AOC breaks down basic biology after Gov. Greg Abbott said women raped in Texas had 6 weeks to get an abortion

submitted by [deleted] from yahoo.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (25 children)

(That's not evidence.)

[–]Rob3122 6 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 3 fun -  (24 children)

She supports the removal of historical monuments, she supports immigration, she supports blackliesmatter, she supports fags in dresses, etc. Though I don't think the evidence will make a difference for you.

[–]Yin 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (12 children)

immigration

Illegal aliens/trespassers, open borders, and white genocide with UN "Replacement Migration" is what AOC supports to be exact. Globalist propaganda veils that with the word "immigration".

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (11 children)

No, this is what Republican disinformation is trying to make you believe.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Sad

[–]Yin 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

Your statement is globalist disinformation.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

Is it all really that complicated and conspiratorial in AOC's case? No. Everything she's done has been to address the concerns of the 99% and to challenge the 1%. If you read the legislation she's backed, you'd see that. All of the jargon you reference here would have to be founded on acomplicated international conspiracy that favors the 1%, whereas AOC's actions are against the 1%. So all of these theories do not apply to her.

[–][deleted]  (7 children)

[deleted]

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

    Yin - all of this can be said of Republicans. It's ridiculous that Fox News, Breitbart and other propaganda sites have turned this around in order to claim there are Democrats who are part of these agendas. For example, look at the 40-year trends you mention. How did that start? 8 years with Reagan, 4 of the same with Bush Sr, and 8 years with a very right-wing Clinton, who made so many deals with Republicans, he could hardly call himself the tiniest percentage of Democrat, and then 8 disasterous years with Bush Jr, and then 2 years of reforms with Obama, and healthcare, but the Republicans were in full control of the next 6 Obama years and I think his party didn't do enough to deal with it, and then the Trump Admin puts the US through a sausage grinder, developing an idiocracy unlike anyone had seen in any developed country, driving up debt to 27 trillion, with handouts to Republicans &c, and now the Biden admin, AOC and some others are trying to make some reforms. So why complain? Globalist political agendas &c? Please - if you reply to me again - please note something specific, like a bill that's in congress, or a piece of legislation that you are concerned about. You've lost me with these generalities about global agendas. Yes, of course there are global money laundering schemes, and we can talk about the geopolitics of that problem. But there isn't much to discuss regarding generalities.

    [–][deleted]  (4 children)

    [deleted]

      [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

      Again with the generalities. If you know so much, why do you have tp push the same oversimplified jargon? BE SPECIFIC, if you have anything to say, and try not to drag down the discussion by insulting users' intelligence. It's weak. You'll be able to discuss what you know it in detail. Ranting about paranoid schizophrenia interpretations of global conspiracies isn't informative. As I noted, discussing global laundering would develop in specific directions. Are there global political agendas and globalists and all that? Sure. What about them? Are you saying AOC is pushing their agendas? If so, what is your argument and evidence? (She's not, BTW.)

      [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

      What she might support (Republicans also support immigration, some of them support BLM, and some of them are fags in dresses and support them) is still unrelated to your comment that she is a "jew puppet". This is the comment we refer to. Are you able to make an argument or note evidence about this? No worries, if not. My view is that - of all her colleagues - she's the least supportive of Israel's and Zionists' abuses at home and abroad.

      [–]Rob3122 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

      I knew you'd turn it into a left vs right thing like the brainwashed individual you are. Like I said in my previous post I didn't think evidence would matter to someone like you.

      [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

      Account for 27 days? For what? To repeatedly drag down the discussions? Follow the Saidit guidelines.

      [–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

      You will shove your head in the sand and call it a discussion.

      [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

      How are you, Earendil? Repeatedly dragging down the discussion again? This is the 6th or 7th note I've received from you in the past couple of hours. You would only know of my comments if you were studying my comment history. Yesterday you did this as well, with numerous responses to posts you could only see in my comment history. You really should have something better to do. Really. It's sad. There is so much more on Saidit than my occasional comment. Have a look. It'll be a whole new world. A new fantastic point of view. No one to tell you, "No", or where to go, or say you're only dreaming....

      [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      You do know that everything we say shows up on s/all on the comments tab, right?

      [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      Not really, but if everyone's there, I am sure you'll enjoy other users much more than me.

      [–]Rob3122 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

      Yawn

      [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

      Aw, man, now you hurt my feelings.

      [–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

      Socks, I genuinely don't understand how you can draw very rational conclusions intermixed with your posts, and still have faith in one side of these political spectrums. How can you convince yourself that only a side of these corrupt people are the good guys? None of them give a damn despite how well they can act, they're beyond having to. We're worker ants at best, pieces on a game board to be controlled and used for whatever sinister purpose these people have in mind. How can you still have faith in any of them or their abilities to make worthwhile, long lasting changes that benefit the whole instead of the lobby groups paying them?

      [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      Good question - but it would take a while to explain. I've explained this previously, in several responses to others. Perhaps it will help to offer points:

      1) I don't think people should vote emotionally for the person who seems to represent them. Emotivist politics developed especially in the early '80s (and earlier), and appealed to church groups, angry Americans, nationalists, and others who often voted because of how they felt. Ethicists call this 'emotivism' (A. Macintyre, C. Taylor &c). Some of these voters are so-called one-issue voters, who will vote for the candidate who promises to make all abortions illegal. Or the vote for the person they think they can have a beer with. I think we should never vote like this, because Fox News and other propaganda outlets have been pushing this agenda which favors Republicans and authoritarians, with the assumptions that - the entire government is shit - so elect the few people who will reduce government and you can trust them to look after you. But who takes over when government agencies can't function? Corporations. Will the authoritarians like Trump keep those corporations from poisoning your water. No. We don't have to like or love the candidate we vote for. We have to respect that they'll do something for the 99%, or they'll be voted out office. In fact term limits for congresspeople are long overdue.

      2) Both political parties and all politicians are not the same. Fox and Breitbart want you to think they're all the same so that you won't believe in democracy, and so that you won't vote. If you don't vote, the authoritarians and Republicans win elections with low turnout. Republican gerrymandering and special voter ID laws that keep people from voting help them get into office. Are there corrupt Democrats? Sure. What's the solution for you? What can you do to change Government? It's possible to vote corrupt politicians out of office, while supporting others to replace these corrupt, carreer politicans. More people should vote in order to make this possible. Senators for my state are Republicans, but much of the state has the lowest number of educated people, and low incomes. Larger cities vote blue, but it doesn't matter for the Senate seats. The rural vote goes to Republicans, although Republicans are helping corporations take over US governance in several sectors that push these poor rural voters deeper into poverty. Wages have not kept up with inflation for the past 40 years because of the majority of Repulican decisions that de-regulate corporations which are abusing workers.

      3) Why support Democrats?: not because we should love them, and not because there are some corrupt, career Democrats, but because they are the ones writing bills that will help the 99%. Republicans are blocking those bills. The election reform bill was blocked. The jobs bill is currently being lobbied against. There are many other examples of Democrats trying to pass laws that help the 99%, dating back to FDR's New Deal. A rich country like the US should not have so much poverty, or extreme income inequality, or problems with healthcare (addressed by Obama, though it wasn't perfect), problems with clean water, problems with the environment. Just look at the politicians who want to work on these problems. Are they Republicans? No. Republicans are the ones who love deregulation and blocking any legislation that could help you. (The also tried to block and repeal Obamacare dozens of times).

      4) Politicians are public servants. Worker ants like us have a vote, and a way of supporting politicians who want to be public servants. If those public servants are in office more than 2 or 3 terms, something's probably wrong. A good public servant might be someone we cannot have a beer with, or someone we can relate to, but none of that matters. What matters is respect. Is the legislator helping the 99%? If so, he or she might be old, or black, or hispanic, or have learning difficulties, or be kinky, or whatever, but they deserve respect if they are genuinely helping the 99%.

      I'm not sure this answers your question, but I hope it explains part of the answer.