I hit "reply" but this isn't really a response to King1's post (And we argued a point months ago and agreed to disagree and I'm starting to believe he was right.) What bothers me right now is how full of it politicians on both side of it are. Trump has said plenty of things that were inflammatory or demonstrably false. The perhaps naive hope is that he knows what he is doing and simply negotiating. (I understand the other view that could go on for pages about his tweets etc.) AOC issued what appeared to be an aspirational "Green Deal" that was accompanied by an FAQ that contained the phrase "unable and unwilling to work." Understandably, her opponents have latched on to the "unwilling" portion of that message. There have now been at least one television interview and multiple articles pretending her or her team didn't say that. I would LOVE it if politicians could just come close to the truth. If AOC said that "that was in the early FAQ sheet but that wasn't what it meant", it should be a dead issue. If Trump could just say: "I thought I could get it done. I was wrong. I over promised," it would command at least some respect. I know I'm flailing against the entire history of politics. the difference is with our current technology, it is so easy to show conclusively either stupid positions or outright false promises. I wish it mattered to us -- the voting public. Best I can tell, we all have an intellectual side that recognizes these things and then potentially a more powerful gut reaction that causes us to back one politician over others even if we can't really intellectually justify it. Rant over. But rewarding truth would be nice.
Democracy isn't about winning 51%. When scaled to the scope it is right now, its about winning one round a time. People like Trump are winning more frequently because his 12.5% are among the most loyal and most zealous. Most importantly, they vote early and often in primaries. On an emotional level, a base like that doesn't reward their ideal candidates with equivocation. That's not someone you project your hopes and ideals onto. All that is covered over and forgotten when the Big Game starts with Candidate R vs Candidate D. Then tribalism and sportslike fandom rears its ugly head...isn't it 7 out of 8 polled self named republicans support his policies? I also notice that Democrats are regressing back into what they were in the 80s, but I can't see how that's a bad thing party wise (today's breed are nothing more than Wall Street **** suckers) or from a game theory standpoint where the "rational party" already begins with a losing position.
North Koreans ‘Love’ Kim Jong Un, President Tells ABC “His country does love him... His people, you see the fervor. They have a great fervor... I can only tell you from my experience, and I met him, I’ve spoken with him, and I’ve met him... I do trust him, yeah” https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-says-north-koreans-love-kim-jong-un
I guess you have missed the multiple times I have said that I can't stand nor support Trump. That doesn't change the fact that AOC is an even bigger clown than him.
Republicans hyper focus on her too. She’s equally as stupid as Bernie but Bernie doesn’t generate the hate she does.
Yeah no more than others. She is all over the media, doesn't understand what a congress person does, is dynamic and young, and proposes socialist garbage. She is so bad that dems are going to have to get rid of her. She is the Wesley Crusher of Congress minus the "genius" part.
Because not only did she get elected, but she also seems to have been anointed the face of the liberal left...and was put on the House Financial Services committee, of all places. Honestly, doesn't that scare even those here who support her? If she has demonstrated one thing conclusively, it is that she doesn't understand anything about finances or economics. They shouldn't even let her near the room where that committee meets.
“Look, having nuclear — my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart — you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I’m one of the smartest people anywhere in the world — it’s true! — but when you’re a conservative Republican they try — oh, do they do a number — that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune — you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged — but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me — it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are — nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what’s going to happen and he was right, who would have thought? — but when you look at what’s going on with the four prisoners — now it used to be three, now it’s four — but when it was three and even now, I would have said it’s all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don’t, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years — but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us.”
