that must mean you like the individual? I respect the office he holds, but I don't think he's a particularly nice person in general. But he's done far more things right for this country than he has done wrong.

Look, we had a choice between him or Hillary, it's not like we were given a lot of options on election day.

[DemonGeminiX]

We didn't elect him because he was a choir boy. I'm slowly becoming convinced that the best people make the worst leaders and vice versa.

[RBP]

We didn't elect him because he was a choir boy. I'm slowly becoming convinced that the best people make the worst leaders and vice versa.

I have always preferred that President's be "presidential". This one is not at all. But we have to make a choice and I will always defer to direction of the country over who is more likeable. They were both unlikable this last round.

[DemonGeminiX]

If being unpresidential gets results, then fuck it.

[RBP]

If being unpresidential gets results, then fuck it.

Has he though? The economy didn't maintain pace, the trade deals are in flux and unsettled, there's no deal on border security or immigration. Not sure I can say he's ticked the "get things done" mark yet.

[DemonGeminiX]

Admittedly, he had the perfect opportunity to get shit done in his first 2 years, so why not? Do we blame Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell? Granted the Senate wasn't a Dem-proof majority, but still, some stuff could've gotten through easier than it will now. However, it does appear that he has been trying a little harder than past Presidents in some arenas.

[Muddy]

Hes got so much opposition though.. Its a total uphill battle always for him..

[RBP]

Admittedly, he had the perfect opportunity to get shit done in his first 2 years, so why not? Do we blame Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell? Granted the Senate wasn't a Dem-proof majority, but still, some stuff could've gotten through easier than it will now. However, it does appear that he has been trying a little harder than past Presidents in some arenas.


Hes got so much opposition though.. Its a total uphill battle always for him..

That may be, but trying and opposition isn't the point. DGX said "results".

[Muddy]

I lost 17k last quarter.. :(

[Hal-9000]

A guy on reddit (take it as you will) said that Fox news talks about this girl for hours a week. Do you think all this attention and daily headlines pointing out her knowledge gaps and often blatant stupidity is actually having the unintended effect of blasting her to front & center attention? She's on Colbert. She's on the Oversight Committee. She's got press, good or bad, every day, and she can't even run in 2020... seems like ignoring her would be far more beneficial rather than giving her free rent in the headlines and the minds of voters.

Reminds me a little of Sarah Palin. One news outlet admitted to getting as many sound bites as possible because they knew eventually they'd get something humorous. I'm not comparing Palin to my sweetie here in terms of intellectual heft, only that the story was funny. (Palin assumed the outlet was 'friendly' because of the attention they gave her).

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Reminds me a little of Sarah Palin. One news outlet admitted to getting as many sound bites as possible because they knew eventually they'd get something humorous. I'm not comparing Palin to my sweetie here in terms of intellectual heft, only that the story was funny. (Palin assumed the outlet was 'friendly' because of the attention they gave her).

I thought an outlet was friendly once until it shocked me when I stuck my finger in it :sad2:

[DemonGeminiX]

Reminds me a little of Sarah Palin. One news outlet admitted to getting as many sound bites as possible because they knew eventually they'd get something humorous. I'm not comparing Palin to my sweetie here in terms of intellectual heft, only that the story was funny. (Palin assumed the outlet was 'friendly' because of the attention they gave her).

You've got to be messing around. :lol:

[Hal-9000]

It's only about the fourth thread where I mention I want to bone her :lol:

I'm just working on my first Twitter handle and my contingency plan for when I barrage her publicly with sexual comments.

Hey hey my little dick holster, looking mighty fine today :cool:

[DemonGeminiX]

:lol:

[Teh One Who Knocks]

I thought an outlet was friendly once until it shocked me when I stuck my finger in it :sad2:

Good one dude, that was pretty funny :lol:

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Good one dude, that was pretty funny :lol:

Thanks :) I appreciate someone noticing :tup:

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Thanks :) I appreciate someone noticing :tup:

NP, I like pointing things out like that, keep them coming :thumbsup:

[RBP]

:huh:

[Hal-9000]

Good one dude, that was pretty funny :lol:

:tumble:

[perrhaps]

For the record, I voted for Trump and probably would again against Hillary Clinton. As DG noted above, Trump had control of Congress for two years, and got very little done. Presidents almost always get too much credit for good economies and too much blame for bad ones. Let's look at some of his central campaign promises:

1. Revival of the coal energy industry - Nope.
2. One day One, would unveil a really. really good healthcare plan that was very, very cheap. Not Congress's plan, but his. - Big Nope. Where is it?
3. Would have Crooked Hillary and others investigated and prosecuted. Nope.
4. Would "Drain the Swamp". Nope
5. Would restore fiscal sanity and balance the budget. Nope.
6. Would build The Wall and have Mexico (not us) pay for it. Nope, and now is throwing a 5-year old's temper tantrum.


Then, there's the habitual ongoing boldface lying. "I didn't know anything about the payoffs to the "horsefaced" porn star and the Playmate" "Ur, maybe I lied about that and did, but so what, it's not a crime" Same with the meeting with the Russians, etc., etc, etc.

By his own admission, he has appointed morons to his staff and Cabinet (Terrible Jeff Sessions, Kelly, Chairman of the Fed, and on and on)


Like Lance and others here, I considered Trump to be the lesser of two evils. Still think that's true, but he's turned out to still be an evil.


Trump is just another lying politician who is 200 pounds of manure in a 100 pound bag. I may not vote for some of the Democrats who run may end up running against him (my personal favorite is Gabbard), but I damn sure won't vote again for Trump. As the old saw goes, "Fool me once..."

[DemonGeminiX]

Tulsi Gabbard has got a good background, but she's moving too far to the left like the rest of the potentials. The Democrat party is in shambles and it's because they're listening to their far left fringe minority instead of their centrist majority. That's far too dangerous.

If somebody respectable comes and challenges Trump in a Republican primary, I'll consider voting for that person, but I fear that politics is what it is. It doesn't matter who you get in there, the problems we have are still not going to get solved. And the Democrats are only going to make them worse. I don't think they really want to solve these problems. If they did, how could they justify their existence?

[Teh One Who Knocks]

For the record, I voted for Trump and probably would again against Hillary Clinton. As DG noted above, Trump had control of Congress for two years, and got very little done. Presidents almost always get too much credit for good economies and too much blame for bad ones. Let's look at some of his central campaign promises:

1. Revival of the coal energy industry - Nope.
2. One day One, would unveil a really. really good healthcare plan that was very, very cheap. Not Congress's plan, but his. - Big Nope. Where is it?
3. Would have Crooked Hillary and others investigated and prosecuted. Nope.
4. Would "Drain the Swamp". Nope
5. Would restore fiscal sanity and balance the budget. Nope.
6. Would build The Wall and have Mexico (not us) pay for it. Nope, and now is throwing a 5-year old's temper tantrum.


Then, there's the habitual ongoing boldface lying. "I didn't know anything about the payoffs to the "horsefaced" porn star and the Playmate" "Ur, maybe I lied about that and did, but so what, it's not a crime" Same with the meeting with the Russians, etc., etc, etc.

By his own admission, he has appointed morons to his staff and Cabinet (Terrible Jeff Sessions, Kelly, Chairman of the Fed, and on and on)


Like Lance and others here, I considered Trump to be the lesser of two evils. Still think that's true, but he's turned out to still be an evil.


Trump is just another lying politician who is 200 pounds of manure in a 100 pound bag. I may not vote for some of the Democrats who run may end up running against him (my personal favorite is Gabbard), but I damn sure won't vote again for Trump. As the old saw goes, "Fool me once..."

And yet you ignore some of the positives. The United States is about to become energy independent. Unemployment is down, the economy is doing well, regardless of whether you want to give Trump credit or not. At work, we were busier in 2018 than we have been in the last 10 years give or take. He's single handedly helped put the Supreme Court back on the right track by replacing liberal justices that want to consider the Constitution a "living document" and something that needs to be changed or altered. Someone (Trump) is finally trying to do something about illegal immigration. Did he say Mexico was going to pay for the wall? Yes, he did, and that was an unrealistic promise, but Trump is far from the first politician to make a promise he didn't (or can't) keep. And he may be throwing a 'tantrum' but so are all the democrats who are refusing to give the $5.7 billion for the wall to re-open the government. Do you know that the $5.7 billion being asked for is barely 1/10 of 1% of the total federal budget? Not to mention the fact that all these democrats calling a wall 'racist' or 'immoral' were all for building a wall and supported it under Obama? All these democrats are more worried about making Trump look bad than they are about the actual welfare of this country. They are putting the 'rights' of illegals ahead of the protection and safety of actual American citizens.

Now sure, there's a lot of things he's done that I disagree with as well, but as RBP stated earlier in this thread, on policy, Trump has been more right than wrong so far. And as of right now, there isn't one single democrat that I could even consider voting for because as DGX stated, they are SO FAR left of center, that they would quite possibly be a worse choice than having Hillary in the White House. The way things are shaping up right now, we are going to have shit to choose from in the 2020 general election and unless the democrats pull an ace from their sleeve, Trump will once again be the lesser of two evils. Don't blame Trump, blame this shitty two-party system we are burdened with as a country and for the last several presidential elections, the best choice we've had has always been the "least worst" candidate.


/rant

[DemonGeminiX]

I can't argue with any of that. You're right.

[Muddy]

Good one dude, that was pretty funny :lol:


Thanks :) I appreciate someone noticing :tup:


Good one dude, that was pretty funny :lol:


Good one dude, that was pretty funny :lol:


Thanks :) I appreciate someone noticing :tup:


NP, I like pointing things out like that, keep them coming :thumbsup:



Slow day..? :lol:

[Muddy]

FUCK..! try and do an edit on a cell phone.. ^^ :lol:

[Teh One Who Knocks]

FUCK..! try and do an edit on a cell phone.. ^^ :lol:

Still waiting to hear back From Trend Micro

[perrhaps]

And yet you ignore some of the positives. The United States is about to become energy independent. Unemployment is down, the economy is doing well, regardless of whether you want to give Trump credit or not. At work, we were busier in 2018 than we have been in the last 10 years give or take. He's single handedly helped put the Supreme Court back on the right track by replacing liberal justices that want to consider the Constitution a "living document" and something that needs to be changed or altered. Someone (Trump) is finally trying to do something about illegal immigration. Did he say Mexico was going to pay for the wall? Yes, he did, and that was an unrealistic promise, but Trump is far from the first politician to make a promise he didn't (or can't) keep. And he may be throwing a 'tantrum' but so are all the democrats who are refusing to give the $5.7 billion for the wall to re-open the government. Do you know that the $5.7 billion being asked for is barely 1/10 of 1% of the total federal budget? Not to mention the fact that all these democrats calling a wall 'racist' or 'immoral' were all for building a wall and supported it under Obama? All these democrats are more worried about making Trump look bad than they are about the actual welfare of this country. They are putting the 'rights' of illegals ahead of the protection and safety of actual American citizens.

Now sure, there's a lot of things he's done that I disagree with as well, but as RBP stated earlier in this thread, on policy, Trump has been more right than wrong so far. And as of right now, there isn't one single democrat that I could even consider voting for because as DGX stated, they are SO FAR left of center, that they would quite possibly be a worse choice than having Hillary in the White House. The way things are shaping up right now, we are going to have shit to choose from in the 2020 general election and unless the democrats pull an ace from their sleeve, Trump will once again be the lesser of two evils. Don't blame Trump, blame this shitty two-party system we are burdened with as a country and for the last several presidential elections, the best choice we've had has always been the "least worst" candidate.


/rant

Hardly a rant, and while I agree with some of your "positives" the fact remains that he repeatedly and habitually lies; first to convince moderate Republicans like me to initially vote for him, and now, to cover up other lies, and his shortcomings. He'll never admit he's been wrong about anything and this will ultimately cause him to lose former supporters outside of his base of @32% of the electorate.


As an attorney for over 37 years before I retired, and an Member of the Bar in Good Standing in SCOTUS, I'd like to extend to you a word of caution about his Nominees to the Court. I'm old enough to remember when David Souter was lauded by conservatives to being the type of conservative Justice they wanted, as was ,to a lesser extent, Justice Roberts. It isn't uncommon for Justices to evolve away from their original philosophies.


I'm very much aware of the relatively small percentage of the budget (I believe the pet phrase of Trump acolytes is now "Why, no more than a rounding number") his 5.7B request is, but as I believe Everett Dirksen once famously said, " A Billion here and a Billion there, and pretty soon we're talking about real money ." It was fun watching Neil Cavuto (yes, I watch Fox news occasionally) tear apart some blowhard GOP Congressman by putting him on the spot and asking him exactly this where this money would come from in light of the Congressman's adamant and repeated demands for a balanced budget.

Maybe my age is showing. or maybe it's a matter of acquiring knowledge on a delayed basis, but I've slowly come to realize that when I'm getting shit dumped on me again and again, I really don't give a damn whether it's coming from the Left pasture or the Right pasture. Bottom line is that it's still shit.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Hardly a rant, and while I agree with some of your "positives" the fact remains that he repeatedly and habitually lies; first to convince moderate Republicans like me to initially vote for him, and now, to cover up other lies, and his shortcomings. He'll never admit he's been wrong about anything and this will ultimately cause him to lose former supporters outside of his base of @32% of the electorate.


As an attorney for over 37 years before I retired, and an Member of the Bar in Good Standing in SCOTUS, I'd like to extend to you a word of caution about his Nominees to the Court. I'm old enough to remember when David Souter was lauded by conservatives to being the type of conservative Justice they wanted, as was ,to a lesser extent, Justice Roberts. It isn't uncommon for Justices to evolve away from their original philosophies.


I'm very much aware of the relatively small percentage of the budget (I believe the pet phrase of Trump acolytes is now "Why, no more than a rounding number") his 5.7B request is, but as I believe Everett Dirksen once famously said, " A Billion here and a Billion there, and pretty soon we're talking about real money ." It was fun watching Neil Cavuto (yes, I watch Fox news occasionally) tear apart some blowhard GOP Congressman by putting him on the spot and asking him exactly this where this money would come from in light of the Congressman's adamant and repeated demands for a balanced budget.

Maybe my age is showing. or maybe it's a matter of acquiring knowledge on a delayed basis, but I've slowly come to realize that when I'm getting shit dumped on me again and again, I really don't give a damn whether it's coming from the Left pasture or the Right pasture. Bottom line is that it's still shit.I'm on my phone, so don't have the time to write out a long thoughtful rebuttal, but you complain that Trump lies and then won't admit when he does or when he's wrong? In 8 years, did Barry ever admit being wrong or apologize when HE was caught lying?

"If you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan. And if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."

"The Affordable Care Act will bring insurance costs down for all Americans."

[RBP]

Hardly a rant, and while I agree with some of your "positives" the fact remains that he repeatedly and habitually lies; first to convince moderate Republicans like me to initially vote for him, and now, to cover up other lies, and his shortcomings. He'll never admit he's been wrong about anything and this will ultimately cause him to lose former supporters outside of his base of @32% of the electorate.


As an attorney for over 37 years before I retired, and an Member of the Bar in Good Standing in SCOTUS, I'd like to extend to you a word of caution about his Nominees to the Court. I'm old enough to remember when David Souter was lauded by conservatives to being the type of conservative Justice they wanted, as was ,to a lesser extent, Justice Roberts. It isn't uncommon for Justices to evolve away from their original philosophies.


I'm very much aware of the relatively small percentage of the budget (I believe the pet phrase of Trump acolytes is now "Why, no more than a rounding number") his 5.7B request is, but as I believe Everett Dirksen once famously said, " A Billion here and a Billion there, and pretty soon we're talking about real money ." It was fun watching Neil Cavuto (yes, I watch Fox news occasionally) tear apart some blowhard GOP Congressman by putting him on the spot and asking him exactly this where this money would come from in light of the Congressman's adamant and repeated demands for a balanced budget.

Maybe my age is showing. or maybe it's a matter of acquiring knowledge on a delayed basis, but I've slowly come to realize that when I'm getting shit dumped on me again and again, I really don't give a damn whether it's coming from the Left pasture or the Right pasture. Bottom line is that it's still shit.

The wall funding is very easy math because we pay for welfare and education for illegals. I am not sure why that isn't the argument, full stop. Even if we continue to throw money down the rathole for the people that shouldn't be here but are, eliminating additional illegals from the dole self-funds or largely funds the expense of expanded border security. I don't care if it's a wall or a line of fighting-trained pit bulls, just shut the fucking thing down.

As for this seemingly sudden notion that until 2016 all politicians were truthful upstanding regular folks, but then Trump spoiled it, that completely ignorant of any rational read of history. You're correct that it's 90% bullshit out of DC, but it's always been 90% bullshit out of DC. This period is just more amplified and in our face because of social media and an unfriendly press on a 24-hour news cycle.

Frankly, the most offensive thing I have heard about the wall is the leftists saying a wall would be lasting symbol of American racism. What the fuck? Shut up, Meg. The same scumbags that are making arguments like that are the ones that approved the funding for the 580 miles of border fence that exists right now. You mentioned Neil Covuto. I almost never watch any cable news any more, again 90% bullshit, but I happened to catch a segment of Neil yesterday while visiting a family member. He had a congressman from southern CA making the argument against the wall, using the bad symbolism not American blah blah blah... but when Neil mentioned that there is a wall between Tijuana and Imperial Beach, the congressman said he thought the border was working well! I actually laughed out loud at the stupidity.

All this post-modernism language parsing is mind-numbingly ridiculous.

My opinion on the southern border hasn't changed since Reagan's ill-advised amnesty. And until now, people like Shumer, Pelosi, Obama, all favored increased border security - and I believe they still do, but have drawn a line in the corn meal against not the idea, but the man. At the same time, swaths of the leftist base has changed though to a "No borders, no walls, no USA at all" globalist mentality making the argument less politically viable for those same politicians. So, yes, 90%, from all sides.

Edit: Let me be as clear as possible. I don't give a flying fuck who proposes or supports shutting the border down, I will back that person. This isn't some snarky "The Trumpies" thing. This is an economic and cultural reality that nobody has had the balls to put their political life on the line to address a political third rail.

[Hal-9000]

For the record, I voted for Trump and probably would again against Hillary Clinton. As DG noted above, Trump had control of Congress for two years, and got very little done. Presidents almost always get too much credit for good economies and too much blame for bad ones. Let's look at some of his central campaign promises:

1. Revival of the coal energy industry - Nope.
2. One day One, would unveil a really. really good healthcare plan that was very, very cheap. Not Congress's plan, but his. - Big Nope. Where is it?
3. Would have Crooked Hillary and others investigated and prosecuted. Nope.
4. Would "Drain the Swamp". Nope
5. Would restore fiscal sanity and balance the budget. Nope.
6. Would build The Wall and have Mexico (not us) pay for it. Nope, and now is throwing a 5-year old's temper tantrum.


Then, there's the habitual ongoing boldface lying. "I didn't know anything about the payoffs to the "horsefaced" porn star and the Playmate" "Ur, maybe I lied about that and did, but so what, it's not a crime" Same with the meeting with the Russians, etc., etc, etc.

By his own admission, he has appointed morons to his staff and Cabinet (Terrible Jeff Sessions, Kelly, Chairman of the Fed, and on and on)


Like Lance and others here, I considered Trump to be the lesser of two evils. Still think that's true, but he's turned out to still be an evil.


Trump is just another lying politician who is 200 pounds of manure in a 100 pound bag. I may not vote for some of the Democrats who run may end up running against him (my personal favorite is Gabbard), but I damn sure won't vote again for Trump. As the old saw goes, "Fool me once..."

I keep seeing stories about the six people from his cabinet and their legal problems. Some have already turned on him and I read something that said over 30 people from his inner circle have now left Trump. I can't comment on how he's managing the country in terms of economics other than when he 'adjusts' existing trade deals with my country, but it seems like we're going to get testimony from people that may incriminate Trump as a lawbreaker.

[perrhaps]

I'm on my phone, so don't have the time to write out a long thoughtful rebuttal, but you complain that Trump lies and then won't admit when he does or when he's wrong? In 8 years, did Barry ever admit being wrong or apologize when HE was caught lying?

"If you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan. And if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."

"The Affordable Care Act will bring insurance costs down for all Americans."


I referred to Trump as being "another lying politician" and although I certainly agree with you that Obama also lied, it seems to me that the "Obama lied worse" argument is damning Trump with faint praise. Kind of like getting my hand caught in the cookie jar with two cookies in it, then trying to defend myself by pointing out that the week before my brother got caught with three cookies in his hand.


I've reached my saturation point of being lied to by politicians. When it goes beyond just hyperbole, I refuse to tolerate it. I won't vote for Trump again.

[DemonGeminiX]

I referred to Trump as being "another lying politician" and although I certainly agree with you that Obama also lied, it seems to me that the "Obama lied worse" argument is damning Trump with faint praise. Kind of like getting my hand caught in the cookie jar with two cookies in it, then trying to defend myself by pointing out that the week before my brother got caught with three cookies in his hand.


I've reached my saturation point of being lied to by politicians. When it goes beyond just hyperbole, I refuse to tolerate it. I won't vote for Trump again.

So who are you going to vote for? Assuming that Trump doesn't have a serious Republican contender in a primary, would you vote for a lying socialist masquerading as a Democrat? That's exactly what the Democratic field is shaping up to be. Do you know what they want to do to this country?

[Teh One Who Knocks]

I referred to Trump as being "another lying politician" and although I certainly agree with you that Obama also lied, it seems to me that the "Obama lied worse" argument is damning Trump with faint praise. Kind of like getting my hand caught in the cookie jar with two cookies in it, then trying to defend myself by pointing out that the week before my brother got caught with three cookies in his hand.


I've reached my saturation point of being lied to by politicians. When it goes beyond just hyperbole, I refuse to tolerate it. I won't vote for Trump again.You're the one acting like Trump is the first politician in history who has said things to try and swing voters in his direction. This happens EVERY primary season. The moderate democrats are pulled far too the left and moderate republicans are pulled far too the right because of you don't go that way, you have no shot at winning the primary because as a rule, it's each party's extreme that vote the most in primaries.

Then, after securing the nomination, the candidate needs to walk back some of the most extreme things they said in the primaries in a hope to not alienate and win over the average voter.

Trump is no better and no worse than the politicians that have preceded him. And you know what? The democrats that are going to try and secure the nomination to run against him in 2020 are going to say anything they have to for the chance to get elected.

[perrhaps]

So who are you going to vote for? Assuming that Trump doesn't have a serious Republican contender in a primary, would you vote for a lying socialist masquerading as a Democrat? That's exactly what the Democratic field is shaping up to be. Do you know what they want to do to this country?

That's an easy choice for me. Either I'll write in someone; vote for the Libertarian candidate, or not vote for anybody for President.

[RBP]

That's an easy choice for me. Either I'll write in someone; vote for the Libertarian candidate, or not vote for anybody for President.

If the left goes far left in 2020 (very likely) and Trump runs again, the election will be as prime for a 3rd party candidate as 1992.

https://i.imgur.com/K8LLqca.jpg

[Pony]

If the left goes far left in 2020 (very likely) and Trump runs again, the election will be as prime for a 3rd party candidate as 1992.



I'm curious which side a serious 3rd party run would hurt worse.

[DemonGeminiX]

I guess that depends on how far out in left field the Democratic candidate goes.

[lost in melb.]

I guess that depends on how far out in left field the Democratic candidate goes.

Which depends on how far right Trump swings :hand:

[RBP]

Which depends on how far right Trump swings :hand:

I assume you're being sardonic, but I would disagree.

[DemonGeminiX]

Which depends on how far right Trump swings :hand:

Trump actually is not far right at all. He never has been. Some of his policies are fiscally conservative, but not very many. During the primaries, conservatives were accusing him of not being conservative at all. I've heard the criticism on more than one occasion that Trump was a Democrat in Republican clothing, and honestly, on a few of his actions, I'd agree. On others, not so much. He's more of a centrist that leans right from time to time.

[lost in melb.]

I assume you're being sardonic, but I would disagree.


Trump actually is not far right at all. He never has been. Some of his policies are fiscally conservative, but not very many. During the primaries, conservatives were accusing him of not being conservative at all. I've heard the criticism on more than one occasion that Trump was a Democrat in Republican clothing, and honestly, on a few of his actions, I'd agree. On others, not so much.

Half serious.

I don't think it's a huge leap to say tough-taking cortez, Warren and ( to lesser extent) pelosi, are a reaction to Trump. True, it's not strictly a right/left thing, but what other classification do we have to go with?

[DemonGeminiX]

Half serious.

I don't think it's a huge leap to say tough-taking cortez, Warren and ( to lesser extent) pelosi, are a reaction to Trump. True, it's not strictly a right/left thing, but what other classification do we have to go with?

Pelosi and Warren aren't reactions to Trump. They're long tenured and seasoned politicians that play the political game as their perception of the political landscape dictates. They move where the apparent base is. If you want us to be honest, neither one of them give a flying shit about the far left agenda; in fact, if you looked at their past declarations, they've previously stated over and over and over again that they were against what the far left is standing for today. It's just that the far left is standing for the crap they stand for, it looks like they're the majority when they're just a very loud minority, and Pelosi and Warren don't want to lose their seats. So Pelosi and Warren are gonna shift their positions to please their apparent base. That's not just a Pelosi/Warren thing, all politicians do that, on both sides of the aisle. That's politics in the United States.

I maintain that Ocasio-Cortez is the result of racism and redistricting shenanigans in NY. The district she won is majority Latino, and she's Latino. If there's a Latino on the ballot, the Latinos aren't going to vote for the white guy. Furthermore, these Latinos are lower to lower-middle class, lower educated, and they probably don't understand what "the American Dream" is all about. Those types hear "free shit" and they flock to it like flies to a pile of shit. Now the redistricting shenanigans I'm referring to is the district she won didn't exist until right before her primary. The district lines changed and it changed the voter demographic. The district that used to exist used to be majority white Democrat. I don't know why they changed it, but it cost the long term white Democrat his seat in the House. Like I said, the Latinos weren't gonna vote for the white guy with a Latino on the ballot.

[lost in melb.]

Pelosi and Warren aren't reactions to Trump. They're long tenured and seasoned politicians that play the political game as their perception of the political landscape dictates. They move where the apparent base is. If you want us to be honest, neither one of them give a flying shit about the far left agenda; in fact, if you looked at their past declarations, they've previously stated over and over and over again that they were against what the far left is standing for today. It's just that the far left is standing for the crap they stand for, it looks like they're the majority when they're just a very loud minority, and Pelosi and Warren don't want to lose their seats. So Pelosi and Warren are gonna shift their positions to please their apparent base. That's not just a Pelosi/Warren thing, all politicians do that, on both sides of the aisle. That's politics in the United States.

Fair enough but let's say they have accommodated to both take on Trump and adjust to the left-shift in their base. I think this left shift is in part to balance out aspects of Trump but also the fact that lives of all but the 'very wealthy' and upwards are not getting better in the US.


I maintain that Ocasio-Cortez is the result of racism and redistricting shenanigans in NY. The district she won is majority Latino, and she's Latino. If there's a Latino on the ballot, the Latinos aren't going to vote for the white guy. Furthermore, these Latinos are lower to lower-middle class, lower educated, and they probably don't understand what "the American Dream" is all about. Those types hear "free shit" and they flock to it like flies to a pile of shit. Now the redistricting shenanigans I'm referring to is the district she won didn't exist until right before her primary. The district lines changed and it changed the voter demographic. The district that used to exist used to be majority white Democrat. I don't know why they changed it, but it cost the long term white Democrat his seat in the House. Like I said, the Latinos weren't gonna vote for the white guy with a Latino on the ballot.

Damn it Dude, you made me go and read. But at least I am in front of computer and can type now.

I've cherry picked, but you get the picture :dunno: Gentrified young = rich yuppies. In Aus she would absolutely be with the Greens party, our alt left party, who are supported largely by this middle class demographic.

From https://theintercept.com/2018/07/01/ocasio-cortez-data-suggests-that-gentrifying-neighborhoods-powered-alexandria-ocasio-cortezs-victory-over-the-democratic-establishment/

But Romalewski mapped out the votes across the district, and what he found was the exact opposite of the pundits’ conclusion: Crowley, known until last week as the “king of Queens,” was crushed almost everywhere, but he did better in the Bronx.

“You can also see that most of her votes, the strongest vote support, came from areas like Astoria in Queens and Sunnyside in Queens and parts of Jackson Heights that, number one, were not predominantly Hispanic, so they’re a more mixed population, and are areas where — this is kind of a term of art — are in the process of being gentrified, where newer people are moving in,” said Romalewski.

...she actually did worse in some parts of Queens with large nonwhite populations. For instance, Crowley performed very well in East Elmhurst — which has a substantial Latino population and is majority-minority. Romalewski also pointed to LeFrak City and surrounding neighborhoods, “which are predominantly black, as well as Asian and Hispanic,” as areas where Crowley did particularly well. Zooming in a bit more, you can see that African-American neighborhoods were a strong base for Crowley.

[RBP]

I think this left shift is in part to balance out aspects of Trump but also the fact that lives of all but the 'very wealthy' and upwards are not getting better in the US.

That is a really interesting question. Here's my take. The Democrats have abandoned labor, which used to be their strong hold. They rarely even discuss unions or working conditions. The working class and middle class white labor and union types shifted to Trump. They are gone because they were abandoned. The dems have largely retained the minorities in that group, but not completely, and for different reasons.

The "evils of capitalism" and "fight for 15" are not being made as traditional labor movement arguments, but as socialist arguments. The groups out in protest for those issues are not union people, although there is some overlap when specific issues comes up. You can tell by the rhetoric and the sponsored signs.

I very recently wrote to one of my Democrat Senators asking him to please cut through the clutter, get back to his traditional political roots, and fight for labor. There are very reasoned and concrete issues facing the nature of work and employment relationships in the US. It is paid very little mind because the megaphone is controlled by the socialists.

[lost in melb.]

That is a really interesting question. Here's my take. The Democrats have abandoned labor, which used to be their strong hold. They rarely even discuss unions or working conditions. The working class and middle class white labor and union types shifted to Trump. They are gone because they were abandoned. The dems have largely retained the minorities in that group, but not completely, and for different reasons.

The "evils of capitalism" and "fight for 15" are not being made as traditional labor movement arguments, but as socialist arguments. The groups out in protest for those issues are not union people, although there is some overlap when specific issues comes up. You can tell by the rhetoric and the sponsored signs.

I very recently wrote to one of my Democrat Senators asking him to please cut through the clutter, get back to his traditional political roots, and fight for labor. There are very reasoned and concrete issues facing the nature of work and employment relationships in the US. It is paid very little mind because the megaphone is controlled by the socialists.

I think you're sadly spot on. We have our left divided into (literally) Labour and the Greens ( socialist - but I am maintaining until proven otherwise that they are largely ignorant naive yuppies who wouldn't survive a day under true socialism let alone know what it actually is [ a debate to be continued])

I actually don't mind the Greens and Cortez types persay. They add a few strident sopranos to the choir or counterbalance to the political see-saw - but God knows I wouldn't want them wielding actual power. They never will in Aus - they can make a lot of noise though and raise challenging questions ( as you do when you don't have the complexities and fiscal challenges to have to actually manage in solving them). Unfortunately the Greens/Socialists are enmeshed with the Dems in the US and could fck things up with too radical policy. i.e. that seesaw coming off its hinges. Could get messy.