I didn’t say anything about the rest of their comment. You asked for a source and I provided it.
How on earth does a source talking about the DSA deliberately withdrawing their support not contradict your claim that they “didn’t notice” she wasn’t a member?
It added: “Previously, the representative joined DSA in 2018 with a one-year membership, which DSA’s national leadership recently noticed had lapsed, in 2019. She has since renewed her membership as of this month.”
AOC has previously made a deliberate point of talking about not being a member of the national organization, but rather her local one. The national DSA withdrew their conditional endorsement over her stance on Israel.
Now that they’re making amends, they’re putting it that way to be diplomatic, as though it was a simple oversight. But there have been significant rifts and disagreements, so it isn’t a non-story like you suggested.
Now you’re making new claims that are NOT in the article that you have not sourced.
Don’t bother, I don’t care enough to look further nor care more to listen to you. Have a day. Maybe even a good day. :) But certainly have a day (becuse the alternate would suck, and I’m attempting humour by implying "have a bad day’, but it’s just being silly at you. In case that feels like mixed messages, our interaction is irritating, but c’est la vie, humour indicates it’s not personal, just disagreement with what you’re saying)
I didn’t say anything about the rest of their comment. You asked for a source and I provided it.
How on earth does a source talking about the DSA deliberately withdrawing their support not contradict your claim that they “didn’t notice” she wasn’t a member?
Do you not understand language?
AOC has previously made a deliberate point of talking about not being a member of the national organization, but rather her local one. The national DSA withdrew their conditional endorsement over her stance on Israel.
Now that they’re making amends, they’re putting it that way to be diplomatic, as though it was a simple oversight. But there have been significant rifts and disagreements, so it isn’t a non-story like you suggested.
Now you’re making new claims that are NOT in the article that you have not sourced.
Don’t bother, I don’t care enough to look further nor care more to listen to you. Have a day. Maybe even a good day. :) But certainly have a day (becuse the alternate would suck, and I’m attempting humour by implying "have a bad day’, but it’s just being silly at you. In case that feels like mixed messages, our interaction is irritating, but c’est la vie, humour indicates it’s not personal, just disagreement with what you’re saying)