Discussion in 'Current Events' started by nra37922, Feb 1, 2019.
In the 80's, that would have been called "valley girl talk", ya know? Gag me with a spoon.
What's interesting is the fact that only a small part of the interview is being presented. Why is that? To prevent people from understanding what she was talking about? To trick people into thinking she's rambling and inarticulate? To allow people to simply confirm their biases and prevent them from thinking for themselves?
Think what you want of her, she's no favorite of mine, but at least find and read the entire interview rather than just accept cuts from it.
"“If you haven’t had a transition in your life where, you know, you were maybe born poor or born without certain privileges and then especially as you transition into having certain privileges in your life, you actually see and feel and sense and taste and smell all of the differences,” she explained. “If you’ve never experienced different treatment in your life, you wouldn’t know what different treatment feels like or looks like. And it’s really, really hard.”
Her response to the concept of 'privilege' is to explain what is meant by the term, which is a simple, honest, and innocuous term.
Also, I noticed that the linked site in the OP and the Townhall site I linked offer only that one part of her comments. The Townhall site offers a link it says is the "entire transcript via Grabien," which is misleading. It is not the entire transcript, but the entire transcript as it appears on Grabinews. If you listen to the audio of the actual podcast, you'll notice that at the point in which Cortez's comments were made, there were at least three people speaking and overlapping each other's comments, which makes clipping one person's comments out of the context of the whole very dishonest.
False and misleading information at best. It's designed to prevent critical thinking and trigger an emotional response.
Here is the full interview: https://theintercept.com/2019/01/28/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-podcast/
Interesting take because she didn’t say anything close to that
It's just a common belief amongst democrats and then they also believe that certain races cannot be racist because of their race.
Do you deny that?
I think this is due to her recurring resort to "like", an affectation originating in Califoria's "Valley girls" that has become irritatingly ubiquitous among a certain generation. The "Valley girl" style also favors an intonation that makes declarative statements sound like questions. So its "like my boyfriend called the other day..." (with a pause to induce a "go on" from the listener) and then "like he wanted to go out on a date..." (go on) "so he was like asking me where I wanted to eat" (go on) "and I was like not sure I even wanted to go out with him..." (and it goes on like this). In a previous job where I worked directly for the CEO I recall many times when he would note to HR post-interview his rejection of a prospective candidate for "too many 'likes'".
I had to look it up, "cisgendered" is a person who is not LGBTQ, i.e. "normal".
A significant portion of them will gladly admit to you that they’re not trying to stop racism but rather reverse it.
Some over the years have been quite vocal about it on this forum.
Sour Petulant Ocasio-Cortez refuses to applaud ‘cooperation, compromise, common good.’
On my previously acknowledged need to look up "cisgendered":
Maybe the "woke" ones here can tell me what the initials after LGBTQ abbreviate.
Well, that means . . . that means . . .
. . . so, what does that mean?
Really? Let's see if you mean that, AJ.
She's introducing and discussing the "Green New Deal". Discuss your take on the details, the cost, the implementation. Go into detail as to why you agree with it or not. And I mean actual paragraphs.
See - either way, the board wins. You either have to start discussing her actual plans as an actual respected poster here would do in an actual discussion, which means instead of continual trolling you actually discuss things that matter -
- or you don't, in which case your post gets deconstructed and ridiculed again for hilariously failing to live up to your own words.
I'll give it to your next post in this thread or 24 hours from now, whichever comes first.
Can you let me know exactly why you associate Eichmann with the right wing? How many people has the RW sent to the gas chambers, the ovens, or the firing squad? I would think that the snowflake crowd would be crying foul that you inappropriately make light of the subject and dishonor the people that died or endured the Holocaust. The lefties would have a fit if I associated O-C or
Bernie Sanders to Lavrentiy Beria. No, I take that back. They wouldn't know who that was and just come back with some MAGA crap.
I can merely describe her actions, I can't interpret her heart.
Watch: Clip at the link
Robert Mueller might be a better comparison to Beria.
Why would she cheer a comment meant to disparage her? What is she charged with here, disloyalty?
With all this PC stuff she spouts, and now with her wacko Green Wet Dream (or is it "Green New Deal", I can't remember?), she is clearly the most extremist congressperson to ever have the title of US congressperson. She makes Bernie look downright alt-right!
Yes, they are certainly triggered by her! What she is doing though is steering 75% of people (25% support her) to the GOP....it's like if the Democrat-darling was Adolf Hitler - that would be a huge boon for the GOP, just like with AOC. She's basically a younger, hipper, cleaner, prettier Fidel Castro.
PS and a better dancer too.
PSPS but both are still bats**t insane.
You know, like, I agree with you, like totally.
MAGA has shown us that people tend to overreact a little to politicians saying out-there things.
Unlike with MAGA, though, there is no comparing AOC to Hitler. She doesn't campaign on hate and fear. She just has big ideas about taking care of the little people at the expense of the fat cats.
She's a better person that Hitler, for sure - but I was just trying to point out that if the Dems had HITLER in her exact position that the gift to the GOP would be almost as great. She's going to bring out GOP voters like no one in history - rivaling Reagan even(!), I bet. She's bonkers....and she has almost 2 more years to work her magic for the GOP. Unless Dems start to distance themselves from her PDQ pronto they will suffer at the polls.
Progressives like her will energize a lot of people. In fact, we saw them do just that in 2018.
Why did Hillary lose in 2016? She was more of the same, not progressive. She didn't offer any 'hope and change' of her own the way Obama had and the way AOC does. Even MAGA got in by being like a progressive, energizing people all over the spectrum with promises and prospects of changes for the better.
My ‘Privilege’ in Being Born ‘Cisgendered’
Cisgender (often abbreviated to simply cis) is a term for people whose gender identity matches the sex that they were assigned at birth. It is the opposite of the term transgender.
So... her "privilege" is being born normal?
So what is she willing to give up to correct that privilege
I think she should give up her set in congress to some one with out her privilege
*Occasional-Cortex Nasal Voice-Over* Well like, gee AJ, it's been a day and you like, haven't actually wanted to discuss things that matter. So let's deconstruct this like, post.
*Occasional-Cortex Nasal Voice-Over* No, we're like, laughing at, like, Occasional-Cortex cuz' she's like, suffering from cisgender privilege and like - stuff. An' like, talks like a pre-pubescent Valley Girl. An' like, stuff.
*Occasional-Cortex Nasal Voice-Over* Sounds like, like, like you don't like it when people run mean ol' things about Occasional Cortex. An' stuff. But like, we can talk about whatever we like, even 'bout that silly lil' bartender still trying to make fetch happen.
*Occasional-Cortex Nasal Voice-Over* We like, like, DO discuss things that matter. It's like, just that you, uh, just troll the threads and discuss the RW instead of the OP. An' stuff.
I'm not sure what you mean by "you guys," but it's fairly obvious that straight white men have an easier time in American society.
Separate names with a comma.