Bill Maher calls out AOC for dismissing 'wokeness' critics, challenges her to appear on his show
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
"Real Time" host Bill Maher ended his final show of the year by challenging Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , D-N.Y., to appear on a future telecast.
During his closing monologue, Maher attempted to point Democrats in the "right direction" following their devastating defeats in the November elections ahead of the 2022 midterms.
He cited commentary from veteran Democratic strategist James Carville, who blamed his party's losses on "stupid wokeness," a view that Ocasio-Cortez rejected, claiming the term is "almost exclusively used by older people these days … so that should tell you all you need to know."
"What?!" Maher reacted. "This is a term folks like you brought out very recently, had been proudly displaying it every march since. Just last year, The Guardian declared ‘woke’ the ‘word of our era.’ I guess they didn't get the memo from the Mean Girls Club.
"What a great strategy, never missing an opportunity to remind voters how lame and clueless and hopelessly cool they are, especially since those are the ones who actually vote," Maher scolded Ocasio-Cortez. "But OK, fine. What word would you like us to use for the plainly insane excesses of the left that are not liberalism but something completely different? Because you can't have that word ‘liberal' from us and think it should cover things like canceling Lincoln. And teaching third-graders they're oppressors. That's all your new-think."
The HBO star suggested the "more pertinent question" to ask is why the term "woke" went from being a "rallying cry to a pejorative."
If the word only made you think of rational, deserved causes like teaching a less whitewashed version of American history, AOC would still want to own it. But it's a joke because it makes you think of people who wake up offended and take orders from Twitter. And their oversensitivity has grown tiresome," Maher said.
Maher went on to say that he'd "love" to have the congresswoman on his show since there's "so much to admire" about her, expressing gratitude toward her for spearheading the Green New Deal .
"But that will probably never happen because Democrats don't go anywhere these days where they're not being adored," Maher said. "And that's my last bit of advice to them. Go where the ‘amen corner’ isn't. Do Fox News. Be brave. Come here. Go everywhere. Winning is about expanding the electorate."
Earlier in the week, Maher railed against Democrats for becoming "completely toxic" to ordinary Americans, particularly in the age of wokeism.
"Woke -- I don't remember the day the term was born, although I hear AOC says, ‘Only old people use it now.’ Well, you gave it to us. Like five years ago. So sorry we didn't get the memo," Maher told CNN anchor Chris Cuomo on Wednesday. "In its best sense, if we're talking about being aware of things we should have always been aware of more, reckonings that we've had … but there's a reason why the term ‘woke’ has come to signify going too far. And doing things that don't make sense."
"I keep saying this to the Democratic Party. The reason why you're so toxic is because you've become the party of no common sense. And people see this on their newsfeeds," Maher said. "They see things on their phone or on their Facebook page, people pass things around and it's a constant drip, drip, drip of ‘Oh, these people are nuts' in a way -- they're not oblivious to the fact that Trump is nuts. When he ran, one of his big selling points was ‘You’ve got no choice.' He was saying, ‘Yes, I know I’m nuts. You know I'm nuts. But they're nuts in a very different way that's closer to home to you.'"
Tags
Who is online
108 visitors
Even Bill Maher is trying to tell them!
I dont think Bill Maher is a conservative or right winger. He is just full of himself and for publicity sake is turning himself into a "useful idiot".
No, he simply has common sense, something sorely lacking in most of the left these days.
Maher, Carville, and many others are trying to wake up and educate brain dead lefties about political reality..
Why the obstinate resistance? I wonder what George Carlin would say if he were still with us.
Correct. Over the years, he has identified himself as a libertarian, a liberal, and a progressive.
(Citations from NY Times Magazine, NY Times, and CNN)
I find your thought process intriguing. Is Maher "full of himself", because he doesn't meet your political standards? Is he a defector, because his views differ from yours? Why is he "a useful idiot"?
It seems to me that Maher is a reasonable man, because he recognizes the radical threat of the Marxist Left - people like AOC - and speaks out. I doubt she has the courage to accept his invitation.
Are there any moderate democrats on NT who are ashamed of where the democratic party has gone?
I dont consider "wokeness" to be America's greatest problem, as you do. Therefore I have no reason to be ashamed.
You, to this minute, praise and support someone who wanted to and planned to overthrow the government of the United States. You want someone to be ashamed? Look in the mirror.
That question wasn't even directed at you. I even added emphasis to moderate democrat. I don't even know if we have any here.
You, to this minute, praise and support someone who wanted to and planned to overthrow the government of the United States.
I continue to support Donald Trump and NO he did not plan to overthrow the democrat's corrupt regime.
LOL. He planned to overthrow the election certification process and have himself declared president. This is not even in realistic dispute.
THE DAY OF Jan 6, at his rally both Trump and the plans author John Eastman said there was still time for Pence to do the right thing. Trump even mentions Eastmans plan in his remarks.
[deleted]
I feel the same about you, so I guess we're even.
You first. After voting in this incestuous pedophile to the White House.
Vic, I'm an independent and I find that question very funny. When I look at the parties, I think that they both have elements that should be ashamed of where their party has gone. When a Democrat like Maher is being honest about his party extremist, you use it as a weapon, but when Liz Chaney does it, you call her names.
Frankly, if I was a dem, I would be highly insulted by that question.
I think it's reasonable to view both Maher and Chaney as standing on principle. I think Maher is trying to save his party. I think Chaney hates Trump and cares little about what she does to her party. That's the difference,
Frankly, if I was a dem, I would be highly insulted by that question.
I think a lot of moderate democrats agree with me and they are showing it in recent elections.
I think that Chaney is no different than Maher. You like Trump so you don't see the damage he has done to your party, which is no different than AOC, accept that he wants to run again. That will hurt you with independents.
I can't speak for moderate Dems. I don't see Manchin changing parties and I don't see him liking Trump either. You won the elections from the indie vote mostly. And if I may point out to you, that there were a lot of Dems voted in, in local elections and all the elections ran very tight races. No one won by a landslide, and most had really poor turnouts. I think that shows that the American public is pretty sick and tired of all negativism.
Polling has shown that many independents are not happy with Biden.
I interpret that as voter remorse.
And if I may point out to you, that there were a lot of Dems voted in, in local elections and all the elections ran a very tight race. No one won by a landslide, and most had really poor turnouts. I think that shows that the American public is pretty sick and tired of all negativism.
I'd like to point out that Virginia just went red, democrat machine governor Phil Murphy, who was favored by 8 points barely hung on and solid blue Columbia, South Carolina, just elected a Republican. A Texas democrat just swithced partys. 14 democrat House members have decided not to run next year. That means that moderate democrats and Independents have had enough of radical left policies.
For now. But you have to remember that most indies voted in Biden to get rid of Trump. That has not changed.
Yes, but Virginia was hardly a landslide, and Phil Murphy won a second term, which hasn't been done in a very long time in NJ. The decision not to run could have nothing to do with anything, since they were never polled as to why. You feel it is radical left policy as an indie, I think that the infrastructure bill was a huge win that will pay off in the long run. I don't see the Build Back America bill passing without some major changes to it, but it does have some stuff in it that I totally agree with, it just needs to be cleaned up, which it will or it will not pass the senate.
Perhaps not a landslide, but surely a HUGE upset. The GOP hadn't won a statewide race in VA since 2009, and took the Governor, Lt. Gov., AG, and one House.
True. But the State Senate Leader lost to an unknown who spent a ridiculously low amount.
I believe it has. If that same election were held tomorrow Trump would win handily.
Yes, but Virginia was hardly a landslide,
It was a major upset and a clean sweep for Republicans. We all agreed before that election that it was a true bellwether.
and Phil Murphy won a second term
He was favored by 8. It wasn't even supposed to be a contest.
You feel it is radical left policy
Policies Perrie - Everything from open borders to DOJ misconduct!
as an indie, I think that the infrastructure bill was a huge win that will pay off in the long run.
Even those who liked it initially will soon realize that most of that wasn't for "infrastructure" and the Trillion dollar bills have only led to rising inflation.
I don't see the Build Back America bill passing without some major changes to it, but it does have some stuff in it that I totally agree with, it just needs to be cleaned up, which it will or it will not pass the senate.
I really hope it dies when it gets back to the House. Stripping out all the leftist programs should kill it in the House.
Well, losing a state is never not huge, but the only people who were energized where those who lost Trump in the last election.
You are only proving my point. Most people are sick and tired of the bitterness that is going on within the party system. This win was again, nothing more than those who were energized by the Trump loss.
They were energized by 10 months of very radical policy that most never voted for.
Virginia had a huge turnout. Couldn't have been just from people upset that Trump lost. Just not enough of them to flip a state that Biden carried big time just a year ago. We both know independents are what pushed the GOP over the line, which would seem to be a rebuke for Democrats.
Not sure about that. And I think most indies would prefer another choice other than Trump.
The midterms will be the bellwether.
A win is a win. It was close in Virginia, too.
Open Boarders will never pass. The DOJ has a long history of misconduct that goes beyond one administration.
Our current rising inflation has to do with being in lockdown and now supply line issues. The infrastructure bill will add jobs and fix our decaying infrastructure, which has to be fixed. And may I remind you, that the bill costs $1.2 trillion, while Trump spent 1.9 trillion dollars on Covid relief. That was nothing but a stop-gap and actually IMHO caused many people not to join the workforce for a longer period, which does affect inflation.
I don't think so... but we will have to see.
That is not what the polls said. The turnout was a whole lot of Trump voters and the Dems and indies were not very stimulated to vote.
It has become a blue state, largely because northern Virginia has become a suburb of DC with lot's of federal employees, beltway bandits and at least one dentist living there.
52% of voters is not great, IMO.
Also, and ironically, the republicans benefited from early voting and mail-in, which was passed under Ralph Northam. When a republican wins, I don't hear any complaints about those policies, right?
You don't think that Biden has become far more toxic than Trump was? Do you think the dems will nominate Biden or Harris in 2024???
The midterms will be the bellwether.
Lol, no the midterms are the end result or as Shakespear might say "Act 4."
A win is a win. It was close in Virginia, too.
Oh, come on Perrie, the democrats are getting their heads handed to them!
Open Boarders will never pass.
Pass? It's currently in effect!
The DOJ has a long history of misconduct that goes beyond one administration.
Everyone does it?
Our current rising inflation has to do with being in lockdown and now supply line issues.
Perrie, I think you are testing me. That happens to be all that Jen Psaki could think of when she was confronted by the alluring Jacqui Heinrich.
The infrastructure bill will add jobs and fix our decaying infrastructure, which has to be fixed. And may I remind you, that the bill costs $1.2 trillion
A straight infrastucture would have been defensible. The cost would have been less that half what that thing costs.
while Trump spent 1.9 trillion dollars on Covid relief.
I spoke about whataboutism in my weekly report.
That was nothing but a stop-gap and actually IMHO caused many people not to join the workforce for a longer period, which does affect inflation.
That would be Biden's over generous unemployment benefits which created another crisis.
I don't think so... but we will have to see.
You bet!
Over 700,000 votes more than last election for governor seems significant to me.
Democrats always claim they win with high turnout, which turned out to be untrue.
Nice deflection.
Where are you getting this? Turnout was the highest for governor in over 20 years. McAuliffe got more Democratic votes than Northam did and the independents (who favored Younkin by 9) were his margin of victory.
The thing is, this wasn't the huge change some folks like to think it was. Virginia was never as blue as imagined. 2019 was the first time the Dems had a majority in the House of Delegates since 2000, and it was a slim margin. The current margin Republicans hold over Democrats in the House is also slim. The Senate is still controlled by Dems, but also by a slim margin. That majority was gained in 2019, after Republican control of the Senate since 1993.
Virginia is purple. Has been for decades. It takes only a very slight swing to turn it a bit redder or bluer, not the sea change some would like to think the election signalled.
How? McAuliffe tanked as the election went on. He was leading in every poll I know of when voting started. Younkin didn't "pull ahead" in polls until the week before the election.
If he had won, it would have been because he banked votes before his meltdown over the last few weeks of the election.
Virginia is purple
Biden won Virginia by 10 points. A 12 point switch in a year is massive. Try and downplay it all you want.
Trump won South Carolina by about the same margin. Do you think it's purple?
The GOP had not won a statewide race in VA since 2009.
Seems sort of significant.
Ignore the numbers all you want, Sean. Virginia is not solidly red. Nor was it ever solidly blue.
That's really the time that federal workers, employees and officials took a significant pay hike. Those Obama programs benefitted them the most and it is they who prefer northern Virginia to DC.
This can be added to the mix:
"The influx of immigrants and their U.S.-born children, the spread of high-density suburbia and the growth of higher education all tilt the field toward the Democrats. Still, that doesn’t give them a lock on the state, said Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics."
I can't open the link to read the whole report.
But they had held majorities in legislature. There are 3 branches in our government, you know.
Would you accept Breitbart?
Vic,
You can't use the NYT, if most of the time you are saying that they are not accurate.
Yes I do know. Did you notice I clearly stated that the GOP had not won a statewide race since 2009?
Most of the time they aren't, but you accept their analysis, don't you?
I know that the best Dentist in Virginia lives west of the Blue Ridge
Yup, the very one!
I noticed. I also notice that you're trying to attach a great deal of significance to that, while ignoring the fact that Virginia is still purple overall. This wasn't likely the blowout that you want it to be.
Thanks, charger!
I never said it it was solidly red. Since the Republicans haven't won a state wide race there in over a decade and Biden won it by 10 points, that would be idiotic. It's certainly not solidly red now.
But it was real damn blue as recently as November 2020.
Only if Andrew was still alive and running it, Steve turned it into a shitshow.
When did you become Perrie?
Not all that blue. If it were "real damn" blue, the Dems would have had commanding majorities in the state legislature. They didn't.
It doesn't work that way. You can't say that they are not accurate and then use them to prove a point. That is cherry-picking.
You mean it's like a secularist quoting the Bible?
Ok, How about this one:
Gee, some folks would consider it significant that the GOP swept the top offices.
Consider it so, if you like. You yourself were touting history - Virginia generally elects a governor of the opposite political party from the most recent winner of the Presidential election. Is it significant that the vote went as expected?
Or is is significant that a state with rural counties that overwhelmingly vote for GOP presidential candidates still somehow has a nearly evenly split legislature?
The vote did not go as expected. Did you ever look at any polls??
This gets crazier by the minute. The democrats have won every statewide election for a dozen years and you believe the Republicans were "expected" to win?
You must be incredibly rich given the odds in the betting markets overwhelmingly favored McAuliffe. Even as recently as a week before the election Youngkin was being given a less than 40 percent chance to win.
It went as you expected it to. Can't have it both ways, Tex.
No, the polls showed the GOP trailing badly in a state that Biden won by 10 points a year ago. Based on that, it made sense to think the GOP would lose.
What is this nonsense about having it both ways?
Polls had Hillary winning in 2016, too.
And, as many pointed out, this followed the same pattern as gubernatorial elections here for decades.
I saw this touted for weeks heading up to the election as a predictor of how it would go, but now we're supposed to be amazed that this is how it went? I'm underwhelmed.
Not really trailing badly.
LOL on that bible joke.
I'll accept that one, but you seemed to miss this:
So really what does any of this means not even 1 year into a presidency?
I'd say not much. People have short memories or attention spans. It's the last year of the presidency which will probably be make or break. The same happened to Trump.
What does that mean? Because Hillary lost somehow McAullife shouldn't have been the overwhelming favorite by oddsmakers?
Here's the relevant history:
2012 Virginia voted Obama, Kaine
2013 Virginia voted McAuliffe
2014 Virginia voted Warner
2016 Virginia voted Clinton
2017 Virginia voted Northam
2018 Virginia voted Kaine
2020 Virginia voted Biden, Warner
2021 Virginia voted Younkin
Which of these is not like the other?
Oh, another pandemic so soon? At age 83, will Biden be cognitively capable of putting together Operation Warp Speed 2?
It means polls aren't always accurate, and it's not all an amazing win for your side when one gets it wrong.
Also, you're missing the relevant history. It's not just about how Virginia voted. It's about how Virginia voted, in relation to how the nation voted. Virginia has voted against the party holding the White House since 1977, with the exception of one election. Even if Virginia voted for that party in the preceding Presidential elections. This election follows a pattern that's been set for 44 years.
Which supports that Virginia is purple, not red. But prior to Youngkin's election, it wasn't all that blue, either. We're basically going back and forth between magenta and violet.
The polls had Younkin winning on election day, they were pretty accurate. How are you trying to turn this into a debate about polls?.
Again, in July, no one thought Younkin was winning this election. IF you knew he was going to, than you should have made millions given the odds against him winning set by people who make their living predicting elections.
Also, you're missing the relevant histo
No, I'm not. I just showed you the relevant history of the state voting straight democratic for a decade.
It 's about how Virginia voted, in relation to how the nation voted
Lol do you understand the difference between correlation and causatio? . Do you imagine Virginia voted for Northam in 2017 after voting for Hillary in 2016 was because Trump won? Virginia voted for Democrats in every state wide election for a decade because it's a blue state. Not because of how people voted in Florida the year before.
This rule held in 17 of 19 elections: " If the Redskins win their last home game before the election, the party that won the previous election wins the next election and that if the Redskins lose, the challenging party's candidate win." Do you think that rule actually helps figure out elections? When the election was over, do you recall a candidate saying, "it's no surprise we lost, the Redskins lost too, so we had no chance."
In 2013 Va Republicans ran Ken Cuccinelli and Bishop E W Jackson, which gift wrapped the Governor's race for MaCuliffe's first term. Those two did a lot to push Virginia blue. The Va Republican party is still recovering from that self inflicted injury
COVID happened to Trump.
He’d very likely be POTUS right now had it not.
Yep, probably. He was in a good position for reelection too.
We're still dealing with the current pandemic.
If left to the "science" of Fauci, Biden, and other autocrats, Covid-19 will be a "pandemic" for at least another 30 years.
What is your reasoning for such a proclamation?
You might want to let Texan know. And check your own words about poll results a week before the election. You've gone on about how pre-election polling favored McAuliffe, and now you say they were accurate, since Youngkin won? Ok.
I didn't know Youngkin was going to win. I didn't think a victory for McAuliffe was a foregone conclusion, either. You apparently did, until those accurate polls were shown to be inaccurate.
You've shown me what you consider to be relevant since 2012 - how Virginia voted for governor in relation to how Virginia voted for POTUS. I've shown you the pattern of how Virginia voted for governor in relation to how the nation voted for POTUS since 1977. They have generally voted for the party which didn't win the White House, regardless of which presidential candidate they voted for in the preceding general election.
Where did I mention causation? Can you disprove the correlation?
If it were a blue state, it wouldn't have had a Republican legislature for decades. It's silly to assert that a state with decades of a Republican-led legislature that only ended recently, and only by a tiny margin, is a blue state.
But that would put the Republican win into a reasonable perspective.
Between those two and Bob McDonnell taking gifts from Star Scientific (slimy but not illegal) and throwing his wife under the bus, yeah, the Dems didn't have to try hard for a while.
The thought of Cuccinelli in any public office turns my stomach. How much taxpayer money did he waste in his prudish censoring of the state seal?
You understand how polls work, right? They capture a moment in time. A poll in April shows the situation in April, not November. If you check my words, you'd see I'm consistent. McAuliffe was leading until the end of the campaign. Younkin made his gains close to the election date. Hence, his polling improved as it closer to the election.
You apparently did, until those accurate polls were shown to be inaccurate.
What are you talking about? I never claimed I thought he'd win. Nor were the polls inaccurate. You understand the electorate shifts it's preferences over time right?
Where did I mention causation? Can you disprove the correlation?
If you admit there's no causation, why do you keep talking about this. Correlation without causation gives you the Washington Redskins football team controls elections theory.
It's silly to assert that a state with decades of a Republican-led legislature that only ended recent
It would be silly to make a claim about what happened decades ago when no one is talking about it. Virginia has voted for Democrats in every single state wide election for THE LAST DECADE prior to November. That's what makes it a blue state. In purple states, both parties consistently win statewide elections. It's not that difficult to tell the difference. For instance, Missouri used to be a purple state. It's a red state now. Democrats winning statewide elections in Missouri would signal problems for the Republicans, even though it was the quintessential toss up state just a few election cycles ago.
But that would put the Republican win into a reasonable perspectiv
A double digit shift towards Republicans in two blue states is the reasonable perspective to take from what happened this month. Pretending Virginia is the same as it was in 2004 is not. That's reality.
Claiming a state won by Biden by 10 points is really purple is as absurd as claiming South Carolina is purple. We both know you wouldn't be making that argument if Democrats won a Senate seat or the Governorship. So why bother making it about Virginia.
Not decades ago. Several years ago - 2019. In 2018, Virginia had a legislature in which both houses had been controlled by Republicans for 18 years (the House of Delegates) and 25 years (the Senate). When did 2 years become a decade?
Your assertion. One which incidentally sets a pretty low bar to allow you to spin this into a bigger victory than it is. It's also an assertion which ignores the existence of the legislative branch and those who voted its members into office.
When did 2 years become a decade?
You were citing election results from decades ago.
The State Legislature is not decided by statewide elections, You understand that, right? Geographic concentration of voters matters in state legislative elections. They don't in statewide elections which reflect the state as a whole.
One which incidentally sets a pretty low bar to allow you to spin this into a bigger victory than it is
Okay. Name one other "purple state" that Biden or Trump won by 10 plus points in 2020 and his party has won every statewide election since 2009. I can't wait for that list.
But you are missing the point, the "victory" doesn't really matter. If he had lost by half a point, it would be just as big a deal. What matters is the massive swing in votes from 2020, which is why the New Jersey results are just as impressive and important as Virginia, even though the incumbent Democrat won in New Jersey.
And from 3 weeks ago. And from 4 years ago.
I'm aware of how the state legislature is chosen. I'm also aware that statewide elections are not the only elections held, nor are they the only elections to decide a state's political leanings.
Let's make this simple. Just name one other "purple state" that Biden or Trump won by 10 plus points in 2020 and whose party has won every statewide election since 2009.
A pretty narrow set of parameters, there, Sean.
If you won't accept a state that has generally had a divided government, and has almost equal representation within its legislature as purple, your definition of "purple state" is so narrow as to be meaningless. In Virginia, neither party has had overwhelming support over the other for decades. That sounds pretty purple to me.
Real Clear Politics had the Democrat ahead by 5 points on October 1, and that number was the average of all polls.
5 points is a large margin to overcome in just one month, and especially with the high turnout.
Partisan bias?
Lol. Of course you won't accept the definition that exposes how silly your argument is . If you list the states that that Biden or Trump won by 10 plus points in 2020 and whose party has won every statewide election since 2009 you'll find only states that everyone identifies as either red or blue.
States that vote exclusively for one party in statewide elections aren't purple. That's the entire point of labeling a state red, blue or purple. You know which way it currently leans in statewide elections.
n Virginia, neither party has had overwhelming support over the other for decades.
. Again, the fact that you need to go back decades to find Republican support.
Of course you won't accept the definition that exposes how this wasn't a great victory. Your preferred candidate won an election by a small margin in a state that wasn't solidly against his party, and hasn't ever been.
The results of elections since 2009 haven't exactly been blowouts recently. In 2013, McAuliffe won by by about 2.5% over Cuccinelli, whom pretty much everyone thought was a twit (check out charger's comments above). If Virginia was solidly blue in 2013, that should have been a blowout, considering the dislike for Cuccinelle and Jackson even among Republicans, but it wasn't. Because Virginia wasn't solidly blue in 2013. The 2017 election had a much wider margin - 9%. But since then, Ralph Northam has been a bit of a mixed bag. A history of racist actions, resentment of his response to the pandemic, and a dishonest but successful campaign by anti-choicers in which he was said to have been in favor of post-natal "abortion" put serious dents into his support (and therefore his party's) statewide.
So, that's one gubernatorial election that was a solid victory for Dems, with support lost since then. That doesn't really make for a "real damn" blue state.
Not true. I only need to go back 2 years to find Republican support. It's just not Republican support to which you want to pay attention.
Biden just won the state last year by 10 points, and no Republican had won a statewide election in over a decade.
Pretty damn fine win, and one I am sure Democrats are unhappy about. Sure was a lot of commenting on how Democrats SHOULD have campaigned and SHOULD have passed the infrastructure bill BEFORE the election.
A swing of over 10 points in one year is pretty significant.
Oh, I forgot we were voting for POTUS a few weeks ago.
Believe it or not, Virginians can actually have different party preferences for governor as opposed to POTUS. Rather like Marylanders, who voted for Biden, but have a popular Republican governor.
That is probably a great thing for you to forget, as we didn't.
No kidding? Wow. I bet you are the only person to have ever thought of that! Wow!
Choosing to disregard pertinent information is your choice, and far be it from me to change your mind.
All things which should inform Democrats that they have no mandate from the public, so why do they legislate as if they do?
A great news and opinion source. One of the best there is.
He hasn’t been there in a long time.
Some people recognize sarcasm when they see it.
Possibly so. Some people equate the results of a gubernatorial election with those of a presidential election. Not me, but some people do.
Well, that's politics for ya. Elections, majorities, and all that jazz. Don't you like democracy?
You obviously missed it!
And some folks can look and analyze election results and draw sane conclusions, while others seem to struggle with the concept. I can, but others can't.
Love democracy, and the elections results were quite promising in that regard!
So, you were being sarcastic when you equated support for a gubernatorial candidate with support for POTUS? Sure, sure.
Like declaring a state to be definitely blue, despite evidence to the contrary? Not very sane.
Then why do you object to the winners of elections governing like they won elections?
I didn't equate the two, stop making stuff up.
Gee, I would have loved to see you quote me doing that, but since we both know you can't, I won't bother asking for it.
Mere ridiculous fluff from you. I don't object at all, just wish that one party didn't act as if they had some sweeping mandate from the electorate.
I prefer if you actually attempt to debate what I have claimed rather than the stuff you seem to have invented for me.
Bullshit.
Those are your words. Why do you question the winners of elections acting like they won elections? Why do you need to ask why winners govern? It's obvious to people who support democracy.
bullshit? so now you are telling me what I think??
like I stated, argue what I wrote not invented crap
You questioned democracy, Tex. It's all there in black and white. As is typical, you now wish to disown your words, but they're all there, in black and white. Their meaning and implications are clear.
omg please stop inventing and then trying to argue what you invented.
It's all they got ..... lies, deflection, redirection, gaslighting, etc ..... they have no truth. They only have what they want you to believe the truth is.
Which is usually just a blatant lie or at best a disingenuous half truth.
Nope. All can read Texan's words. He just doesn't want to own them.
There's gaslighting going on here, but not by me. It's the typical "I didn't say that. Or if I did, it was taken out of context" defense. Texan is questioning why Dems are acting like they won elections the did, in fact, win. He's questioning democracy.
He's also conflating a state's support for a gubernatorial candidate with support for the President - that 10% swing he keeps bringing up. We can all read that, too, but he also doesn't want to own those words. Virginians realize that Biden wasn't on the ballot this month.
Keep telling the lie.
I'm sure you'll convince some useful idiots but that's about it.
FFS, PLEASE stop telling tales about my posts.
I own everything I write and please don't deny that. I have retracted NOTHING. I have denied NOTHING except the crap you MADE UP about me.
either at least be honest with me or stop posting to me.
It might not be all that bad. Each party always has its extreme elements and though they tend to be louder than their colleagues, I’m not sure that equates to real political impact.
Still, the party has moved further Left, in my opinion. The once robust moderate Blue Dog Coalition is about a third of the size it was just 15 years ago. But there are some signs they might be starting to turn that around. I think some of the gains the Democrats have seen in the last few years have included moderate Democrats, whether they are members of that coalition or not. Additionally, Democrats like Manchin and Sinema are showing the influence that one or two stubborn moderates can have - so all is not lost.
I try to have faith in the people. I always sort of hope that the voting public will recognize insanity when they hear it and not vote for it. But then Maxine Waters has been in Congress for 30 years, so what do I know?
We all can hope. When I was just a kid I can remember adults talking about what kind of people were teaching at Harvard and elswhere. I would wonder why they didn't do anything about it. It's only when things get so far out of hand that people go to the polls and make a change. Then after things return to normal for a while they forget and get complacent again. On the other hand the left never lets up. If you doubt that just take a look at the thread above. They take a ridiculous position and defend it until the other person logs off, then issue the last word. That maybe the Berkeley style of debate, but it demonstrates their resolve. Let's face it, they now are deeply inbedded in most of our institutions. It is going to take a lot of commitment for the American people to rid our society of this curse.
She doesn’t have the guts to do it.
Maher would destroy her face to face.
I have to agree. She dosen't venture far from her fawning admirers.
She is much better at interrupting speakers who have the floor of the House with snarky cat-calls
Hated the 'word' the first time I heard it and for a number of reasons but mostly that it was immediately obvious that hordes of pundits on the right would successfully weaponize it much as they did with Hillary's foolish "deplorables"; there is rarely a right wing opinion piece that does not incorporate 'woke' at least several times.
Note to Bill, The left has stopped using 'woke' for well over a year now, find another quixotic windmill to tilt at.
As to A.O.C., I will be surprised if she does not accept the invitation, and Bill, do a 'balanced' show with M.T.G. included ... I'll watch that!
But they're still pushing the idiocy of Wokeism. The Left came up with the Ideology and named it Woke so as long as the Ideology persists they're stuck with the Word.
They create Newspeak, frame the narratives and choose the news. Progressivism prevails in nearly every sphere of American public life: the news media, the universities, K-12 education, the entertainment industry, corporate boardrooms, mainline religious organizations, college and professional sports (excluding the fans), much of U.S. military bureaucracy, and state and federal agencies. Now they regret a word that they created. It's only a testament to their power that they find it so difficult to remove it from the national lexicon.
Where might that be? I don't see it being pushed here by anyone on the left. Cut the crispy crap, you are being too cute by half.
I know you have a penchant for pluralizing pronouns but do try and take heed, I am not 'they' just as you are not 'we'.
I never got the message on that. I'm not one to worry about pronouns.
'We've' noticed.
I never expected a fan club.
Is that why you gave them a name?
Moving on ...
Oh but you do have one, it’s just a bizarro world fan club.
I wouldn't have it any other way.
The Democrats have become the party of moral scourges, the Tipper Gores of the 2020s. Maher, to his credit, recognizes that. The zealots running the party have gone all in on the working class white people are evil messaging and they are paying the price.
Is that the reason for the need to undermine the status and reputation of straight white conservative males?
Maher wants the Democratic Party to do well, and offers them some good advice here. Will they listen? The extreme progressives might not, but some of the more moderate members - who still have some control - might listen.
AOC’s comments about woke-ism seem like some next level gaslighting. I don’t know if AOC knows this, but “stay woke” actually is a very old term when used to refer to racial injustice (especially anti-black police brutality), although I think we can credit BLM for its recent surge in popularity.
So in that respect, I guess you could say old people use it, but if we’re talking about modern politics, not really. Being “woke” is now either virtue signaling or a weapon depending on which side you sit.
I suspect she can see that “woke” is now being appropriated by so many people - on both the Left and the Right - that it has lost whatever more specific meaning it used to have. “Stay Woke” has now become more of a distraction than anything else.
Mr. Mahr, AOC will show up and state her case the best she can. She is not afraid. Will McCarthy, Gosar, lil' Tucker or any of the other Trumpian boot polishers?
Maher will shred her to pieces; he is punching well below his weight class in this exchange. AOC is nothing more than a political internet content maker.
Why would a Republican ever go on a liberal leftists show?
That would be like AOC, or any other high ranking Democrat, showing up on any of Fox news talk shows. Let us know when that happens.
Maher vs AOC? she doesn't make it past the first minute of the first round....
I still remember when Maher took on the Housing crash and the causes of it, absolutely destroyed all the sychophants excuses for it and laid it squarely at the feet of Bill and his cronies... The media gladly broadcast it gleefully thinking it would help them, afterwards it disappeared from the screens and internet... The entire democrat political hierarchy was not very happy with him...
He's definitely a liberal but he's nobody's bootlicker...