I didn't think she really answered your questions. She was vague and kept looking away before answering.
-
-
-
She says the first words that come to mind, the quick, snappy response, and gets accused of anti-semitism. She thinks through how to phrase her response to avoid that, and gets accused of being vague and looking away. I think you’d find something wrong no matter what she does.
-
Nope. I voted for her, still support her, but am very concerned. She continues to misspeak and have to explain or apologize, which she has not done convincingly. Meanwhile, she hasn't done anything of substance for her constituents. As I said, I'm concerned.
-
Consider this: she is not misspeaking so much as bigots are twisting her words into things she’s not saying. I have understood what she’s meant every time, before the explanation. Expecting the speaker to anticipate all objections, while refusing to understand what she meant.
-
Spot on! If she said the sky was blue, it would be twisted into anti-semitism. She,s trolled by folk that cant get beyond her hijab and their own bigotry.
- Ще 2 відповіді
Нова розмова -
-
-
People still want to know: How does a freshman with NO experience in foreign policy and a history of bashing Americans get a seat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee? What kind of shady deals brought that about?
-
The People's House has no prerequisites other than what is spelled out in the constitution. 5 of the last 6 Presidents had no prior foriegn relations experience either.
-
You're talking about requirements to run for Congress. Who decided that an American-hating bigot would be a good fit for the Foreign Affairs Committee? Who decided to give her access to classified info about national security?
-
Any evidence to back up the claim she is an "America hating bigot"? Democratic leadership decided who sits in which committee. Isn't that obvious? She lobbied for the seat and got it. Pretty simple
Кінець розмови
Нова розмова -
-
-
She needs to clearly condemn the individuals and group responsible for the 911 attacks. I support her and understand her previous rhetoric. But at this point it is glaring that she refuses to call out and condemn the attackers.
-
She literally called the attacks one of the most horrific tragedies in American history in this interview. I don't know how much stronger she could condemn them.
- Ще 1 відповідь
Нова розмова -
-
-
Nobody asks
@Ilhan tough questions. She won't allow it. She's in a bubble wrapped safe space where only the friendliest journalists who gush over her are allowed near her. She spouts her venom, and they nod in agreement like obedient lapdogs. -
Did you read a different interview? She answered all the questions asked.
- Ще 1 відповідь
Нова розмова -
-
-
'I'm an Ilhan fan and 'like" her tweets, but trust me, I'm really gonna ask some hard-hitting questions.'
-
Kinda like when Trump appears with Hannity (or Tucker, or Ingraham, or Mike Gallagher, or Limbaugh...)
-
No. It's the same. Jana is as far left as Limbaugh is right. The difference is Rush doesnt claim to be objective & doesn't call himself a 'journalist.'
-
That’s a good answer... let’s hope the Vikings draft another OL tomorrow...
Кінець розмови
Нова розмова -
Схоже, завантаження займе трохи часу.
Можливо, Твіттер перенавантажено або виникли тимчасові труднощі. Спробуйте ще раз або дізнайтеся більше про стан Твіттера.