Occasi-Cortez Channeling the Rent's too damn high guy

[BeginnersMind]

2 hours ago, plenzmd1 said:

where you been s? I have never, ever, never said Trump was racist..i said this tweet was racist,  and unlike most of you all, i listened to folks like @Buffalo_Gal and @Deranged Rhino and others who convinced me it was done for political advantage.

 

and BTW, i have never said or believe any Trump supporter, at least the ones i know and 99.95 on here, are racist

 

 

 

This is 100% truth. It’s hard to find the crew here being critical of Trump. 

[Taro T]

1 hour ago, Doc Brown said:

My main problem with the tweet is he assumed the squad were from other countries and I doubt he says that if they weren't minorities.  If it was really about ideology why would he say go back to YOUR countries?  I doubt he tells Bernie Sanders to go back to his country even though he has the same ideology. 

 

So, there's two ways to read that tweet in my mind.  The first is being a xenophobic trope designed to both have Dems in Congress defend them when they were trying to distance themselves from "The Squad" and to excite the small sliver of his base that are xenophobic (hence the "send her back" chants at his rally).  He knew that three of the four were born here and also knew he could clarify what he said and his fans/sycophants would say he really meant if you don't like living here you can leave.

The more likely explanation is just ignorance on his part not knowing three were born here which is consistent with Trump who says and tweets a lot of stupid crap on subjects he doesn't know much about, but the purpose of the tweet was to highlight the radical base of the Democratic party.  This seems far more likely.

To the 1st bolded, at least 2 of "the squad" and likely 3-4 of them reference fairly often a pride in their heritage. 

 

They ALL like to decry the direction 45 is trying to take the country.  (It's politics; that's what Congress Critters do when the President doesn't have their letter after his name.)

 

He said, quite ineloquently, the countries (territory in AOC's case) that these ladies come from ( how ever many generations ago) have a lot of problems; rather than complaining (& doing nothing but complain) about this country, he told them ( or at least some of them, he never identified which he was referring to, but yet they and everybody else assumed it was all 4) to go fix your country of pride and then once you've helped fix there, then show us how to fix here.  Is that boorish and crass.  Yup.  Like most everything he tweets.  But is it racist.  Not really, IMHO.  Though would have a much harder time arguing it weren't xenophobic.

 

As to not telling Sanders to go back to where he's from, where is it Bernie's roots come from?  He's Jewish, but no data on where his ancestors emigrated from, and haven't heard him wax poetic about his homeland. 45 has given him flack for honeymooning in Russia.

 

Pretty sure he's also mocked liberals that have threatened to move to France but didn't move there.  Is that him being racist or just his typical in your face annoy those that don't agree with him.

 

As to the 2nd bolded, that seems very plausible.

[Boatdrinks]

2 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

The President did not say the Squad should be SENT back to other countries. He said if they don’t like it here maybe they should CHOOSE to go back on their own. The same could be said for a white person from Toronto. There’s nothing racist about it.

Precisely. It really comes down to ones self image. Are you a victim, or someone in a great country with a lot of oppportunity? If you think America isn’t socialist enough, you’ve probably incorporated quite a bit of victimhood into your persona. 

[Chef Jim]

4 hours ago, plenzmd1 said:

Jesus, how hard is this to understand..they were born in America.

 

I know yall will never see the rweet as racist and yall want to atke it literally word for word..so tell me where they "came from"

 

maybe all you trump supporters should just start wearing brown shirts

 

No not Trump supporters. Supporters of logic. Please explain to me how being a dope and telling three of the four who were born here to go back to where they came from is racist?  Being an idiot does not make one racist unless of course your name is Donald Trump. You may have addressed this already because I’ve asked several times but humor me here. 

 

 

1 hour ago, BeginnersMind said:

 

This is 100% truth. It’s hard to find the crew here being critical of Trump. 

 

Seriously??  Head deeply in the sand?

4 hours ago, plenzmd1 said:

...umm exact freaking quote  you have reading comprehension issues?

 

 

okay dude...something no one on here wants to answer...for ***** sake GO BACK TO WHERE... they are Americans., born the USA  .is that somehow lost on all of you? They were all born in the USA except one. So tell where do they go back to!

 

Correct. Now connect the dots to arrive at it being racist. Dumb?  Yes. Racist?  Please give us the logical leap. 

 

Edited July 20, 2019 by Chef Jim

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

12 hours ago, BeginnersMind said:

 

And that they came from shithole countries more or less. 

 

Of course he wouldn’t say it to Bernie or a white person. And of course anyone would be fired for saying this to an American black coworker in a workplace. Good luck getting movement from him. 

 

I don’t see it as an organized nefarious plot.

 

 

The tweeting human is our president not Jon from Nevada. 

 

Prosecute the law breakers. 

 

Agreed, no one involved is John From Nevada, or Cindy from Kalamazoo. 

 

They are political creatures, each side dishing out heat that gets folks riled up because they knit together backstories based on their own biases. 

 

Who cares, really?  You, maybe, but you're a bit of a contortionist anyway.  I always wondered where the outrage was when Obama made elitist comments about middle America, when Hillary lead off her debate with accusations of racism and a myriad of phobias the future President was alleged to have had. 

 

Did you struggle with any of that? Or when Obama went after Fox News for about a decade, and issues with that? 

 

If you did, good for you for your consistency and character. If not, I'll write it off to other folks just being human.

 

On the Russia investigation, you've been guarded in your reply, or at least seem to be to me. On the one hand, you see nothing nefarious, which I'm taking to mean that you felt the investigation was warranted, the surveillance/unmasking warranted, the SC investigation warranted, and the outcome fair.  On the other hand, you mentioned that you felt it was a waste of time, which seems contradictory to it being a very reasonable investigation.  I cant see how it would be a waste of time if it was warranted, after all, we're talking about a pres under the spell of a Russian strongman.  Then, on the third hand (we'll call it the Chernobyl hand to keep with the theme), you toss in something about those that broke the law should go to jail.  Where does that come from in a non-nefarous clandestine investigation into a president? 

 

So many questions.

 

Edit: oh, and who was the root cause of the divisiveness you mentioned last post?  

Edited July 20, 2019 by leh-nerd skin-erd

[Doc Brown]

26 minutes ago, Taro T said:

To the 1st bolded, at least 2 of "the squad" and likely 3-4 of them reference fairly often a pride in their heritage. 

 

They ALL like to decry the direction 45 is trying to take the country.  (It's politics; that's what Congress Critters do when the President doesn't have their letter after his name.)

 

He said, quite ineloquently, the countries (territory in AOC's case) that these ladies come from ( how ever many generations ago) have a lot of problems; rather than complaining (& doing nothing but complain) about this country, he told them ( or at least some of them, he never identified which he was referring to, but yet they and everybody else assumed it was all 4) to go fix your country of pride and then once you've helped fix there, then show us how to fix here.  Is that boorish and crass.  Yup.  Like most everything he tweets.  But is it racist.  Not really, IMHO.  Though would have a much harder time arguing it weren't xenophobic.

 

As to not telling Sanders to go back to where he's from, where is it Bernie's roots come from?  He's Jewish, but no data on where his ancestors emigrated from, and haven't heard him wax poetic about his homeland. 45 has given him flack for honeymooning in Russia.

 

Pretty sure he's also mocked liberals that have threatened to move to France but didn't move there.  Is that him being racist or just his typical in your face annoy those that don't agree with him.

 

As to the 2nd bolded, that seems very plausible.

The progressive view is that they appreciate living in America but are just wishing to change it for the better no matter how misguided it appears to us.  That's why their pushing for socialized medicine, free college, green new deal, increase in federal minimum wage, etc...  It doesn't mean they hate their country (although Omar may).  

 

The if you don't like it here than leave isn't a new attack.  I'm not a fan of it as it's divisive and feeds into the "us vs. them" mentality plaguing our politics  but it's certainly not out of bounds.

[Foxx]

okay, you have to admit this is a funny troll.

 

https://twitter.com/ChadPergram/status/1152700326010601477

 

[Taro T]

1 hour ago, Doc Brown said:

The progressive view message is that they appreciate living in America but are just wishing to change it for the better no matter how misguided it appears to us.  That's why how they're pushing for socialized medicine, free college, green new deal, increase in federal minimum wage, etc...  It doesn't mean they hate their country (although Omar may).  

 

The if you don't like it here than leave isn't a new attack.  I'm not a fan of it as it's divisive and feeds into the "us vs. them" mentality plaguing our politics  but it's certainly not out of bounds.

 

Really believe that changes above represent the progressive politicians' views.  Should they get their Christmas list ever enacted, this country doesn't exist as we know it.  Don't expect they ever will get it, but they only don't by us staying vigilant.

 

Do not believe that is how the rank and file think of it.  Your original paragraph is spot on towards their views IMHO.  And really believe that the rank and file see these as good things as they don't see all the other changes that need to happen to allow all that laundry list come to pass.  And that is frustrating. 

 

Agree with your 2nd paragraph.

 

[Doc Brown]

5 minutes ago, Taro T said:

 

Really believe that changes above represent the progressive politicians' views.  Should they get their Christmas list ever enacted, this country doesn't exist as we know it.  Don't expect they ever will get it, but they only don't by us staying vigilant.

 

Do not believe that is how the rank and file think of it.  Your original paragraph is spot on towards their views IMHO.  And really believe that the rank and file see these as good things as they don't see all the other changes that need to happen to allow all that laundry list come to pass.  And that is frustrating. 

 

Agree with your 2nd paragraph.

 

We're both generalizing as whether progressives love or hate their country.  It's somewhere in between for most of them.  Even if we elected somebody like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren they'd have a really hard time getting their agenda through Congress.

[BeginnersMind]

2 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Agreed, no one involved is John From Nevada, or Cindy from Kalamazoo. 

 

They are political creatures, each side dishing out heat that gets folks riled up because they knit together backstories based on their own biases. 

 

Who cares, really?  You, maybe, but you're a bit of a contortionist anyway.  I always wondered where the outrage was when Obama made elitist comments about middle America, when Hillary lead off her debate with accusations of racism and a myriad of phobias the future President was alleged to have had. 

 

Did you struggle with any of that? Or when Obama went after Fox News for about a decade, and issues with that? 

 

If you did, good for you for your consistency and character. If not, I'll write it off to other folks just being human.

 

On the Russia investigation, you've been guarded in your reply, or at least seem to be to me. On the one hand, you see nothing nefarious, which I'm taking to mean that you felt the investigation was warranted, the surveillance/unmasking warranted, the SC investigation warranted, and the outcome fair.  On the other hand, you mentioned that you felt it was a waste of time, which seems contradictory to it being a very reasonable investigation.  I cant see how it would be a waste of time if it was warranted, after all, we're talking about a pres under the spell of a Russian strongman.  Then, on the third hand (we'll call it the Chernobyl hand to keep with the theme), you toss in something about those that broke the law should go to jail.  Where does that come from in a non-nefarous clandestine investigation into a president? 

 

So many questions.

 

Edit: oh, and who was the root cause of the divisiveness you mentioned last post?  

 

I won’t bore everyone with a detailed answer. 

 

Obama was awful. One of the most divisive presidents until Trump. Obama was truly terrible. 

 

And an investigation into Russian meddling was 100% worth it. But it went too long and far too afield. It should have ended much sooner than it did and turned into a witch-hunt. Although at least in its Russian collusion conclusions it got to what seemed like a good answer. 

 

The people who broke the law, the already-prosecuted and investigators who may be prosecuted, should be prosecuted depending on what was or will be found. I believe Mueller did a good job of the former and Barr will do a good job with the later. 

[/dev/null]

25 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

We're both generalizing as whether progressives love or hate their country.  It's somewhere in between for most of them.  Even if we elected somebody like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren they'd have a really hard time getting their agenda through Congress.

 

The thing with Warren is she seems autocratic enough to not care whether Congress cooperates.

[row_33]

Just now, /dev/null said:

 

The thing with Warren is she seems autocratic enough to not care whether Congress cooperates.

 

I think she is very slow to pick up on external statements and points, so this is her strategy

[BeginnersMind]

17 minutes ago, /dev/null said:

 

The thing with Warren is she seems autocratic enough to not care whether Congress cooperates.

 

Executive orders are a president’s best friend. See Bush, Obama,Trump. 

[row_33]

7 minutes ago, BeginnersMind said:

 

Executive orders are a president’s best friend. See Bush, Obama,Trump. 

 

She won’t have to worry about any of that

[Doc Brown]

24 minutes ago, /dev/null said:

 

The thing with Warren is she seems autocratic enough to not care whether Congress cooperates.

Maybe.  However, she can't just snap her fingers to forgive student loan debt, make college free, increase the federal minimum wage, institute medicare for all, and break up the big banks/big tech companies without passing legislation in Congress.  

[/dev/null]

3 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

Maybe.  However, she can't just snap her fingers to forgive student loan debt, make college free, increase the federal minimum wage, institute medicare for all, and break up the big banks/big tech companies without passing legislation in Congress.  

 

True, but she can direct the DoJ to give a low priority to adjudicate student loan default cases.  Or issue an order that Federal contracts are awarded to companies with a $15 minimum wage.  She could also declare a "Gun Emergency" that halts all Federally mandated background checks on gun purchases, and while this is in place how many gun stores and pawn shops would go under until only the woke corporate entities like Walmart or D*cks can sell a gun?

[Azalin]

5 hours ago, BeginnersMind said:

 

This is 100% truth. It’s hard to find the crew here being critical of Trump. 

 

You need to go back around 20 pages or so to the threads dealing with the 2016 republican primaries. If you do, you'll see almost everyone here was opposed to Trump, some vehemently so, and with that perspective should see how Trump has won people over. 

[Doc Brown]

16 minutes ago, /dev/null said:

 

True, but she can direct the DoJ to give a low priority to adjudicate student loan default cases.  Or issue an order that Federal contracts are awarded to companies with a $15 minimum wage.  She could also declare a "Gun Emergency" that halts all Federally mandated background checks on gun purchases, and while this is in place how many gun stores and pawn shops would go under until only the woke corporate entities like Walmart or D*cks can sell a gun?

She could and that's why Trump declaring a National Emergency for wall funding was short-sighted.  Same goes for Harry Reid for lowering the vote threshold to 51 for judges and cabinet member nominations.

[Taro T]

3 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

We're both generalizing as whether progressives love or hate their country.  It's somewhere in between for most of them.  Even if we elected somebody like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren they'd have a really hard time getting their agenda through Congress.

 

Little doubt of that.  But really didn't expect 44 to have a Super Majority (short lived as it was).  So, would prefer to not see what sort of damage they could work with Pelosi & Shummer not what Executive Orders either would come up with.

[njbuff]

AOC is the type that would say............

 

"I want to invent an invention that would invent inventions"