Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flea

I've probably met 2 or 3 women in my entire life that I would consider suitable for even low level public office. Conversely I've only met one man in my entire life that I would consider suitable for carrying a child to term (valade). Is this sexist of me?

---

Yeah. I mean, it’s highly indicative of that or just you not meeting women. Although I have a feeling the former has lead to the latter for you lol

Kinda like how you arguing that the concept of racial supremacy not being racist is...racist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flea

I've probably met 2 or 3 women in my entire life that I would consider suitable for even low level public office. Conversely I've only met one man in my entire life that I would consider suitable for carrying a child to term (valade). Is this sexist of me?

---

You obsess about me so much that based on these comments, I think you want to **** me. Kind of weird bro.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flea

I've probably met 2 or 3 women in my entire life that I would consider suitable for even low level public office. Conversely I've only met one man in my entire life that I would consider suitable for carrying a child to term (valade). Is this sexist of me?

---

Pick up a damn history book on women accomplishment. You would be right at home with Muslim extremists who only allow their woman folk to attend school up to eighth grade because they aren't suited for higher learning. Then you ask "Is this sexist of me", lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flea

Okay I take it back, I bet your b*#@h hips could carry a child too.

---

I think you may want to go read up on biology. Hips don’t have that much to do with carrying the child. Birthing. Now that’s a different story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

You obsess about me so much that based on these comments, I think you want to **** me. Kind of weird bro.

---

Proves my point, only the overly feminized would think mentioning someone's name means you want to penetrate their holes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WES445

Pick up a damn history book on women accomplishment. You would be right at home with Muslim extremists who only allow their woman folk to attend school up to eighth grade because they aren't suited for higher learning. Then you ask "Is this sexist of me", lol.

---

I'm going to choose to believe this is Wes's wife posting in which case it was all jokes. :D

But welcome back Wes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flea

I'm going to choose to believe this is Wes's wife posting in which case it was all jokes. :D

But welcome back Wes.

---

Thanks Flea, but do you really believe this? My wife is very smart, tolerant no disrespect and knows how to use a knife. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flea

Proves my point, only the overly feminized would think mentioning someone's name means you want to penetrate their holes.

---

Nah, you were definitely talking about my hips. Which is weird. Sad to see the high and mighty Flea stoop to such low bars for your posts. All that time away and you came back with that dud?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VCaintdead17

Wait. This is racist and sexist as ****. What the hell

---

quoted this..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hawkeye15

I don't disagree with your premise, I simply think if an extremist gets in the oval office, it causes divide, versus positive direction.

We all saw the office can humble a man with Obama, whose inexperience was blasted by the right. And he was just fine overall. Maybe she would be the same.

This will sound terrible, and it likely is. I can't possibly vote for a latina woman to make decisions that matter. I have never met one that isn't fire engine red when they get upset and act impulsively instead of rationally.

If she can get the backing/funding, I would love to see where she can go. But she won't make it to the top imo. Too extreme and already lacking the facts.

---

I didn't see this before when it was posted 08-10-2018, but did nobody comment on this before? how is this okay to say? does it not get much attention because it was latina. imagine substituting that with black and the outrage it would cause.

---

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bramaca

Post all that and there’s no comment about a California Republican running an ad about a New York Democrat comparing her to the Khmer Rouge lol. If this was an add by the Democrats comparing Trump to Hitler you would be irate and would completely ignore the dumb **** that would inevitably come out of his mouth as a result.

---

I can only comment on what I know about. I know nothing about the Khmer Rouge.
I could say you posted all you did, and didn't bother to comment on what you quoted, the actual story that I posted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bramaca

Strange how my reply is in the quote. Doesn’t show it that way when I tried editing it.

---

that is what happens when there are too many tweets in a post. when someone quotes the entire post then their reply is including in the quote like it did here. when I click quote only the reply to my post is there.

---

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

So someone comparing Trump to Hitler/Mao is wrong and violent rhetoric but someone comparing AOC to genocide in Khmer is OK? That is also violent rhetoric.

You stated you denounce violent rhetoric from both sides. So why are you not denouncing this?

---

I don't agree with the original video used against AOC. I didn't like or agree with her face ending up in fire. I didn't even watch the entire video, just saw the part with AOC's face ending up on fire.
I know nothing about Khmer Rouge so I don't know the comparison.

the point in why I posted this story is to show the stupidity of AOC and how easily words like white supremacist and racist get thrown around. this had nothing to do with that yet AOC was stupid enough to say that.

you want to criticize me for not commenting about the violent comparison, but yet you didn't say anything about what AOC said. you took to the time to reply to me but couldn't even take the time to comment on AOC.

multiple days and not 1 person could comment about what AOC said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpecialFNK

I don't agree with the original video used against AOC. I didn't like or agree with her face ending up in fire. I didn't even watch the entire video, just saw the part with AOC's face ending up on fire.
I know nothing about Khmer Rouge so I don't know the comparison.

the point in why I posted this story is to show the stupidity of AOC and how easily words like white supremacist and racist get thrown around. this had nothing to do with that yet AOC was stupid enough to say that.

you want to criticize me for not commenting about the violent comparison, but yet you didn't say anything about what AOC said. you took to the time to reply to me but couldn't even take the time to comment on AOC.

multiple days and not 1 person could comment about what AOC said.

---

You posted a story where someone uses violent rhetoric against AOC and never once mention it. In the other thread you stated that you are against all violent rhetoric, regardless of what side. That was a lie. If you cared about violent rhetoric, you would have called it out here. You did not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

You posted a story where someone uses violent rhetoric against AOC and never once mention it. In the other thread you stated that you are against all violent rhetoric, regardless of what side. That was a lie. If you cared about violent rhetoric, you would have called it out here. You did not.

---

question. what is the title of this thread? I don't need to wait for you to answer, the answer is.. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. I posted something about, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. what she said was the intent of what I posted.

here is another post by you and still not commenting on the actual story in what AOC said. you are more interested in arguing with me than what is the actual story. that is often your problem. why is it so hard for you to comment on the story, about what AOC said. this has become a pattern for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpecialFNK

question. what is the title of this thread? I don't need to wait for you to answer, the answer is.. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. I posted something about, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. what she said was the intent of what I posted.

here is another post by you and still not commenting on the actual story in what AOC said. you are more interested in arguing with me than what is the actual story. that is often your problem. why is it so hard for you to comment on the story, about what AOC said. this has become a pattern for you.

---

Yeah you posted a story about someone using Violent Rhetoric against AOC and literally said nothing about it. Here is the title of the article you posted:

Republican PAC runs debate ad comparing Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to genocidal Khmer Rouge

I am the only one between us commenting on the actual story. The story is how someone used violent rhetoric about AOC and you have not commented on it.

By the fact you have no commented on the story I guess you don't care about violent rhetoric from both sides. Seriously, you completely ignored the title of your own article. How bad can you get?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

Yeah you posted a story about someone using Violent Rhetoric against AOC and literally said nothing about it. Here is the title of the article you posted:

Republican PAC runs debate ad comparing Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to genocidal Khmer Rouge

---

the reason why I posted the story was about what AOC said. that is literally why I said this..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpecialFNK

this is what Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said..

apparently Asian Elizabeth Heng is a racist white supremacist. :shrug:



this is why the use of racist and white supremacist has become idiotic. it's used to manipulate people for a political agenda. it's straight up ignorant.

AOC is just stupid.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

I am the only one between us commenting on the actual story. The story is how someone used violent rhetoric about AOC and you have not commented on it.

By the fact you have no commented on the story I guess you don't care about violent rhetoric from both sides. Seriously, you completely ignored the title of your own article. How bad can you get?

---

I did comment on that part yesterday replying to you..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpecialFNK

I don't agree with the original video used against AOC. I didn't like or agree with her face ending up in fire. I didn't even watch the entire video, just saw the part with AOC's face ending up on fire.
I know nothing about Khmer Rouge so I don't know the comparison.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpecialFNK

the reason why I posted the story was about what AOC said. that is literally why I said this..

I did comment on that part yesterday replying to you..

---

I know the reason you posted the story, but by making the reason about what AOC in response to violent rhetoric you completely ignored violent rhetoric towards AOC, despite you talking about how you don't like it from any side. You made absolutely zero mention of it until I specifically called you out for not doing so. Your response yesterday was in reply to me, had I not called you out, you NEVER would have mentioned how the violent rhetoric towards AOC was bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

I know the reason you posted the story, but by making the reason about what AOC in response to violent rhetoric you completely ignored violent rhetoric towards AOC, despite you talking about how you don't like it from any side. You made absolutely zero mention of it until I specifically called you out for not doing so. Your response yesterday was in reply to me, had I not called you out, you NEVER would have mentioned how the violent rhetoric towards AOC was bad.

---

what I said yesterday is how I felt when I first saw the video. I'm sorry if I didn't post that at the same time. the bipartisan reaction should be not to have a woman's face ending up in fire. but I was more interested in what AOC said, which is why I posted it in the AOC thread.

where is your comment on what AOC said, you have had numerous replies now without addressing that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpecialFNK

what I said yesterday is how I felt when I first saw the video. I'm sorry if I didn't post that at the same time. the bipartisan reaction should be not to have a woman's face ending up in fire. but I was more interested in what AOC said, which is why I posted it in the AOC thread.

where is your comment on what AOC said, you have had numerous replies now without addressing that.

---

At least you admit your true motivation was to just make AOC look bad as opposed to denouncing violent rhetoric from both sides.

As to my comment on what AOC said? My thoughts are: it's not nearly as bad as insinuating she is responsible for genocide. It is not nearly as bad as violent rhetoric towards her. And anyone who sees someone using such violent rhetoric against someone and then gets more angry at their response calling the person who used violence rhetoric against them a name is a partisan hack.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

At least you admit your true motivation was to just make AOC look bad as opposed to denouncing violent rhetoric from both sides.

As to my comment on what AOC said? My thoughts are: it's not nearly as bad as insinuating she is responsible for genocide. It is not nearly as bad as violent rhetoric towards her. And anyone who sees someone using such violent rhetoric against someone and then gets more angry at their response calling the person who used violence rhetoric against them a name is a partisan hack.

---

so abusing the word racist or white supremacist is not a problem? I thought you would be someone that would think this is wrong since you have talked about actual racism before. here I thought racism was a big problem, and with that anyone who wants to casually throw around the word racist or white supremacist where it doesn't fit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpecialFNK

so abusing the word racist or white supremacist is not a problem? I thought you would be someone that would think this is wrong since you have talked about actual racism before. here I thought racism was a big problem, and with that anyone who wants to casually throw around the word racist or white supremacist where it doesn't fit.

---

Not as big a problem as someone saying she is like genocide. That is the bigger problem, and you completely ignored it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

Not as big a problem as someone saying she is like genocide. That is the bigger problem, and you completely ignored it.

---

I didn't mention it in the beginning because I thought what Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said was more deserving of the attention, again in the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez thread.

I will also say again that I know nothing about Khmer Rouge so I don't know the comparison. hard for me to talk about what was as bad or not when I know literally nothing about whatever that is. but do think what AOC said was wrong, and that alone should have people in agreement. she brought up white supremacist in something that was done by an Asian woman.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpecialFNK

I didn't mention it in the beginning because I thought what Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said was more deserving of the attention, again in the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez thread.

I will also say again that I know nothing about Khmer Rouge so I don't know the comparison. hard for me to talk about what was as bad or not when I know literally nothing about whatever that is. but do think what AOC said was wrong, and that alone should have people in agreement. she brought up white supremacist in something that was done by an Asian woman.

---

I know that's what you thought, and that's sad. You didn't think someone using violent rhetoric against AOC was worthy of attention. You could have posted the story in the other thread talking about violent rhetoric to condemn the violent rhetoric against AOC, but you did not.

And don't give me the you know nothing about Khmer Rouge, you know what the word Genocide means. Has AOC done anything remotely close to Genocide? No. So any comparison to genocide, anywhere, was wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpecialFNK

hard for me to talk about what was as bad or not when I know literally nothing about whatever that is.

---

1. You should consider applying this newfound filtering process to more of your posts.

2. You're absolutely full of ****. There is absolutely no way you know nothing about Khmer Rouge, genocide, etc. This is just more of your laughable convenient ignorance that you default to anytime you are faced with addressing something that submarines your already ridiculous point (that AOC can't slam white supremacy because of Elizabeth Heng, who she wasn't addresing lol, she's flat out addressing the GOP's white supremacist base, y'know, white supremacists that the ad is meant to appeal to. Your point died before you could even make it because you a. you didn't understand what you were addressing, as usual, and b. you don't really have any problems with white supremacy to begin with lol) --especially when you go out of your way to google dumb good guy with gun anecdotes that you "remember" lmao

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

I know that's what you thought, and that's sad. You didn't think someone using violent rhetoric against AOC was worthy of attention. You could have posted the story in the other thread talking about violent rhetoric to condemn the violent rhetoric against AOC, but you did not.

And don't give me the you know nothing about Khmer Rouge, you know what the word Genocide means. Has AOC done anything remotely close to Genocide? No. So any comparison to genocide, anywhere, was wrong.

---

common sense should be that it's a problem when someone abuses words like racist/white supremacist for their political agenda, but here you are acting like it's not a problem and would rather deflect to something else.

I did end up commenting on how it was wrong, but you would rather ignore that in your rambling because that doesn't fit your agenda of only arguing with me.

---

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browski234

1. You should consider applying this newfound filtering process to more of your posts.

2. You're absolutely full of ****. There is absolutely no way you know nothing about Khmer Rouge, genocide, etc. This is just more of your laughable convenient ignorance that you default to anytime you are faced with addressing something that submarines your already ridiculous point (that AOC can't slam white supremacy because of Elizabeth Heng, who she wasn't addresing lol, she's flat out addressing the GOP's white supremacist base, y'know, white supremacists that the ad is meant to appeal to. Your point died before you could even make it because you a. you didn't understand what you were addressing, as usual, and b. you don't really have any problems with white supremacy to begin with lol) --especially when you go out of your way to google dumb good guy with gun anecdotes that you "remember" lmao

---

please tell me ore of what I must believe, ****ing troll. you don't know ****, you routinely have no clue what you are talking about.

the ad had nothing to do with race, racism, white supremacy. those are words that the likes of AOC use because they know people are stupid and gullible enough to believe it, which is exactly what you always do. they love you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpecialFNK

common sense should be that it's a problem when someone abuses words like racist/white supremacist for their political agenda, but here you are acting like it's not a problem and would rather deflect to something else.

I did end up commenting on how it was wrong, but you would rather ignore that in your rambling because that doesn't fit your agenda of only arguing with me.

---

First Bolded: And it's common sense it's a problem when someone uses violent rhetoric against a politician, yet you acted like it's not a problem and didn't even address it.

Second Bolded: Deflect to something else? The article you posted was ABOUT the violent rhetoric against AOC, yet you COMPLETELY ignored it. That is deflection.

Your first thought when someone compares AOC to Genocide was "AOC sucks". That is not good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

First Bolded: And it's common sense it's a problem when someone uses violent rhetoric against a politician, yet you acted like it's not a problem and didn't even address it.

---

again..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpecialFNK

I don't agree with the original video used against AOC. I didn't like or agree with her face ending up in fire. I didn't even watch the entire video, just saw the part with AOC's face ending up on fire.
I know nothing about Khmer Rouge so I don't know the comparison.

---

JFC I even apologized and still you want to attack me over it..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpecialFNK

what I said yesterday is how I felt when I first saw the video. I'm sorry if I didn't post that at the same time.

---

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

Second Bolded: Deflect to something else? The article you posted was ABOUT the violent rhetoric against AOC, yet you COMPLETELY ignored it. That is deflection.

Your first thought when someone compares AOC to Genocide was "AOC sucks". That is not good.

---

the intent on why I posted it was not about that, again, in the AOC thread where my intent was for it to be about AOC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpecialFNK

the bipartisan reaction should be not to have a woman's face ending up in fire. but I was more interested in what AOC said, which is why I posted it in the AOC thread.

---

you are getting awfully worked up over "violent rhetoric against a politician" and putting yourself in a corner for future times when any politician left or right does the same thing. you will then be forced to post with equal outrage or be a hypocrite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpecialFNK

again..

JFC I even apologized and still you want to attack me over it..

the intent on why I posted it was not about that, again, in the AOC thread where my intent was for it to be about AOC.

you are getting awfully worked up over "violent rhetoric against a politician" and putting yourself in a corner for future times when any politician left or right does the same thing. you will then be forced to post with equal outrage or be a hypocrite.

---

Your apology is empty because you only did that once I called you out for it. You showed your true intentions with your original post.

And no, I'm not backing myself into any corner, because I actually believe it's wrong from any side. You certainly won't see me posting an article of a leftist accusing a conservative of genocide by talking about how dumb the conservative is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

Your apology is empty because you only did that once I called you out for it. You showed your true intentions with your original post.

And no, I'm not backing myself into any corner, because I actually believe it's wrong from any side. You certainly won't see me posting an article of a leftist accusing a conservative of genocide by talking about how dumb the conservative is.

---

my true intentions, again in Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez thread. no **** that was my intention, I literally said that.

this angle is laughable in how you want to keep acting as if I never said anything, yet it took you how long to call out the violent rhetoric in the story with 3 separate incidents.
how many days did I wait to respond about what you asked. the same day I saw/replied to your post, since I wasn't around 14/15/16.
how many days did it take you, weeks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

Second Bolded: Of course they are wrong.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpecialFNK

this is all that matters. now imagine if you have said this from the start.

---

I didn't need to go on and on and on refusing to say it was wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpecialFNK

my true intentions, again in Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez thread. no **** that was my intention, I literally said that.

this angle is laughable in how you want to keep acting as if I never said anything, yet it took you how long to call out the violent rhetoric in the story with 3 separate incidents.
how many days did I wait to respond about what you asked. the same day I saw/replied to your post, since I wasn't around 14/15/16.
how many days did it take you, weeks.

I didn't need to go on and on and on refusing to say it was wrong.

---

So you want brownie points for admitting the violent rhetoric against AOC was wrong only after being called out by me after posting the article and talking about how dumb AOC is?

Sorry, you don't get any points for that. Your hypocrisy was on display. Had I not called you out, you still wouldn't have said the comment against AOC was bad. You only said that after I called you out. You don't get points for that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

So you want brownie points for admitting the violent rhetoric against AOC was wrong only after being called out by me after posting the article and talking about how dumb AOC is?

Sorry, you don't get any points for that. Your hypocrisy was on display. Had I not called you out, you still wouldn't have said the comment against AOC was bad. You only said that after I called you out. You don't get points for that.

---

you are the hypocrite. I admitted something after you mentioned it. how long did it take you to finally comment on something similar, weeks.

again, this is mundane, but this is the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez thread so of course my comment was going to be about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. if I was going to focus on the other part then it would have went in a different thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpecialFNK

you are the hypocrite. I admitted something after you mentioned it. how long did it take you to finally comment on something similar, weeks.

again, this is mundane, but this is the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez thread so of course my comment was going to be about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. if I was going to focus on the other part then it would have went in a different thread.

---

Someone saying AOC is equivalent to genocide is about AOC. The perfect place to talk about someone using violent rhetoric towards AOC is in the AOC thread. Not everything in a thread about someone must be negative. But you did not until I called you out on it, and you never would have had I not either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

Someone saying AOC is equivalent to genocide is about AOC. The perfect place to talk about someone using violent rhetoric towards AOC is in the AOC thread. Not everything in a thread about someone must be negative. But you did not until I called you out on it, and you never would have had I not either.

---

this right here is what this was about..

and the reply from Asian Elizabeth Heng.

this is why I posted this in the AOC thread.

if you don't want to accept that then that is your fault.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpecialFNK

this right here is what this was about..

and the reply from Asian Elizabeth Heng.

this is why I posted this in the AOC thread.

if you don't want to accept that then that is your fault.

---

I know that is why you posted in the AOC thread. You wanted to make her look bad. But the first tweet says "Republicans are running TV ads setting pictures of me on fire", which is violent rhetoric, which you claimed you are against no matter what side, and yet said nothing about it until I called you out.

How come you did not mention her tweet about that? Because what this was all about was to hate on AOC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpecialFNK

this right here is what this was about..

and the reply from Asian Elizabeth Heng.

this is why I posted this in the AOC thread.

if you don't want to accept that then that is your fault.

---

It really doesn’t matter why you posted that article. The whole thing is about AOC, just because her response is what you want to talk about doesn’t mean anyone else has to. IMO the GOP running an add about her being compared to a genocidal regime is a much more significant part of the story and definitely more important to address. It’s like a contractor told you the foundation of your house is crumbling but all you want to talk about is the ugly colour of the drapes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by webslinger

i just wanted to add to a couple of posts on here that were against or dubious about women or latina women holding public office. I've interacted with many women in the last 3 years or more, more than most men, and i can tell you, that the vast majority of women appear to be damn right indecisive. If you assign an appointment on a day to do something, they'll arbitrarily change their minds or can't decide whether they want that day or another day, or any day at all. If they do something they'll change their minds about why they wanted to do it in the first place afterwards. It's just a complete disaster. It actually made me question, the mental fitness of most women to make decisions. Before this experience i never considered the possibility that women were especially prone to this and i think most women themselves, would agree with what i am saying. To hold public office a woman would have to be extraordinary, which i feel most are, who run. For the average women, probably not. I think aoc is very capable, in this regard.

---

bigot!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Webslinger

I just wanted to add to a couple of posts on here that were against or dubious about women or latina women holding public office. I've interacted with many women in the last 3 years or more, more than most men, and I can tell you, that the vast majority of women appear to be damn right indecisive. If you assign an appointment on a day to do something, they'll arbitrarily change their minds or can't decide whether they want that day or another day, or any day at all. If they do something they'll change their minds about why they wanted to do it in the first place afterwards. It's just a complete disaster. It actually made me question, the mental fitness of most women to make decisions. Before this experience I never considered the possibility that women were especially prone to this and I think most women themselves, would agree with what I am saying. To hold public office a woman would have to be extraordinary, which I feel most are, who run. For the average women, probably not. I think AOC is very capable, in this regard.

---

AOC is a total moron.

Many women could fill the shoes of a public official.

Condaleeza Rice
Nicky Hailey
Tulsi Gabbard
Sarah Palin
Hillary Clinton
Pocahontas
Kamala Harris

All have the brains and wherewithal to hold public office.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Webslinger

I just wanted to add to a couple of posts on here that were against or dubious about women or latina women holding public office. I've interacted with many women in the last 3 years or more, more than most men, and I can tell you, that the vast majority of women appear to be damn right indecisive. If you assign an appointment on a day to do something, they'll arbitrarily change their minds or can't decide whether they want that day or another day, or any day at all. If they do something they'll change their minds about why they wanted to do it in the first place afterwards. It's just a complete disaster. It actually made me question, the mental fitness of most women to make decisions. Before this experience I never considered the possibility that women were especially prone to this and I think most women themselves, would agree with what I am saying. To hold public office a woman would have to be extraordinary, which I feel most are, who run. For the average women, probably not. I think AOC is very capable, in this regard.

---

I remember how some white folks believed that a Black had to be extraordinary rare Negro to be a quarterback in the NFL back in the early sixties. They felt that negroes couldn't mentally process the various reads in front of them and then make a decision all within five seconds, or understand and run today (at that time) complex NFL offense playbook.

Now another white guy in the year 2019 is questioning the ability of another human being because they ain't like him. If you are non-white or gay, you should be doubly ashamed of yourself. You tell your momma or women folk this crap? Raise daughters with a strong sense of inferiority to their male better.

The more things changes, the more it stays the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Webslinger

I just wanted to add to a couple of posts on here that were against or dubious about women or latina women holding public office. I've interacted with many women in the last 3 years or more, more than most men, and I can tell you, that the vast majority of women appear to be damn right indecisive. If you assign an appointment on a day to do something, they'll arbitrarily change their minds or can't decide whether they want that day or another day, or any day at all. If they do something they'll change their minds about why they wanted to do it in the first place afterwards. It's just a complete disaster. It actually made me question, the mental fitness of most women to make decisions. Before this experience I never considered the possibility that women were especially prone to this and I think most women themselves, would agree with what I am saying. To hold public office a woman would have to be extraordinary, which I feel most are, who run. For the average women, probably not. I think AOC is very capable, in this regard.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WES445

I remember how some white folks believed that a Black had to be extraordinary rare Negro to be a quarterback in the NFL back in the early sixties. They felt that negroes couldn't mentally process the various reads in front of them and then make a decision all within five seconds, or understand and run today (at that time) complex NFL offense playbook.

Now another white guy in the year 2019 is questioning the ability of another human being because they ain't like him. If you are non-white or gay, you should be doubly ashamed of yourself. You tell your momma or women folk this crap? Raise daughters with a strong sense of inferiority to their male better.

The more things changes, the more it stays the same.

---

Haha, I dont know what exactly I agree and disagree with, but I like BOTH these posts

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Webslinger

I just wanted to add to a couple of posts on here that were against or dubious about women or latina women holding public office. I've interacted with many women in the last 3 years or more, more than most men, and I can tell you, that the vast majority of women appear to be damn right indecisive. If you assign an appointment on a day to do something, they'll arbitrarily change their minds or can't decide whether they want that day or another day, or any day at all. If they do something they'll change their minds about why they wanted to do it in the first place afterwards. It's just a complete disaster. It actually made me question, the mental fitness of most women to make decisions. Before this experience I never considered the possibility that women were especially prone to this and I think most women themselves, would agree with what I am saying. To hold public office a woman would have to be extraordinary, which I feel most are, who run. For the average women, probably not. I think AOC is very capable, in this regard.

---

I'd love to see your answer, if you had a son and daughter in high school and both told you they want to be politicians. I wonder how you'd respond

Most women are terrible story tellers. They general feel people should listen to them bc they are special and give no effort to entertain. It’s why powerful ones come off cold and not relatable. AOC seems to be able to deliver a line/tell a story


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Webslinger

I just wanted to add to a couple of posts on here that were against or dubious about women or latina women holding public office. I've interacted with many women in the last 3 years or more, more than most men, and I can tell you, that the vast majority of women appear to be damn right indecisive. If you assign an appointment on a day to do something, they'll arbitrarily change their minds or can't decide whether they want that day or another day, or any day at all. If they do something they'll change their minds about why they wanted to do it in the first place afterwards. It's just a complete disaster. It actually made me question, the mental fitness of most women to make decisions. Before this experience I never considered the possibility that women were especially prone to this and I think most women themselves, would agree with what I am saying. To hold public office a woman would have to be extraordinary, which I feel most are, who run. For the average women, probably not. I think AOC is very capable, in this regard.

---

You have a pretty crazy stereotype of women. Maybe you’ve been around a lot of loonies, but, there are a lot of women who are capable of making decisions and sticking to it. I’ll go ahead and also disagree about your “average woman” comment. I didn’t know there was a difference between the “average woman” and one who runs for office.