so much stupid from her brain, however she's right on this.. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/apr/2/aoc-decries-torture-of-wikileaks-source-chelsea-ma/
Since you don't seem to understand, "partisanship" doesn't indicate you're a Trump supporter, it indicates that you're biased either towards Republicans or against Democrats.
shocking to me that the drugging of children in cages isn't getting more attention than this . . . unless it's just measles shots. I'm all for measles shots.
Nope, it was psychotropic drugs. And, you're right it should have been met with more outrage than it was. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/aug/01/judge-california-psychotropic-medication-border
I appreciate your linking to that article, reading about the lawsuit is fascinating. There does however to be some dispute about the facts of the case, e.g., one of the primary treatment centers denies administering involuntary medications as alleged in the lawsuit: http://www.shilohtreatmentcenter.com/ . Hard to know precisely what is going on and how much of a problem it has been. on edit: good summary article about it at Psychology Today: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...medication-immigrant-children-without-consent
I don't know much about it. The reason I posted though was Saavedra's "without evidence" bit. Obviously, there's evidence enough to bring suit, so that's bs. Maybe he only meant the attributions of motivation part. I get why the "without evidence" thing has found so much currency with journalists today, but it gets a lot of abuse.
Talk of passing a 22nd Amendment began in 1944 after Roosevelt won a third term and the Republicans (and some Democrats) didn't want 16 straight years of FDR. Republican Thomas Dewey (I think it was Dewey) made public speeches in 1944 supporting and calling for an Amendment to specifically prevent 16 years of FDR. So while it did not pass until 1947 and become law in 1951; it did indeed become an issue because of Roosevelt. Interestingly, I believe Grant and Teddy Roosevelt both attempted to run for a third term, and possibly one more in the 1800's. So I think of all the things she has said, this one really isn't a big deal.
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/...ogizes-for-labeling-ocasio-cortez-as-domestic Baby Repubs call Ocasion Cortez a "domestic terrorist"
The fund hasnt been voted on yet. Co-sponsoring isnt necessary and Ms. Cortez is deliberately misleading throughout that tweet. How was the quote taken out of context? I like her but she is way off.
I was involved in the war on terror. The war on terror created more terror. Our presence has made things worse. And throwing our service in the face of a political opponents as a one upper upper is shitty. Also she asked what he is doing about right wing terror which terror stats show is the second most prevalent form of terror attacks in the US behind 9/11 even when including the 3000 lost from one event. That means right wing terror is more frequent. It's an actual problem and she's asking what he's doing about an actual problem. And she's asking someone who probably is the type of person to downplay right wing terror while only concentrating on Muslims.
The tweet invoking his service is a better example of a strawman as she explicitly asked what he did in terms of fighting against right wing terror.
As were many. Of the many that were, few actually paid such a heavy personal price which was the point I'm pretty sure you know. Terror requires a response. The response is now the real problem? I'm all for reviewing what went right and wrong in the middle east, but know better than to throw out such a reckless and vacuous statement as "the war on terror created more terror". Perhaps you could expand. What specifically should have been done in our response to terror that wasn't tried? Worse than what? What would have been the result of no presence after 9/11? Not nearly as shitty as asking a combat vet of the war on terrorism with permanent injuries what he's done for victims of terrorism. If it is as dangerous and prevalent as you're espousing, why hasn't our government (including the 8 years of the Obama administration) been more vigilant in sounding the alarm? I've been posting since 2010. I don't recall you sounding the alarm on "right wing terror" while Obama was President. Perhaps you can direct me to your numerous posts here in 2010-2016 criticizing that administration for ignoring this "pressing problem". It's deflecting and/or false equivalism....or as the left likes to say these days....whataboutism. By your own words above, you know nothing about his stance on this but never let a chance to attack a political adversary go to waste....amirght?
She was inspired by 9/11 to start wearing the hijab. She described 9/11 as “something some people did”. That’s fair criticism. Strawmen about “right-wing” terrorism is not a way to address IO’s clear support of Islamic terrorism.
No she was inspired by the events AFTER 9/11 such as how she saw Muslim Americans treated and discussed in public discourse. Stop being ****ing cute. You know what she means.
Lol, it isn't clear she supports Islamic terror. I think it is becoming clear she does not have the PR chops to survive in the political realm as a Muslim. People are going to take shots at her every chance she gives them, and she doesn't seem to be savvy enough to steer around them.
Do you see a problem with how a Muslim American politican has a different set of standards in what words they can and cannot say?