Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Ocasio-Cortez: Ben Shapiro offering to debate me is like men catcalling women on the street

Ocasio-Cortez: Ben Shapiro offering to debate me is like men catcalling women on the street

So why won’t she debate Candace Owens?

What a freaking insult to women who have actually experienced harassment. Daily Wire editor-in-chief Ben Shapiro asked to debate Democratic Socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, even offering $10,000 to her campaign or for charity.

The congressional nominee likened the offer to catcalling.

From Fox News:

“Miss Ocasio-Cortez, I’m really excited that you’ve been elevated to that position and I would love to have a real conversation with you about the issues. You’ve noted that you think Republicans are afraid to debate you or talk to you or discuss the issues with you,” Shapiro said.

“Not only am I eager to discuss the issues with you, I’m willing to offer $10,000 to your campaign, today, for you to come on our Sunday special,” he continued. “We can have an hour long conversation about all the topics under the sun, really probe your belief system.”

Shapiro said he would also debate Ocasio-Cortez for charity.

“However you want to do it, I am more than willing to talk to you,” Shapiro said. “Let’s make this happen.”

Shapiro, Daily Wire editor-in-chief, said that he wants to make “America a more civil and interesting place,” and feels a conversation with Ocasio-Cortez could do just that.

The tweet took off on social media, with some noting that Ocasio-Cortez wasn’t responding. She finally did in a childish way and Shapiro fired back:

Others quickly refuted Ocasio-Cortez’s attack

I wonder how Ocasio-Cortez will react to Candace Owens’ offer to debate for $20,000:


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


. . . and I would love to have a real conversation with you about the issues.

Ooooohhh, what a giveaway; the tell that Shapiro’s not serious. He knows perfectly well that he’d be more likely to have a real conversation about the issues with a hamster than he would with Ms. Occasionally-Coherent.

Refusing to debate Ben Shapiro shows that perhaps Ocasio-Cortez isn’t’ as dumb as I thought she was. Then I read her tweet/excuse and it’s back in the dumb dumpster for her.

Republicans are not afraid to debate Occasional-Cortex, as she has claimed, they’re even willing to pay her to do it. But she won’t debate a Republican, because she knows she’ll come off looking like the uninformed, inarticulate, clueless dolt that she is.

This chick is beyond stupid. Talk about a waste of perfectly good oxygen.

AOC is turning out to be the most entertaining candidate on the Democrat side of the aisle in… well, a long, long time. Is there a Republican candidate in NY-14? If there is, Shapiro or Katie Pavlech (sp?) or Candace Owens or Mark Levin or …. should make a legit offer to sponsor a debate for the NY-14 candidates. It would be a YouTube sensation!

    Milhouse in reply to deuxlakes. | August 10, 2018 at 12:54 pm

    There is, but he’s a token candidate. He’s not seriously campaigning, since he has no chance whatsoever of winning, no matter what happens.

      deuxlakes in reply to Milhouse. | August 10, 2018 at 2:05 pm

      I live in one of those districts. We’ve had some doozy token Republican candidates on the ballot here. Have to give them credit for at least giving the appearance of a 2-party system. The Republican candidate in NY-14 should demand a debate – it would get attention, maybe a few extra votes, and (if the R is at all articulate) let the viewers who are willing to hear know there are different ways of thinking. I grew up in the NYC suburbs and never knew that there was something other than liberal opinions until I moved away. I bet the NYC stations would carry it, as AOC could draw eyeballs.

The Friendly Grizzly | August 10, 2018 at 11:25 am

She’s afraid of a nothingburger like Ben SHALIRO?!?

If she makes it into office, she will be cheer to pieces in nothing flat.

The Friendly Grizzly | August 10, 2018 at 11:25 am

^^^ Shapiro…

The poor girl might have been offended at the 10k suggestion. She may have a ‘higher price’. The lady will not yield easily it seems.

In an unbiased media world, this would be Ocasio-Cortez’s “I can see Russia from my house” moment. Actually, it would be her third or fourth such moment. Even people who don’t follow the news at all would possess the conventional wisdom she’s a complete dolt.

But, in all fairness to Ocasio-Cortez, I admit every time I see a pretty lady walking down the street, I’m overcome with the urge to offer her $10,000 to debate me. I can’t help myself. I’m a cad.

If Alexandria Ocaiso-Cortez accepts, highly doubtful though*, the party that will deserve a fair share of embarrassment is Boston University which by having awarded her a degree in economics agreed, by virtue of the award, that she had demonstrated to its teaching authorities sufficient mastery of her discipline. I’m hoping she accepts.

*I’ve been noticing that she follows the pattern of Shillary, Poke-us-Haunt-us Warren, most Democrats, of appearing only in friendly venues where hard questions will not be allowed.

Catcalling is the exact opposite of disrespect. It’s a clear, unmistakable indicator of a man’s appreciation of sexual desirability in a female. That’s nature. It’s a civilized alternative to clubbing a woman over the head, dragging her into a cave and raping her. Anyone who’s offended by being found attractive has rocks in their head. It’s a totally artificial and baseless response.

    Valerie in reply to MrSatyre. | August 10, 2018 at 12:42 pm

    Apparently there are different definitions of catcalling. When I first saw the word, I assumed it was the equivalent of what I’ve gotten: a wolf whistle or wave. It’s the kind of rowdy, non-threatening attention that will make a lady’s day.

    Apparently some people equate it with following, and making offers of prostitution, which I have never once experienced. Indeed, I would think that such behavior would be stopped quickly by coworkers in the US.

    I believe the real point of the bloviating about “catcalling” is to stop the harmless stuff, because it is fun for all concerned.

    Milhouse in reply to MrSatyre. | August 10, 2018 at 1:37 pm

    Yes. And by analogy Shapiro’s invitation was a clear, unmistakable indicator of his appreciation of intellectual desirability in O-C.

    Except, of course, that it was meant ironically, like catcalling an ugly woman to point out her ugliness. So I guess it was rude of him to point out her stupidity, but (1) she asked for it; and (2) by reacting as she did she only confirmed it.


    I believe the real point of the bloviating about “catcalling” is to stop the harmless stuff, because it is fun for all concerned.

    Yes, this is basically it. But there’s something more: it’s a hangover from the days when inviting a woman to intercourse implied she was the kind of woman who might conceivably accept such an invitation, which by the social standards of the day was an insult. But feminists claim that those standards are evil and insulting. They claim that women should be free to accept such invitations, or to initiate them. They claim that it’s a fine thing to be a “slut”, and that it’s wrong to look down on sluts or expect them to feel ashamed. So how can they at the very same time object to those who take them at their word?

If I was Ocasio Cortez, I would see no benefit in talking to Ben Shapiro. Shapiro’s a hostile interview, and doesn’t in any way represent the concerns of her district. There’s no untapped voters in Ocasio Cortez’s Latin American base who would pay attention to a Ben Shapiro interview.

Ocasio Cortez ran on the local issue of standing up against Jewish landlords. Somebody like Shapiro would call her on this and misrepresent the local issue in a way that looks really bad for her.

Additionally, Ocasio Cortez, as a shoo-in future congressperson, is kind of out of Ben Shapiro’s league. His viewership is too small for her. But, for him it’s a different story. If he could trip her into a verbal mistake, that would make his career.

Frankly, this situation only shows how stupid republican candidates are in relying on Democrat media to get their message out.

    txvet2 in reply to rotten. | August 10, 2018 at 12:24 pm

    She’s been all over TV and other media broadcasting her ignorance of economics. There’s nothing illegitimate in offering to provide her the education she didn’t get at BU. But, you’re right. She made her political bones by arguing racism, and she really doesn’t want to have to explain why her “constituents” shouldn’t have to pay rent.

    Paul in reply to rotten. | August 10, 2018 at 12:28 pm

    Huh? Shapiro has more than twice as many Twitter followers are there are residents in NY-14.

    Daiwa in reply to rotten. | August 10, 2018 at 12:47 pm

    She’s been ‘campaigning’ everywhere but her district.

    In a rational world SNL’s ratings would be jacked up mocking the living shit out of her. As some wag somewhere said, she’s the Democrat equivalent of “I can see Russia from my house!” (worse, actually) and all we get from the crowd that savaged Palin is crickets.

    “Frankly, this situation only shows how stupid republican candidates are in relying on Democrat media to get their message out.”

    You got that right. The GOPe cares nothing about winning, or the responsibility that goes with it.

Well, to be honest, Shapiro did use the words “exicted … love … probe”.

A O-C would be a fool to engage in ANY debate or discussion with a conservative, including Hannity. Her “ideas” sound good, until you get to the details, like how to pay for them. So, her appearances have to be tightly scripted and before a very sympathetic audience. At this point in her campaign, she is not running it. She has handlers and they are not going to allow her to place herself in the position of proving how vacuous her ideas are.

    rdmdawg in reply to Mac45. | August 10, 2018 at 12:49 pm

    There is no problem with demonstrating Red Cortez’s tight control over her appearances. Knowing that she’s afraid to ‘go off script’ in a more relaxed environment is important to voters.

    Benji and Candace Owens are doing great work and hope they keep challenging Cortez to a debate. They win whether she accepts or not.

If Ben Shapiro does actually interview or Debate Ocasio Cortez, I would actually expect Cortez to “win” the debate.

Shapiro has a high verbal intellect, but he’s simply wrong about many things. I expect that he would attack socialism in a debate, but only Ocasio Cortez’s rhetoric and only some of the rhetoric is about socialism. The core of her appeal is Charlie Rangel style Tribalism. She has the right name for the district and her racial/ethnic group has the power so they should use that power for themselves.

Misunderstanding what Cortez represents, and only attacking the strawman of socialism, Ben Shapiro will not score any points against Cortez.

    healthguyfsu in reply to rotten. | August 10, 2018 at 12:46 pm

    I disagree with just about everything written here. Tribalism might be an ideology, but it’s not a practical form of government in the US where things are highly centralized and the majority of the nation is white. Socialism, on the other hand, could be implemented much more readily if the wrong people take power. Attacking socialism would absolutely stay on topic because the tribal veneer is just a means of appealing to support here and there among special interests; it’s not the ultimate goal.

      tom_swift in reply to healthguyfsu. | August 10, 2018 at 1:08 pm

      the tribal veneer is just a means of appealing to support here and there among special interests; it’s not the ultimate goal.

      The veneer is important when the immediate goal is votes. And votes are what the socialists need to conquer America.

      What they do after the conquest is another matter.

      Milhouse in reply to healthguyfsu. | August 10, 2018 at 1:55 pm

      You seem to assume she really is a dedicated socialist, and tribalism is merely her stepping stone to a position where she can advance her true agenda. Rotten assumes the opposite, that tribalism really is her true agenda, and socialism is merely her attempt to put an intellectual veneer on it. Why do you think the first assumption is more likely than the second? In fact I think Rotten may be incorrect in assuming that Shapiro doesn’t agree with him; it seems to me that he is merely playing along with her pretense of socialism, and forcing her to defend it in order to show that she’s incapable of doing so.

        healthguyfsu in reply to Milhouse. | August 10, 2018 at 3:55 pm

        Are we speaking of her as an individual or her as a political symbol and campaign? The two are very different. Her campaign and career won’t go anywhere as anything more than a mouthpiece for proponents of tribalism, the same way Obama was limited in such endeavors. If her and the Bernie types attempt a split from the Dem party, they will have about as much success as Gary Johnson.

        Most liberal voters (the majority of which are white) don’t seem to be true tribalists, even if they pay lipservice to it because of Dem party recruitment efforts. The party parrots such hypocritically for the sole purpose of voting bloc power.

    healthguyfsu in reply to rotten. | August 10, 2018 at 12:51 pm

    I’d also challenge you to find factually incorrect statements by Shapiro. He has a strong opinion as many do in the political mediasphere, but I’d suspect that much of what you are lumping as “wrong” simply cannot be construed as facts that are falsifiable.

    Occasio-Cortez would lose in the court of public opinion because she won’t say her true positions since they are unpopular. She has to constantly censor herself, which is why she ends up looking dumb.

    I think (and this is my opinion) her and her supporters are hoping to gain some power with her election then hammer her talking points while scoring a few public victories under the guise of civil rights to condition the population to her true ideals.

    Daiwa in reply to rotten. | August 10, 2018 at 12:52 pm

    What part of ‘Democratic Socialist’ is not clear to you?

Everyone seems to be focused on the wrong part of her response.

She did not accuse him of catcalling, she made the perfectly valid (in other cases) point that the issuer of an unsolicited invitation to intercourse of any kind is not automatically entitled to a response; the recipient is free to reply or to ignore it as he or she sees fit.

I was bemused by the war on catcalling a few years ago; I see not reason why a person should feel insulted at being invited to intercourse of the sort proposed, however uninterested they might be in accepting it, or even in replying to it. Such feelings of insult seem to date from a sexist and patriarchal era when men and women were held to different standards, and such an invitation when issued to a woman indicated that the issuer thought the recipient was a deviant from those standards; but surely feminism has brought us beyond that, so why should a woman, especially a committed feminist, take more umbrage than a man would at receiving one? Even if the recipient’s personal religious beliefs are such that he or she would never consider accepting it, in this pluralist era he or she cannot expect that the issuer shares those beliefs, so the invitation should be taken as a compliment rather than an insult. And I refuse to accept the notion that one needs an invitation to compliment someone. There is no right not to be complimented!

No, the problem I see with Ms Occasional Cortex’s response to Mr Shapiro is that his invitation was not unsolicited. As Shapiro wrote, “You’ve noted that you think Republicans are afraid to debate you or talk to you or discuss the issues with you”. Assuming this is true, if that’s not a solicitation of offers to debate, what is? And one who has issued such a challenge does owe a response to those who take her up on it. Having solicited offers, she is not free to dismiss them without a publicly stated reason, and something better than “I’m afraid he’ll wipe the floor with me”.

    healthguyfsu in reply to Milhouse. | August 10, 2018 at 12:54 pm

    You finally got to the point in the last paragraph.

    However, her intentions of using the analogy to catcalling seem pretty transparent and pathetic as a signal to the feminazis. That’s why it is worthy of internet mockery and ridicule…because she thought it might counterattack as a storm of misdirected feminist rage. That ploy deserves to backfire, at least in my book.

      Milhouse in reply to healthguyfsu. | August 10, 2018 at 1:27 pm

      Yes, but by responding in those terms you’re accepting the feminazi game. I refuse to do that. If you accept the principles of feminism (as opposed to feminazism) then you should treat women the same way you do men; and you should treat women you find attractive the same way you would treat men you found attractive, should any such exist.

      This links to another point, which I was reminded of recently by a piece from Sarah Hoyt. For all that the hard left promotes and pretends to believe in sexual freedom in order to undermine a target society, in truth the left is far more sexually repressive than the right. When it rules, it imposes a repressive regime that would make medieval monks wince. Orwell had it right in 1984. And that’s what The Handmaid’s Tale actually evokes, not the bizarre caricature of Christianity that Atwood intended.

My cat ignores me when I call her.

Mighty_WHrIGHTY | August 10, 2018 at 1:23 pm

Her latest statement was that she would debate him right after Trump releases his tax returns.

    Another stupid comment. (What is your secret?)

    He’ll release them when Odumbo releases his college transcripts and tax returns (and the reason he and mooooochelle lost their law licenses), when hillary klinton releases her and Rapo Bill’s, and when Gigolo John Kerry releases his, and when Al Sharpton pays his back taxes.

      You can’t post without lying, can you? Neither of the 0bamas lost their law licenses. They both switched to inactive status when it was clear they weren’t going to be practicing law for a while, just as any lawyer does. Should either of them ever feel like going back into law in Illinois they would reactivate their licenses simply by paying a fee and taking some extra CLE classes.

      The 0bamas, the Clintons and Kerry all did release their tax returns. 0bama didn’t release his college transcript, but there was no reason for him to do so; nobody else does that. Kerry never released his military records, which he had promised he would do after the election.

Republicans are afraid to debate me except the sexist scum who aren’t!

Shapiro is one of the sharpest, most informed minds in conservative thought. There are a bunch of others, but he certainly is one.

Refusing to debate the seedy and boring yet clever and wily spastic wordsmith ParselTongue Champ, LiL Benji Shapiro, is like refusing to debate a damp dishrag.

It doesn’t mean anything to anything at all, whatsoever, and nobody even really cares….. except maybe the damp dishrag and a its cling-ons ¯/_(ツ)_/¯

When I was young and as pretty as I was ever going to be I found catcalls embarrassing – because I was young. Catcall me now and you would make my day! I would also severely question your judgement.

To a battle of wits, she realizes that she comes unarmed.

I feel sorry for Democrats. It’s so hard to find someone telegenic AND coherent. Look at how long it took them to dig up Obama, and that was in a nation of 330 million people!

Most of the time we get one or the other, like in AOC’s case.

Cortez is silly. She’s Odumbo, without the benefit of the scam being fresh.

Shapiro should have never made the offer. He gave her too much legitimacy. Ignoring an avowed socialist is the correct response.

We already know it cannot and will not ever work except in Scandinavia as long as you do not invite in foreigners and don’t bother with your own defense.

Put a pussy hat on her and call a spade a spade.

If he was alone with her, she would have claimed he tried to rape her.