Jasmine Crockett tells it like it is

[The Real timschochet 6,161]

5 minutes ago, HellToupee said:

Um what? You need to explain your work here. Why the gross hyperbole 

I don’t actually. And the word “hyperbole” should never escape your lips. 

[jbycho 486]

Tim guy, getting his ass kicked yet again. 

 

[RLLD 4,142]

1 minute ago, Sean Mooney said:

I'm not deflecting. Let's go to the replay:

So:

1.) You clearly jumped in to say you want her at the face of the party because you think she harms them and your side wins.
Correct

2.) I asked if this was going to be the big bad now for the next 4 years (which is what politics is- position someone on the other side as the big bad)
Let's pause here, and make sure we look at what you said....in its entirety....."So she is the person the right are going to make the big bad for the next 4 years? Is this something Gutfield said?"  So to be clear, we see whagt you actually did was raise up Gutfeld....and instead of accurately portraying my statement, you twisted it to suggest I was saying she should be the "big bad".

3.) You said- no let her go and she will pay dividends.
Correct

4.) I asked if Gutfield said this (which was just a name I threw out there) and then found a video from The Five where he is basically saying the same thing as you- put her up front because it will hurt the Democrats.
Correct, you doubled-down on the association to others, avoiding a direct conversation about the point being made....the tactic is to associate the words with some other, and hopefully avoid a discussion to make some pointless attribution, its lazy...

5.) You responded with Can I compare you to a Hamas terrorist- and then said that I'm deflecting. 
Correct, by illuminating the extension of the lazy attempt to attribute instead of discuss, I was hoping you might take a moment to reflect.

6.) Then you added an AOC comment at the end so you can now fall back on that and pretend like you meant that from the start when it's clear you didn't. 
Correct, I did add AOC, and you can still pick one of the others. So long as they are on the radical end of the spectrum....they chase more moderates and independents to the conservative side, I see it as a win.

7.) It's okay man- just admit you got caught. It's fine if you want to parrot the political wisdom of Greg Gutfield. But own it. You already turn to YouTube financial experts for economy advice- Gutfield is quite a few steps up from guys in their basements with skeletons in the background. Gutfield at least appears on two highly rated shows. 
It's not ok.   Misrepresenting what I posted to feed your need for validation is lazy and pointless

 

 

Responses in red

[The Real timschochet 6,161]

1 minute ago, jbycho said:

Tim guy, getting his ass kicked yet again. 

 

Lol

[jbycho 486]

6 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Lol

It IS funny. Agreed. 

[Sean Mooney 1,904]

1 minute ago, RLLD said:

Responses in red

New points-

1.) Just Wrong all around from you- and again (NOTE- I never said YOU were going to do this personally.) You just got a bug up your ass because you were caught getting your political cues from FOX News when you want everyone here to believe you are some deep thinker. If I wanted to I would've said "RLLD is going to make Crockett the big bad for the next 4 years." I asked if she was going to be the one the right focused on and I asked if Gutfield said this. It was two separate questions.. Now I know you hate simple questions but questions have yes or no answers sometimes. You could have simply said "I don't know if she will be and I don't know what Gutfield said." But you didn't do that. You chose to say they should let her be and say nothing after saying she will pay dividends. Even a dullard can see you are saying she is the right person because she harms the party. 

2.) I'm not randomly associating your words. I'm providing a quote to something said approximately 16 hours ago on TV that parallels what you are saying right now on this forum. And again- I get why you would parrot Gutfield. He's popular to the MAGA side.

3.) The Hamas thing is a huge deflection because you are trapped and do what you always do- swing wildly to try and find something to latch on to....but of course you are too obtuse to see that.

4.) The AOC comment was something where you can try and change the function of the conversation after the fact and pretend like you meant that all along. It's a common thing you do.

5.) I'll repeat the last point. It's okay man- just admit you got caught. It's fine if you want to parrot the political wisdom of Greg Gutfield. But own it. You already turn to YouTube financial experts for economy advice- Gutfield is quite a few steps up from guys in their basements with skeletons in the background. Gutfield at least appears on two highly rated shows. You are the emperor and your new clothes have been seen. You aren't the deep thinker you want people to think. You are a FOX News parroting puppet. As I said before- you are what happens if someone used ChatGPT to write Maximum Overkill's posts 

[wolves111 98]

17 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Lol

It's sad that all you have in your heart is hate towards white people.

[jbycho 486]

"Hot Wheels". WTF? Imagine if Trump said this to a wheelchair bound liberal while ranting about him. Liberals would lose their S*it.

[RLLD 4,142]

1 minute ago, Sean Mooney said:

New points-

1.) Just Wrong all around from you- and again (NOTE- I never said YOU were going to do this personally.) You just got a bug up your ass because you were caught getting your political cues from FOX News when you want everyone here to believe you are some deep thinker.
Again, this is lazy.  Pretending I cannot have my own positions because someone else.....somewhere else holds that position.....is lazy and an act of avoidance by trying to discredit instead of discuss.

 If I wanted to I would've said "RLLD is going to make Crockett the big bad for the next 4 years." I asked if she was going to be the one the right focused on and I asked if Gutfield said this. It was two separate questions.. Now I know you hate simple questions but questions have yes or no answers sometimes. You could have simply said "I don't know if she will be and I don't know what Gutfield said." But you didn't do that. You chose to say they should let her be and say nothing after saying she will pay dividends. Even a dullard can see you are saying she is the right person because she harms the party. 
This is disingenuous....notably because above you assert I get my cues from Fox, even thought I ingest multiple sources to make my own decisions. Your question which created the association instead of asking the actual question, was effectively responded to as well.....if you go back and read it.

2.) I'm not randomly associating your words. I'm providing a quote to something said approximately 16 hours ago on TV that parallels what you are saying right now on this forum. And again- I get why you would parrot Gutfield. He's popular to the MAGA side.
This is where I might bristle a little, because you are effectively projecting Democrat behaviors on to me. And I have to insist that you not insult me in such a manner. My position is mine, regardless of who else agrees.

3.) The Hamas thing is a huge deflection because you are trapped and do what you always do- swing wildly to try and find something to latch on to....but of course you are too obtuse to see that.
It was my best hope to highlight the lazy method of attribution you demonstrated, hoping you might step back and say....well gees, I wouldn't want that done to me.....so I should not do it to others......sadly, you remain ambivalent to this simple logic

4.) The AOC comment was something where you can try and change the function of the conversation after the fact and pretend like you meant that all along. It's a common thing you do.
So you are reaffirming......what you affirmed....and I confirmed....again? To what end? If you presume that providing options which refutes your initial claim about her being thebig baddy, as well as your Gutfeld claim since he never appears to have suggested it....further emphasizing my point and its distinctions....  I think you are then refuting your own attempts to make your lazy attribution point

5.) I'll repeat the last point. It's okay man- just admit you got caught. It's fine if you want to parrot the political wisdom of Greg Gutfield. But own it. You already turn to YouTube financial experts for economy advice- Gutfield is quite a few steps up from guys in their basements with skeletons in the background. Gutfield at least appears on two highly rated shows. You are the emperor and your new clothes have been seen. You aren't the deep thinker you want people to think. You are a FOX News parroting puppet. As I said before- you are what happens if someone used ChatGPT to write Maximum Overkill's posts
Just imagine...if instead of using that lazy attribution tactic....you had instead asked me to elaborate on my thoughts?  What if instead of pretending the thought came from someone else or somewhere else, you asked how I arrived at that conclusion?  What if instead of attempting to dillute my opinion with no knowledge what so ever of what I was thinking, you engaged.....just imagine.....

Responses in red

[Sean Mooney 1,904]

New points-

1.) Just Wrong all around from you- and again (NOTE- I never said YOU were going to do this personally.) You just got a bug up your ass because you were caught getting your political cues from FOX News when you want everyone here to believe you are some deep thinker.
Again, this is lazy.  Pretending I cannot have my own positions because someone else.....somewhere else holds that position.....is lazy and an act of avoidance by trying to discredit instead of discuss. I'm not sure why you are incapable of seeing the part where I said I never said you were going to do this personally. Is the bold throwing you off? Are you seeing these comments right now? 

 If I wanted to I would've said "RLLD is going to make Crockett the big bad for the next 4 years." I asked if she was going to be the one the right focused on and I asked if Gutfield said this. It was two separate questions.. Now I know you hate simple questions but questions have yes or no answers sometimes. You could have simply said "I don't know if she will be and I don't know what Gutfield said." But you didn't do that. You chose to say they should let her be and say nothing after saying she will pay dividends. Even a dullard can see you are saying she is the right person because she harms the party. 
This is disingenuous....notably because above you assert I get my cues from Fox, even thought I ingest multiple sources to make my own decisions. Your question which created the association instead of asking the actual question, was effectively responded to as well.....if you go back and read it. Now this is disingenuous. Because I made the FOX News connection after I made my first two initial comments to you. And again- you could have simply answered the questions instead of going defensive right away. You going defensive right away screams guilt. 

2.) I'm not randomly associating your words. I'm providing a quote to something said approximately 16 hours ago on TV that parallels what you are saying right now on this forum. And again- I get why you would parrot Gutfield. He's popular to the MAGA side.
This is where I might bristle a little, because you are effectively projecting Democrat behaviors on to me. And I have to insist that you not insult me in such a manner. My position is mine, regardless of who else agrees. I don't care if you bristle or anything. You are doing exactly what I said. Now maybe you accidentally parroted what Gutfield said. You could make that case....but notably you are not. 

3.) The Hamas thing is a huge deflection because you are trapped and do what you always do- swing wildly to try and find something to latch on to....but of course you are too obtuse to see that.
It was my best hope to highlight the lazy method of attribution you demonstrated, hoping you might step back and say....well gees, I wouldn't want that done to me.....so I should not do it to others......sadly, you remain ambivalent to this simple logic It is my hope by continually mentioning this you see how you are trying to deflect away from the topic at hand and then project that on to someone else. Sadly you remain ambivalent to this simple logic. Not to mention- I said "Sure go ahead...if I parrot a Hamas terrorist you can call me one." You know why someone would say that? Because they have nothing to hide to that respect.

4.) The AOC comment was something where you can try and change the function of the conversation after the fact and pretend like you meant that all along. It's a common thing you do.
So you are reaffirming......what you affirmed....and I confirmed....again? To what end? If you presume that providing options which refutes your initial claim about her being thebig baddy, as well as your Gutfeld claim since he never appears to have suggested it....further emphasizing my point and its distinctions....  I think you are then refuting your own attempts to make your lazy attribution point. Hilarious that I said exactly what you are now trying to do- change the function of the conversation to pretend like you meant that all along. I've said this before to you....I don't need your help proving you wrong and myself right. I do fine on my own. 

5.) I'll repeat the last point. It's okay man- just admit you got caught. It's fine if you want to parrot the political wisdom of Greg Gutfield. But own it. You already turn to YouTube financial experts for economy advice- Gutfield is quite a few steps up from guys in their basements with skeletons in the background. Gutfield at least appears on two highly rated shows. You are the emperor and your new clothes have been seen. You aren't the deep thinker you want people to think. You are a FOX News parroting puppet. As I said before- you are what happens if someone used ChatGPT to write Maximum Overkill's posts
Just imagine...if instead of using that lazy attribution tactic....you had instead asked me to elaborate on my thoughts?  What if instead of pretending the thought came from someone else or somewhere else, you asked how I arrived at that conclusion?  What if instead of attempting to dillute my opinion with no knowledge what so ever of what I was thinking, you engaged.....just imagine.....I'll repeat the last point. It's okay man- just admit you got caught. It's fine if you want to parrot the political wisdom of Greg Gutfield. But own it. You already turn to YouTube financial experts for economy advice- Gutfield is quite a few steps up from guys in their basements with skeletons in the background. Gutfield at least appears on two highly rated shows. You are the emperor and your new clothes have been seen. You aren't the deep thinker you want people to think. You are a FOX News parroting puppet. As I said before- you are what happens if someone used ChatGPT to write Maximum Overkill's posts

 

Responses in blue

[Hardcore troubadour 14,794]

On 1/17/2024 at 9:24 PM, The Real timschochet said:

And suppose Trump does win in the fall? Does anyone really think he will be able to push through his proposals on immigration? He couldn’t last time around. He won’t this time either ; he’ll never get 60 votes in the senate to do it. If you’re truly concerned about border security this deal is the best you’re gonna get. 

This clown. 

[Hardcore troubadour 14,794]

On 1/17/2024 at 9:31 PM, Horseman said:

Dont be a moron. He reinstates Remain in Mexico, catch a not release, welds the gates shut instead of open and tells the boarder control agents to enforce the laws.  The president can solve this quickly and easily if he wants to. 

This guy is smart. Tim is not. 

[Hardcore troubadour 14,794]

On 3/24/2025 at 5:13 PM, Hardcore troubadour said:

Need more of her, as much exposure as possible.  I appreciate that she has embraced being the embodiment of a stereotype. Keep it coming. She needs to be on the debate stage for 2028.  

Gutfeld is copying me now. Great minds. 

[The Real timschochet 6,161]

30 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

This clown. 

I was right. 

[jbycho 486]

1 minute ago, The Real timschochet said:

I was right. 

Never once. End of story.

[jbycho 486]

I hope this black chick keeps it up. She's a great assist for the Republicans. 

[Hardcore troubadour 14,794]

6 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

I was right. 

Border appears to be secure. No act of congress like you claimed necessary. You lose Wimpy. Get a burger. 

[HellToupee 1,514]

52 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

This clown. 

He’s as accurate Eddie Mush in his  prognostications 

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,211]

Looking back. She was sensible intelligent and well spoken. Now all of a sudden she’s a hood rat 

[The Real timschochet 6,161]

57 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Border appears to be secure. No act of congress like you claimed necessary. You lose Wimpy. Get a burger. 

The border is secure because there is no current wave of people trying to get in. The border has been secure for the last 9 months or so. After the next crisis in Latin America the border will not be secure again. 

[seafoam1 2,751]

42 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

Looking back. She was sensible intelligent and well spoken. Now all of a sudden she’s a hood rat 

Back in 2020 she was calling this guy "HotWheels". She has never been intelligent. 

[Hardcore troubadour 14,794]

1 minute ago, The Real timschochet said:

The border is secure because there is no current wave of people trying to get in. The border has been secure for the last 9 months or so. After the next crisis in Latin America the border will not be secure again. 

You’re making this place worse than you already have. 

[Strike 5,108]

3 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

The border is secure because there is no current wave of people trying to get in. The border has been secure for the last 9 months or so. After the next crisis in Latin America the border will not be secure again. 

This is delusional.  You're nucking futs.

[RLLD 4,142]

4 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

The border is secure because there is no current wave of people trying to get in. The border has been secure for the last 9 months or so. After the next crisis in Latin America the border will not be secure again. 

I hope you are simply trying to be difficult. I think your position could run counter to your political goals in this instance. The flow has stopped due to specific actions taken by Trump to stem that flow, in the absence of his actions, there would still be a steady flow of people. I think you know this.

[Reality 3,079]

48 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

The border is secure because there is no current wave of people trying to get in. The border has been secure for the last 9 months or so. After the next crisis in Latin America the border will not be secure again. 

Wow.

[seafoam1 2,751]

59 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

The border is secure because there is no current wave of people trying to get in. The border has been secure for the last 9 months or so. After the next crisis in Latin America the border will not be secure again. 

[Engorgeous George 2,014]

3 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

No. You don’t get to have it both ways. There is no double standard here. She doesn’t deserve to be condemned for attacking the handicapped; Trump does. What’s more this entire story is a trumped up distraction from the scandal of Hegseth and others shamefully lying. 

Her meaning, and the naughty joy she took immediately upon making the comment were and remain unmistakable.  All you are telling us is what we already know, you are so blinded by partisanship you are unable to discern context, though you like to claim otherwise.

[Engorgeous George 2,014]

8 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

This is a false narrative: the “Hot Wheels” thing had nothing to do with Abbot’s disability. It was about his moving refugees to other states. That was clear in  the context of her comments. 
https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/rep-jasmine-crockett-defends-governor-hot-wheels-comments/story?id=120167133

 

Your buffoonery knows no bounds.

[RLLD 4,142]

1 minute ago, Engorgeous George said:

Her meaning, and the naughty joy she took immediately upon making the comment were and remain unmistakable.  All you are telling us is what we already know, you are so blinded by partisanship you are unable to discern context, though you like to claim otherwise.

I am on the fence on her intent. I hesitate to apply intent, I mean, just look at how liberals do so.....I dont want to do that to people, its wrong.

So for ow I suggest we allow her some grace. Assume she was not trying to say anything much, nor make it bigger than it is....another liberal trait we should assiduously avoid.

[Engorgeous George 2,014]

15 minutes ago, RLLD said:

I am on the fence on her intent. I hesitate to apply intent, I mean, just look at how liberals do so.....I dont want to do that to people, its wrong.

So for ow I suggest we allow her some grace. Assume she was not trying to say anything much, nor make it bigger than it is....another liberal trait we should assiduously avoid.

Good advice, generally.  in this instance I find her tone and look unmistable and her "explanation" to fail the sniff test.  Still, your point is generally taken by me.  In fact I believe you will generally find me restrained and prudent, just not so much in this particular instance. 

[RLLD 4,142]

9 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

Good advice, generally.  in this instance I find her tone and look unmistable and her "explanation" to fail the sniff test.  Still, your point is generally taken by me.  In fact i believe you will generally find me restrained and prudent, just not so much in thisaaprticular instance. 

I think politicians lie, peddle fear and do what they can to manipulate.  From my perch, she is no different that any of the others, maybe a little less refined, but still doing the political dance.....and the sheep eat it up

[The Real timschochet 6,161]

33 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

Good advice, generally.  in this instance I find her tone and look unmistable and her "explanation" to fail the sniff test.  Still, your point is generally taken by me.  In fact I believe you will generally find me restrained and prudent, just not so much in this particular instance. 

I don’t find you restrained, ever, perhaps in tone but certainly not in intent. Your accusation of partisanship with regard to my opinions applies much more to yourself than it does to me. You wrote that her “tone is unmistakable”- a contradiction in itself since “tone” is highly subjective. And it can’t be unmistakable since I disagree with you rather strongly. The main reason I found her explanation plausible is because I reached the same conclusion reading what she said in the first place; I didn’t need her explanation. I knew from the first that she was talking about the infamous shuffling of refugeees from state to state because that is what Governor Abbott is best known for (to his great discredit.) 

[The Real timschochet 6,161]

45 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

Your buffoonary knows no bounds.

It’s buffoonery. HTH. And in this case the bounds are reasonableness and common sense. Have you spent time over the last year, as I have, listening to Jasmine Crockett? If you had you would know that she would never deliberately attack or insult handicapped people. That’s not her. She fights for the underdog in our society. I don’t agree with all of her economic views (like AOC she is too leftist there for me) but she is a really good, really bright leader. Hopefully she will go far. 

[Fnord 1,987]

Jesus Christ, Tim. I agree with your opinions more than probably anyone else does in this shlthole but you're off your rocker here. There is no way that hot wheels crack wasn't at least partially referencing his handicap. It was a stupid, shltty thing to say, despite Abbot's propensity for being an absolute POS.

I know you and EG have some history; whatever, I'll stay out of it. But I completely disagree with your characterization of him. He is clearly conservative but compared to the vast majority of others posting here he is much less knee-jerk, much more reasonable, and much more knowledgeable. The fact that the two of you, two of the more typically respectful posters here (and both posters I like and respect), are in regular pissing matches with each other is wild to me. It is a grotesque irony.

ETA: @The Real timschochet @Engorgeous George

Wouldn't want @Horsemanure to call me out for talking behind your backs 

[The Real timschochet 6,161]

7 minutes ago, Fnord said:

Jesus Christ, Tim. I agree with your opinions more than probably anyone else does in this shlthole but you're off your rocker here. There is no way that hot wheels crack wasn't at least partially referencing his handicap. It was a stupid, shltty thing to say, despite Abbot's propensity for being an absolute POS.

I know you and EG have some history; whatever, I'll stay out of it. But I completely disagree with your characterization of him. He is clearly conservative but compared to the vast majority of others posting here he is much less knee-jerk, much more reasonable, and much more knowledgeable. The fact that the two of you, two of the more typically respectful posters here (and both posters I like and respect), are in regular pissing matches with each other is wild to me. It is a grotesque irony.

ETA: @The Real timschochet @Engorgeous George

Wouldn't want @Horsemanure to call me out for talking behind your backs 

@Engorgeous George is quite reasonable to many people here and I enjoy reading him. I don’t find him reasonable in his responses to me. I think he he has a poor opinion of me; I’ve tried to rectify that to no avail. It is what it is. But I’ll repeat that while he is certainly erudite and often witty, his views are hardly non-partisan IMO. 
 

As regards Crockett I seem to be on an island in my defense of her. But I stand by it; I honestly don’t believe she was intending to be offensive. 

[Fnord 1,987]

9 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

@Engorgeous George is quite reasonable to many people here and I enjoy reading him. I don’t find him reasonable in his responses to me. I think he he has a poor opinion of me; I’ve tried to rectify that to no avail. It is what it is. But I’ll repeat that while he is certainly erudite and often witty, his views are hardly non-partisan IMO. 
 

As regards Crockett I seem to be on an island in my defense of her. But I stand by it; I honestly don’t believe she was intending to be offensive. 

Fair enough. I agree that his responses to you are not always reasonable; I would say the same about your responses to him. Which, again, is ironic in a focked up way, since you are both usually respectful toward others. And of course his views are partisan-- show me someone here that isn't. You are, I am, the best and worst of "both sides" are.

I'll leave it alone now. I appreciate both your contributions, I just don't like it when mommy and daddy fight 

PS: Tim, you are clearly the mommy. No offense.

 

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,211]

3 hours ago, seafoam1 said:

Back in 2020 she was calling this guy "HotWheels". She has never been intelligent. 

Oh I thought this just happened.  Carry on. At least she didn’t sound ghetto back then. Now she’s trying to pretend like she’s from the streets. Kno wat im sayin

[Hardcore troubadour 14,794]

1 hour ago, The Real timschochet said:

@Engorgeous George is quite reasonable to many people here and I enjoy reading him. I don’t find him reasonable in his responses to me. I think he he has a poor opinion of me; I’ve tried to rectify that to no avail. It is what it is. But I’ll repeat that while he is certainly erudite and often witty, his views are hardly non-partisan IMO. 
 

As regards Crockett I seem to be on an island in my defense of her. But I stand by it; I honestly don’t believe she was intending to be offensive. 

It’s now obvious Tim doesn’t actually know any black people on a personal level. 

[HellToupee 1,514]

4 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

The border is secure because there is no current wave of people trying to get in. The border has been secure for the last 9 months or so. After the next crisis in Latin America the border will not be secure again. 

The crisis was created by us. The wave of people trying to get here was funded by usaid ngos. The funded dried up somehow 

[HellToupee 1,514]

4 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

It’s now obvious Tim doesn’t actually know any black people on a personal level. 

Poppycock. Why I’m sure some of his best friends are black just like the muslims