GOP strategist calls Ocasio-Cortez "the little girl who wants 70% taxes"
71 replies, posted
Hey, I'm glad you admitted it.
Do your definitions of "mansplaining" or "catcalling" not fall under the category of misogyny? Her responses were literally accusing them of mansplaining or catcalling, and nothing else.
Why are their criticisms invalid, exactly? Ben is known for being difficult to debate against because he prepares a fair amount of evidence/facts. The guy's a Harvard-grad lawyer, after all. I don't see a lot of this "dishonesty" you're spouting. Got a lot of nerve telling me I have less ground to stand on when you're defending Alexandria's nonsensical tweets towards these guys.
...he linked you an article right there.
You're the one who thinks Ben Shapiro is worth debating and doesn't just talk out of his ass. You absolutely have less ground to stand on, my dude.
Yeah, I'm on AOC's side here, but she should avoid those kinds of ill-defined buzzwords invented by those kinds of dishonest charlatans and whose definitions change to whatever is convenient for them at the time.
Not that it diminishes her point, however. He is being a condescending douche, but Republicans do that to everyone regardless of gender. Let's keep that juvenile farce that is identity politics out of this for the time being until we can get the government running again, however. Unless you want another Occupy-level derailment and failure.
Blame the education system, it only explains how to keep on the IRS' good side, it doesn't actually explain how our tax systems work. And it's still complicated enough that services exist solely to file taxes for people who really don't want to.
I saw the article. It's an opinion piece. Much of it I agree with - I've already told you I'm against Ben's views on numerous issues. Hell, I even disagree with his far-right economic views. That doesn't make him capable of a strong criticism. That doesn't change a single thing about Alexandria's horrible responses to either of them. Speaking of an imbalance, I think being sexist is more than just being "impolite".
Honestly even at that income 70% isn't really all that bad. That's still $120,000 per year after taxes. I'm pretty sure just about anyone could live extremely comfortably on $10k/month.
Ben Shapiro is a wildly dishonest person paid to spin right wing news by the Koch brothers.
get some priorities straight about your info here.
I'm not entirely convinced you read or understood the article, then. It isn't necessarily about Ben having horrible views (even though he does). It shows how he's an incredibly dishonest actor who is totally inconsistent, ignores and misleads the facts, and relies on quick wit and sophistry to try and convince people he's correct. He has no interest in a real debate or pursuing the truth. But nah, AOC is the real problem here because she used the "m" word. And look, I understand the kneejerk skepticism of the word because it has been used by more authoritarian leftists who consider literally anything a man explains to a woman is mansplaining but in this instance (man condescendingly explains a woman's own life to her) it's completely appropriate and for the third time, get over it. Your overly narrow focus on her tweets and the way you defend Shapiro's obviously bad faith says a lot.
If he didn't. It isn't surprising. He tends to reply with posts fueled by his agenda, even if the article he's supporting or is against contradicts what he's actually saying.
So you read the article, presumably noticed that it's brimming with sources disproving him, yet you still dismiss it as an opinion piece with a shrug and a 'so?'
I'm beginning to understand why you think Shapiro is such a cool guy.
You know, I agree the word 'mansplaining' is terrible and shouldn't be used, and I think she was too aggressive with the catcalling tweet. But it's really not as bad as you're making it sound. She didn't literally accuse him of catcalling, she literally accused him of acting like she owed him a response because he's entitled to one - like catcallers do. Yeah, should have left that part out because it does come off as an insinuation that they acted that way because of misogyny.
And also, you can tell Ben Shapiro is being dishonest just from that 'invitation'. It's painfully obvious that the intention here is for Ocasio-Cortez not to take up the invitation so he can play the narrative that she can't defend her views and is afraid of debate. To Ocasio-Cortez he really is just someone taunting her. There's nothing wrong with avoiding 'debate' with someone known to act in bad faith; you wouldn't want to be interviewed by James O'Keefe, you wouldn't choose to get your information from Sarah Huckabee Sanders, and you wouldn't want to debate someone like Steven Crowder, because they'll use dirty tricks.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.