Forum Home | Log in | Signup | My Page | Rules | FAQ | Boards | Members | Search
« 6TH POPE Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Democrats with Thin Skin and Glass Jaws 

By: De_Composed in 6TH POPE | Recommend this post (2)
Tue, 16 Apr 24 1:35 AM | 28 view(s)
Boardmark this board | 6th Edition Pope Board 		Msg. 52438 of 52768
Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

April 15, 2024

Democrats with Thin Skin and Glass Jaws

Let's look at the record of Maxine Waters, who has been displaying a lot of hypocrisy lately.

by Brian C. Joondeph
AmericanThinker.com

A “glass jaw” is a boxing term referring to a boxer who could be knocked out with one good punch to their jaw. It can also refer to a public figure who wilts under the discomfort of public scrutiny.

Democrats are great at dishing it out but have very thin skin when anything is dished out on them. And a glass jaw when anyone punches back.

The latest example is Democrat Rep. Maxine Waters.


Let’s start with the fact that she does not live in the district she represents. Her Republican opponent in 2021 pointed out, “Maxine Waters' $6 million mansion is located in California's 37th Congressional district despite her representing the far more underserved 43rd district.”

That’s called carpetbagging, something Democrats are famous for. Hillary Clinton, raised in Illinois, lived with husband Bill in Arkansas, then the White House in Washington D.C. for 8 years, yet ran for U.S. Senate in New York, where she never lived.

How is a Congressmember like Waters living in a $6 million home on a Congressional salary of about $175,000 per year? Of all the get rich quick schemes out there, getting elected to Cngs is the best.

Maybe her husband, Sid Williams, has the deep pockets. The former NFL football player and Clinton-appointed ambassador to the Bahamas, has a history of shady business deals.

According to The Hill, Waters was accused of setting up a meeting between executives from One United Bank, where Williams owned $350,000 in stock, and Treasury Department officials.

Maxine was cleared of ethics charges by fellow House members, many of whom were likely doing the same thing. But it’s the Republican Donald Trump under criminal prosecution for taking out business loans, paying them back on time and in full, all interest paid, to banks eager to do more business with Trump. What a surprise. In Democrat-world, proper business is fraud while real fraud is ignored.

One would think elected representatives should or must live in the same district they represent, but technically they don’t have to. “If you're a candidate for the United States House of Representatives, you have to be at least 25 years old and have been a U.S. citizen for at least seven years. But there’s no requirement that you live in the congressional district you are vyingto represent.”

I can’t blame Maxine for not wanting to live in her district given the crime statistics, “1-in-5 people living below the poverty line, 1-in-3 children living in poverty, a large increase in violent crime, and 59 shooting victims this year versus 7 at the same time last year.”

Yet for inexplicable reasons, her constituents are pleased with her representation of their district, crime and all, allowing her to serve their communities since 1991. Wisely, she chooses to live in a nicer part of town, away from the squalor she supposedly represents.

Other members of Congress choosing to move or run in a different district than where they live incur Water’s hypocritical wrath. An example is Rep. Lauren Boebert, moving from western to eastern Colorado, running in a new Congressional district across the state.

Boebert has several reasons for moving, including a violent ex-husband whom she had to file a restraining order against. She is also facing a tough reelection bid in a district and race attracting lots of Democrat donor money.

But she moved across the state to live and is now living in the district she wants to represent. Not Maxine, however. Yet Waters is quite happy to criticize Boebert over her district dancing. Psychologists call this projection.

Appearing with her real constituents, MSNBC, Waters defended herself and criticized Boebert, “It would be saying that we are not capable of representing the districts where we have started out, and now we want to switch, and we go look for something else.”

District shopping for me but not for thee.

The latest from Waters is encouraging political dissent. But directed toward her opponents, not her.

In 2018 as CNN reported, “Rep. Maxine Waters called on her supporters to publicly confront and harass members of the Trump administration.”

At the Wilshire Federal Building, she went on a screed:
Let’s make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.”
She is recommending starting a riot and violently attacking government officials. Weren’t we told that constituted an “insurrection”? Or does insurrection only apply to Trump supporters? It seems that way.

CNN defends Waters by saying, “Waters, however, did not call for physical harm to the officials or harassment against Trump’s supporters.” Is that so?

A bunch of MAGA hat wearers should go to a restaurant in Berkeley, San Francisco, Seattle, or Brooklyn and “create a crowd” and “push back” on those they don’t like and see what happens. There may be fists, knives, and guns, not high fives and back-slaps.

What if Maxine’s words were turned against her? Would she acknowledge that “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism”, a quote attributed to Thomas Jefferson? Or would she cry foul? Dissent and harassment toward thee but not at me.

When someone followed her 2018 advice to “push back”, she whined,
As a member of Congress, when people, you know, who evidently had a racist attitude, and recently one of them even confronted me in a restaurant. And they don't say racist things, but what they say is they don't like something I said, they don't like a position that I took, but you know that, you know, if you were not black, you would not be approached that way.”
She is claiming racism despite her confronter not saying anything racist. And she doesn’t like complaints over her political positions.

In her world, her politics are off limits, but Trump’s politics are open game for attack, physical and verbal.

Rep. Waters didn’t take to the airways when U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh was harassed at a D.C. steakhouse. Or the same for Sen. Ted Cruz. The White House went so far as to condone such attacks.

Were these attacks racist? If the justices were black and Democrat would they be condoned? Will CNN ask Rep. Waters?

It seems that freedom of speech, assembly, and other First Amendment rights are unidirectional. When it comes to the ruling class, they demand protection but when it involves their political opponents, the First Amendment is nonexistent.

Would this kind of America be described as a constitutional republic or a tyrannical dictatorship?

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2024/04/democrats_with_thin_skin_and_glass_jaws.html


 - - - - -
View Replies (1) »



» You can also:
« 6TH POPE Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next