Meet Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[frigidweirdo]

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is the quintessential left-winger. Preach communism like a passionate preacher, hoards money like the ugliest and greediest of capitalists (even when someone else earns that money, she still won’t “share” it).

At the end of the night, when it came time to split the $560 in tips she had gotten at the bar, Ocasio-Cortez gave the waitress only $50. After the waitress complained to her manager, her take was doubled to $100, a source said. “It says so much about her character,”

Like all on the left - she has no character. And she has no actual belief in the bullshit she peddles about communism. She just knows that it’s easy to gain wealth and power by peddling that nonsense to the mindless minion.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Stiffs Co-Workers

And what about when people earn the money because they're corrupt? They make sure they earn the money and others can't, then complain when others are trying to take away their wrongfully acquired money.

 

[P@triot]

And what about when people earn the money because they're corrupt?

You mean like the “socialist” Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez did?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Socialism is what every rich country has except us.

As has already been pointed out to you, dumbass, none of those countries are Socialist. There are no rich Socialist countries and there never have been.

Fair with a good safety net capitalism.

Which by the very definition, dumbass, isn't Socialism.

You are talking about communism, super duper. "We are all socialists now!"--Finland prime minister when ACA was passed. Socialism is communism only in GOP dupe world, Dupe.

Yes, you spouted out that imaginary quote from the finish prime minister before and when I asked you for a source you never provided it

 

[night_son]

typical ^^^^^^^

socialist - communist ... soooooooooooooooooooooo confusing to morons.

Typical...a left-wing minion is forced to come face-to-face with the left-wing lie and instead attempts to hijack and redirect the thread.

Communism is socialism, you uneducated little dimwit. Two sides of the exact same coin. Now about the hypocrisy of the people you bow down to and worship?

As an ideology, communism is generally regarded as hard-left, making fewer concessions to market capitalism and electoral democracy than do most forms of socialism. As a system of government, communism tends to center on a one-party state that bans most forms of political dissent. These two usages of the term "communism" – one referring to theory, the other to politics as they are practiced – need not overlap: China's ruling Communist Party has an explicitly pro-market capitalist orientation and pays only lip service to the Maoist ideology whose purist adherents (Peru's Shining Path in its heyday, for example) regard Chinese authorities as bourgeois counterrevolutionaries.

Socialism can refer to a vast swath of the political spectrum, in theory and in practice. Its intellectual history is more varied than that of communism: the Communist Manifesto devotes a chapter to criticizing the half-dozen forms of socialism already in existence at the time, and proponents have taken just about every left-of-center stance on the ideal (or best achievable) structure of economic and political systems.


bite me, moron

Over taxation and excessive spending are two of the current consequences of European socialism.

Socialism even in moderate 'pick and choose' forms requires a massive government infrastructure to control centers of national manufacturing, healthcare, education, and internal security forces. Not to mention spending to subsidize a large percentage of its population for guaranteed housing, food programs, etc. I don't know about you but surrendering means of manufacturing to the government seems like big risk.

And even if an American socialism was to follow the European model of state regulation of industry versus outright ownership, you're still throwing your economic fate solely in the hands of bureaucrats vulnerable to whim and fancy, only their greed now expands across all means of production.

The step to communism from socialism can be a very small one. Once government has become a monolithic owner of economic and industrial bases, citizens become very vulnerable to becoming market hostages of the State. Any form of mass resistance or take back of economical control by the people could result in suspension and then removal of individual rights and freedoms. Collectivism and group politics is a set of matches we Americans do not want to play with.

That is communism ignoramus. Socialism is what every rich country has except us. Fair with a good safety net capitalism. We had socialism until ACA was sabotaged by the GOP. Socialism is always democratic, communism only put in by violent revolution. Huge difference, super dupes.

No. You are mistaken, and the misdirection--intentional or otherwise--is disappointing. Continue telling your lies into a mirror. Then, educate yourself so mislead no one else.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Not what I said, but if you're incapable of arguing what I actually said, whatchagonnado?

It wouldn't be because they are female. It would be because they are the Democrat running against the Republican who is going to blindly support #AgentOrange.

Then why did you specifically cite women as the ones they would resonate with? They won't do the same with men?

Because I was responding to a post that said Republicans are afraid of Ocasio because she's a woman. I said she's going to have a lot of company.

Try to keep up.

And you specifically noted that those candidates might be attractive to Republican..... what for it...... WOMEN.

You could have just said Republicans in general, but didn't. You made a point to say women. Why?

Try to keep up.

Yes, because Republican women are more inclined to be disgusted by revelations that Trump was fucking a porn star while his wife was pregnant, and fucking a playboy model for a year while his wife was nursing his son.

Among many other things. OTOH, Republican men are dumbasses who only care about money and power.

Everyone knew Trump was a pig when they elected him. The "grab her by the pussy" tape didn't sway millions of women so why would they care about him sleeping with a porn star over a decade ago? Did all of Clinton's affairs harm him with women? He got reelected.

And yes, only Republican men care about money and power. Democrat men hate those things. Guess that's why all the Dems in Washington are powerful millionaires.

Take it easy on Synthia....she is hoping Trump will grab her too.

 

[skye]

rising star? my eye,,,

power hungry communist viper more like it

loser all the same...oh well

sorry Cortez....next time may be

 

[francoHFW]

typical ^^^^^^^

socialist - communist ... soooooooooooooooooooooo confusing to morons.

Typical...a left-wing minion is forced to come face-to-face with the left-wing lie and instead attempts to hijack and redirect the thread.

Communism is socialism, you uneducated little dimwit. Two sides of the exact same coin. Now about the hypocrisy of the people you bow down to and worship?

As an ideology, communism is generally regarded as hard-left, making fewer concessions to market capitalism and electoral democracy than do most forms of socialism. As a system of government, communism tends to center on a one-party state that bans most forms of political dissent. These two usages of the term "communism" – one referring to theory, the other to politics as they are practiced – need not overlap: China's ruling Communist Party has an explicitly pro-market capitalist orientation and pays only lip service to the Maoist ideology whose purist adherents (Peru's Shining Path in its heyday, for example) regard Chinese authorities as bourgeois counterrevolutionaries.

Socialism can refer to a vast swath of the political spectrum, in theory and in practice. Its intellectual history is more varied than that of communism: the Communist Manifesto devotes a chapter to criticizing the half-dozen forms of socialism already in existence at the time, and proponents have taken just about every left-of-center stance on the ideal (or best achievable) structure of economic and political systems.


bite me, moron

Over taxation and excessive spending are two of the current consequences of European socialism.

Socialism even in moderate 'pick and choose' forms requires a massive government infrastructure to control centers of national manufacturing, healthcare, education, and internal security forces. Not to mention spending to subsidize a large percentage of its population for guaranteed housing, food programs, etc. I don't know about you but surrendering means of manufacturing to the government seems like big risk.

And even if an American socialism was to follow the European model of state regulation of industry versus outright ownership, you're still throwing your economic fate solely in the hands of bureaucrats vulnerable to whim and fancy, only their greed now expands across all means of production.

The step to communism from socialism can be a very small one. Once government has become a monolithic owner of economic and industrial bases, citizens become very vulnerable to becoming market hostages of the State. Any form of mass resistance or take back of economical control by the people could result in suspension and then removal of individual rights and freedoms. Collectivism and group politics is a set of matches we Americans do not want to play with.

That is communism ignoramus. Socialism is what every rich country has except us. Fair with a good safety net capitalism. We had socialism until ACA was sabotaged by the GOP. Socialism is always democratic, communism only put in by violent revolution. Huge difference, super dupes.

No. You are mistaken, and the misdirection--intentional or otherwise--is disappointing. Continue telling your lies into a mirror. Then, educate yourself so mislead no one else.

So you believe socialism and communism are the same a dictatorship that owns all industrial and business? People around the world outside your bubble of stupid propaganda will be surprised.

 

[francoHFW]

typical ^^^^^^^

socialist - communist ... soooooooooooooooooooooo confusing to morons.

Typical...a left-wing minion is forced to come face-to-face with the left-wing lie and instead attempts to hijack and redirect the thread.

Communism is socialism, you uneducated little dimwit. Two sides of the exact same coin. Now about the hypocrisy of the people you bow down to and worship?

As an ideology, communism is generally regarded as hard-left, making fewer concessions to market capitalism and electoral democracy than do most forms of socialism. As a system of government, communism tends to center on a one-party state that bans most forms of political dissent. These two usages of the term "communism" – one referring to theory, the other to politics as they are practiced – need not overlap: China's ruling Communist Party has an explicitly pro-market capitalist orientation and pays only lip service to the Maoist ideology whose purist adherents (Peru's Shining Path in its heyday, for example) regard Chinese authorities as bourgeois counterrevolutionaries.

Socialism can refer to a vast swath of the political spectrum, in theory and in practice. Its intellectual history is more varied than that of communism: the Communist Manifesto devotes a chapter to criticizing the half-dozen forms of socialism already in existence at the time, and proponents have taken just about every left-of-center stance on the ideal (or best achievable) structure of economic and political systems.


bite me, moron

Over taxation and excessive spending are two of the current consequences of European socialism.

Socialism even in moderate 'pick and choose' forms requires a massive government infrastructure to control centers of national manufacturing, healthcare, education, and internal security forces. Not to mention spending to subsidize a large percentage of its population for guaranteed housing, food programs, etc. I don't know about you but surrendering means of manufacturing to the government seems like big risk.

And even if an American socialism was to follow the European model of state regulation of industry versus outright ownership, you're still throwing your economic fate solely in the hands of bureaucrats vulnerable to whim and fancy, only their greed now expands across all means of production.

The step to communism from socialism can be a very small one. Once government has become a monolithic owner of economic and industrial bases, citizens become very vulnerable to becoming market hostages of the State. Any form of mass resistance or take back of economical control by the people could result in suspension and then removal of individual rights and freedoms. Collectivism and group politics is a set of matches we Americans do not want to play with.

That is communism ignoramus. Socialism is what every rich country has except us. Fair with a good safety net capitalism. We had socialism until ACA was sabotaged by the GOP. Socialism is always democratic, communism only put in by violent revolution. Huge difference, super dupes.

No. You are mistaken, and the misdirection--intentional or otherwise--is disappointing. Continue telling your lies into a mirror. Then, educate yourself so mislead no one else.

Only in Dupe world... Like Hillary is evil murderer pedophile, Democrats want open borders. Pure garbage.

 

[francoHFW]

rising star? my eye,,,

power hungry communist viper more like it

loser all the same...oh well

sorry Cortez....next time may be

Nobody is for dictatorship that owns all business and Industry. That is communism.

 

[night_son]

Typical...a left-wing minion is forced to come face-to-face with the left-wing lie and instead attempts to hijack and redirect the thread.

Communism is socialism, you uneducated little dimwit. Two sides of the exact same coin. Now about the hypocrisy of the people you bow down to and worship?

As an ideology, communism is generally regarded as hard-left, making fewer concessions to market capitalism and electoral democracy than do most forms of socialism. As a system of government, communism tends to center on a one-party state that bans most forms of political dissent. These two usages of the term "communism" – one referring to theory, the other to politics as they are practiced – need not overlap: China's ruling Communist Party has an explicitly pro-market capitalist orientation and pays only lip service to the Maoist ideology whose purist adherents (Peru's Shining Path in its heyday, for example) regard Chinese authorities as bourgeois counterrevolutionaries.

Socialism can refer to a vast swath of the political spectrum, in theory and in practice. Its intellectual history is more varied than that of communism: the Communist Manifesto devotes a chapter to criticizing the half-dozen forms of socialism already in existence at the time, and proponents have taken just about every left-of-center stance on the ideal (or best achievable) structure of economic and political systems.


bite me, moron

Over taxation and excessive spending are two of the current consequences of European socialism.

Socialism even in moderate 'pick and choose' forms requires a massive government infrastructure to control centers of national manufacturing, healthcare, education, and internal security forces. Not to mention spending to subsidize a large percentage of its population for guaranteed housing, food programs, etc. I don't know about you but surrendering means of manufacturing to the government seems like big risk.

And even if an American socialism was to follow the European model of state regulation of industry versus outright ownership, you're still throwing your economic fate solely in the hands of bureaucrats vulnerable to whim and fancy, only their greed now expands across all means of production.

The step to communism from socialism can be a very small one. Once government has become a monolithic owner of economic and industrial bases, citizens become very vulnerable to becoming market hostages of the State. Any form of mass resistance or take back of economical control by the people could result in suspension and then removal of individual rights and freedoms. Collectivism and group politics is a set of matches we Americans do not want to play with.

That is communism ignoramus. Socialism is what every rich country has except us. Fair with a good safety net capitalism. We had socialism until ACA was sabotaged by the GOP. Socialism is always democratic, communism only put in by violent revolution. Huge difference, super dupes.

No. You are mistaken, and the misdirection--intentional or otherwise--is disappointing. Continue telling your lies into a mirror. Then, educate yourself so mislead no one else.

So you believe socialism and communism are the same a dictatorship that owns all industrial and business? People around the world outside your bubble of stupid propaganda will be surprised.

As will the fellow shills who fail to read and remember history. In particular the voluminous history of socialist states devolving into authoritarian ones--a breed of communism or otherwise totalitarian madness. When the ship is sinking, only the cuckoo denies the salty water rising past its knees.

 

[francoHFW]

As an ideology, communism is generally regarded as hard-left, making fewer concessions to market capitalism and electoral democracy than do most forms of socialism. As a system of government, communism tends to center on a one-party state that bans most forms of political dissent. These two usages of the term "communism" – one referring to theory, the other to politics as they are practiced – need not overlap: China's ruling Communist Party has an explicitly pro-market capitalist orientation and pays only lip service to the Maoist ideology whose purist adherents (Peru's Shining Path in its heyday, for example) regard Chinese authorities as bourgeois counterrevolutionaries.

Socialism can refer to a vast swath of the political spectrum, in theory and in practice. Its intellectual history is more varied than that of communism: the Communist Manifesto devotes a chapter to criticizing the half-dozen forms of socialism already in existence at the time, and proponents have taken just about every left-of-center stance on the ideal (or best achievable) structure of economic and political systems.


bite me, moron

Over taxation and excessive spending are two of the current consequences of European socialism.

Socialism even in moderate 'pick and choose' forms requires a massive government infrastructure to control centers of national manufacturing, healthcare, education, and internal security forces. Not to mention spending to subsidize a large percentage of its population for guaranteed housing, food programs, etc. I don't know about you but surrendering means of manufacturing to the government seems like big risk.

And even if an American socialism was to follow the European model of state regulation of industry versus outright ownership, you're still throwing your economic fate solely in the hands of bureaucrats vulnerable to whim and fancy, only their greed now expands across all means of production.

The step to communism from socialism can be a very small one. Once government has become a monolithic owner of economic and industrial bases, citizens become very vulnerable to becoming market hostages of the State. Any form of mass resistance or take back of economical control by the people could result in suspension and then removal of individual rights and freedoms. Collectivism and group politics is a set of matches we Americans do not want to play with.

That is communism ignoramus. Socialism is what every rich country has except us. Fair with a good safety net capitalism. We had socialism until ACA was sabotaged by the GOP. Socialism is always democratic, communism only put in by violent revolution. Huge difference, super dupes.

No. You are mistaken, and the misdirection--intentional or otherwise--is disappointing. Continue telling your lies into a mirror. Then, educate yourself so mislead no one else.

So you believe socialism and communism are the same a dictatorship that owns all industrial and business? People around the world outside your bubble of stupid propaganda will be surprised.

As will the fellow shills who fail to read and remember history. In particular the voluminous history of socialist states devolving into authoritarian ones--a breed of communism or otherwise totalitarian madness. When the ship is sinking, only the cuckoo denies the salty water rising past its knees.

It has never happened without violent revolution, and usually unfair monarchies are the victims of Communist Revolution, or were. By the way communism is basically dead in the world now, fear-mongered GOP duped ignoramuses...

 

[night_son]

Over taxation and excessive spending are two of the current consequences of European socialism.

Socialism even in moderate 'pick and choose' forms requires a massive government infrastructure to control centers of national manufacturing, healthcare, education, and internal security forces. Not to mention spending to subsidize a large percentage of its population for guaranteed housing, food programs, etc. I don't know about you but surrendering means of manufacturing to the government seems like big risk.

And even if an American socialism was to follow the European model of state regulation of industry versus outright ownership, you're still throwing your economic fate solely in the hands of bureaucrats vulnerable to whim and fancy, only their greed now expands across all means of production.

The step to communism from socialism can be a very small one. Once government has become a monolithic owner of economic and industrial bases, citizens become very vulnerable to becoming market hostages of the State. Any form of mass resistance or take back of economical control by the people could result in suspension and then removal of individual rights and freedoms. Collectivism and group politics is a set of matches we Americans do not want to play with.

That is communism ignoramus. Socialism is what every rich country has except us. Fair with a good safety net capitalism. We had socialism until ACA was sabotaged by the GOP. Socialism is always democratic, communism only put in by violent revolution. Huge difference, super dupes.

No. You are mistaken, and the misdirection--intentional or otherwise--is disappointing. Continue telling your lies into a mirror. Then, educate yourself so mislead no one else.

So you believe socialism and communism are the same a dictatorship that owns all industrial and business? People around the world outside your bubble of stupid propaganda will be surprised.

As will the fellow shills who fail to read and remember history. In particular the voluminous history of socialist states devolving into authoritarian ones--a breed of communism or otherwise totalitarian madness. When the ship is sinking, only the cuckoo denies the salty water rising past its knees.

It has never happened without violent revolution, and usually unfair monarchies are the victims of Communist Revolution, or were. By the way communism is basically dead in the world now, fear-mongered GOP duped ignoramuses...

At least obfuscate with a nod toward the realistic, historically. The revolution is most commonly a cultural one. Mao's Red Guards, for example, shifted China toward actual shooting revolution first with a Vanguard of intellectual counter political view, suppression of free speech, etc. and followed that up with the calls for violence and rebellion. The Bolsheviks also used a cultural Vanguard as intellectual terrorists to reform liberal arts thinking to the Leninist ideology. Shall we continue?

 

[francoHFW]

That is communism ignoramus. Socialism is what every rich country has except us. Fair with a good safety net capitalism. We had socialism until ACA was sabotaged by the GOP. Socialism is always democratic, communism only put in by violent revolution. Huge difference, super dupes.

No. You are mistaken, and the misdirection--intentional or otherwise--is disappointing. Continue telling your lies into a mirror. Then, educate yourself so mislead no one else.

So you believe socialism and communism are the same a dictatorship that owns all industrial and business? People around the world outside your bubble of stupid propaganda will be surprised.

As will the fellow shills who fail to read and remember history. In particular the voluminous history of socialist states devolving into authoritarian ones--a breed of communism or otherwise totalitarian madness. When the ship is sinking, only the cuckoo denies the salty water rising past its knees.

It has never happened without violent revolution, and usually unfair monarchies are the victims of Communist Revolution, or were. By the way communism is basically dead in the world now, fear-mongered GOP duped ignoramuses...

At least obfuscate with a nod toward the realistic, historically. The revolution is most commonly a cultural one. Mao's Red Guards, for example, shifted China toward actual shooting revolution first with a Vanguard of intellectual counter political view, suppression of free speech, etc. and followed that up with the calls for violence and rebellion. The Bolsheviks also used a cultural Vanguard as intellectual terrorists to reform liberal arts thinking to the Leninist ideology. Shall we continue?

Red Chinese and the Bolsheviks got in through violent revolution. Like every communist government

 

[EvilCat Breath]

You just know that Crowley is kicking himself for not debating Cortez. She would be back slinging beer by now.

 

[Cellblock2429]

And I quote:
"Socialists often criticize interventionism"

Economic interventionism - Wikipedia

not sure why; using socialism to correct for capitalism's market failures or inefficiencies, is what socialism is best at.

Capitalism causes inequity because those who perform better get more money. That is not a failure it is in line with human development. Humans will not work collectively because there is no monetary incentive. After all, money is the reward society bestows on those who contribute. I ask socialists to PERSONALLY give half their money to those who have less or don't work and guess what? 0 takers so far. BUT they have no trouble trying to make ME feel guilty for KEEPING my money!!

Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment not a natural rate of not wanting to make money under Any form of Capitalism.

And, it is not Your money if we have Any problems in our Republic. That is why Congress has the Power to Tax.

Any problems, right wingers?

Socialists create 'problems' then take other people's money to 'solve' the problems they created. The government 'administrators' take the largest part of the money collected to 'solve' the created problem which, magically, never seems to go away. Socialist Democrats are among the richest on Capitol Hill.

nothing but fake news. tax cut economics merely favors the rich. and, it does Nothing for Infrastructure.

/------/ " tax cut economics merely favors the rich. and, it does Nothing for Infrastructure."
Well Obozo's socialism with his trillion dollar Stimulus did nothing for the infrastructure but it did save the Union Pensions.

 

[Cellblock2429]

that is socialism.

And I quote:
"Socialists often criticize interventionism"

Economic interventionism - Wikipedia

not sure why; using socialism to correct for capitalism's market failures or inefficiencies, is what socialism is best at.

Capitalism causes inequity because those who perform better get more money. That is not a failure it is in line with human development. Humans will not work collectively because there is no monetary incentive. After all, money is the reward society bestows on those who contribute. I ask socialists to PERSONALLY give half their money to those who have less or don't work and guess what? 0 takers so far. BUT they have no trouble trying to make ME feel guilty for KEEPING my money!!

Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment not a natural rate of not wanting to make money under Any form of Capitalism.

And, it is not Your money if we have Any problems in our Republic. That is why Congress has the Power to Tax.

Any problems, right wingers?

Socialists create 'problems' then take other people's money to 'solve' the problems they created. The government 'administrators' take the largest part of the money collected to 'solve' the created problem which, magically, never seems to go away. Socialist Democrats are among the richest on Capitol Hill.

/----/ danielpalos thought your post was funny but she can't explain away the massive war on poverty that started in 1965 and transferred $16 trillion from the producers to the enon producers. The libs so called solutions never solve anything and just keep going.
War on Poverty -- despite $16 trillions spent, poverty won
Fifty years ago, President Lyndon Johnson delivered his first State of the Union address, promising an “unconditional war on poverty in America.” Looking at the wreckage since, it’s not hard to conclude that poverty won.

If we are losing the War on Poverty, it certainly isn’t for lack of effort.

In 2012, the federal government spent $668 billion to fund 126 separate anti-poverty programs. State and local governments kicked in another $284 billion, bringing total anti-poverty spending to nearly $1 trillion. That amounts to $20,610 for every poor person in America, or $61,830 per poor family of three.

[pullquote]

Spending on the major anti-poverty programs increased in 2013, pushing the total even higher.

Over, the last 50 years, the government spent more than $16 trillion to fight poverty.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Today's most popular American Socialist. I say drop her off in some Socialist country like Venezuela and see how long it takes her to beg to come home. Let her experience what she it trying to pawn off on America. Oh yeah, and send Bernie Sanders with her.

/----/.She would simply say the wrong socialists are running Venezuela.

The old "it just wasn't implemented correctly".

You guys have me worried she could be a political force. I mean, guys, you're America, what the f...

The embarrassment the American moderate Left should be expressing over the new socialist bloom is instead philosophized away in dirty semantics or context arguments or outright denial in the glaring face of the truth that American socialism is on the rise. It's largely a product of hatred for our President and his removal at any cost, even seemingly if it costs us everything. Many of us have called the Left out on it around the Web, and so far the responses are largely the same, " . . . but, but, socialism is . . . ?"

nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.

Capitalism died in 1929. Socialism has been bailing us out ever since.

Capitalism will always survive because it will always have Socialism to bail it out. - Ralph Nader

/----/ Ralph Nader is an idiot. Capitalism is needed to bail out Socialism.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Never seen or heard of her before an hour ago on these pages. Not sure what media you're all following but you need to stop it, it'll drive you nuts if not already there.

/-----/ "Never seen or heard of her before an hour ago"
Cortez upset the NY democRAT apple cart. The MSM is trying to squash it.
Democratic socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ousts Joe Crowley in ...
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/26/politics/...cortez-joe...new-york...primary/index.html
Jun 27, 2018 - Joe Crowley in New York's 14th congressional district on Tuesday, ... days before the primary, Ocasio-Cortez left New York to join protests at an ...

 

[PredFan]

She’s also dumber than a box of hair.

 

[Cellblock2429]

She’s also dumber than a box of hair.

/---/ Her interview can be her undoing in the upcoming election. Sadly the NY Republican Party is so weak they will mishandle it BIGLY.
'Proudly Ignorant': Dem Socialist Candidate Ridiculed for Claiming Israel Occupying Palestine
'Proudly Ignorant': Dem Socialist Candidate Ridiculed for Claiming Israel Occupying Palestine
When host Margaret Hoover asked her to clarify what she meant, the 28-year-old political newcomer fumbled over her words and acknowledged that she is "not the expert at geopolitics on this issue."