What she said is very different from what you said.
I'm not letting Ted Cruz off the hook for his loony hostilities.
But neither should AOC be able to get away with the same.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
AOC back with her fake photo op acting again..
- Thread starter Twilight Hue
- Start date
I'm not letting Ted Cruz off the hook for his loony hostilities.
But neither should AOC be able to get away with the same.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
Some can't be blamed for hold that sentiment. Pelosi and Pence are among them, including any Republicans who did not support Trump's lies. But in the case of AOC, Cruz did have the audacity to ask her for bipartisan support after the things he did. Reactive, but not something I can find fault in given the circumstances. This mob of thugs wanted blood, and they got it.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
If Cruz seeks bi-partisanship, then more power to him.
But we should not excuse AOC's false allegation of attempted murder.
Cooky
Veteran Member
Yes.
It's not confusing you for him, you two are saying the same things.
No, I never claimed anything about AOC'S whereabouts during the insurrection... I didn't even know she wasn't at the Capitol building, I thought she was. And if she was across the street, it would still be like she was there to me.
So me and the OP aren't saying the same things.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
I think it's very inappropriate of him.
It was definitely not the best wording, and it does reflect a curious "me" focus given this mob seems to have had an ad hoc hit list, it's not really entirely wrong to point out his responsibility in creating the deadly mob and their desired acts of murder and committed murder.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
Alice Cooper's Only Women Bleed and Queensryche's Silent Lucidity sound quite similar. That doesn't mean the parts that sound different make them entirely different. They still sound very similar.No, I never claimed anything about AOC'S whereabouts during the insurrection... I didn't even know she wasn't at the Capitol building, I thought she was. And if she was across the street, it would still be like she was there to me.
So me and the OP aren't saying the same things.
So as a legislator, you believe he shouldn't seek to work with Democrats?
That's what I'm reading....but it can't be right.
A clear inflammatory falsehood is never the "best wording".
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
No, it's that he had a part to play in sowing the seeds of insurrection, then he stands by his convictions and continues to support Trump's lie that turned our election deadly, and that we wants to wave the flag of bipartisanship, to me personally, comes off as if he's trying to ignore the elephant in the room, act like nothing really happened, and it's and to me personally it comes off as if he's trying to ignore the elephant in the room, wave the flag of bipartisanship as if he did nothing seriously wrong, and try to move on as if everybody is back to being cool and everything is good and back to normal.
Cruz is an awful person.
Nonetheless, he is a senator, & has a job to do.
People who loathe each other need to work for
the good of the country....together.
AOC should put on her big girl pants, be honest, be
civil, do her job, & be ready to work with all legislators.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
How we do this when many Republican House members and a few Senators elected to uphold the lies and destruction seems to be the question.
AOC lied about Cruz trying to kill her.
So where does that leave us....a government rife with
legislators who believe it's morally wrong to work together?
Hogwash! Piffle! Pish posh!
They need to get over themselves & get to work.
If they cannot, they should resign & get out of the way.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
Under normal circumstances, yes. But normal circumstances don't involve Congressional officials who are firmly aligned behind the lies and twisted ideology that lead an attempted insurrection to overthrow a fair election that lead to America having a deadly election.
Audie
Veteran Member
https://www-the--sun-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.the-sun.com/news/2245353/antifa-mob-take-over-hotel-cops/amp/?amp_js_v=a6&_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQHKAFQArABIA==#aoh=16127026810314&referrer=https://www.google.com&_tf=From %1$s&share=https://www.the-sun.com/news/2245353/antifa-mob-take-over-hotel-cops/
ETA
informative but irrelevant?
Why or why not?
ETA
informative but irrelevant?
Why or why not?
Last edited:
I recall AOC said Ted Cruz was trying to kill her in late January. Was she lying?
I think for something to qualify as a lie it must be known to be false by the person who made it.
So, I wonder how one could unambiguously prove on the basis of the facts that AOC has knowingly asserted a falsehood here? I can think of more than one chain of evidence and reasoning that would lead me to believe that is possible. But I can also think of other chains that would lead me to believe it is possible she did not.
For instance, I think anyone, including AOC, can figure out that an experienced and skilled politician like Cruz is most likely aware of what can happen if he participates in ginning up already hateful and fearful people with language that can easily be interpreted by them as calls for revolutionary violence against their political enemies.
That's what Cruz had been doing for some considerable while right up to a day or two before 1/6. (Some say he was competing with Josh Hawley to see who could become the favorite darling and leader of the right, post-Trump.) So, it seems conceivable that Cruz anticipated the possibility of a violent attack on the Capitol Building while AOC and other lawmakers were present, and even that such an attack could easily lead to AOC's murder.
If he didn't think of it himself, there were numerous people who did, and who warned of such likelihoods in the days before 1/6. For Cruz not to have heard of those findings assumes that not only he never came across any of the warnings, but no one on his staff or among his colleagues thought to tell him about any. I can't believe that is likely.
Well, that's a start. I don't want to write a novella, so I'll leave it at that, but I think anyone can dig into it and find there's some ambiguity here about whether AOC knew she was asserting a falsehood when she said Cruz tried to kill her. But there's something even more to the point here. If she knew it was not entirely provable that Cruz tried to kill her -- no inside information, for instance, that might confirm it to her -- then was she exaggerating or lying out of whole cloth?
Again, I'm just giving a rough draft of several possible chains of evidence and logic that might be applied here to reach an overall conclusion that we cannot reasonably be sure AOC was lying, or if she was lying, whether her lie is cut from whole cloth, or partially true.
Last, if anyone in the past has cut Trump any slack on the grounds they thought no one could be reasonably certain of Trump's meanings, then please feel free to explain how their reasons for cutting Trump slack might apply or not apply here as well.
In 2016, Kellyanne Conway declared the right lives in a new age, an age of "Alternative Facts". Fine, the right lives in an Age of Alternative Facts, now. But does the right also live in an Age of "Alternative Logic", too?
I think for something to qualify as a lie it must be known to be false by the person who made it.
So, I wonder how one could unambiguously prove on the basis of the facts that AOC has knowingly asserted a falsehood here? I can think of more than one chain of evidence and reasoning that would lead me to believe that is possible. But I can also think of other chains that would lead me to believe it is possible she did not.
For instance, I think anyone, including AOC, can figure out that an experienced and skilled politician like Cruz is most likely aware of what can happen if he participates in ginning up already hateful and fearful people with language that can easily be interpreted by them as calls for revolutionary violence against their political enemies.
That's what Cruz had been doing for some considerable while right up to a day or two before 1/6. (Some say he was competing with Josh Hawley to see who could become the favorite darling and leader of the right, post-Trump.) So, it seems conceivable that Cruz anticipated the possibility of a violent attack on the Capitol Building while AOC and other lawmakers were present, and even that such an attack could easily lead to AOC's murder.
If he didn't think of it himself, there were numerous people who did, and who warned of such likelihoods in the days before 1/6. For Cruz not to have heard of those findings assumes that not only he never came across any of the warnings, but no one on his staff or among his colleagues thought to tell him about any. I can't believe that is likely.
Well, that's a start. I don't want to write a novella, so I'll leave it at that, but I think anyone can dig into it and find there's some ambiguity here about whether AOC knew she was asserting a falsehood when she said Cruz tried to kill her. But there's something even more to the point here. If she knew it was not entirely provable that Cruz tried to kill her -- no inside information, for instance, that might confirm it to her -- then was she exaggerating or lying out of whole cloth?
Again, I'm just giving a rough draft of several possible chains of evidence and logic that might be applied here to reach an overall conclusion that we cannot reasonably be sure AOC was lying, or if she was lying, whether her lie is cut from whole cloth, or partially true.
Last, if anyone in the past has cut Trump any slack on the grounds they thought no one could be reasonably certain of Trump's meanings, then please feel free to explain how their reasons for cutting Trump slack might apply or not apply here as well.
In 2016, Kellyanne Conway declared the right lives in a new age, an age of "Alternative Facts". Fine, the right lives in an Age of Alternative Facts, now. But does the right also live in an Age of "Alternative Logic", too?
Audie
Veteran Member
No treatise nor novella...
Maybe put it in a poem?
If "Birther" was a racist lie, then so is
"Tried to kill".
American double standards left n right
might be a thing to back away from all
around, rather than putting yet more bold font red.
Might.
Depends what the goal is, of course.
Agreed. Good idea no double standards.
I think everyone agrees to that in principle.
At least in public.
I notice someone on this forum -- not you --
is always encouraging people to shun double-
standards.
They only shun one side. Never seen them yet
shun an individual on their own. Maybe they are
trying to set a sterling example of what not to do.
I'm not optimistic human nature allows folks to
avoid double standards without work. Lazy to
think one is virtuous by individual nature, or
worse, by virtue of one's politics or religion.
But I sincerely thank you for the reminder, and I will take
greater care to avoid such standards. Also,
I think you might be right that I indulged in them
there, but I'm not honestly sure in this case.
ecco
Veteran Member
False? Let's see if he had any guilt in the invasion of the Capitol.
My comments in green...
Joint Statement from Senators Cruz, Johnson, Lankford, Daines, Kennedy, Blackburn, Braun, Senators-Elect Lummis, Marshall, Hagerty, Tuberville | Ted Cruz | U.S. Senator for Texas
"Ideally, the courts would have heard evidence and resolved these claims of serious election fraud. Twice, the Supreme Court had the opportunity to do so; twice, the Court declined.
SCOTUS declined for reasons of law.
"The most direct precedent on this question arose in 1877, following serious allegations of fraud and illegal conduct in the Hayes-Tilden presidential race. Specifically, the elections in three states-Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina-were alleged to have been conducted illegally.
"In 1877, Congress did not ignore those allegations, nor did the media simply dismiss those raising them as radicals trying to undermine democracy. Instead, Congress appointed an Electoral Commission-consisting of five Senators, five House Members, and five Supreme Court Justices-to consider and resolve the disputed returns.
The situation in 1877 was completely different, something Cruz well knows.
"We should follow that precedent. To wit, Congress should immediately appoint an Electoral Commission, with full investigatory and fact-finding authority, to conduct an emergency 10-day audit of the election returns in the disputed states. Once completed, individual states would evaluate the Commission's findings and could convene a special legislative session to certify a change in their vote, if needed.
Here Cruz is calling on Congress to delay the certification process for a bogus reason. He is also calling on States make their own analyses and change the outcome of the voting.
"Accordingly, we intend to vote on January 6 to reject the electors from disputed states as not ‘regularly given' and ‘lawfully certified' (the statutory requisite), unless and until that emergency 10-day audit is completed.
Note the "unless and until" part. IOW, if Congress does not do his bidding, the electors should not be certified.
Cruz had been calling for an overturn of the election results from day 1."Ideally, the courts would have heard evidence and resolved these claims of serious election fraud. Twice, the Supreme Court had the opportunity to do so; twice, the Court declined.
SCOTUS declined for reasons of law.
"The most direct precedent on this question arose in 1877, following serious allegations of fraud and illegal conduct in the Hayes-Tilden presidential race. Specifically, the elections in three states-Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina-were alleged to have been conducted illegally.
"In 1877, Congress did not ignore those allegations, nor did the media simply dismiss those raising them as radicals trying to undermine democracy. Instead, Congress appointed an Electoral Commission-consisting of five Senators, five House Members, and five Supreme Court Justices-to consider and resolve the disputed returns.
The situation in 1877 was completely different, something Cruz well knows.
"We should follow that precedent. To wit, Congress should immediately appoint an Electoral Commission, with full investigatory and fact-finding authority, to conduct an emergency 10-day audit of the election returns in the disputed states. Once completed, individual states would evaluate the Commission's findings and could convene a special legislative session to certify a change in their vote, if needed.
Here Cruz is calling on Congress to delay the certification process for a bogus reason. He is also calling on States make their own analyses and change the outcome of the voting.
"Accordingly, we intend to vote on January 6 to reject the electors from disputed states as not ‘regularly given' and ‘lawfully certified' (the statutory requisite), unless and until that emergency 10-day audit is completed.
Note the "unless and until" part. IOW, if Congress does not do his bidding, the electors should not be certified.
Ted Cruz supports Trump's baseless election conspiracy on voter fraud
Texan senator claims Pennsylvania vote-counting that appears to be going against president ‘is partisan, it is political, it is lawless’
Alex Woodward
New York
Friday 06 November 2020 06:40Republican Senators Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham did not dismiss suggestions from Fox New host Sean Hannity that state legislatures could appoint their own electors to re-elect Donald Trump following baseless claims of voter fraud and a narrow lead against Democratic candidate Joe Biden in Pennsylvania.
Texan senator claims Pennsylvania vote-counting that appears to be going against president ‘is partisan, it is political, it is lawless’
Alex Woodward
New York
Friday 06 November 2020 06:40Republican Senators Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham did not dismiss suggestions from Fox New host Sean Hannity that state legislatures could appoint their own electors to re-elect Donald Trump following baseless claims of voter fraud and a narrow lead against Democratic candidate Joe Biden in Pennsylvania.
Sen. Ted Cruz told Georgia voters that they were fighting to defend the Constitution, and anyone involved in voter fraud should be prosecuted and jailed.
“It is time to end voter fraud. It is time to expose voter fraud,” the Texas Republican said on Saturday. “It is time to take anyone who was involved in voter fraud and prosecute them and put them in jail.”
.@SenTedCruz in Savannah: “It is time to end voter fraud. It is time to expose voter fraud. It is time to take anyone who was involved in voter fraud and prosecute them and put them in jail.” @OANN pic.twitter.com/cEaFX5H7kC
— Jenn Pellegrino OAN (@JennPellegrino) December 19, 2020
The remarks came just days after President Trump retweeted attorney Lin Wood’s suggestion that the president could prosecute and jail Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp and Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, two Republicans Trump has claimed haven’t done enough to combat voter fraud in their state.
“It is time to end voter fraud. It is time to expose voter fraud,” the Texas Republican said on Saturday. “It is time to take anyone who was involved in voter fraud and prosecute them and put them in jail.”
.@SenTedCruz in Savannah: “It is time to end voter fraud. It is time to expose voter fraud. It is time to take anyone who was involved in voter fraud and prosecute them and put them in jail.” @OANN pic.twitter.com/cEaFX5H7kC
— Jenn Pellegrino OAN (@JennPellegrino) December 19, 2020
The remarks came just days after President Trump retweeted attorney Lin Wood’s suggestion that the president could prosecute and jail Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp and Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, two Republicans Trump has claimed haven’t done enough to combat voter fraud in their state.
ETA;
The ironically funny part is that four years earlier Trump accused Cruz of cheating in Iowa during the primaries. Trump also accused Cruz's father of being involved in the assassination of Kennedy. Cruz, like Jesus, just turned the other cheek and then asked Trump to bare his so that Cruz could kiss it.
ecco
Veteran Member
Democrats should make sure that Republicans know that any Bill bearing Cruz's signature will go into the dumpster.
Despite that long post justifying AOC's accusation,
it remains baseless. So either she's viciously
dishonest or out of touch with reality.