WuWei
162
That ship sailed long ago. Obamacare is a good example.
WuWei
164
Didn’t John Solomon work for the Post?
dantes
165
She did not such thing.
And gosh, I didn’t realize broadbrushing is a bad thing now.
And we all know that a Republican would never use race to explain away criticisms of them. Or would they?
Maybe we should ask Judge Curiel.
I agree. “They did it too” is a poor defense and it’s why we’re in the state we’re in these days. I’m waiting on some more reporting other than three news sources to see though. The reporting is very confusing so far and it would be good to see some triangulation.
ok you flat out deny what she explicitly did
typically means you ran out of arguments
have a good night
If that story is true she should be in trouble. I don’t like the PACs, but if you’re going to have them, they got rules.
dantes
169
She never explicitly said all people who criticize her are racists or sexist. She said Trump might be. But then again Trump said Mexicans are prejudice against him, so I don’t really see why that’s not a rational statement.
It’s been pretty interesting to see the forum responses on here though. I think some Trump supporters expected a “Aha!” but several liberals (guessing, I don’t know for sure for all of them) have been pretty consistent in saying that if she is involved in this that she should face repercussions. Just an observation.
Also perhaps I missed it but didn’t see a lot of “witch hunts” here.
DOLOOP
172
All of the reporting at this point is based solely on the complaint filed with the FEC by an interested, partisan party. A couple of reports had statements from the campaign.
It was a really in-your-face method of paying out to slush fund if paying out to a slush fund was the plan, so one would have to conclude mind-numbing stupidity.
This deserves more time and less interested reporting/investigation.
Yes, an unfortunate consequence of the 24/7 media cycle is that it’s way too jumpy.
That’s because the cartoon villains the Trumpets want to beat up aren’t here.
What I haven’t seen is the “any crime the congresswoman committed before she became congresswoman is now irrelevant.”
NJBob
176
Fun to watch Trump supporters heads exploding.
Give this a day or so and let’s see where we are once the dust settles.
If AOC has acted criminally she needs to be held accountable. If not, Trump supporters will continue to say she did even if she didn’t. That’s how they roll.
1 Like
Yeah, the wording is pretty sloppy in the Washington Examiner (“slush fund”?). Good news is even if nothing comes out of this is that Trump supporters will continue to say it’s either deep state or just pretend that she actually did something.
1 Like
DOLOOP
178
Yes. The accusation is out there. No matter how fallacious the accusation, it will be legitimated in the Republican apocrypha for long after it is debunked.
1 Like
Something else you may not have noticed as much is that when the crime changes sides, the excuses change sides. Some are more willing than others to ignore the irony and/or hypocrisy. Some just flat don’t think that’s the case. Go figure.
Does the term “campaign finance” law ring a bell? Oh wait, it’s the socialist “new face” of the Dems party, can’t be all that bad right?
Congressional harassement
2 Likes
