Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
OverSword

Pelosi Picks on newly elected women of color

653 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Hammerclaw
38 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

The methodology is clearer here:

I think there were a lot that were retweeted, so essentially were duplicates. Millions were analysed, of which 288K were unique Tweets, I think?

To be honest, it's not presented as coherently as it should be.

778 female journalists and politicians.

You picked a crap link, dude. Just give it up. There's hordes of cowardly dudes and women hiding behind fake names and silly avatars posting crap on the internet, all the time. Don't mean nothin'.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, pixiii said:

what I really liked is this interview below from Meet The Press and I agreed with everything he said in it, as I'm sure quite a few others in here will too.  The part I really appreciated is that he wasn't afraid to criticize AOC for her comments which has been a seemingly taboo area to go with leftist media outlets. 1

IDK I disagree with Chuck regarding her concentration camp comments. He is also making a huge assumption that folks like Nadler dont agree with her. Perhaps its not that they are afraid to call out people they agree with politically as Chuck said,but that they actually agree with her words on the topic.

I personally do. Certainly there is no direct comparison to the horrific nazi concentration camps at this point, however, I think we fail as a society if we feel the need to wait until things cant get any worse before calling out atrocities or our government when they travel down the path that leads to them.  

 

1 hour ago, pixiii said:

however, as you would already know, it's difficult to find a left leaning media article or video that's willing to speak up about the ridiculous comments we read or see that AOC makes. 

WIlling to speak about her comments or that sees her comments as ridiculous? Theres a pretty large difference.

Edited by Farmer77
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
2 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

You picked a crap link, dude. Just give it up. There's hordes of cowardly dudes and women hiding behind fake names and silly avatars posting crap on the internet, all the time. Don't mean nothin'.

It was a study and I just provided a link to its methodology. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RabidMongoose

Well over the last 2 days I think Trump just secured his re-election by going for the popular vote regarding immigrants. He says what most Americans think.

While some people (or rather 4 of them) dont like it Democracy comes first. America comes first!

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, ExpandMyMind said:

The methodology is clearer here:

I think there were a lot that were retweeted, so essentially were duplicates. Millions were analysed, of which 288K were unique Tweets, I think?

To be honest, it's not presented as coherently as it should be.

778 female journalists and politicians.

Hmm.. fair enough @ExpandMyMind, and thanks for the clarification. 

We'd have to say, though, that if there where "only" 288,000 unique tweets, then there could not POSSIBLY have been millions of "unique" nasty tweets. 

I think the figure of 778 female journalists and politicians is a reasonably sized sample. It may seem like a small sample, but how many prominent female politicians and journalists ARE there ? Probably not multiple thousands. So 778 is a reasonable sample. 

Edited by RoofGardener
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skliss
8 hours ago, F3SS said:

Is Trump wrong? Seriously, what does this "squad" do besides btch, moan and complain? 

 Well...AOC, at least , stopped her constituents from a chance at a lot of high paying jobs. I'm sure no one will remember that come election time.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
13 minutes ago, skliss said:

 Well...AOC, at least , stopped her constituents from a chance at a lot of high paying jobs. I'm sure no one will remember that come election time.

If there is any way on God's green earth that AOC can be made a one-term-wonder, Pelosi is going to make it happen.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skliss
8 minutes ago, and then said:

If there is any way on God's green earth that AOC can be made a one-term-wonder, Pelosi is going to make it happen.  

If for no other reason than she called out the Queen and gets more news face time.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
South Alabam

Well examples of fake news Trump is always talking about is, some news sites have reported he told Omar to "Go back to Africa" (a direct lie) and others have not added the part where he told them "to come back and show us how it is done..."

So if that was the only news source these people rely upon, they are directly being lied to and manipulated.

I witnessed one mainstream media site say they would be devoted to fighting Trump his entire Presidency. And most all have, by reporting things out of context, or just false reporting as I posted in another thread, or just reporting only negative things, nothing positive, so that he is always viewed in a negative light by those who only use their outlets as a source of media..

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
12 hours ago, hacktorp said:

Trump is merely live-tweeting the Dem's dramatic and very public suicide.

He probably shouldn't do it, but like anyone watching a train-wreck or other major catastrophe...he just can't look away.

Merely?  The m an tweets so much he can't possibly be doing anything else.  I suspect you like him and that's ok.  I don't and I know our elections are fixed so there's nothing we can do except burn down the democratic and republican headquarters and tell their boss we are not having it any more.  But that won't happen, we have too many lazy thinkers in this country.  They would rather be comfortable and let someone else take care of everything and their children will be living like the dystopian movies and YA novels with no way out but dead. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Not good for Pelosi to say Trump is trying to make America white again, either - especially when she's trying to make congress white again

I agree, but she has the "excuse" of senility.  She needs to be retired one way or another.  She won't get "voted out" because someone owes her something, that is the only explanation I can think of that she is still around.

NOT TO MENTION - America had never been "white", it has been native and now mixed but never White, just apartheid white, which is nothing to brag about, something to be ashamed of.

Edited by Desertrat56

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big Jim
27 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

I know our elections are fixed so there's nothing we can do except burn down the democratic and republican headquarters and tell their boss we are not having it any more. 

If the first bolded part was true Hillary would be President.  The second bolded part is why Trump got elected.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hacktorp
24 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

Merely?  The m an tweets so much he can't possibly be doing anything else.

You raise a very interesting question:

Is Trump's incessant, childish tweeting the reason why he can't seem to keep major wars going and bloody regime-changes happening around the world?

Obama didn't tweet nearly so much, and he certainly managed to focus on those things way more effectively.

I think you're on to something...

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
2 minutes ago, hacktorp said:

You raise a very interesting question:

Is Trump's incessant, childish tweeting the reason why he can't seem to keep major wars going and bloody regime-changes happening around the world?

Obama didn't tweet nearly so much, and he certainly managed to focus on those things way more effectively.

I think you're on to something...

I have grim news, @hacktorp. There ARE major wars and bloody regime-changes going on. It's just that they are mostly in Africa or obscure Muslim nations, so nobody really cares about them much ? 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RabidMongoose
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Big Jim said:

If the first bolded part was true Hillary would be President.  The second bolded part is why Trump got elected.

During the 20th century we witnessed politics swing from one extreme to the other.

The other is now coming to an end as the US President seeks to with-store the balance. People have been waiting 30 years for the liberal-lefty, PC pro-immigration, pro-everything except the normal average nuclear family, to come to an end. That end is now in sight as the USA has a leader who doesnt care what names people call him, or how much they try to character assassinate him, or how much they cry about it.

Go Trump! America First!

Edited by RabidMongoose
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Big Jim said:

If the first bolded part was true Hillary would be President.  The second bolded part is why Trump got elected.

No, I said the elections are fixed.  Hillary is quite hated in a lot of places and Bernie is quite loved.  The plan was for Trump to win so HIllary had to be the one to run against him.  If Bernie ran against Trump the outcome would have been unpredictable.  It is the same thing that they did when Nixon ran the second time, when Clinton ran against old Bush and when Reagan ran both times.  Those are just the obvious ones.  There was an agenda linked to each of those and the only one I could identify was that TPTB wanted or needed to take Nixon down in a hard way without assasinating him.

Edited by Desertrat56
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
11 minutes ago, hacktorp said:

You raise a very interesting question:

Is Trump's incessant, childish tweeting the reason why he can't seem to keep major wars going and bloody regime-changes happening around the world?

Obama didn't tweet nearly so much, and he certainly managed to focus on those things way more effectively.

I think you're on to something...

Right, as if "the President" is calling the shots on those things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hacktorp
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

I have grim news, @hacktorp. There ARE major wars and bloody regime-changes going on. It's just that they are mostly in Africa or obscure Muslim nations, so nobody really cares about them much ? 

They are so major that you can't seem to name them?

The conflicts that have been shut down in the Middle East have averted a true disaster.  Same goes for Ukraine.  And Venezuela.

One would need to keep one's head in a very dark place to not recognize the trend toward peace since Obama and his ISIS crew were thrown out.

Your "grim news" is also "fake news".

Edited by hacktorp
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
9 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

Right, as if "the President" is calling the shots on those things.

well he is blamed for all those things, so yea it goes both ways

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hacktorp
10 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

Right, as if "the President" is calling the shots on those things.

You're starting to get it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, aztek said:

well he is blamed for all those things, so yea it goes both ways

Yes, he is so that we have someone tangible to blame, but really, how could our president call the shots alone.  He can't legally do anything or very little besides tweeting without the support of congress and the senate.  Blaming the president is how congress and the senate get away with raping and pillaging the country for the corporations.

Edited by Desertrat56

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
3 minutes ago, hacktorp said:

You're starting to get it!

Not starting to, I got it a long time ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
1 hour ago, hacktorp said:

They are so major that you can't seem to name them?

The conflicts that have been shut down in the Middle East have averted a true disaster.  Same goes for Ukraine.  And Venezuela.

One would need to keep one's head in a very dark place to not recognize the trend toward peace since Obama and his ISIS crew were thrown out.

Your "grim news" is also "fake news".

Oh I'll gladly name some... but first... what conflicts have been "shut down" in the Middle East ? The massacres in Yemen still go on. HAMAS still fires rockets at Israel. Iraq, Libya and Syria are in a state of civil war and dysfunction, with one military force battling against another, both claiming to be the legitimate government. I would say that the disasters continue. 

Not sure about Ukraine and Venezuala... I would suggest that you "wait and see". 

So, that list of wars ? Well, the BIG ones are Afghanistan, Mexico, Syria and Lebanon. There are also Somalia, Nigeria, Iraq, South Sudan and Libya. 

You can read a list here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts#Major_wars_(10,000_or_more_deaths_in_current_or_past_year)

I'd hardly call that 'fake news', @hacktorp

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big Jim
2 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

No, I said the elections are fixed.  Hillary is quite hated in a lot of places and Bernie is quite loved.  The plan was for Trump to win so HIllary had to be the one to run against him.  If Bernie ran against Trump the outcome would have been unpredictable.  It is the same thing that they did when Nixon ran the second time, when Clinton ran against old Bush and when Reagan ran both times.  Those are just the obvious ones.  There was an agenda linked to each of those and the only one I could identify was that TPTB wanted or needed to take Nixon down in a hard way without assasinating him.

You seem to have an inside line on politics going back to the 60s, so can you tell us who's going to run against Trump in 2020 and who will win?

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.