Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[nastynice]

I don't think you read correctly. I said she didn't "need" to take a plane over a train and she didn't need to take a car over a subway train. Need is different from want. She wanted to take a gas operated method and that is the problem. Did you not follow along or did you get lost somewhere in all of this?

You have to be able to appreciate the base line stupidity of your argument in order to understand his post. All you did was repeat his first two lines in a manner where you drug it out into a paragraph somehow, in the hopes that all your extra senseless bull **** can some how trick someone into thinking you said anything less stupid than what he said in his first two lines...

Can someone not on his ignore list please tell the man.

lol, I be dying while I type posts like this out, you guys don't be like taking **** personal do you? Don't, I'm just sarcastic prick

[mngopher35]

Mngopher, you don't truly think that. You're just emotionally traumatized because your arguments are poorly made and simply triggered by your support for incompetent people. Polls only work if they are used in a setting that is consistent and unbiased. It's why so many polls were wrong when they predicted Trump wouldn't win. Why? Because people lied on the polls/incorrect setting for the polls conducted. Seriously, you think I ran away from discussing actual issues? I ran away because you WEREN'T discussing actual issues. You just reply for the sake of it. Probably because you think by replying, you are generating discussion when all you're doing is generating pointless replies that mean nothing. Sorry, buddy. Just like the Wolves suck, you do too, unfortunately. And it's funny you type that a second grader is more capable of understanding what a poll is. I see the requirement for mods here is very simple: Must be emotionally traumatized, triggered, ignorant, as left as possible, and stubborn to the fact that they are hypocrites when they run after Trump for being silly but then try to defend every position of AOC by saying she is "passionate." Oh boy.

hahaha I am emotionally traumatized and triggered when you spaz out and attack a bunch of random "identities" (twolves fan, mod) unrelated to politics? That just emphasizes my point of how ridiculously childish this has been and how a 2nd grader could handle conversation better. One of us certainly seems to have been triggered here.

I get it you just want to come on here, tell people what to think, and have them mindlessly agree and listen to you. If they don't they are wrong and you need to attack because using logic/reason just isn't in the arsenal. This is why when I called your posts out you said you need to be done with me, then decided to agree with special (who admitted to not looking/knowing the context) to call me ignorant then post like this. You don't want a discussion you just want to either tell people what to do or bash them for disagreeing.

I just respond to what other posters are saying and let it go from there, you see an agenda and are picking sides/teams due to your own biases. Sure we all have some sort of bias but what we say should matter etc. more than a side/team/identity you can label people with. I don't think my conversations are special to adding discussion just because I have my own opinions and back them up lol I just try and talk logically about stuff with others on a forum. That is the problem, some people actually want to have a conversation and others just want to play that dumb teams/attacking game, it's obvious where you are at with this post (and multiple others throughout the forum tbh).

[mngopher35]

I didn't laugh him off without reason I provided a very key point that is - the republicans want to vote on it...

You can continue to tell me how much support it has but as it stands the democrats don't want to vote on it. According to Feinstein's speech to 12 year olds they have their own green new deal. My guess is it probably doesn't shoehorn in every socialist agenda there is. Doesn't surprise me considering most dems aren't raging socialists (trigger warning).

Yes and we also responded to that point, you are talking about the political game. That is not the only type of support in the world, the American political establishment does not get to decide what everyone else believes and thinks.

When talking about support f or individual policies, the plan helping/hurting candidates if they support from rep/dem/ind, presidential candidates also supporting etc. it has much more support than just AOC as Crovash claimed/showing a link to proponents you were saying no to and laughing off "emoji sounds real popular". Your reasoning isn't good was the response to it not having any support and you guys all started bashing as if I'm dumb for bringing it up when the reality was I was responding to that conversation giving more proof it has a lot of support outside AOC. Not enough to pass or win no but there are some good things within that are very popular generally and it does have support from many people even if not majority overall etc. despite some obvious flaws (I think we both agree) of being too unrealistic/too far reaching on left policy and not really being a specific plan but too general of ideas that just sound good type thing etc. to be that true winner. It doesn't mean all discussion about it has to be that it sucks/is raging socialism/has no support etc. is all.

As I already talked with Crovash about, I never said I support the plan in full I have said that there are good ideas within and it isn't all **** (like you were claiming and I was arguing against). I have pointed to what I could remember liking from the deal (yes environmental issues) a couple times without responses from anyone now. The dems making their own plans without some BS side stuff is a GREAT THING. Republicans should do the same. If this gets everyone to actively compete on who can come up with the best climate change strategy and leave the bs behind that doesn't seem like a bad outcome at all. People can have a broad plan that has good/bad aspects that can be talked about, negotiated on and so on without it all relating to the political game but so many on here are just focused on that sides/winning aspect (republicans wanna vote on it to win though) and can't get past it.

You can use socialist all you want in an attempt to trigger lol that isn't some new insult. Flash in a post above yours tried to use a bunch of identities and other words too, you need to step up your game here. If anything I am disappointed in you, you can definitely get me more riled up than this. I might insult one of your favorite sports teams if you don't watch out though!

[mngopher35]

Yep. The deal is nothing more than promoting their party, but they can't state one good thing about the deal outside of 'climate change'. It's pretty funny.

Gopher is the funniest. He supports this deal due to it's energy factor but can't seem to allow himself to pick apart the clear flaws in it.

I have agreed with there being flaws within our conversation with him lol, my argument was that there was SOME sort of good and it wasn't all ****. I said it wasn't pure socialism/socialist takover by raging socialists it just moves us more left towards socialism and away from farther right like we are now. I agreed with the idea it wasn't only AOC supporting this and it does have other support and backed it up with info.

These are not saying I agree with the plan in full. It's not saying I don't think there are any flaws. It doesn't mean I don't think that it moves us further left. I am simply saying that it isn't an all around **** plan, that it has more than just support from only aoc (individual policies, from dems/ind as whole, from presidential candidates on left), and it isn't complete socialism. These were in response to what someone else was saying (mostly fingerbang).

[dbroncos78087]

Well I have.

-100% renewable in 10 years which is asinine
-working with farmers to cure cow farts
-government guaranteed housing
-government guaranteed (good) job
-government assistance for those unwilling to work
-abolish ice (what does this have to do with energy)
-free tuition (again)
-pointing out that there's no actual plan in there besides a lofty goal and buzzwords like "invest in" or "work with"
-some weird thing about our food

I’m looking for the cow fart and ICE stuff. Mind pointing it out in the text rather than the talking points.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-...ution/109/text

[nastynice]

I’m looking for the cow fart and ICE stuff. Mind pointing it out in the text rather than the talking points.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-...ution/109/text

Very impressive. I know I bash Dems too, but I have to give it up, this is impressive. They identified a lot of issues and seem to be a voice for the middle class as well as lower class. It's refreshing to know that not only are these thoughts crossing the minds of politicians, but also they are putting them to paper.

I'm ignorant to this green deal, but wow, what a different picture I had painted in my mind when hearing republican posters mention it on the forum. This doesn't sound like anything they described, lol.

I mean there's room for interpretation, but basically it states we should invest in decreasing pollution of transportation, farming, and residential areas. What is there to even oppose in there?

The one thing that sticks out to me is that it's vague as hell. Everything mentioned is kinda like common sense stuff, like yea no **** we should do that, but nothings quantified or qualified, meaning if this were to pass tomorrow what hard changes should I expect to see?

What were the under the radar unrelated democratic policies they were trying to pass in there? I didn't really pick up on any..

[SpecialFNK]

Is this where we're at? Criticizing AOC because she uses plastic bags at the store?

just criticizing her for using plastic bags on it's own would be stupid. when someone wants to go on and on and on about saving the environment, and is using plastics bags then that would hypocritical.

---

---

You just can't ever understand any sort of context and just want to bash in the same way they have haha. The only reason you can't acknowledge what polls do/how it relates to the person I am responding to is you are a partisan hack who only wants to see things in sides so everyone with AOC becomes dumb/irrelevant to you.

If someone says that the wall has 0 support from republicans and you showed thousands of people via poll are supporting it that would go against the initial claim lol.

We are at the point where understanding what a poll is has become a partisan game lol

it's common sense. if you poll people that are biased/partisan then the poll results will be flawed.

[ManRam]

Saving the environment is not achieved by personal decisions. The way it can perhaps be achieved is via governmental policy and further regulation of private enterprises that are far and away the most responsible for the problems we have. Focusing on someone who is genuinely trying to fight for the policy that can help save the environment for the things they do in their private life is just weird to me. Her individual actions don't have the slightest impact on the big picture. At all. So I don't understand what it achieves. Are people suggesting that their support of things like the Green New Deal are disingenuous because they use plastic bags?

Should we make conscious decisions to do what we can to do our part? Yeah, I think so. Sometimes you still gotta do what you gotta do. We can only operate within the society we operate within. I drive a car that runs on gasoline. I sometimes use plastic bags when I must or when it makes more sense. I drink out of plastic cups at work far too frequently. I've flown on planes when I could have driven. I do all sorts of things that aren't ideal. That's the reality we live in. Doesn't mean I don't support protecting the environment and combating global warming.

All the more confusing when the criticism is once again coming from people who do not care at all about any of these things and do not believe that people should operate to the standards they're expecting AOC to. Seems to be a common theme lately.

[valade16]

I don't think you read correctly. I said she didn't "need" to take a plane over a train and she didn't need to take a car over a subway train. Need is different from want. She wanted to take a gas operated method and that is the problem. Did you not follow along or did you get lost somewhere in all of this?

She didn't need to take a train over a bicycle. She didn't need to take a car over walking. Again, there is no end. If she took the train that one time and a car or plane the next day you'd still rip her. In your mind, she cannot ever, EVER drive a car or take a plane ever again because she cares about the environment.

I get it, you hate her. That's all this is.

[mngopher35]

it's common sense. if you poll people that are biased/partisan then the poll results will be flawed.

It's also common sense that if someone says something doesn't have support, that showing a lot of people support it counters that argument. It is common sense this is what a poll does whether or not you agree with what others think lol. That's what is so funny within the context of the conversation this is all so common sense/obvious but because some people have been so extremely biased and partisan they have been completely unable to admit basic things in order to push extreme rhetoric/insult and ignore as much common sense/what is actually being said along the way to do so.

The results of a poll asking what people think/believe/support are not flawed just because YOU disagree with the answers personally. Again it is still the same measurement just like other polls are the key aspect here is it goes against what some of you guys think making you all want to ignore obvious context/common sense in order to push these agenda and attack sides/teams ignoring what people are actually saying. Ignoring results just because you don't like them or they go against your team is the partisan hackery in this situation. You openly admitted to not knowing/caring about the context, your entire agenda has been to discredit something you disagree with personally even if it ignores context/common sense.

I have given far more examples of the lack of logic within this thread showing bias/partisanship about teams and winning than you have to show how all the people throughout all the polls are biased/partisan in more of a manner anyways. The reason you want to focus on a bunch of people you have no idea who they are or never met being biased is that's the only argument you have left to make against something so obvious/common sense as this.

[nastynice]

just criticizing her for using plastic bags on it's own would be stupid. when someone wants to go on and on and on about saving the environment, and is using plastics bags then that would hypocritical.


[

You don't even know what the word hypocrite means. Why are you using it? You have repeatedly claimed not to be a hypocrite, the only explanation for that is you simply do not understand the words definition.

You have claimed before not to be a hypocrite.

Wrong.

Next...

[benny01]

Just get paper bags, compost them with your coffee grounds, put them it in a pot and grow your own groceries dum dum. It’s for your health.

[SpecialFNK]

You don't even know what the word hypocrite means. Why are you using it? You have repeatedly claimed not to be a hypocrite, the only explanation for that is you simply do not understand the words definition.

You have claimed before not to be a hypocrite.

Wrong.

Next...

everyone is a hypocrite on something. next.

---

---

She didn't need to take a train over a bicycle. She didn't need to take a car over walking. Again, there is no end. If she took the train that one time and a car or plane the next day you'd still rip her. In your mind, she cannot ever, EVER drive a car or take a plane ever again because she cares about the environment.

I get it, you hate her. That's all this is.

this can be said for the left on many different things related to Trump.

[valade16]

this can be said for the left on many different things related to Trump.

Cool. Who here is talking about Trump? Aren't you the one complaining about how not everything is about Trump and how people bring him up in conversations that have nothing to do with him?

[Crovash]

Who’s Trump?