Witnesses say that AOC screamed at border patrol agents on her visit to a detention center (where she implausibly claimed that agents told detainees to drink from the toilet - a claim that should be looked into as a litmus test of AOC's credibility on basic facts, much less her warped worldview). But this particular item caught my attention:
A second official said that while she was around agents, Ocasio-Cortez commented at another point about an unofficial Border Patrol Facebook page that was exposed earlier Monday for offensive content about those in custody and lawmakers, including the congresswoman.
“Something under her breath, ‘Oh, all these guys in here are gonna f--k me.’ ..."
Now, any epistemically competent thinker knows to discount eyewitness testimony without independent evidence supporting either the claim or the witness's credibility. Well, in this case there is a piece of independent evidence. Last year, Ben Shapiro on twitter challenged the Commie to a debate, and this was her reply:
Just like catcalling, 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.
(If one has any doubts as to the kind of intellectual lowlife who constitute the Commie's army of defenders on the meme-cesspool that is twitter, just have a look at the thread that ensued.)
Now, how is the Commie supposed to know whether Shapiro's intentions are bad? She doesn't explain how they are bad. (The simplest and best explanation is: she can't.) And what is a sane observer to make of her characterizing the debate challenge as a catcall? (And what's with her mangled diction? "Like catcalling, I don't owe ...")
Isn't it telling about her state of mind that the first words out of her twitter account in response to a debate challenge is "catcall"? (Note what's telling about her state of mind when she pulls the "diversity" card the split second she sees CBS's announced election-coverage lineup.)
Isn't it telling about her state of mind that the first words out of her twitter account in response to a debate challenge is "catcall"? (Note what's telling about her state of mind when she pulls the "diversity" card the split second she sees CBS's announced election-coverage lineup.)
And what's with the distinctively leftist weaponizing of sexual political correctness (sic) these days (much less the patently dishonest weaponizing of #MeToo to smear Kavanaugh)? (Or: the patently anti-fair-process malice of university administrators and their kangaroo courts?) The only thing it helps to show is what a bunch of discreditable lowlife and dialogue-avoiders they are. The Commie and other leftist scum think this sort of thing is an appropriate and normal MO; the fake-news CNN/NYT crowd and the leftist lowlife on twitter enable it. The "but Trump/Republicans" whataboutism doesn't remedy any of that.
What if the Commie is little more than an unvetted, charismatic head-case? Is she a false flag, a satirical figure? How would we tell either way?
[Addendum: Newt calls out AOC as a dishonest POS. Is her reply to Newt an honest one? No, it is not, and you'd have to be a willfully blind or self-enstupidated partisan POS not to see that it isn't.]
[Addendum: Newt calls out AOC as a dishonest POS. Is her reply to Newt an honest one? No, it is not, and you'd have to be a willfully blind or self-enstupidated partisan POS not to see that it isn't.]
