It was exasperating if anyone expressed doubt about it during the campaign
― Nerdstrom Poindexter, Monday, 7 January 2019 05:21 (five years ago) link
as long as we're posting clips
“There's a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right,” @AOC says in response to criticism that she’s made factual errors. https://t.co/sKf3sHl9F6 pic.twitter.com/xKc2eB7GEk— 60 Minutes (@60Minutes) January 7, 2019
― resident hack (Simon H.), Monday, 7 January 2019 05:45 (five years ago) link
just to add to the list that I'm sure everyone here knows, he lost and had to settle housing discrimination lawsuits
― Jeff Bathos (symsymsym), Monday, 7 January 2019 05:57 (five years ago) link
Any one who panders to racists as much as Trump does, counts as a racist. No question.
anyone who is as racist as the frothing, shrieking racist Donald Trump counts as a racist. what was the question
― sans lep (sic), Monday, 7 January 2019 06:11 (five years ago) link
Then there was that meeting where he talked about not wanting to accept immigrants from shithole countries in Africa, but immigration from Norway was fine and dandy with him.
― A is for (Aimless), Monday, 7 January 2019 06:22 (five years ago) link
do we not already have a "100+ racist things trump did/said" thread
― resident hack (Simon H.), Monday, 7 January 2019 06:33 (five years ago) link
Let me list for you the examples which convinced me that water is wet.
― Hootie and the Banshees (Old Lunch), Monday, 7 January 2019 06:34 (five years ago) link
Lol @ Biden. Guy who loses in 84, 88 and 2008 is sceptical other Democrats can win in 2020. this hubris of this prick
― anvil, Monday, 7 January 2019 07:48 (five years ago) link
AOC is like a Messi, game changer straight out the gate
― anvil, Monday, 7 January 2019 07:49 (five years ago) link
Omar is also against.
― suzy,
Thanks Suzy, missed that for some reason!
Paygo is intended to undercut Republicans ability/threats to cut taxes. No Dem legislation was hampered by it when it was in effect previously. The argument seems to be about the symbolism of it.
I'd read this but...idk, I'd like to be convinced its ok and its not something that comes back to bite. You think AOC and Ro (and Omar!) got this one wrong?
― anvil, Monday, 7 January 2019 07:54 (five years ago) link
Biden is pissed that the DNC told him to step aside so Hilary could run in '16.
― nickn, Monday, 7 January 2019 07:54 (five years ago) link
I mean yeah this "70% tax on income over 10m" seems to already be shifting the Overton window which is something Dems have always been really bad at
― frogbs, Monday, 7 January 2019 14:52 (five years ago) link
lol
Paul Krugman’s positive (and correct) article about Ocasio-Cortez’s tax ideas is perplexing. He slammed Bernie Sanders for similar ideas in 2016. pic.twitter.com/KECU6gWwb3— Emma Vigeland (@EmmaVigeland) January 7, 2019
― resident hack (Simon H.), Monday, 7 January 2019 14:53 (five years ago) link
Yeah, that's completely untrue. Read the columns in question: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/opinion/varieties-of-voodoo.html and https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/05/opinion/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-tax-policy-dance.html. He slammed Sanders for idiotic claims about growth. As he said:
Mr. Sanders is calling for a large expansion of the U.S. social safety net, which is something I would like to see, too. But the problem with such a move is that it would probably create many losers as well as winners — a substantial number of Americans, mainly in the upper middle class, who would end up paying more in additional taxes than they would gain in enhanced benefits.
By endorsing outlandish economic claims, the Sanders campaign is basically signaling that it doesn’t believe its program can be sold on the merits, that it has to invoke a growth miracle to minimize the downsides of its vision. It is, in effect, confirming its critics’ worst suspicions.
Basically, AOC is so much better than Sanders, and people should stop trying to use her to make Sanders seem good.
― Frederik B, Monday, 7 January 2019 15:21 (five years ago) link
When yer right, yer right.
― resident hack (Simon H.), Monday, 7 January 2019 16:15 (five years ago) link
nobody wants to say this but I have no tact, so: when is someone going to fling a bullet at AOC. this election cycle?
obviously I'm rooting for her hard but I think some form of Kevlar should be in permanent use by now
or am I being too cynical about dear old America
― imago, Monday, 7 January 2019 16:35 (five years ago) link
I will forever be amazed that no one managed to take a shot at Obama during his tenure
― Οὖτις, Monday, 7 January 2019 16:36 (five years ago) link
you'd hope she already has shit-hot security
― imago, Monday, 7 January 2019 16:38 (five years ago) link
I'm amazed nearly every day no-one has tried to take out Trump yet tbh
― lbi's life of limitless european glamour (Le Bateau Ivre), Monday, 7 January 2019 17:08 (five years ago) link
― imago, Monday, January 7, 2019 10:35 AM (thirty-four minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
Nah. It's just that the shots being constantly fired over here seem to rarely have coherently political intent. It's probably more likely that someone will shoot up a Foot Locker because the commies are overtaking us.
― Hootie and the Banshees (Old Lunch), Monday, 7 January 2019 17:12 (five years ago) link
I don't think she's any more likely to be targeted than any other visible member of congress.
― longtime caller, first time listener (man alive), Monday, 7 January 2019 17:14 (five years ago) link
Secret Service protection of the president is 100x greater than any security provided to members of the House of Representatives. afaik, representatives have zilch once they step away from the Capitol or their offices, unless they pay for it themselves. Look at Gabrielle Giffords.
― A is for (Aimless), Monday, 7 January 2019 17:14 (five years ago) link
yeah I don't think they have any security detail at all
― Οὖτις, Monday, 7 January 2019 17:17 (five years ago) link
well, according to Fox News, the AOC dancing "controversy" was a false flag. no conservatives were actually outraged. actually they were laughing about it, about how not-outraged they were. checkmate, libs.
― Evans on Hammond (evol j), Monday, 7 January 2019 17:59 (five years ago) link
Dear Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez @AOC I ask that you guide my thoughts, my feelings and my perceptions. AMEN pic.twitter.com/ztY0GIuuqb— RuPaul (@RuPaul) January 6, 2019
between this and Cher she really is getting the heavyweight endorsements
― frogbs, Monday, 7 January 2019 22:51 (five years ago) link
btw Ilhan is pretty much just as good
🙄 https://t.co/CzU0blv9kW— Ilhan Omar (@IlhanMN) January 7, 2019
― frogbs, Monday, 7 January 2019 23:02 (five years ago) link
I'd read this but...idk, I'd like to be convinced its ok and its not something that comes back to bite. You think AOC and Ro (and Omar!) got this one wrong?― anvil, Monday, 7 January 2019 07:54 (fifteen hours ago)
IDK does that mean the shit ton of republicans who voted the way they did got it right? From AOC’s perspective and other Dems who voted w her it was a futile vote but meant to maybe signal to leadership “hey we got big progressive legislation planned don’t try take a side against it”.
― Nerdstrom Poindexter, Monday, 7 January 2019 23:15 (five years ago) link
The republicans had different reasons for voting against this bill.
― Trϵϵship, Monday, 7 January 2019 23:42 (five years ago) link
Also i really hope aoc has a secret service detail. I think they know she has more enemies than other members of congress and adjust accordingly, as I expect they also do with pelosi et al. However, who knows?
― Trϵϵship, Monday, 7 January 2019 23:49 (five years ago) link
she does not
we went over this
― Οὖτις, Monday, 7 January 2019 23:50 (five years ago) link
Pelosi does because she's in the line of succession for the presidency
― Οὖτις, Monday, 7 January 2019 23:51 (five years ago) link
AOC does not have any kind of Secret Service detail. That's not how it works.
― louise ck (milo z), Monday, 7 January 2019 23:51 (five years ago) link
“There's a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right,” @AOC says in response to criticism that she’s made factual errors.
Not a huge fan of that sort of thinking, to be honest. And I am pretty much in her camp.
― Van Horn Street, Monday, 7 January 2019 23:51 (five years ago) link
That’s fucked up. They should respond to intelligence reports and seem to prevent attacks.
― Trϵϵship, Monday, 7 January 2019 23:52 (five years ago) link
xp
Aoc has shifted on that point—she praised fact checkefs today and says everyone should want to be held accountable.
― Trϵϵship, Monday, 7 January 2019 23:53 (five years ago) link
nor does Pelosi, FWIW - she would have a Capitol Police detail that travels with her, outside of House and Senate leadership they don't even get that
― louise ck (milo z), Monday, 7 January 2019 23:54 (five years ago) link
Secret Service details for all 535 member of Congress would be impossible and unnecessary.
― louise ck (milo z), Monday, 7 January 2019 23:58 (five years ago) link
@EmmaVigeland Paul Krugman’s positive (and correct) article about Ocasio-Cortez’s tax ideas is perplexing. He slammed Bernie Sanders for similar ideas in 2016.
Thank god Nobel Prize in economics winner Emma Vigeland was there to approbate Krugman's (correct) take on economic policy and I wasn't sure what to make of this nobody.
― Van Horn Street, Monday, 7 January 2019 23:59 (five years ago) link
I know. But I thought adjustments were made if they had intelligence that a certain member could be a target.
― Trϵϵship, Monday, 7 January 2019 23:59 (five years ago) link
― Van Horn Street, 8. januar 2019 00:51 (five minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
This was taken out of context. The full quote is: “There's a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right. And whenever I make a mistake, I say, "OK, this was clumsy." and then I restate what my point was. But it's— it's not the same thing as— as the President lying about immigrants. It's not the same thing, at all.”
― Frederik B, Tuesday, 8 January 2019 00:01 (five years ago) link
“And whenever I make a mistake, I say, "OK, this was clumsy." and then I restate what my point was. But it's— it's not the same thing as— as the President lying about immigrants. It's not the same thing, at all.” - the next sentenceCover the quote in context, thanks. https://t.co/e5zHw4uHaw— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) January 7, 2019
― Jeff Bathos (symsymsym), Tuesday, 8 January 2019 00:02 (five years ago) link
xp :)
Thanks for the context, it is 2019 and I still have not learned to ignore twitter.
But I still don't like the idea of admitting people care more for being "morally right" than factual details, those two things shouldn't oppose each other. Plus comparing one sin to the many sins of the lowest of lows is not exactly a standard of excellence I think AOC belongs to.
― Van Horn Street, Tuesday, 8 January 2019 00:07 (five years ago) link
Good answer imo
Meghan McCain: "Do you agree that @AOC and the ideology of the socialist left could splinter your party?@KamalaHarris: "No...she is introducing bold ideas that should be discussed." pic.twitter.com/M7f61VXaCH— Waleed Shahid (@_waleedshahid) January 9, 2019
― Nerdstrom Poindexter, Wednesday, 9 January 2019 19:51 (five years ago) link
The fuller answer in the clip is better
it's too bad brain cancer isn't hereditary
― Οὖτις, Wednesday, 9 January 2019 19:59 (five years ago) link
Classic Outic.
― DJI, Wednesday, 9 January 2019 20:26 (five years ago) link
More like OUCHic
― Rhine Jive Click Bait (Hadrian VIII), Wednesday, 9 January 2019 21:06 (five years ago) link
THAT IS A SIGMA
― j., Wednesday, 9 January 2019 21:17 (five years ago) link