Walz hints at making AOC speaker of the house

[FlyersFan]

Saw this comment left at another site ...

AOC bragged about finishing a jigsaw puzzle in only a week when the box said 2- 4 years

[not Network Dude]

Take away her pro-Palestine squad stuff, and I kinda like her style. It's very "ghetto Eastcoast bitch that doesn't take shit." The main difference between Bronx, Southie, and Kenso is the accent, all things said.

Fortunately (for everyone) a search in Google of "AOC Speaker" has this top result.

No, Tim Walz Did Not Suggest AOC Should Be Speaker of the House


So Time says no fears if you want the longer answer... and think Democrats can still win this election.

On the other hand, I am wondering what the result of winning an election by CONTANSTLY taking things out of context and outright lying will look like. With this edited misquote as one of the endless examples.

If (interests supporting Donald Trump) are willing to do this on EVERYTHING, and never factually report a damn thing, and Trump willing repeats their flimsy use of truth, and sometime absurd claims, is his administration going to govern based on those same things taken deliberately out of context or made up to win?

Its already grown fruit. Now every time you fact check a claim like that, it's met with, "STFU evil lefist NWO apologist, we are the purveyor of the gospel truth the globalists hide!"

“We're gonna win this election. We're gonna make you put a gavel in your hand in the House"

Read more at:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/artic...aign=cppst

That may not be what Walz meant, but those are the word he said.  You can try to belittle Trump supporters if you like, but you kind of have to be honest with yourself and everyone else in order to communicate.  Those words sound a lot like he was talking about speaker of the house.

[IdeomotorPrisoner]

Well, it's kind of hard to be clear when the Indian Tabloid cuts off the bold part of the quote.

We’re going to win this election. We’re going to make you—put a gavel in your hand in the House, maybe for that committee, to go and get something done.

There's enough ambiguity of context to the full quote to read that as "When we take control of the House we'll put you in a position to head a committee on something."

If you wanna read into it as anything, read into it as Tim Walz trying to secure the GenZ Deerborn sympathetic vote.

I honestly don't think enough of the left would vote for her. I can think of 25 democrats in the 118th congress that may not favor her. Republicans would most certainly vote for their own. So... maybe a Misinformation/Media/AI committee at most.

[not Network Dude]

Well, it's kind of hard to be clear when the Indian Tabloid cuts off the bold part of the quote.


There's enough ambiguity of context to the full quote, read that as "When we take control of the House we'll put you in a position to head a committee on something."

If you wanna read into it as anything, read into it as Tim Walz trying to secure the GenZ Deerborn sympathetic vote.

I honestly don't think enough of the left would vote for her. I can think of 25 democrats in the 118th congress that may not favor her. Republicans would most certainly vote for their own. So... maybe a Misinformation/Media/AI committee at most.

“We’re going to win the election and we’re going to put a gavel in your hand in the House,” the governor, a former House member, told AOC during the livestream. He added the gavel may be “in that committee” while discussing AOC’s role in the House AI task force.
“I think for your listeners to understand, when you’re in the House of Representatives, whoever has the gavel, that’s pretty much everything, makes the decision,” Gov. Walz added. “So if you want folks who actually have a to-do list and want to get it done, stay engaged.”
https://cbsaustin.com/news/nation-world/...pitol-hill

I figured the source article would trigger some.

I'm not saying this is what [edit] Tim meant, but this is what he said.  This part kind of ties the idea he meant speaker to the quote:
"I think for your listeners to understand, when you’re in the House of Representatives, whoever has the gavel, that’s pretty much everything, makes the decision"
So he said "we’re going to put a gavel in your hand in the House" and followed it up with that one.  Maybe Timmy just sucks really bad at making a point.  Maybe he was lying again.  Or maybe all his mis-speaking is my fault.  Not sure.  But when things like this happen, to rush over to the "those Trump folks take everything out of context" is disingenuous at best.  And the thought of AOC as speaker is a nutty one.  But then defund the police is another idea these folks had.  So nutty seems to be in their wheelhouse.

_________________________________________________________________
[EDIT]
terms and conditions #24 is fairly direct...

Politics: Political discussions not related to conspiracy theories are generally prohibited on DI. However, exceptions may be made in certain circumstances. This policy aims to prevent instances of mudslinging, personal attacks, and derailing discussions from the main focus of conspiracy theories. You will not engage in politically-charged rhetoric, politically-inspired name-calling, or related right-versus-left political bickering while posting in any topical forum or discussion thread on the Websites. This also includes usernames, signatures, and avatars. Additionally, you will not alter political candidate names or party affiliations in order to insult or deride the opposition.
_________________________________________________________________

[IdeomotorPrisoner]

But... but it's the direct words that follow the quote before the end of the sentence when written out. I thought the comma means there's more to the sentence. I think it lacks journalistic integrity to not even complete the sentence. You can't just say "went on to add" when its literally the following words of the same sentence you omit. That's the disingenuous thing.

Like me taking Trump saying, "I'm going to be dictator for a day" and changing it to "I'm gonna be a dictator," and me being like, "Boo-ya! There! See, he admitted he's going to be a fascist dictator!"

ETA:

Probable context:

Trump does 3 dozen EOs on day one and picks up where he left off if he wins.
If Harris wins, eventually tags AOC for some oversight committee. They nominate someone else for the 119th speaker role.

[Maxmars]

Parsing.... it's what the game is all about.

[not Network Dude]

Like me taking Trump saying, "I'm going to be dictator for a day" and changing it to "I'm gonna be a dictator," and me being like, "Boo-ya! There! See, he admitted he's going to be a fascist dictator!"


But that's exactly what the left IS doing?  Notice the headline in my thread.  Does is say "Walz guarantees AOC the speaker job?"  But thanks for using a really good point to make mine.

[IdeomotorPrisoner]

And no side is exempt from hyperbole and fear. Both are running on "The other side will destroy the country".

Trump says "dictator for a day" and what he means (in correct context) is he is going to spend the first day writing executive orders to undo the the Biden EOs that undid his initial executive orders. And it will piss people off.

When Walz refers to "the gavel" and media prints the full quote completely, it suggests they are actually referring to the collective democrat control of the House of Representatives, and any committees established. Give her (as part of the collective and possible chair position) the power that comes with controlling the house.

It really just comes off like they're trying to convince themselves they can still win.

I think each out-of-context thing is about equal in that those opposed take liberties to further their own agenda.

The left tried to scare me with the sickening and autocratic Project 2025 and a coming panophobic Christian Theocracy. And even though its hard to prove that with all the denials, and likely is false, the left has still been remarkably better with the rest of their fact checks.

* And then accused of controlling "the facts" through academia and the media. Catch 22 for the facts if they side with left sometimes.

The right has greater tendency to turn a single police report of 3 Haitians carrying dead migratory Canadian Geese away from a park and morph it into "Immigrants are eating pets!"

My opinion is the right does this WAY more, but the left is not exempt from pervasive fear-mongering and assumption. It's really helpful for Trump if everything he says goes unquestioned by his supporters. If it's believed the ghetto rooted AOC is gonna start regulatin' Pelosi style it grows his appeal even more.

To use the newly released scary sounding music of my vegan Euro metal hero, they are all Liars and Thieves to some degree, and I don't remember where I put that velvet glove.

It's a disturbing trend of each side being less likely to see pot or kettle.

[UltraBudgie]

Trump says "dictator for a day" and what he means (in correct context) is he is going to spend the first day writing executive orders to undo the the Biden EOs that undid his initial executive orders. And it will piss people off.

...

It's a disturbing trend of each side being less likely to see pot or kettle.

You know, although I have been mostly avoiding political noise, I have heard that "dictator" reference several times, and this is actually the first time I've heard anyone mention the obvious (to me) reasonable interpretation, rather than some extreme skewing for agenda purposes. And that goes for both 'sides'. So thanks for that, and I think it highlights an interesting point: that the reasonable ground is the losing ground, in the calculus of the current political climate. Extreme takes seem to always gather more impressions and amplification -- and the approach is to "fight fire with fire", countering an extreme distortion is done most effectively with another extreme distortion, as it forces the opponent into a defensive position and reactionary stance. For example, the counter would be "well Trump should act like a dictator, those blasted so-and-sos have it coming!". It also puts anyone who is disposed to honesty and non-partisanship in a weird position of feeling like they're in bizzaro-world, and selecting to merely remain politically mute since their stance will not be heard, which I suppose only serves the agenda of the machine.

...

Anyway, I'm just taking a very minor issue and making a point of it, I realize; no big deal. Thanks for listening.