Besides rewriting history, socialist Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is apparently also into rewriting the dictionary.
Case in point: Responding to President Donald Trump’s recent criticism of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, the 29-year-old congresswoman pulled out a fictional Misogynist Dictionary and provided her Twitter followers with a completely fictional definition of the word “nasty:
Readings from the Misogynist Dictionary 📖:
1. A woman who doesn’t bow under your thumb; or
2. A woman who‘s not attracted to you.
Ex: When a misogynist encounters a “nasty” woman, he‘ll almost surely try to denigrate her appearance, intelligence, or character. https://t.co/vGM9nbMkdt
— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) June 1, 2019
According to her make-believe Misogynist Dictionary, “nasty” is an adjective used by so-called misogynist men to describe women who don’t bow down to them and aren’t attracted to them.
AOC was obviously trying to be sassy. But instead she wound up coming off as someone who’s nasty, an adjective that — according to the actual dictionary — describes something or someone who’s “highly unpleasant” or “behaving in an unpleasant or spiteful way.”
Absolutely not what it means, but your spin isn’t surprising pic.twitter.com/dzG0lN2ZJF
— Renee Irving Clear (@ClearRenee) June 1, 2019
As a result of her own nastiness, Ocasio-Cortez triggered a flurry of nastiness in return, which makes sense, given that according to legendary scientist Isaac Newton’s third law, for every action there’s an equal and opposite reaction (BTW, that’s called science, and sadly, science is one thing AOC isn’t into).
Observe (*LANGUAGE WARNING):
Reading from Nasty Feminist Dictionary.
1. All men are pigs.
2. Women are equal to men.
Tip: Be careful throwing rocks in your glass house. pic.twitter.com/RhswYaJsEA
— Duane Megonigle (@DMegonigle) June 2, 2019
“Nasty” (adj.): 1. A woman who acts like @AOC; or 2. a woman who you’d scoop your eyeballs out with a rusty spoon to avoid her constant whining. Ex: When a woke man encounters a “nasty” @AOC, he won’t denigrate her appearance, intelligence, or character, she’s done that already.
— Daxton Brown (@daxtonbrown) June 2, 2019
Make me a sandwich idiota. Que hablas mierda siepre pic.twitter.com/1vLtzxZOoi
— RALPH (@RALPH73945) June 1, 2019
JIM’S DICTIONARY OF BOOT THEIR TREASONOUS A$$ OUT!
— Jimi (@jimiduzit) June 2, 2019
Bitch…as per websters dictionary
3. Ilhan Omar
— Bigkat (@Bigkat1776) June 2, 2019
AOC’s rewriting of the dictionary was spurred by a remark the president made last week about Meghan, Duchess of Sussex.
During an interview with the British tabloid magazine The Sun, the interviewer mentioned to Trump that, prior to marrying into the royal family and relocating to the U.K., the Duchess, then known as Meghan Markle, had pledged to move to Canada if he won the 2016 presidential election.
“I didn’t know that. What can I say? I didn’t know that she was nasty,” he allegedly said in response, according to The Sun.
This statement led to accusations that he’d referred to the Duchess as a “nasty” person.
The president has disputed this narrative:
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 2, 2019
And on Saturday the president’s 2020 campaign released audio footage from the interview.
What The Sun had reportedly neglected to mention in its original report of what happened after the “nasty” remark.
“Is it good having an American princess then, Mr. President? Does that help the link? I think it’s nice. I think it is nice, and I’m sure she will do excellently,” the interviewer asked.
“It’s nice, and I am sure she will do excellently. She will be very good. I hope she does (succeed),” Trump replied.
Would Trump have praised the Duchess if he really felt she was nasty? Probably not. This supports his contention that, as he wrote on Twitter, he’d never referred to her specifically as nasty.
What’s fascinating is that even anti-Trump Democrats came to the president’s defense after AOC pulled out her silly Misogynist Dictionary to smear him.
“‘I didn’t know she was nasty’ after being told she smack-talked him,” one liberal Democrat tweeted. “He didn’t actually say anything derogatory. I can’t stand him but we can’t twist things to fit our narratives. That’s one of the things we fight against.”
To be clear, his side is doing a horrible job fighting against false narratives …
See this and other tweets below:
In all fairness,
“I didn’t know she was nasty” after being told she smack talked him. He didn’t actually say anything derogatory. I can’t stand him but we can’t twist things to fit our narratives. That’s one of the things we fight against.#ethics #EthicsMatter
I’d apologize js
— I am Spartacus (@8_Spartacus_8) June 1, 2019
People don’t understand context, which is truly scary. Taking what someone said out of context used to be done out of manipulation, and now it’s done out of stupidity.
I freaking hate Trump. Makes my skin crawl. But there is nothing to see here, we need to move along.
— Andy BoBandy (@BoBandyyy) June 2, 2019
Honestly I absolutely hate Trump but this was taken out of context he obviously meant: I didn’t know she said nasty things for me/she was nasty (to me) . I think there are a lot more important thinks that Trump actually did and we need to call talk about.
— Kostas (@Kostas65157788) June 2, 2019
Idt you really care about women. You’re just looking for an excuse to wave the victim card. FYI women are human. Ik hard to believe. And as humans we can be nasty to people we don’t like. I don’t usually defend Trump, but I will on this one
— Christian Boston (@ChristianBosto5) June 2, 2019
Honestly I can’t stand Trump but he was being perfectly respectful until he said that. It honestly doesn’t even make sense that he said that because he was complimenting her before and after he said that. Maybe something he was thinking but wasn’t trying to say? Idk.
— Issac Magana (@issaciams) June 2, 2019
It’s absolutely amazing that so many Democrats decided to case aside their Trump Derangement Syndrome for just a sec to defend the president from AOC’s latest smear. It tells you something.
One, Democrat voters may just be more honest than they appear. And two, Democrats voters are fed-up with AOC’s antics. They’re not alone.
Latest posts by Vivek Saxena (see all)
- Filings show NY socialist senator who poses as a lowly working stiff dipped into trust fund during campaign - July 19, 2019
- ‘Triggered’ Howard Stern wants to teach OJ a lesson for constantly showing off his best life on Twitter - July 19, 2019
- Dershowitz perks a lot of ears when he touts ‘perfect, perfect sex life’ amid feud with Epstein accuser’s lawyer - July 19, 2019