AOC says Ginsburg's death should 'radicalize' Dems

Now that's funny. The world's dumbest college degree holder and former bartender tells the people who've either been rioting, looting, burning, and mugging, and murdering for month after month OR the people who've supported them doing that -- by endorsing them through their determined silence -- to . . . radicalize.

Now I am TRYING to show some charity towards Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez because she quite probably is going to become a president of this nation within the next twenty to twenty-five years; but she makes it damned difficult. Radicalize . . . radicals. Isn't that sort of like making fire . . . hot? Like I said, the dumbest college degree holder in history and a future president of this nation courtesy of the Dem Party's now ingrained . . . radicalism.

So what was the trigger event for the political Left's increasingly idolized nut case this time? The death of one Constitution despising Supreme Court Justice known as Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the re-election bid of Donald Trump. Naturally AOC wants to hold off on selecting a new justice until after the presidential election but also wants fence sitting liberals to get off their quiche tuffets and BEGIN supporting Biden's presidential bid even if they don't . . . want . . . Biden and even if one can SEE bits of Biden's brains oozing out of his ear holes.

Okay, yes, that's what she was actually talking about when she said 'Radicalize". But it still struck me as funny coming out of her mouth in regards to a party that has pretty much endorsed radicalism as a religious mantra for many decades now. Those cities -- and now endless acres of forests -- are not burning themselves. Molotov Cocktail throwers are taking care of that sacred . . . political duty.

So anyway, yes, by all means political Left, do cease doing whatever you normally do during an election year and get . . . radicalized.

 

Really? You had me fooled.

Congratulations!

Textbook drivel.

If you were serious about debating her use of a term, her policies, etc, that's one thing. But, egregious vacuous claims, weasel words, loaded language, ad hominems, and sophomoric prose do not warrant a serious rebuttal.

 

You typed in a huff as you attempted a serious . . . rebuttal. Didn't think anyone would notice?

 

It could motivate the vote even though essentially, nothing's changed. We've all known the next President would pick a replacement for RBG. The only fly in that ointment is if Trump loses and pushes it through during the lame duck period, but that doesn't effect the election fundamentals. But AOC is AOC and if by radicalize she means more arson and terror, that's likely since that's where the Democrats have been heading anyway. They've gone crazy.

 

Democrats seem to be totally irrational lately. Im not sure why anyone even pays attention to AOC. She is dumber than a sack of hammers and much less useful.

 

Very well said.

 

It's worth while to pay attention to her because at some point there will be the same sort of leftist generated drive to make her president as there was for Barack Obama. It won't happen for at least a decade, but it will happen.

 

Arson and terror is not radical to the left, it’s their new normal.

 

In ten years there will be enough video of all the things she spouted and pushed for that, if enacted today, will be proven to be idiotic and extremely costly by the time AOC is considered to be presidential material. In ten years we’ll have more dumb ass quotes from than we do of Biden.

 

Won't matter. As we've seen with Trump, he's instantly forgiven for anything and everything he says - literals within minutes of saying it. So if AOC (who I don't support) has half the cult following as Trump, there is nothing she can say or do now that will impact her future chances for the Presidency.

 

Seems it already has radicalized the already radicals. From article covering twitter posts-

"Almost immediately after news of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death, some verified Twitter users threatened arson and apparent violence in order to block Republicans from replacing her before the elections.
"If they even TRY to replace RBG we burn the entire f-----g thing down," author Reza Aslan tweeted. He later responded to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's vow to hold a vote on President Trump's nominee. Over our dead bodies, literally, he tweeted."

Author Aaron Gouveia similarly blasted McConnell's statement, saying: "F--k no. Burn it all down."

A Canadian political science professor called for arson, prompting accusations he made a terroristic threat. "Burn Congress down before letting Trump try to appoint anyone to SCOTUS," Waterloo professor Emmett MacFarlane tweeted.

These are the kind of thoughtful, rational people on the left, who want to govern America. I suspect there will be a storm of such crap, of course. Biden and Obama have both already stated that the appointment should be delayed and given to the next president. Of course, that is not how the constitution and law reads; Trump has both the authority and obligation to make a nomination, and the senate is the only body which has the power to approve or deny it.

The threat to burn Congress down is not a recognized or correct political approach, no matter what they think- it only shows the level that the character of such people has fallen too.

Mr Trump, Mr McConnell- DO YOUR DUTY. "GIT-R-DONE!"

 

Sandy Cortez is an idiot. God bless her for being so.

 

How the hell do these dems get away with advocating violence? "If you see that person in a gasoline station"...

 

Soros is buying campaigns of prosecutors to look the other way in the face of attacks by domestic terrorists and China is buying everyone else.

https://www.liberalforum.org/topic/...r-protecting-home-from-blm-protestors/page/2/

The US is being sold down the river. Here's China:
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/americas-china-class-fights-trump

 

Yep, but remember that most of our media outlets work for the political interests of the DNC; which means that they create and then drive the narrative; and if they collectively decide NOT to cover something then effectively . . . it does not exist. We can all SEE how these media outlets are in the process of conducting a long term love-affair with the bimbo. It's only going to get worse and stronger as time drifts by. Meh . . . unless I am wrong; there is always that possibility.

 

With the common use of the internet, it's much harder for them to do that, not that they dont try.

 

Bimbo. I think you used to perfect word to describe her.

 

But I though Republicans supported holding off on Supreme Court justices during election year too. Whats the problem? Both sides agree right?

 

Just samples of the situation. There's a lot more; and all year we've been seeing that some people fly into a rage when they don't get their way, and democratic politicians allow it.
They take issue with everything possible, with no concern for law or justice. No reason to think this will be smaller circus than the usual.

 

Myself I don't really care; but the average conservative and even Republicans seemed to have changed their minds after the way that the political left's leadership AND their politically loyal media outlets treated Kavenaugh. Why in the hell should they indulge leftist feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelings any more after that?

Here . . . this is fresh off the Internet and it seems to encapsulate the general sentiment. Enjoy:

There are good reasons why the Right is not in the mood to coddle the Left this time:

And then there are all the cities that the Dem Party leadership has allowed to burn for month after month. The Left's leadership have done used up their political favors.

 

How do you know the average Republican changed their mind for that reason?

 

They expressed their opinions rather vividly on the Internet back during the Kavenaugh hearings and now they are pushing that perspective again.

 

I have been debating this topic for a while. I recall debating conservatives about whether we should wait until the election long after the Kavenaugh hearings. They still believed that Obama should have been prevented from nominating the justice for those reasons. Its only now that I'm hearing they changed their minds years ago. I'm so confused. I try so hard to keep up with opinion but I must have missed that change of opinion.