Are you comfortable with a US representative who is so woefully ignorant about US history?

[Chazmatazz269]

AOC went on Colbert and sputtered utter nonsense, at best. At worst, she’s taking advantage of undereducated potential voters’ ignorance by flat-out lying about important events in US history. Either way, this should be a major red flag for voters, particularly those in her district.

https://youtu.be/y6Q45l3xcA0

The nonsense starts from the beginning, but the easily fact-checkable historical inaccuracies and/or outright lies begin around three minutes in. What are your thoughts?

[StevieNix]

First of all, thank you for giving me the link to this video earlier. I got a good laugh out of it. The audience just seems to love her so I think I'm right in my question where I said she has a good chance of getting the nomination in 2024. And in my question several people questioned whether she would be old enough, and she will be. She turns 35 one month before the election.

Now I'm going to give you a link so you can have a good laugh. AOC is grilling the CEO of Wells Fargo bank. She believes that the bank should be responsible for oil spills because they lent the money to the company who built the pipeline. So imagine you crash your car in a McDonald's. Now McDonald's sues Bank of America for giving you the car loan. 😂😂😂😂

[StevieNix]

https://youtu.be/0ICHpSkpCHM

[StevieNix]

AOC: WHY DON'T YOU THINK YOU SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR OIL SPILLS OF THE KEYSTONE PIPELINE?

CEO: BECAUSE WE NEVER LENT THEM ANY MONEY.

AOC: OH. 😂😂

[Chazmatazz269]

I think i’m glad i haven’t stumbled across her more. A little bit of AOC goes a long way, in my opinion.

[StevieNix]

Thanks for the MHO and did you watch the video?

[Chazmatazz269]

I did, but it stressed me out. She appears to really like being on camera even though she’s terrible at it! Ell oh ell!

[StevieNix]

When I first watched that video, I sensed that the CEO was trying his best to not laugh. I understand what you mean about the stress part. My brother and I are both news hounds, but you have to take breaks once in awhile, or you could snap.

[RolandCuthbert]

I don't get it.

A trump supporter is talking about a politician, who is ignorant of U. S. history.

Trump actually talked about the revolutionary war where the Continental Army got control of the airports from the British so that we could control the air.

What in the sideways fuck are you trying to pull? I never once posted about trump's complete ignorance. I figure, if you are a trump supporter and you don't know. . . well you deserve what you get. But you are trying to shame folks into not supporting AOC. . . when you are voting for someone who is absolutely shameless.

[ronaldo75]

Bro you're too old to be so fucking woke and one-sided.

[Chazmatazz269]

Dude, you’re all over the place! Either answer the question or don’t, but stop jumping on questions and talking nonsense. Especially mine!
Your response is pretty broken, so i’m not even going to try to make enough sense of it to counter your points, especially since you literally DIDN’T answer the question! Ell oh ell! Check your meds, fool.

[RolandCuthbert]

@ronaldo75 So its "woke" now to know that in 1770s, there were no fucking airplanes?

Trumpturdism at its absolute finest and you don't understand why people think your belief system is revolting?

To explain an objective fact to your turd is a political act.

That's amazing.

[RolandCuthbert]

Trumpturd I answered your question.

You have representatives who claim the Jews have built giant space lasers to cause wildfires. You have reps who claim the Constitution is a religious document.

And you have a leader who doesn't know that there were no fucking planes in the Revolutionary War, but you are calling other political leaders ignorant.

And you don't see why people look at your belief system and see the Third Reich.

Get the fuck out of here.

[Goforit1010]

The REAL problem points to the total idiots who vote for her.

Comfortable with a US Representative who knows nothing about our history as a nation?

Hell NO! I'd like to think EVERYONE in Congress SHOULD KNOW this. After all, that history is right there in front of them at the Capitol building and at the various monuments around D. C.. For her to be this ignorant and outright STUPID is inexcusable!

It'll be a great day when the people in NYC get their heads put of their rears and FINALLY vote her out of there!

[Malgaran]

As someone who isn't American I tried to look up what she was talking about since I don't know the specifics about the history she is mentioning and it sounds like she kinda correct? So what is it exactly she's wrong about?

Or is this just pointless herd mentality I see a lot on here about hating AOC for essentially no reason?

[Chazmatazz269]

Okay… i guess i AM holding a history class now. Ell oh ell! Even if you’re not “American”, if you are eligible to vote in the US, you SHOULD know this. I’m going to proceed assuming you don’t live or operate here.
First, the supreme court was NEVER taken over by the confederacy because the confederacy was NOT part of the union. That’s literally the whole point of the confederacy, asserting their rights to govern themselves.
Second, the Dred Scott ruling wasn’t written in defiance of Lincoln’s ideologies or platform. It was written FOUR YEARS before he even became president.
Third, the emancipation proclamation wasn’t delivered in response to the Dred Scott decision. Lincoln signed that two years after he accepted the presidency, SIX YEARS after the Dred Scott ruling.
Fourth, the emancipation proclamation has NOTHING to do with citizenship. It outlawed the slave trade in the US; that’s all.
Suggesting the emancipation proclamation is in response to Dred Scott is like saying “shoes” is a response to the question, “How do you like your coffee?”!
AOC just went on TV and strung a bunch of words together that make almost no sense. Best case scenario is she’s grossly ignorant of the history of the country she swore to represent. She could very well be knowingly spreading misinformation knowing that the majority of her constituents won’t know any better, and they’ll just resort to calling everyone who points it out names like “racist” and “misogynist”.

[MarkRet]

No, I'm not comfortable with a US representative who's ignorant about US history, which is why we should have MORE people like AOC in Congress. Gohmert needs to GO, along with Cancun Cruz, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and Matt Gaetz.

[Chazmatazz269]

Ell oh ell! There’s a clip right there proving she’s either ignorant of US history, or lying and you think we need more like her?

[MarkRet]

AOC can think circles around the people I mentioned above. Yeah, we need more like her

[Chazmatazz269]

If she’s as smart as you say, then she must be lying in that clip. You’re okay with that?

[MarkRet]

Yeah, I'm okay with that!

[Chazmatazz269]

Hahaha! Alrighty then!

[jshm2]

Yeah! Doesn't she know woeful ignorance of history, law and protocol are exclusive Trump territory?

Does she think she is a Republican or something!

[Chazmatazz269]

What a curious assertion. Are you expressing sarcasm or hyperbole? Maybe a bit of both? Are you willing and able to express your own genuine thoughts on the question without what i have to assume is a brand of humor?

[BeMuse]

She’s a reflection of her constituents. Everything in the boundaries needs to be burnt to the ground with white phosphorus...

[demonics]

She will be re-elected and there is nothing you can do about it. This is why democracy is so important for the left. And its not even democracy, its the pseudo-democracy with caveats. Democracy when the public agrees with me, fascism when they don't.

[globetrotter22]

This is on point about AOC’s cognitive abilities:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/56qS5m3I9Hg

[NamerOfStars]

What did she say? I'm no fan of hers, but I'm all for keeping criticism legitimate.

[Chazmatazz269]

There’s a video clip in the post.

[Dargil]

Unfortunately, most Americans are ignorant of history AND civics.

[Chazmatazz269]

Agreed, but the same way we generally expect police to behave less irrationally because of their authority, i think we should be able to fairly expect elected officials to have a better grasp of our history.
Also, the fact that most US citizens know and understand too little is exactly why this is dangerous. They WILL believe her inherently because we SHOULD be able to fairly expect her to be better educated and trustworthy.

[SJ1984]

I had to stop this at the 2:22 mark. "Pregnant person"? Oh, I guess she means WOMAN. Enough of this!

[Chazmatazz269]

Unfortunate, since the content that inspired this question starts around 3 minutes.

[exitseven]

I heard her speak about the economy and it was obvious she lacks even a basic knowledge in how economics works. She truly believes in magic.

[ChefPapiChulo]

dont you write entire paragraphs with like 15 sentences? i honestly think you're a fake account when i see you post.

[Chazmatazz269]

Think what you want, dummy. It’s still a free country here! Ell oh ell!

[ChefPapiChulo]

so you do post like walls of paragraphs?

[Chazmatazz269]

Sometimes. Are you high on sativa right now? Having trouble getting a simple thought out of your head?

[ChefPapiChulo]

What an odd thin to say.

[driven159]

They all should pass a test like immigrants do to become citizens in America before they can even run for any office then that would eliminate 90% of them

[MikeInHawaii]

If she was the only woefully ignorant member of Congress, it would be no big deal.

[Pudsmucker]

Those people that are not familiar with our history, should take the time and learn it. Do not rewrite our history. History is being made every day.

[IsoUser]

I must have missed that episode lol and no offence

[Chazmatazz269]

No worries, i included a clip in the post. You can still watch the relevant segment and apply your thoughts. And i wasn’t even a boy scout!

[Lycanthropic]

The only thing she's good for is a shag, and probably not even that.

[abc3643]

What "important events" is she ignorant of?

[abc3643]

I want to be clear that I am serious.
Just saying that it starts at the beginning is irrelevant.

Think of this like criminal court and you are the prosecution.
You are making a "charge" of "propagating incorrect information".
The jury needs to know:
1. What specific information is incorrect?
2. What is the correct information?
3. What is your source of correct information? The jury needs that otherwise your argument becomes a "he said/she said".

[Chazmatazz269]

There’s a video clip. I specify that at 3 minutes she strings together several thoughts on US history that are grossly inaccurate, at best. That’s not irrelevant because i’m not holding a history class for your benefit or anyone else’s. If you really were serious, you’d fact check the fool for yourself, like i did. I’m not special. If i can do it, so can you.

[abc3643]

That's a winning prosecutorial style...

OK, well I just fact-checked the first 23 seconds...

... and she's right.

The antebellum US Supreme Court that decided the Dred Scott case in 1857 consisted of 4 associate justices and the chief justice from slave states and the rest from abolitionist states:

Chief Justice
Roger B. Taney - from MD, a slave state; appointed by Jackson from TN, a slave state

Associate Justices
John McLean - from OH, an abolitionist state; appointed by Jackson from TN, a slave state
James M. Wayne - from GA, a slave state; appointed by Jackson from TN, a slave state
John Catron - from TN, a slave state; appointed by Jackson from TN, a slave state
Peter V. Daniel - from VA, a slave state; appointed by Van Buren from NY, an abolitionist state
Samuel Nelson - from NY, an abolitionist state; appointed by Tyler from VA, a slave state
Robert C. Grier - from PA, an abolitionist state; appointed by Polk from TN, a slave state
Benjamin R. Curtis - from MA, an abolitionist state; appointed by Fillmore from NY, an abolitionist state
John A. Campbell - from AL, a slave state; appointed by Pierce from NH, an abolitionist state although Pierce himself was against the abolitionists.
www.supremecourt.gov/about/members_text.aspx

(more)

[abc3643]

Furthermore, she's right about the Dred Scott ruling saying (as she says) "Black Americans are not and can never be citizens of the United States."

Here is an excerpt from the Opinion of the Court in Dred Scott v. John F. A. Sanford as written by Chief Justice Taney:
"
And if the Constitution recognizes the right of property of the master in a slave, and makes no distinction between that description of property and other property owned by a citizen, no tribunal. acting under the authority of the United States, whether it [b]e legislative, executive, or judicial, has a right to draft such a distinction, or deny to it the benefit of the provisions and guarantees which have been provided for the protection of private property against the encroachments of the Government.
"
www.archives.gov/.../dred-scott-v-sandford

In other words, no government can legislate a slave to be a distinct form of owned property by the slave's master. This implies that owned slaves (who are all Black, of course) can never be citizens... which is exactly what she said.

That case was a 7-2 decision with Curtis and McLean, two associate justices from abolitionist states dissenting.

Thanks!

It __IS__ fun to do ACTUAL fact-checking!

Try it sometime!

[Chazmatazz269]

You’re as dumb as she is, or as flagrant a liar.

Okay… i guess i AM holding a history class now. Ell oh ell!

First, the supreme court was NEVER taken over by the confederacy because the confederacy was NOT part of the union. That’s literally the whole point of the confederacy, asserting their rights to govern themselves.
Second, the Dred Scott ruling wasn’t written in defiance of Lincoln’s ideologies or platform. It was written FOUR YEARS before he even became president.
Third, the emancipation proclamation wasn’t delivered in response to the Dred Scott decision. Lincoln signed that two years after he accepted the presidency, SIX YEARS after the Dred Scott ruling.
Fourth, the emancipation proclamation has NOTHING to do with citizenship. It outlawed the slave trade in the US; that’s all.
Suggesting the emancipation proclamation is in response to Dred Scott is like saying “shoes” is a response to the question, “How do you like your coffee?”!
AOC just went on TV and strung a bunch of words together that make almost no sense. Best case scenario is she’s grossly ignorant of the history of the country she swore to represent. She could very well be knowingly spreading misinformation knowing that the majority of her constituents won’t know any better, and they’ll just resort to calling everyone who points it out names like “racist” and “misogynist”.
You’re welcome. Now go ahead and block me because these EASILY VERIFIABLE FACTS fly in the face of whatever nonsense narrative you’ve adopted.

[jimmy2]

No I am not and she wants USA to have Sherria law which puts women into savage life

[goaded]

twitter.com/.../1541796574325506053
"We are the Christian Taliban and we will not stop until The Handmaid's Tale is a reality, and even worse than that."

[monorprise]

Certainly does reflect much of the population.

[Avicenna]

Our kleptocratic elites love her act.