Social AOC blasts ‘Jesus gets us’ Super Bowl ads, says they endorse ‘fascism’

[SmilinDesperado]

Are you seriously arguing that AOC doesn't grandstand for attention? People are just pointing out the obvious, and you're getting all mad like you're defending your wife's honor or some shit. Whether or not she actually believes in what she's protesting/arguing for is up for debate, but there's no debating that she hams it up for the cameras a lot. Most politicians do. She just happens to be more obvious than most, because she's not a great actress.

Why do you dorks always try to tell people they're mad instead of just staying on the topic? We are debating, would you like me to add some winky faces between sentences to let you know everything is okay?
I haven't called anyone any names until now because you're asking stupid questions.
Get out of here with this "Derp derp you love AOC" idiocy. The larger issue that I am pointing out has nothing to do with AOC, it is that a lot of you guys have an inability to critically think about and engage with ideas and people that you disagree with.

 

[SmilinDesperado]

Yeah, before you get cuffed. If you're not cuffed, however, it is absolutely not normal to walk around and pretend that you are. Which is what she did. What is your reasoning for her holding her hands behind her back, and pretending to be cuffed? It wasn't a flash in time, where her hands were there for a second or two because she thought she was being cuffed. She walked around pretending to be cuffed.

Is it normal to get arrested? Is there a "normal" procedure to where one should put their hands when they're arrested and not handcuffed?
Common sense would dictate that if you are getting arrested, that your hands should be where the cops can see them, especially when the cop is standing behind you and is grasping your arm.

What is the reason to pretend to be handcuffed in broad day light when everyone can literally see that you are not? How could she control or predict what picture, from what angle of her would be uploaded to the internet? What does she gain from pretending to be handcuffed while being real arrested?

 

[HereticBD]

Why do you dorks always try to tell people they're mad instead of just staying on the topic? We are debating, would you like me to add some winky faces between sentences to let you know everything is okay?
I haven't called anyone any names until now because you're asking stupid questions.
Get out of here with this "Derp derp you love AOC" idiocy. The larger issue that I am pointing out has nothing to do with AOC, it is that a lot of you guys have an inability to critically think about and engage with ideas and people that you disagree with.

You've written about three novels about the "nuance" over her holding her hands behind her back and pretending to be handcuffed, because you can't accept that she grandstands and performs for the cameras. Clearly, calling her out for what is obvious for anyone to see, has clearly struck a nerve. She's as pure as the driven snow to you, and would never do such a thing...even though she's been busted multiple times trying to dress shit up for the cameras.

 

[SmilinDesperado]

Where are you getting any of that absolute drivel from. “You people” who the fuck are you talking about? Where have I referred to her as being evil or a retard? Where did I say she didn’t care about abortion rights? Nowhere. As for the rest your retort if you fail to see the obvious logic there’s nothing more to say to you except enjoy your weekend

Is it not obvious that I am talking to multiple people in this thread that are more or less making similar arguments? Why are "you guys" getting so butthurt about my use of "you guys" ?
Drax, I am not saying yu literally called her evil. I am saying that when you say things like 'she is pretending to be arrested at an abortion protest', it makes it sound as if you are.
Only a really stupid person, or a person severely lacking in morals would pretend to get handcuffed in plain sight just to gain attention for themselves.

 

[HereticBD]

What is the reason to pretend to be handcuffed in broad day light when everyone can literally see that you are not?

You've asked this question multiple times, and the answer is obvious to everyone but you and has been given. You just refuse to see it. Just because it was a dumb stunt that everyone(but you, apparently) saw through, doesn't mean it wasn't intentional.

 

[SmilinDesperado]

You've written about three novels about the "nuance" over her holding her hands behind her back and pretending to be handcuffed, because you can't accept that she grandstands and performs for the cameras. Clearly, calling her out for what is obvious for anyone to see, has clearly struck a nerve. She's as pure as the driven snow to you, and would never do such a thing...even though she's been busted multiple times trying to dress shit up for the cameras.

The guy that starts a conversation with me complains that I answer back in detail on a message board.
Same old stupid retorts.
derp derp you want to marry AoC derp derp u mad?
Get some new material, mate.

 

[HereticBD]

The guy that starts a conversation with me complains that I answer back in detail on a message board.

Just because you've written a lot of words, does not mean it's a detailed response. Half of them are just attacking people pointing out the obvious to you, because it bothers you that people recognize AOC's obvious grandstanding. You don't need a thousand words to say "I don't believe she did that"

And you don't have to believe it, but that would take a lot blissful ignorance on one's part. Your logic of her stunts being genuine and totally not intentional, because she gets busted doing it, is ridiculous.

 

[SmilinDesperado]

Just because you've written a lot of words, does not mean it's a detailed response. Half of them are just attacking people pointing out the obvious to you, because it bothers you that people recognize AOC's obvious grandstanding. You don't need a thousand words to say "I don't believe she did that"

And you don't have to believe it, but that would take a lot blissful ignorance on one's part. Your logic of her stunts being genuine and totally not intentional, because she gets busted doing it, is ridiculous.

Trying to play therapist and repeating "it's obvious, u just refuse to see it" over and over isn't an argument, and it isn't saying anything of worth. Have a good one, champ.
I'm glad you got a chance to work out that psych degree on here at least.

 

[mkess101]

So despite all logic and reason you stick to an opinion that doesn't make any sense.
It somehow makes more sense to pretend to be handcuffed in broad day light, surrounded by witnesses and cameras to gain.....nothing.
That somehow makes more sense than putting your hands behind your back because that is literally how anyone that gets arrested would get arrested? If that's your final answer, there's not much else to say about your charity when it comes to your skepticism.

You didn't even address what her actual issue is--it's not even "her" issue, as she isn't the only one that has said it, so you don't even need to make this about AOC.
I know you don't think you set an impossible standard, I am saying that is the standard you have set. If she's too stupid, or too much of an attention whore to get fake hand cuffed (but real arrested) in broad day light surounded by crowds and cameras then there isn't anything she'll ever be able to say or do that will come off as authentic.

That's my point, I tried to edit my post but no, you don't cross your hands behind your back and leave them like that unless the cops are asking you to do it so they can cuff you. People who go willingly and are not deemed any sort of threat by police are NOT expected to nor do they normally keep their wrists crossed behind their back like that. So I absolutely reject your notion of that aspect.

And quite frankly, I don't think AOC put all of this forethought into that action to where she was rifling through all the aspects of doing that at the time. It was a spur of the moment thing meant to resonate. An emotional issue for her and she wanted to garner attention and make some sort of statement. You think she needs to be "stupid" to get caught up in a moment of high emotion and do something to as some sort of gesture? Do you know how many smart people have allowed emotion to override their intelligence throughout history?

So no, I don't find her to generally be a very authentic person. Just as she doesn't believe Hobby Lobby to be very authentic in urging people to be kind, generous, etc. I'd never take away her right to comment on it, she has every right in the world to tweet how she feels. But don't I then also have the right to comment on how I don't believe her to be very genuine either?

 

[Whippy McGee]

At this point, AOC is mostly worthless.

She has her moments, but she also has these dipshit moments that cloud over when she hits on something. Clearly there are better options, but the people of that area deserve what they get with the dummy.

 

[Flower2dPeople]

Idk what's going on here but whenever I see an AOC thread, all I can think about was the gofundme for her abuela. Lol!

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Falwell Jr hands out the endorsements and not the brother. Falwell Jr has expelled students for having pre marital sex. Too bad some of those male students were not hot enough for his wife, because they could have had all the sex they wanted.

I know who gives endorsements. I also know that he's a school administrator and not a member of the clergy.

As for the expulsions; I don't believe you. Can you cite a single instance?

“We do the education even though obviously our rule would prohibit sex outside of marriage,” Hine said. “Just because we prohibit it doesn’t mean it’s still not going to be considered by young adults with hormones raging.”​

Hine said the school impresses on male students that a woman could reach a point at which she is unable to consent to sexual activity. Hine and Liberty President Jerry Falwell Jr. said they could not recall the last time the university disciplined a student for breaking the premarital sex ban.
​

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...7ebb50-083d-11e4-bbf1-cc51275e7f8f_story.html

 

[SmilinDesperado]

That's my point, I tried to edit my post but no, you don't cross your hands behind your back and leave them like that unless the cops are asking you to do it so they can cuff you. People who go willingly and are not deemed any sort of threat by police are NOT expected to nor do they normally keep their wrists crossed behind their back like that. So I absolutely reject your notion of that aspect.

I don't mean to come off as condescending, but you're smarter than this. The entire framework and idea of this conversation is ridiculous.

You are talking about getting arrested as if it is some normal occurrence for an individual to experience. Not to mention the rationale of why one would pretend to be handcuffed anyways.

How many times does a person get arrested in their life? How often do people get arrested and not handcuffed?
You are making this strong declaration that "people are not deemed a threat, and not expected to keep their hands behind their back if the officer doesn't cuff you" as if getting arrested is something that people normally experience. And why would the person getting arrested play with what the cop may or may not deem a threat? The safest position would be for your hands to be where they can see them--behind your back.
I've never been arrested, but every time I've seen someone get arrested, they've had their hands cuffed behind their back.
ESPECIALLY in today's climate, to act like it is odd for someone to put their hands behind their back is ridiculous.

Here she is getting arrested. A cop grabs her left arm from behind, she puts her hands behind her back, they walk about 5 steps, and she raises her right fist.
And then you can see Ilhan Omar doing the same thing, walking with her hands behind her back.
I'm sounding like a broken record here, and this is the last time I'm going to say this, but they are outside, surrounded by people and cameras, so the idea that they think they are fooling people into thinking they are being handcuffed makes no sense on every conceivable level.
How do you "pretend" to be handcuffed and then literally raise your "pretend handcuffed" fist half of a second later?
If you're still gonna go with this pretend handcuff story then there is no breaking this AOCDS. There is plenty of actual shit to criticize AOC on, so this is just a bizarre hill to die on.

And quite frankly, I don't think AOC put all of this forethought into that action to where she was rifling through all the aspects of doing that at the time. It was a spur of the moment thing meant to resonate. An emotional issue for her and she wanted to garner attention and make some sort of statement. You think she needs to be "stupid" to get caught up in a moment of high emotion and do something to as some sort of gesture? Do you know how many smart people have allowed emotion to override their intelligence throughout history?

As I said, this is the impossible standard that you have set up here.
She's a politician whose job it is to represent her constiuents, she comes from an activist background, and she is literally at a protest. What is the purpose of a protest? To call attention to an issue. She's doing exactly what she should be doing, and you boil that down to her just seeking attention for herself.
So she doesn't actually care about abortion, the environment, or poor people. She turns away companies like Amazon, and gets shit on by the establishment Democratic party....all for attention?
I wonder what would grab her more attention, being the "crazy" outcast leftie that supports "crazy" Bernie, and is disliked by most of the other establishment Democrats, orrrrrrr, being a mainstream liberal that backs up Pelosi, and gets celebrities like Taylor Swift or Beyonce to hang out with Joe Biden to make him look cool and 'hip" ?

So no, I don't find her to generally be a very authentic person. Just as she doesn't believe Hobby Lobby to be very authentic in urging people to be kind, generous, etc. I'd never take away her right to comment on it, she has every right in the world to tweet how she feels. But don't I then also have the right to comment on how I don't believe her to be very genuine either?

The comparison is ridiculous. How do you compare a person and an organization?
This is just a "whataboutism" that completely ignores the point that was being made. Whether you think she is authentic or not is irrelevant to the argument.
It is not even a question of who is more or less authentic. What does that have to do with what the argument is?

This is simple:
Left Wing: Abortion is a woman's right.
Right Wing: Abortion is Murder.

Hobby Lobby : 1. Funding the right wing legal cases to ban abortion and contraception.
2. Makes commercial promoting peace.

Left Wing: Your commercial is bullshit. There is no peace or love, because you are currently working at taking the rights to my own body away from me.
Right Wing: Why are you against peace and kindness ?

What is the middle, or "peace" between murder and taking my rights away?

If Planned Parenthood was funding that ad, then Ted Cruz or MTG would be just as within their right to say that the ad was bullshit because Planned Parenthood "is funding child murder", so how can they simulatenously try to sell us a message of peace while killing our kids?
That's the argument. What does any of this other stuff about AOC crying, or "pretending" to be handcuffed have to do with anything?

 

[mkess101]

I don't mean to come off as condescending, but you're smarter than this. The entire framework and idea of this conversation is ridiculous.

You are talking about getting arrested as if it is some normal occurrence for an individual to experience. Not to mention the rationale of why one would pretend to be handcuffed anyways.

How many times does a person get arrested in their life? How often do people get arrested and not handcuffed?
You are making this strong declaration that "people are not deemed a threat, and not expected to keep their hands behind their back if the officer doesn't cuff you" as if getting arrested is something that people normally experience. And why would the person getting arrested play with what the cop may or may not deem a threat? The safest position would be for your hands to be where they can see them--behind your back.
I've never been arrested, but every time I've seen someone get arrested, they've had their hands cuffed behind their back.
ESPECIALLY in today's climate, to act like it is odd for someone to put their hands behind their back is ridiculous.

Here she is getting arrested. A cop grabs her left arm from behind, she puts her hands behind her back, they walk about 5 steps, and she raises her right fist.
And then you can see Ilhan Omar doing the same thing, walking with her hands behind her back.
I'm sounding like a broken record here, and this is the last time I'm going to say this, but they are outside, surrounded by people and cameras, so the idea that they think they are fooling people into thinking they are being handcuffed makes no sense on every conceivable level.
How do you "pretend" to be handcuffed and then literally raise your "pretend handcuffed" fist half of a second later?
If you're still gonna go with this pretend handcuff story then there is no breaking this AOCDS. There is plenty of actual shit to criticize AOC on, so this is just a bizarre hill to die on.


As I said, this is the impossible standard that you have set up here.
She's a politician whose job it is to represent her constiuents, she comes from an activist background, and she is literally at a protest. What is the purpose of a protest? To call attention to an issue. She's doing exactly what she should be doing, and you boil that down to her just seeking attention for herself.
So she doesn't actually care about abortion, the environment, or poor people. She turns away companies like Amazon, and gets shit on by the establishment Democratic party....all for attention?
I wonder what would grab her more attention, being the "crazy" outcast leftie that supports "crazy" Bernie, and is disliked by most of the other establishment Democrats, orrrrrrr, being a mainstream liberal that backs up Pelosi, and gets celebrities like Taylor Swift or Beyonce to hang out with Joe Biden to make him look cool and 'hip" ?



The comparison is ridiculous. How do you compare a person and an organization?
This is just a "whataboutism" that completely ignores the point that was being made. Whether you think she is authentic or not is irrelevant to the argument.
It is not even a question of who is more or less authentic. What does that have to do with what the argument is?

This is simple:
Left Wing: Abortion is a woman's right.
Right Wing: Abortion is Murder.

Hobby Lobby : 1. Funding the right wing legal cases to ban abortion and contraception.
2. Makes commercial promoting peace.

Left Wing: Your commercial is bullshit. There is no peace or love, because you are currently working at taking the rights to my own body away from me.
Right Wing: Why are you against peace and kindness ?

What is the middle, or "peace" between murder and taking my rights away?

If Planned Parenthood was funding that ad, then Ted Cruz or MTG would be just as within their right to say that the ad was bullshit because Planned Parenthood "is funding child murder", so how can they simulatenously try to sell us a message of peace while killing our kids?
That's the argument. What does any of this other stuff about AOC crying, or "pretending" to be handcuffed have to do with anything?

A lot to unpack here. From the actual video I saw, she put her hands back behind her a few times and had them there quite awhile. My visceral reaction was "That's ridiculous, it's obvious at this point the police are not expecting it and she knows it and she's putting on a show." You are free to disagree, but it's not like I'm the only one who felt this way. It's not blind partisanship either, I'll gladly call out conservatives/republicans who pull that kind of shit (and they do, all the time). I lean right, but this isn't some witch hunt to trash a liberal that I disagree with politically. From what I've seen, she's not a genuine person and this stunt falls in line with that.

Notice that when she raises her fist in the air, there is ZERO reaction to it. None. The cop does not care, is not worried about it, just keeps moving along like they're out for a walk. She then puts her arms back behind her and crosses her wrists as though she's being cuffed LOL! This is what I mean by it being a stunt.

How do you compare a person and an organization? Organizations are made up of people. It's human beings sitting in a room deciding "Hey, let's spend the $ to run this ad." It's not some alien AI program with no human input that's making these decisions.

If you read my view in its entirety, it was also that extremely few people would even know that Hobby Lobby was funding the ads. We had 20 people at our house for a Super Bowl party. There were a few generic comments on the commercials by multiple people, but nobody had any clue whatsoever what the ads were even for and damn sure not who was paying for them. So one of the things I said was that AOC desperately wanted to be the "bringer of light and truth" by "exposing"...whatever she thinks she was exposing. The reality is the the majority of America would have simply seen commercials saying "Hey, be good to each other. Jesus was." They'd have no clue about any controversy at all. IMO it's another attention grab by AOC. You can absolutely disagree and think she's "serving her constituents". That's why we can all form our own views. That's why to me it DOES matter that she doesn't seem to be a genuine person. I question her motive for even bringing it up at all.

Yes, I think she's found her shtick that garners her attention. And yes, I think it's playing the "outcast". Can I read her mind, do I absolutely KNOW this to be true? Of course not. Do I think that because she craves attention and has found her wheelhouse to get it that she doesn't care AT ALL about her causes? No. It's not black and white, it can be both. But what matters more to her? I have my view, and you have yours.

 

[SmilinDesperado]

A lot to unpack here. From the actual video I saw, she put her hands back behind her a few times and had them there quite awhile. My visceral reaction was "That's ridiculous, it's obvious at this point the police are not expecting it and she knows it and she's putting on a show." You are free to disagree, but it's not like I'm the only one who felt this way. It's not blind partisanship either, I'll gladly call out conservatives/republicans who pull that kind of shit (and they do, all the time). I lean right, but this isn't some witch hunt to trash a liberal that I disagree with politically. From what I've seen, she's not a genuine person and this stunt falls in line with that.



So one of the things I said was that AOC desperately wanted to be the "bringer of light and truth" by "exposing"...whatever she thinks she was exposing. The reality is the the majority of America would have simply seen commercials saying "Hey, be good to each other. Jesus was." They'd have no clue about any controversy at all. IMO it's another attention grab by AOC. You can absolutely disagree and think she's "serving her constituents". That's why we can all form our own views. That's why to me it DOES matter that she doesn't seem to be a genuine person. I question her motive for even bringing it up at all.

Yes, I think she's found her shtick that garners her attention. And yes, I think it's playing the "outcast". Can I read her mind, do I absolutely KNOW this to be true? Of course not. Do I think that because she craves attention and has found her wheelhouse to get it that she doesn't care AT ALL about her causes? No. It's not black and white, it can be both. But what matters more to her? I have my view, and you have yours.

We've had enough exchanges that I know you aren't a blind partisan, but, the general hate for AOC isn't partisan. Plenty of people within the Democratic party don't like her, and plenty of people are completely unreasonable when speaking about her.
The issue I have with your judgement of her authenticity, is that when THIS is one of your examples, your credibility on being able to judge goes in the toliet.

Notice that when she raises her fist in the air, there is ZERO reaction to it. None. The cop does not care, is not worried about it, just keeps moving along like they're out for a walk. She then puts her arms back behind her and crosses her wrists as though she's being cuffed LOL! This is what I mean by it being a stunt.

As I said, you have set an impossible standard. You call a female congresswoman getting arrested and raising her fist as she gets escorted away from an abortion rally a "stunt".
COMPLETELY ignoring all context of who she is and why she is there.
I guess she should just be in her office writing stuff all day? Or spend all of her time meeitng with lobbyists like the rest of Congress? She shouldn't be on camera, tweeting, or show her face in public?
I don't mean you specifically, but people that say stuff like this would be the same people that would be calling MLK an attention whore. (and no, I am not saying AOC is MLK.) The entire point of being a public figure is to use your power to bring attention to things for change.

Who cares that the cop didn't react? He's obviously not threatened by a female Congresswoman. What does that matter?
Why are you only looking at this from the cop's perspective/feeling when we're talking about AOC's actions?
She doesn't know this cop. Why should she just trust that he is cool with her doing whatever with her hands?
Putting your hands behind your back when you're getting arrested is the most rational thing one could do in that moment. I find it amazing that you are arguing against such a simple idea.

How do you compare a person and an organization? Organizations are made up of people. It's human beings sitting in a room deciding "Hey, let's spend the $ to run this ad." It's not some alien AI program with no human input that's making these decisions.

Is a person and people the same thing, especially when we're talking about a relgious/political organization vs. a single person/politician? Come on.
You don't judge the so-called authenticity of a organization and of an individual as if you're comparing two apples.
ESPECIALLY when your so-called evidence is "i think she is pretending to be handcuffed because she wants attention" vs. "This company verifiably spent X amount of money on this legal fund, and is now putting out a commercial saying _____"
The former is in your head and feelings. The latter is straight forward, observable facts.

If you read my view in its entirety, it was also that extremely few people would even know that Hobby Lobby was funding the ads.

I read your posts in their entirety, and again, you have an impossible standard based off of an extreme bias. You have sidestepped all the facts and are just going to how you feel.
You said AOC was pretending to be handcuffed. I show you a video of her raising her fist 1 second after "pretending to be handcuffed". How does one fail so hard at "pretend" ?

We had 20 people at our house for a Super Bowl party. There were a few generic comments on the commercials by multiple people, but nobody had any clue whatsoever what the ads were even for and damn sure not who was paying for them.

You act as if AOC is your buddy's know it all girlfriend that tried to lecture you on who Hobby Lobby is while you were watching the Super Bowl.
She is a well known, left wing politician, that campaigned on the evils and influence of corporate money. Abortion rights in the US are currently under attack, and she is obviously going to fight that. She was arrested for it last year.....all of these things are straight up facts, right?
So what is the logical conclusion to all of this information? What would you expect a person in her position to do knowing all of this?

So, in your world, knowing all of this information, as a left wing politician that is CURRENTLY trying to fight for abortion rights and is against lobbyist influence, in your world, she should have just shut up and not tweeted anything? (because sending Tweets is attention whoring apparently---but the way you've framed it's as if she had a press conference and appeared on a dozen talk shows)
And you think that because people had no clue about Hobby Lobby, that that doesn't illustrate the exact reason why it is so important to bring that information to light?

It may not be because of partisanship, but, dude, you are not remotely looking at this objectively.
Didn't even address what the actual argument was because you are so fixated on AOC. "exposing whatever she thinks she was exposing" lol Jesus Christ, man.

 

[mkess101]

We've had enough exchanges that I know you aren't a blind partisan, but, the general hate for AOC isn't partisan. Plenty of people within the Democratic party don't like her, and plenty of people are completely unreasonable when speaking about her.
The issue I have with your judgement of her authenticity, is that when THIS is one of your examples, your credibility on being able to judge goes in the toliet.



As I said, you have set an impossible standard. You call a female congresswoman getting arrested and raising her fist as she gets escorted away from an abortion rally a "stunt".
COMPLETELY ignoring all context of who she is and why she is there.
I guess she should just be in her office writing stuff all day? Or spend all of her time meeitng with lobbyists like the rest of Congress? She shouldn't be on camera, tweeting, or show her face in public?
I don't mean you specifically, but people that say stuff like this would be the same people that would be calling MLK an attention whore. (and no, I am not saying AOC is MLK.) The entire point of being a public figure is to use your power to bring attention to things for change.

Who cares that the cop didn't react? He's obviously not threatened by a female Congresswoman. What does that matter?
Why are you only looking at this from the cop's perspective/feeling when we're talking about AOC's actions?
She doesn't know this cop. Why should she just trust that he is cool with her doing whatever with her hands?
Putting your hands behind your back when you're getting arrested is the most rational thing one could do in that moment. I find it amazing that you are arguing against such a simple idea.



Is a person and people the same thing, especially when we're talking about a relgious/political organization vs. a single person/politician? Come on.
You don't judge the so-called authenticity of a organization and of an individual as if you're comparing two apples.
ESPECIALLY when your so-called evidence is "i think she is pretending to be handcuffed because she wants attention" vs. "This company verifiably spent X amount of money on this legal fund, and is now putting out a commercial saying _____"
The former is in your head and feelings. The latter is straight forward, observable facts.



I read your posts in their entirety, and again, you have an impossible standard based off of an extreme bias. You have sidestepped all the facts and are just going to how you feel.
You said AOC was pretending to be handcuffed. I show you a video of her raising her fist 1 second after "pretending to be handcuffed". How does one fail so hard at "pretend" ?


You act as if AOC is your buddy's know it all girlfriend that tried to lecture you on who Hobby Lobby is while you were watching the Super Bowl.
She is a well known, left wing politician, that campaigned on the evils and influence of corporate money. Abortion rights in the US are currently under attack, and she is obviously going to fight that. She was arrested for it last year.....all of these things are straight up facts, right?
So what is the logical conclusion to all of this information? What would you expect a person in her position to do knowing all of this?

So, in your world, knowing all of this information, as a left wing politician that is CURRENTLY trying to fight for abortion rights and is against lobbyist influence, in your world, she should have just shut up and not tweeted anything? (because sending Tweets is attention whoring apparently---but the way you've framed it's as if she had a press conference and appeared on a dozen talk shows)
And you think that because people had no clue about Hobby Lobby, that that doesn't illustrate the exact reason why it is so important to bring that information to light?

It may not be because of partisanship, but, dude, you are not remotely looking at this objectively.
Didn't even address what the actual argument was because you are so fixated on AOC. "exposing whatever she thinks she was exposing" lol Jesus Christ, man.

I mean, we aren't gonna see eye to eye on this one. She "didn't know the cop or how he'd react so put her arms behind her back"...but felt just fine and safe raising her fist in the air? Which is it?

You and I have had good exchanges even when we disagree, but this one will likely be fruitless.

And again, I'm not saying what she **should** or shouldn't do. I'm saying I find her disingenuous, and thus question her motives. I am not inside her head. I obviously don't know for a fact I'm right. It's simply how I view her as of now.

She's free to criticize Hobby Lobby. I'm free to criticize her. It's a great country.

 

[SmilinDesperado]

I mean, we aren't gonna see eye to eye on this one. She "didn't know the cop or how he'd react so put her arms behind her back"...but felt just fine and safe raising her fist in the air? Which is it?

You and I have had good exchanges even when we disagree, but this one will likely be fruitless.

And again, I'm not saying what she **should** or shouldn't do. I'm saying I find her disingenuous, and thus question her motives. I am not inside her head. I obviously don't know for a fact I'm right. It's simply how I view her as of now.

She's free to criticize Hobby Lobby. I'm free to criticize her. It's a great country.

I'm going to drop the handcuff thing, because that is a dead end. My goal wasn't to change your mind on how authentic AOC is, I just find that to be quite possibly the worst example available to show her lack of authenticity. There are better examples that I would have either understood, or, even agreed with you on, on some level. But anyways...

We've had plenty of good exchanges, so, I don't have issue with disagreeing, but I am pressing a bit more because I think you are missing, or avoiding the point that I was trying to make.
This isn't about who is free to do what. Of course all parties are free to think and say whatever they want about whomever they want. That wasn't in question.

From some of your answers, I'm honestly curious what you expect a politician to do with their time ? Particularly in the house when you're 1 of 435 members, and you're a minority in your own party.
Should they literally just be in a building writing and reading laws? Should a politician not be involved in protests? No tweeting?
They shouldn't speak on lobbyists, corporations, and how their money is moving politics?
I'm actually asking here--not rhetorically. From what you've typed, I really don't know what you expect a member to be doing.
Because in my eyes, if I see Bernie Sanders go to a Walmart shareholders meeting to pressure them to pay a fairer wage, or an AOC join in an abortion protest, that's right in line with what I expect to see from someone I vote for. (Of course along with voting the right way and making laws that align with my beliefs, among other things)
This doesn't need to be about AOC, which is kind of the point I've been making all along. My, or your feelings on her authenticity about an unrelated topic or incident doesn't change the facts of the argument.

 

[mkess101]

I'm going to drop the handcuff thing, because that is a dead end. My goal wasn't to change your mind on how authentic AOC is, I just find that to be quite possibly the worst example available to show her lack of authenticity. There are better examples that I would have either understood, or, even agreed with you on, on some level. But anyways...

We've had plenty of good exchanges, so, I don't have issue with disagreeing, but I am pressing a bit more because I think you are missing, or avoiding the point that I was trying to make.
This isn't about who is free to do what. Of course all parties are free to think and say whatever they want about whomever they want. That wasn't in question.

From some of your answers, I'm honestly curious what you expect a politician to do with their time ? Particularly in the house when you're 1 of 435 members, and you're a minority in your own party.
Should they literally just be in a building writing and reading laws? Should a politician not be involved in protests? No tweeting?
They shouldn't speak on lobbyists, corporations, and how their money is moving politics?
I'm actually asking here--not rhetorically. From what you've typed, I really don't know what you expect a member to be doing.
Because in my eyes, if I see Bernie Sanders go to a Walmart shareholders meeting to pressure them to pay a fairer wage, or an AOC join in an abortion protest, that's right in line with what I expect to see from someone I vote for. (Of course along with voting the right way and making laws that align with my beliefs, among other things)
This doesn't need to be about AOC, which is kind of the point I've been making all along. My, or your feelings on her authenticity about an unrelated topic or incident doesn't change the facts of the argument.

I guess I'm confused because the reason I don't find her genuine has nothing to do with "how she spends her time". Did I imply she shouldn't attend rallies or tweet about things?

That's the reason the handcuff thing IS important. Her being there wouldn't make me think she's a bit phony. Her pulling the handcuff stunt does.

Does that answer your question? I **think** that's what you were asking?

 

[SmilinDesperado]

I guess I'm confused because the reason I don't find her genuine has nothing to do with "how she spends her time". Did I imply she shouldn't attend rallies or tweet about things?

That's the reason the handcuff thing IS important. Her being there wouldn't make me think she's a bit phony. Her pulling the handcuff stunt does.

Does that answer your question? I **think** that's what you were asking?

I think the disconnect here is that I'm not trying to defend or prove her authenticity, and that seems to be what your sole focus is. I just got kind of sucked into it because that's all everyone in here was talking about.
I don't think her authenticity has anything to do with the criticism she made of Hobby Lobby, because it's not even "her" argument. She didn't personally do the investigative research on Hobby Lobby, and she wasn't the first one to point it out online.
I care about the argument made, not what people think of her.


Wooof. Iol I just can't with the handcuff "stunt". I'm legit baffled by this take, so I'm just not going to touch it.
From what you've said, I'm just not clear what you think a politician's responsibility is beyond maybe voting on bills?
You've made it clear that you think she is in this for attention. As I see it, her job, espeically as a minority in her party, is to get attention to issues that aren't getting attention. So if she isn't doing things to bring attention to those issues, I don't know what you think she, or other politicians should be doing. So, to me, there is an implication that she shoudln't be going to rallies or tweeting.
With the topic of this thread....she just sent a tweet out, and people act like she went on a press tour. She doesn't even do much TV appearances, and doesn't even go on left wing shows much. But sending a tweet from your couch is attention seeking?

.

So one of the things I said was that AOC desperately wanted to be the "bringer of light and truth" by "exposing"...whatever she thinks she was exposing. The reality is the the majority of America would have simply seen commercials saying "Hey, be good to each other. Jesus was." They'd have no clue about any controversy at all.

She tweets out information that her constiuents would find interesting, and that the general public should probably know, and you seem to disapprove of that as well. (and that is also, *surprisesurprise* considered attention seeking)

So, my question is, what do you think a politician's job is? What should they be doing with their time in your opinon? This isn't a gotcha question. From what you've written, I don't know. And in general, I do think it is very likely that my ideas on what a politician should be doing, and someone in the middle, right, far right, etc, may differ.

 

[mkess101]

I think the disconnect here is that I'm not trying to defend or prove her authenticity, and that seems to be what your sole focus is. I just got kind of sucked into it because that's all everyone in here was talking about.
I don't think her authenticity has anything to do with the criticism she made of Hobby Lobby, because it's not even "her" argument. She didn't personally do the investigative research on Hobby Lobby, and she wasn't the first one to point it out online.
I care about the argument made, not what people think of her.


Wooof. Iol I just can't with the handcuff "stunt". I'm legit baffled by this take, so I'm just not going to touch it.
From what you've said, I'm just not clear what you think a politician's responsibility is beyond maybe voting on bills?
You've made it clear that you think she is in this for attention. As I see it, her job, espeically as a minority in her party, is to get attention to issues that aren't getting attention. So if she isn't doing things to bring attention to those issues, I don't know what you think she, or other politicians should be doing. So, to me, there is an implication that she shoudln't be going to rallies or tweeting.
With the topic of this thread....she just sent a tweet out, and people act like she went on a press tour. She doesn't even do much TV appearances, and doesn't even go on left wing shows much. But sending a tweet from your couch is attention seeking?

.

She tweets out information that her constiuents would find interesting, and that the general public should probably know, and you seem to disapprove of that as well. (and that is also, *surprisesurprise* considered attention seeking)

So, my question is, what do you think a politician's job is? What should they be doing with their time in your opinon? This isn't a gotcha question. From what you've written, I don't know. And in general, I do think it is very likely that my ideas on what a politician should be doing, and someone in the middle, right, far right, etc, may differ.

Mostly, politicians should vote on bills, write legislation to help people, etc. But again, I never said she "shouldn't" tweet, etc. So you sort of keep repeating that, but I never said it. I just said that I don't find her genuine, and that will taint the information she tries to disseminate because I doubt her overall motivations with it.

And yes, I think the authenticity and how genuine a representative of the people is does matter. To me anyway. It doesn't have to matter to everyone.