Ocasio-Cortez dismisses Ben Shapiro's debate offer, compares to 'catcalling'

a reply to: introvert

If she cannot handle an interview with a Douche how is she going to implement Glass Steagall since you said it was so easy?

originally posted by: Blaine91555

My initial thoughts on her is she's out of her element and trying to make it up as she goes along. She's relying on celebrity, not being actually qualified.

t.

i think ive seen that one before?

came out in 2016?

a reply to: matafuchs

Easily done huh? I read politicians were looking into Dodd-Frank as an easier option

Dodd-Frank did not do, or potentially do, precisely what made Glass-Steagall very important and attractive.

Do you know what that specific aspect was?

but then again I do not know what I am talking about right? FO

Apparently not.

So since you are always bitching I cannot have a discussion tell me how the other 15 apply and she would implement.

That is true. You have issues with following basic conversation.

But can you be specific with your question? You want me to tell you how the other 15 apply to what?

As far as how it would be implemented, that would be through the usual processes in congress.

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: introvert

If she cannot handle an interview with a Douche how is she going to implement Glass Steagall since you said it was so easy?

By getting enough support for such an action in congress.

Do you know how US government works?

a reply to: introvert

No, it did not because the Democrats at the time left in loopholes. Next.

Ok, I'll choose two to make it easy on you and be specific.

What would she do in Congress to deal with...

Womens Rights
Support LGBTQIA+

How about some real answers....

a reply to: introvert

She isn't even endorsed by O the King...you really think she will garner support in Congress?

a reply to: matafuchs

No, it did not because the Democrats at the time left in loopholes. Next.

No. It did not leave loopholes that address the specific aspect that made Glass-Steagall effective.

It did not address the specific aspect whatsoever.

Again, do you know what that aspect was?

Ok, I'll choose two to make it easy on you and be specific. What would she do in Congress to deal with... Womens Rights Support LGBTQIA+

It depends on what aspect she is trying to "deal" with.

Like you said, be specific.

Otherwise, all he has to do is get enough support in congress for whatever cause she pushes.

a reply to: TinySickTears

No, that is all recent.

"Washington Post
Published on Aug 10, 2018"

There is an old saying here in the South - "If you can't run with the big dogs , stay on the porch"
That is exactly what Cortez is doing - staying on the porch

Every interview given so far has shown a tremendous amount of ignorance of the issues in this country. This has been shown in the answer provided for certain questions asked time and time again. Embarrassed over the shaming , Cortez has turned to hate and deflection as an attempt to get back at the people asking the questions instead of attempting to gain information that could provide better answers . "That's my answer and I am sticking to it" sort of curling into a ball in a safe place attitude.

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: introvert

She isn't even endorsed by O the King...you really think she will garner support in Congress?

I can't comment when your question is rooted in partisan stupidity.

She will garner support if others agree with her cause. Whether or not "O the King" endorses her.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

You have a point about getting her more 'exposure' by accepting his offer.

However she is not seeking either 'exposure' nor 'money'. She motives for running are different.

However, I agree with her that by doing so when his motive is clearly self-promotion not understanding .... How did she say it...

"I don't owe a response to unsolicited requests from men with bad intentions. And also like catcalling, for some reason they feel entitled to one."

www.commondreams.org...

is completely understandable and admirable. It shows integrity.

You go girl.

a reply to: introvert

Chicken# answer... You want to say I know nothing about something and in the same breath you want to choose how you comment. Par for your course...

How f'n dumb is a candidate to say they are going to help with Womens rights when it was passed almost a century ago. Talking points...like you!

I guess she's no longer "the star" or future, of the Dim party.

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: introvert

Chicken# answer... You want to say I know nothing about something and in the same breath you want to choose how you comment. Par for your course...

Of course I get to choose how I comment.

I'm trying to see if you know exactly why Glass-Steagall was important. It appears you do not and that is why you made the silly comparison to Dodd-Frank.

You have yet to even address that issue, so I would say it is you that is chicken#.

And I cannot comment with specifics on a loaded, absolutely absurd question. She will garner support, if others like her ideas in congress, whether or not "O the King" endorsed her or not.

Why even bring up "O the King"? What does that have to do with her getting support for a cause?

Nothing. That's just partisan douchery on your part.

Comment on your edit:

How f'n dumb is a candidate to say they are going to help with Womens rights when it was passed almost a century ago. Talking points...like you!

Yes, of course it's talking points. It plays to her sort of base.

And what talking points have I specifically used? Please list them and provide quotes.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

I think this was a mistake.

If she has something of substance to say she should be out there , everywhere, saying it.

The left has heard her it is time she shows the right who she really is.

Otherwise they will just believe the propaganda about her.

I hope this doesn't become a trend with her.
I hope she gets on a ton of right wing talk/news/shows.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: CriticalStinker

She's a coward.

I wouldn't agree with you if she didn't resort to the wording she did. I think she was rude about a nice offer. A simple, "Thank you for the offer, but I'm going to decline" would fit.

Or sticking to her original statement of not owing a response, she could have just said nothing about his offer at all.

Why do women always need to be nice when approached by the blatantly insincere? With a man it would be considered a measured response.

I refer you to the following podcast - about how 'rude' the female supreme court justices have to be just in order to be respected and heard:

www.wnycstudios.org...

a reply to: CriticalStinker

She definitely could have taken the high road and been more courteous and respectful in her reply. This kind of disrespectful behavior, on both sides, is one of the reasons our political system is so broken. She not only disrespectfully disregarded his challenge, but she also compared him to some kind of sexist low life.

This is not the best start to her campaign. And while a lot of Democrats may applaud this response, a lot of moderates would prefer to see more cooperation and respectful, intelligent, discourse between both sides of the aisle.

Furthermore, I am also personally concerned about the apparent shift of the Democratic party further to the left into Socialist territory. Some younger people, who don't have the golden hindsight of life's experiences, can't truly comprehend the complexity of our Capitalist democracy.

I'm not in her district, so I don't have to worry about voting for her. However, I would likely pick her over a Trump sycophant, who also have some problems with respectful interchange.

-dex

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos
Is insinuating that everyone she disgrees with, is a sexual-predator going to be her default goto defense ? Ya, her handler was smart enough to tell her, she's in over her head actually debating something. But was the idea to make slanderous statements about men, and Shapiro specificly her idea ? Or was this a dog-whistle (get it catcall...) to ruse her supporters into ignoring the fact she is vapid ?

She doesn't believe that EVERYONE who has 'cat called' another is a sexual predator and it is beyond silly over the top hyperbole.

However, and I ask this question seriously, DO YOU think/believe it is okay to 'cat-calling'?

DO YOU believe/think that you have a right to so?


Those are the pertinent points of the cat-calling analogy.

a reply to: FyreByrd

I think we have a different opinion when it comes to what integrity is.

Cat-Calls are a disgusting derogatory behavior that has no place in society. What Ben Shapiro did is called politics. Equating the 2 is either ignorance or disingenuous but not a sign of integrity.

She claimed she owed him no response yet gave him a response. He got exactly what he was after.

Integrity looks more like one of these options.

1. Ignore the offer completely because there was no need to respond.

2. Tell him she doesn't appreciate him promoting himself based on her fame and that she would not be debating him.

If she really feels like people calling on her for debates is like cat-calling she is in way over her head, because this is politics. You don't just get to sit on your unicorn and proclaim free everything and not have to answer to anyone about how exactly this free stuff is going to be paid for. She has proven time and again she doesn't understand her own platform.

originally posted by: ker2010

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: ker2010

originally posted by: spacedoubt
a reply to: CriticalStinker

It was political version of catcalling....I think that was the analogy.

TO be honest, I was also thinking this:

"hey lady, here is some money, entertain me"

lol

Just deleting a simply im scared to debate you would have been much better. We need more honesty out of people running for political positions. Admitting she doesn't have what it takes would have been a good start in honesty.

It's a news pundit though. They generally shout over you, don't really want to discuss facts, just catch you in some traps. He's the same as all the other pundits on radio and tV. She should really debate a republican candiate not a pundit.

If he were running for anything would she take the challenge? Doubtful. Believe what you will.

Most people have a good sense of when they are out of their league physically or mentally against someone.

Few will admit it and come off with some excuse as to why they won't take the challenge..

Most people will accept a challenge if they are confident they can indeed win it. She would get annihilated and knows it and her handlers know it and probably told her AHHH HELL NOOO Not Shapiro.

Make up what you will.