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

[SmilinDesperado]

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.

I'm not saying you directly said that, but your specific criticisms make it definitely seem like that is what you were saying. But, I'll take your word for it if that's not what you meant.
As I was saying about your impossible standard, there's not much to discuss/debate in regards to her if your starting point is she's not a genuine actor--especially to the degree that you think she lacks authenticity. And that's all good.


To be clear, I'm not saying that the authenticity of a representative doesn't matter. I was just saying it shouldn't of been a factor in this case; or be used as a blanket to dismiss everything a person ever says.
In my counter example, Ted Cruz and MTG (two people that I have no respect for and don't believe have an authentic bone in their body) could have made the same case as AOC did and it would be just as valid to me. I know they're against abortion so them calling out Planned Parenthood would fall right in line with what they believe. I wouldn't need to bring up Jewish space lasers or Cancun in order to discuss their "pro-life" argument.

 

[Bald1]

..m
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.

Now I will be condescending here.


Reality doesn't matter. All that matters is to get out sound bites or to solidify first impressions. Then print retractions on the back page somewhere later.

This is the same woman who set up a fence 8n a lot and pretended to be crying on the border, right? Theatrics is a thing and she's well versed in it.

 

[S Class]

AOC, the only waitress to bring nothing to the table.

 

[SmilinDesperado]

Now I will be condescending here.


Reality doesn't matter. All that matters is to get out sound bites or to solidify first impressions. Then print retractions on the back page somewhere later.

This is the same woman who set up a fence 8n a lot and pretended to be crying on the border, right? Theatrics is a thing and she's well versed in it.

Reality doesn't matter to ya'll, because whenever I ask specific questions to factual statements, the only thing I get in return is "it's obvious, y dont u see it?", "you just love AOC", or 'this one time she cried and i think that was fake too".
Noneeeeeeeee of these things address the facts or back up what you're claiming.

Your statement above is extremely vague and can apply to anyone and anything.
If we're still talking about the "pretend being handcuffed" thing, no one has said anything that makes sense on that. In the age of Social media, the idea that this is the best she could do to get out her message "to solidify first impressions" is ridiculous. She can't control who takes pictures of her and where and how they post them in a protest. And no one in the media even likes her.
Even TYT and Kyle Kulinski routinely criticize her.
If attention is what she wanted, all she has to do is kiss a little ass and people would line up to fawn over her. In order for your narrative on her to make sense she has to be a complete moron, and be completely fake about everything that she says.

This is the same woman who set up a fence 8n a lot and pretended to be crying on the border, right? Theatrics is a thing and she's well versed in it.

You guys have just labeled something as theater and roll with it as if it's fact.
You'll take one picture that one right wing outlet posts and titles, and just take that as reality, despite there being video, other pictures, and an actual real story behind the photo that disproves it.

Why would she need to pretend to cry?
Women cry about everything, how is it so hard to believe a woman would cry about children being locked up in a detention center?
The left are all sensitive, tree hugging, pussies, but our women also need to fake cry over kids dying? Make it make sense.
AOC personally did work as an intern under Senator Kennedy where she worked with and talked to latin migrants....why does she need to "pretend" to care about this issue?
These arguments that you guys make don't make any sense.

 

[Post 2 Decision]

Atheists make up most of the left and Christianity is the only religion they can't tolerate.

Silly

All religions are retarded and dangerous

 

[HereticBD]

Why would she need to pretend to cry?
Women cry about everything, how is it so hard to believe a woman would cry about children being locked up in a detention center?
The left are all sensitive, tree hugging, pussies, but our women also need to fake cry over kids dying? Make it make sense.

She only pretends to care about it, when it's politically convenient. Is that another one of those totally not obvious observations too? Did kids stop being detained, and people at the border stop dying the moment Biden was elected? The border is fucking disaster right now, but to the surprise of nobody, she's curiously silent on the matter all of a sudden. Hmm...

 

[SmilinDesperado]

She only pretends to care about it, when it's politically convenient. Is that another one of those totally not obvious observations too? Did kids stop being detained, and people at the border stop dying the moment Biden was elected? The border is fucking disaster right now, but to the surprise of nobody, she's curiously silent on the matter all of a sudden. Hmm...

More telepathy.
Do people usually fold and concede if you repeat "It's totally obvious!" enough times ?

Do you follow AOC? Twitter ? Instagram? Ever listen to any of her Instagram lives? Ever watch her question people on the oversight committee?
How would you know what she does and doesn't talk about?
You don't, because you're shamelessly talking out of your asshole, as usual.



https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-2863883/AOC-slams-Biden-border-plan.html

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">This is disappointing to see.<br><br>First, seeking asylum at any US border is a 100% legal method of arrival.<br><br>Second, the US spent decades contributing to regime change and destabilization in Latin America. We can’t help set someone’s house on fire and then blame them for fleeing. <a href="https://t.co/vADyh5H0bw">https://t.co/vADyh5H0bw</a></p>&mdash; Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) <a href="">June 7, 2021</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
AOC Explains Immigration ‘Crisis’ - YouTube
AOC Slams Biden Immigration Plan: ‘It’s Wrong And It’s Inhumane’ - YouTube

AOC Challenges Biden On Migrant Crisis - YouTube
AOC Castigates Biden During Town Hall - YouTube
Ocasio-Cortez calls out Kamala Harris after speech on immigration - YouTube

Yea....she's never talked about the border since Biden's been in office.

Do you need a monthly photo of AOC crying to prove she cares about an issue? In order to prove you care about something, your'e supposed to cry every time you talk about it? Is that how humans work?

It must be nice to be incapable of feeling shame. Because you're just going to reply with some smart ass remark.
Instead of attacking what she actually says and does, you have to make shit up. SAD.

 

[mkess101]

I'm not saying you directly said that, but your specific criticisms make it definitely seem like that is what you were saying. But, I'll take your word for it if that's not what you meant.
As I was saying about your impossible standard, there's not much to discuss/debate in regards to her if your starting point is she's not a genuine actor--especially to the degree that you think she lacks authenticity. And that's all good.


To be clear, I'm not saying that the authenticity of a representative doesn't matter. I was just saying it shouldn't of been a factor in this case; or be used as a blanket to dismiss everything a person ever says.
In my counter example, Ted Cruz and MTG (two people that I have no respect for and don't believe have an authentic bone in their body) could have made the same case as AOC did and it would be just as valid to me. I know they're against abortion so them calling out Planned Parenthood would fall right in line with what they believe. I wouldn't need to bring up Jewish space lasers or Cancun in order to discuss their "pro-life" argument.

On the flipside, I pretty much dismiss anything MTG says. I wouldn't necessarily say that's due to her not being genuine, but because I just find her to be a nut. But the rationale is similar if not the same. Credibility. Motivations. They matter, and to me they matter all the time. And if I find someone to be truly unstable, or completely phony, I really don't have much interest in what they have to say. That's not to say MTG or AOC "shouldn't" speak up, tweet, etc. They were elected by their constituents to weigh in. But just as I was in the thread (when the Speaker was being voted on) trashing MTG and Boebart when they were acting like fools (some would I guess argue "doing their jobs"), I'm also not gonna hesitate to comment on AOC when she chimes in.

Again, could I be wrong? Could MTG not be as nutty and AOC not be as fake as I believe them to be? Sure, maybe? But since that is how I see them, it essentially taints most anything they try to communicate. If that's an "impossible standard"...okay? Somehow, there have been politicians that have met my impossible threshold. I never thought Obama was fake or a lunatic, so when he said something (even if I disagreed) I'd listen. Same as GW. Both had flaws for sure, but I didn't question they were decent, stable people who were more interested in helping this country than whatever other motivations they had.

On this forum I'm sure quite a few would disagree and believe those 2 were most interested in catering to their "corporate overlords" or something like that. I'm maybe a little cynical and jaded, but not that much.

 

[SmilinDesperado]

On the flipside, I pretty much dismiss anything MTG says. I wouldn't necessarily say that's due to her not being genuine, but because I just find her to be a nut. But the rationale is similar if not the same. Credibility. Motivations. They matter, and to me they matter all the time. And if I find someone to be truly unstable, or completely phony, I really don't have much interest in what they have to say. That's not to say MTG or AOC "shouldn't" speak up, tweet, etc. They were elected by their constituents to weigh in. But just as I was in the thread (when the Speaker was being voted on) trashing MTG and Boebart when they were acting like fools (some would I guess argue "doing their jobs"), I'm also not gonna hesitate to comment on AOC when she chimes in.

Again, could I be wrong? Could MTG not be as nutty and AOC not be as fake as I believe them to be? Sure, maybe? But since that is how I see them, it essentially taints most anything they try to communicate. If that's an "impossible standard"...okay? Somehow, there have been politicians that have met my impossible threshold. I never thought Obama was fake or a lunatic, so when he said something (even if I disagreed) I'd listen. Same as GW. Both had flaws for sure, but I didn't question they were decent, stable people who were more interested in helping this country than whatever other motivations they had.

On this forum I'm sure quite a few would disagree and believe those 2 were most interested in catering to their "corporate overlords" or something like that. I'm maybe a little cynical and jaded, but not that much.

Fair enough, I don't have too much to add on that because I see where your position is. I just think your impossible standard is based off of a lot of faulty premises and misinformation--but, hey, that's how you feel, so it is what it is.

I will say that I don't think the current political era--how we look at and talk about politics today is comparable to the past. We're in a different world thanks to social media.
It makes sense that you don't have the same feelings as you do for Obama and GW as you do for AOC or MTG. What did you really know about Obama or GW? How often did you hear them speak? Or hear the news, youtubers, and everyone around you cover and dissect every sentence they said in comparison to now? Twitter changed the game.
Senators from Texas, Congressmen from Okalhoma, and Governors from Alabama weren't on my radar prior to social media.
There's more information to sift through now than ever before.

Dismissing people as crazy is how we get extremists and actual crazy. Makes it impossible to engage and talk with people that you disagree with.
I think MTG is on the extreme side, and that she is a nut, but there are plenty of people that obviously have her same beliefs. So it's not just dismissing that politician, it's dismissing the entire argument and the people that believe it. But, that's just my opinion.

 

[mkess101]

Fair enough, I don't have too much to add on that because I see where your position is. I just think your impossible standard is based off of a lot of faulty premises and misinformation--but, hey, that's how you feel, so it is what it is.

I will say that I don't think the current political era--how we look at and talk about politics today is comparable to the past. We're in a different world thanks to social media.
It makes sense that you don't have the same feelings as you do for Obama and GW as you do for AOC or MTG. What did you really know about Obama or GW? How often did you hear them speak? Or hear the news, youtubers, and everyone around you cover and dissect every sentence they said in comparison to now? Twitter changed the game.
Senators from Texas, Congressmen from Okalhoma, and Governors from Alabama weren't on my radar prior to social media.
There's more information to sift through now than ever before.

Dismissing people as crazy is how we get extremists and actual crazy. Makes it impossible to engage and talk with people that you disagree with.
I think MTG is on the extreme side, and that she is a nut, but there are plenty of people that obviously have her same beliefs. So it's not just dismissing that politician, it's dismissing the entire argument and the people that believe it. But, that's just my opinion.

It's a fair point regarding social media and the available info we now have 24/7. We did start to see it under Obama (not social media as much, but the 24 hour coverage of everything)...not as much with GW I guess. But...those two were also obviously in a much more scrutinized and preeminent position within politics than MTG or AOC are. So while social media didn't really factor in, we still got a lot of communication from them. They were quoted in every article regarding national politics, etc.

Admittedly, some of how I (and I'd imagine everyone, whether they want to admit it or not) view people is instinctual or visceral when it comes to judging people we see and hear from often but don't know personally. That's why I leave room for "Hey...there's a chance I'm wrong here or at least that I'm exaggerating the negative aspects of this person". And that's important too. It's not black and white, there are a million shades of gray. Over time, I'm not too stubborn to alter my views of people if they consistently show things that are counter to what had me form my views on them to begin with. It's very much a dynamic and not a static view. But for me, the old adage "Trust is earned in drops and lost in bucketfuls" applies here. And given that I'm not the target voter for people like AOC or MTG, they aren't exactly going to cater their message to someone like me and try to woo me LOL. So if I was a betting man (and I am, but mostly on MMA and other sports and not politics haha) I would say the odds of me having markedly different views of politicians like these two at any point down the road are slim.

Point taken as well about dismissing people as crazy. There's a fine line between "unfairly dismissing someone" and "calling a spade a spade" or even just being true to yourself. Like...you don't view AOC as fake. I don't think you are irrational, crazy, or deceptive because you hold that view. I just disagree with you about her. For someone who takes MTG seriously, I would disagree with their assessment of her but that doesn't mean I'd immediately ignore every other thing they said. In time, if they show me they also aren't really to be taken seriously, so be it.

 

[Bald1]

Reality doesn't matter to ya'll, because whenever I ask specific questions to factual statements, the only thing I get in return is "it's obvious, y dont u see it?", "you just love AOC", or 'this one time she cried and i think that was fake too".
Noneeeeeeeee of these things address the facts or back up what you're claiming.

Your statement above is extremely vague and can apply to anyone and anything.
If we're still talking about the "pretend being handcuffed" thing, no one has said anything that makes sense on that. In the age of Social media, the idea that this is the best she could do to get out her message "to solidify first impressions" is ridiculous. She can't control who takes pictures of her and where and how they post them in a protest. And no one in the media even likes her.
Even TYT and Kyle Kulinski routinely criticize her.
If attention is what she wanted, all she has to do is kiss a little ass and people would line up to fawn over her. In order for your narrative on her to make sense she has to be a complete moron, and be completely fake about everything that she says.



You guys have just labeled something as theater and roll with it as if it's fact.
You'll take one picture that one right wing outlet posts and titles, and just take that as reality, despite there being video, other pictures, and an actual real story behind the photo that disproves it.

Why would she need to pretend to cry?
Women cry about everything, how is it so hard to believe a woman would cry about children being locked up in a detention center?
The left are all sensitive, tree hugging, pussies, but our women also need to fake cry over kids dying? Make it make sense.
AOC personally did work as an intern under Senator Kennedy where she worked with and talked to latin migrants....why does she need to "pretend" to care about this issue?
These arguments that you guys make don't make any sense.

Did she or did she not take the photo of her crying and pass it off as being on scene.

That's all that you need to answer. My first line was a clear joke fella and there was nothing vague about my post or position.

The rest of your shite about "you guys" and the like I'll just write off as you being on your period and getting cunty with me for no reason.

 

[mjfan23]

She’s right. Those ads didn’t stand for Christianity

 

[SmilinDesperado]

Did she or did she not take the photo of her crying and pass it off as being on scene.

That's all that you need to answer. My first line was a clear joke fella and there was nothing vague about my post or position.

The rest of your shite about "you guys" and the like I'll just write off as you being on your period and getting cunty with me for no reason.

lol What the? When did you/you guys get so sensitive?
I know the first line was a joke, and the little picture I started my post off with was to acknowledge that as a "bring it on", as in debate. I'm wordy. I like to respond in detail so that my position is clear.

I'm not saying "you guys" as in "You MAGA retards/MTG lovers/crazy right winger". I know what the general feeling of AOC on this board is, and I've heard the same style of arguments on her every time--including in this thread.
I have been going back and forth with multiple people in this thread, and "you guys" are using similar arguments, thus, my use of "you guys". You're like the 3rd person now acting as if I I told a raunchy joke about their mother.

You jumped into the debate (which is totally fine) and you made a vague statement of "reality doesn't matter", when the point I have been making here is that "you guys" ignore reality//facts when talking about her.
I think it was fair of me to assume that part of the "reality doesnt matter" you were speaking of had to do with the topic I had been debating, which was her "pretending to be handcuffed". Or Heretic's claim that she "pretends" to care about the border, even though I showed evidence of her criticizing Biden and Kamala on it multiple times.

To your specific question,

Did she or did she not take the photo of her crying and pass it off as being on scene.

This statement is vague, because it's loaded, and requires more than a simple yes or no answer.

I know what the right wing claim was. That she "staged" a photo in an empty parking lot where she fake cried while wearing all white and lipstick. That because the kids weren't in a cage in front of her, she's lying and pretending to cry about them. The right wing are acting like AOC claimed there were kids in literal cages outside like a zoo.

She was "on scene". They obviously were not allowed inside the facility. They had to protest and look on from behind a gate in a parking lot, but the facility is visible to them.
She was there with other protestors. All of the protestors were wearing white.
She didn't take the picture, a photographer did---it's pretty normal for a photographer to be at a protest for a hot issue. He posted the pictures of her there a year later after she became a Congresswoman.
What part of this isn't reality ?

https://d.newsweek.com/en/full/1506...webp?w=790&f=f8c63e732c2505e08265f576065d3051
https://pictures.grabien.com/newsstories/inline/22487_3.jpg

 

[SmilinDesperado]

It's a fair point regarding social media and the available info we now have 24/7. We did start to see it under Obama (not social media as much, but the 24 hour coverage of everything)...not as much with GW I guess. But...those two were also obviously in a much more scrutinized and preeminent position within politics than MTG or AOC are. So while social media didn't really factor in, we still got a lot of communication from them. They were quoted in every article regarding national politics, etc.

Admittedly, some of how I (and I'd imagine everyone, whether they want to admit it or not) view people is instinctual or visceral when it comes to judging people we see and hear from often but don't know personally. That's why I leave room for "Hey...there's a chance I'm wrong here or at least that I'm exaggerating the negative aspects of this person". And that's important too. It's not black and white, there are a million shades of gray. Over time, I'm not too stubborn to alter my views of people if they consistently show things that are counter to what had me form my views on them to begin with. It's very much a dynamic and not a static view. But for me, the old adage "Trust is earned in drops and lost in bucketfuls" applies here. And given that I'm not the target voter for people like AOC or MTG, they aren't exactly going to cater their message to someone like me and try to woo me LOL. So if I was a betting man (and I am, but mostly on MMA and other sports and not politics haha) I would say the odds of me having markedly different views of politicians like these two at any point down the road are slim.

Point taken as well about dismissing people as crazy. There's a fine line between "unfairly dismissing someone" and "calling a spade a spade" or even just being true to yourself. Like...you don't view AOC as fake. I don't think you are irrational, crazy, or deceptive because you hold that view. I just disagree with you about her. For someone who takes MTG seriously, I would disagree with their assessment of her but that doesn't mean I'd immediately ignore every other thing they said. In time, if they show me they also aren't really to be taken seriously, so be it.

We got a lot of communication about very specific things and events from Obama and GW. Their every thought and gaffe wasn't captured and dissected like things are today. There of course was heavy criticism towards GW about the wars and 9/11, and Obama over...everything...but not to the detail that we have now, and it wasn't as constant.
We weren't directly hearing from Obama and GW all of the time on policy, laws, other lawmakers, governors, etc. And more importantly, most people weren't paying attention at that time because you had to be reading the paper or watching the news to do so.
Now, I see short reels of politic related stuff on instagram and youtube.

People often complained that Trump got "unfair" treatment by the media, but the truth is is that no other president put themself out to the public like Trump did.
Biden isn't in the news as much as Trump because Biden isn't on Twitter exposing his every thought.
Politicians of today are always online, and their tweets get put in the news and discussed.
This thread is all because of an AOC tweet. The "fake handcuffing" is all over a PICTURE from a tweet, even though there is video of it. The "fake crying at the border" is over a picture from a tweet. No one was paying attention and trying to discredit people to this degree in the past.

But yeah, I understand where you're coming from on the rest.

 

[mkess101]

We got a lot of communication about very specific things and events from Obama and GW. Their every thought and gaffe wasn't captured and dissected like things are today. There of course was heavy criticism towards GW about the wars and 9/11, and Obama over...everything...but not to the detail that we have now, and it wasn't as constant.
We weren't directly hearing from Obama and GW all of the time on policy, laws, other lawmakers, governors, etc. And more importantly, most people weren't paying attention at that time because you had to be reading the paper or watching the news to do so.
Now, I see short reels of politic related stuff on instagram and youtube.

People often complained that Trump got "unfair" treatment by the media, but the truth is is that no other president put themself out to the public like Trump did.
Biden isn't in the news as much as Trump because Biden isn't on Twitter exposing his every thought.
Politicians of today are always online, and their tweets get put in the news and discussed.
This thread is all because of an AOC tweet. The "fake handcuffing" is all over a PICTURE from a tweet, even though there is video of it. The "fake crying at the border" is over a picture from a tweet. No one was paying attention and trying to discredit people to this degree in the past.

But yeah, I understand where you're coming from on the rest.

All of that is true regarding the level of scrutiny politicians get. Absolutely Trump put himself out there more with his constant tweets, and thus there was just a ton more for his naysayers to go after. AOC is using social media as well (I suppose every politician is now, can't really exist in the ecosystem of American politics without doing it) so she's gonna be "seen" more than her predecessors. The 24 hour news cycle was a huge leap from what it was previously in terms of coverage, and that started during the Clinton years, ramped up under GW, and was full speed ahead with Obama. But I agree, it's not the same and social media took it to another level. Everyone walks around with a mini computer in their pocket that can and does give them whatever notifications that they want.

 

[weed]

how dare she offend white Jesus.

 

[WhiteMousse]

AOC, the only waitress to bring nothing to the table.

I'll have her on the table and that will be just fine

 

[ColemanwastheGOAT]

According to the pool boy if Jerry Jr was going to eat a pie he would prefer it to be full of cream.

Sounds like some lgbt stuff that would be right up your alley then.

 

[AbominableJoman]

The message was for unity through Jesus Christ. It’s a good message.

Well said

 

[44nutman]

Sounds like some lgbt stuff that would be right up your alley then.

That’s quite a stretch because I was just pointing out Jerry Falwell Jr likes to do the 5 knuckle shuffle while watching the pool boy take his wife to pound town.
Here is the absolute bonkers part is students of Liberty University got suspended for pre marital sex while the President of the University who administered those suspensions was a pervert that got off watching other men drill pressing his wife.