Jump to content
Radio Shack Killa

God save us....

Recommended Posts

41 minutes ago, SuperToad said:

 

Umm, no. Her popularity derives straight from the democrat party hoisting her up as the "future of the party". Conservatives mocking her is a result of herself and her own party putting her in the spotlight. More conservatives mocked her for saying "feelings over facts" than they did for that stupid dance thing (which, who really cares). She's a progressive socialist ideologue who doesn't know a damn thing about how the economy works, wants to tax citizens 70% of their income for her fantasy "green new deal", and install a government run healthcare system (and free college) that would put us 30-40 trillion dollars further into debt with no way  of even coming close to paying for it. So no, conservatives aren't obsessed with her simply because she's a liberal who posts instagram videos. It's because she says really dumb statements and extreme ideals, a lot of the time with no factual basis in reality. There's a reason even the Washington Post and CNN call her out.

 

I'm curious. If the things you enumerate above are to be mocked:

 

--Why then not mock Trump himself and the reps in general for constantly putting Trump in the spotlight?

--Why then not mock Trump's reliance on "gut feelings" over facts but not her feelings over facts?

--Why then not mock someone who thinks starting international trade wars and adding trillions to the deficit is a fine way to improve the economy?

--Why then not someone who tweets if not instagrams incessantly and constantly pitches fantasies/nonfacts of all sorts about many issues daily?

--Why then not mock someone who says really dumb statements with some regularity and who often espouses pretty extreme ideas if not ideals with no factual basis in reality?

 

Of all of the things that have come to define modern conservative talking points, one of the most disconcerting to me is the extreme level of psychological projection I've come to see there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, SuperToad said:

 

Umm, no. Her popularity derives straight from the democrat party hoisting her up as the "future of the party". Conservatives mocking her is a result of herself and her own party putting her in the spotlight. More conservatives mocked her for saying "feelings over facts" than they did for that stupid dance thing (which, who really cares). She's a progressive socialist ideologue who doesn't know a damn thing about how the economy works, wants to tax citizens 70% of their income for her fantasy "green new deal", and install a government run healthcare system (and free college) that would put us 30-40 trillion dollars further into debt with no way  of even coming close to paying for it. So no, conservatives aren't obsessed with her simply because she's a liberal who posts instagram videos. It's because she says really dumb statements and extreme ideals, a lot of the time with no factual basis in reality. There's a reason even the Washington Post and CNN call her out.

 

Umm, I'm not sure how anything you say here refutes my point,  which is conservatives have their panties in a twist over her too.  In fact your response kinda makes my point.

 

Again, the twitter troll that posted the unearthed dance video was obviously conservative and had intent to embarrass her.  Conservative talking heads (Hannity, et al) are frothing at the mouth about her.

 

She is a potential harbinger of a Democratic swing to the left, similar the Tea Party a decade ago, and a telegenic and social media savvy one at that.  She is young and inexperienced and has and will continue to make political mistakes.  And there is no question that she has received outsized media attention, both from the left AND the right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, NewfoundlandFreeFrog said:

 

I'm curious. If the things you enumerate above are to be mocked:

 

--Why then not mock Trump himself and the reps in general for constantly putting Trump in the spotlight?

--Why then not mock Trump's reliance on "gut feelings" over facts but not her feelings over facts?

--Why then not mock someone who thinks starting international trade wars and adding trillions to the deficit is a fine way to improve the economy?

--Why then not someone who tweets if not instagrams incessantly and constantly pitches fantasies/nonfacts of all sorts about many issues daily?

--Why then not mock someone who says really dumb statements with some regularity and who often espouses pretty extreme ideas if not ideals with no factual basis in reality?

 

Of all of the things that have come to define modern conservative talking points, one of the most disconcerting to me is the extreme level of psychological projection I've come to see there. 

 

Because the same democrats who rail against Trump are eerily quiet when it comes to AOC (or any of like for that matter). It's hypocrisy. AOC herself said it's unfair that she's being held to the same standard as Trump.

 

To your points:

 

1) Because he's the president...he's always in the spotlight. And reps DO mock him. Most true cons don't hold back when he does something stupid. Even people like Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, etc. who love Trump has bashed him numerous times.

2) Not sure exactly what you're referencing. But to my knowledge, Trump has never said out loud that it's okay to lie just to pass legislation that you deem "moral".

3) I guarantee you almost every single person who is not a populist/Trumplican has mocked him for his trade war BS. And I agree with you on the deficit. Absolutely inexcusable. But I'd argue our economy is quite good right now dispite the sharp dip.

4) I personally dont care about social media crap. But yes, Trump has said fibs. I don't like it, and I have no problem calling it out. That doesn't make it okay for opposing party to turn a blind eye when they do it. Especially when they're the ones who, again, said that it's okay to lie if they see the endgame as "moral".

5) What "extreme" policy ideas has Trump touted that even comes close to what AOC has said?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, SuperToad said:

 

Because the same democrats who rail against Trump are eerily quiet when it comes to AOC (or any of like for that matter). It's hypocrisy. AOC herself said it's unfair that she's being held to the same standard as Trump.

 

To your points:

 

1) Because he's the president...he's always in the spotlight. And reps DO mock him. Most true cons don't hold back when he does something stupid. Even people like Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, etc. who love Trump has bashed him numerous times.

2) Not sure exactly what you're referencing. But to my knowledge, Trump has never said out loud that it's okay to lie just to pass legislation that you deem "moral".

3) I guarantee you almost every single person who is not a populist/Trumplican has mocked him for his trade war BS. And I agree with you on the deficit. Absolutely inexcusable. But I'd argue our economy is quite good right now dispite the sharp dip.

4) I personally dont care about social media crap. But yes, Trump has said fibs. I don't like it, and I have no problem calling it out. That doesn't make it okay for opposing party to turn a blind eye when they do it. Especially when they're the ones who, again, said that it's okay to lie if they see the endgame as "moral".

5) What "extreme" policy ideas has Trump touted that even comes close to what AOC has said?

 

Well I guess we'll have to agree that we see some things the same and some things a bit differently sometimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Duquesne Frog said:

 

Umm, I'm not sure how anything you say here refutes my point,  which is conservatives have their panties in a twist over her too.  In fact your response kinda makes my point.

 

Again, the twitter troll that posted the unearthed dance video was obviously conservative and had intent to embarrass her.  Conservative talking heads (Hannity, et al) are frothing at the mouth about her.

 

She is a potential harbinger of a Democratic swing to the left, similar the Tea Party a decade ago, and a telegenic and social media savvy one at that.  She is young and inexperienced and has and will continue to make political mistakes.  And there is no question that she has received outsized media attention, both from the left AND the right.

 

The original question asked was why she was given so much publicity. You said it was due to the media and republicans. Not because of her party and her ideals. The reason republicans are getting their "panties in a wad" is two-fold. The first being a reaction to her publicity from the media and the democrats praising of her ideals. The second is her willingness to openly tell fibs and speak in misleading generalities, and the same media and democrats who blast Trump about doing the same thing all of a sudden turn a blind eye (with a few rare exceptions).

 

Idk about you, but I'm not bothered by what twitter trolls post. And if a few talking heads spent a minute or two talking about it/making fun of her for a few chuckles, then who cares. They aren't "frothing at the mouth" about that. They're frothing over her ideals of which she rarely has an answer for, and refuses to debate, discuss, or factually defend them.

 

Shes not a "potential" harbringer. People in the democrat party are becoming more and more accepting of ideals like hers. The Tea Party was a niche movement compared to the progressive socialists overtaking the democrat party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/7/2019 at 10:56 AM, Duquesne Frog said:

 

I guess not surprisingly, I'm not.  I know we all like to bang on government for not being able to do anything well, but I don't think that notion is universally true (see: space, military, long term technology investment) and there are some things that capitalism doesn't do well.  Capitalism (at least in our current corporatist practice, maybe not in theory) sucks at solving long term problems and problems that run counter to short term profitability.  Touchy-feely shit like the environment, systemic socio-economic biases, healthcare and even less touchy-feely things like basic research investment.

 

I know there are those here who will argue that American Capitalism has sucked at solving those problems because the government has not gotten out of the way, but 1) on a sliding scale of capitalism-to-communism, our economy has always tilted heavily toward the capitalism side of that scale, at least in comparison to most other modern "developed" economies, 2) the "golden age" of American Capitalism, at least with respect to lack of government interference, has to be the robber barron era of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, which was replete with all kinds of negative consequences for society and is not a model I think most Americans would like to return to, and 3) while the "invisible hand" might in theory always guide a society toward the best of all possible worlds, it has failed to do so in practice on many occasions. One might argue that Communism has failed for the same reason; that mankind never actually did a very good job of executing the theory in practice.  What Russia and China have done/did with their economic systems bears very little resemblance to what Marx and Engalls wrote.  And American Capitalism has and probably never will live up to the ideals of Smith or Hayek because human foibles (most importantly, greed) will always push the invisible hand out of the way and toward monopolism, corporatism, and oligarchy.

 

So, I don't agree that unregulated anarchism is the way to go.  But if that ideal could be somehow achieved, then sure, you might get rid of the IRS ...

 

I'm actually more of a Minarchist if we're being specific. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, SuperToad said:

 

The original question asked was why she was given so much publicity. You said it was due to the media and republicans. Not because of her party and her ideals. The reason republicans are getting their "panties in a wad" is two-fold. The first being a reaction to her publicity from the media and the democrats praising of her ideals. The second is her willingness to openly tell fibs and speak in misleading generalities, and the same media and democrats who blast Trump about doing the same thing all of a sudden turn a blind eye (with a few rare exceptions).

 

Idk about you, but I'm not bothered by what twitter trolls post. And if a few talking heads spent a minute or two talking about it/making fun of her for a few chuckles, then who cares. They aren't "frothing at the mouth" about that. They're frothing over her ideals of which she rarely has an answer for, and refuses to debate, discuss, or factually defend them.

 

Shes not a "potential" harbringer. People in the democrat party are becoming more and more accepting of ideals like hers. The Tea Party was a niche movement compared to the progressive socialists overtaking the democrat party.

 

I think the old guard of the Democratic Party, much like the old guard of the Republican Party at the time of the Tea Party movement, is actually pretty resistant to much of the radical views coming from their respective movements.  They fear the movements, and do their best to placate them and concede a minimal amount to them.  But note that Pelosi still got voted speaker, just like Boehner still led the Republicans when the Tea Party swept in.

 

Note that the old guard is conspicuously silent about impeachment and is still focused on properly funding Obamacare rather than Medicare-for-all.

 

What remains to be seen is whether the left-wing represented by Ocasio-Cortez will really get the Dems to move substantively to the left.  The tell-tale will be if old guard Dems in blue states start losing en masse to Ocasio-Cortez -type candidates over the next few elections, as is what happened with the Republicans and as happened to the old dude that Ocasio-Cortez beat in that specific election.  I don't think we're are quite to the point with the Dems that the Reps did get to, and possibly still are.  If people like Pelosi and McCarthy and Schumer start losing primaries, then Democrats will have truly become a "Democratic-Socialist" party ...

 

And I still argue that her media presence has far more to do with her looks and media savvy than her policies.  She's not the only one with those policies ... Bernie's been playing that hand for decades and no one started paying attention to him until he made Hillary uncomfortable in 2016 ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Duquesne Frog said:

 

You are now deeper into the weeds than I am willing to superficially educate myself about ...

 

:lol:

Yet you've likely put hours into the study of this political system!

 

We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune!  We're taking turns to act as a sort of executive-officer-for-the-week-- 
But all the decisions *of* that officer 'ave to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting--By a simple majority, 
in the case of purely internal affairs--But by a two-thirds majority, in the case of more major--

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Duquesne Frog said:

 

You are now deeper into the weeds than I am willing to superficially educate myself about ...

 

:lol:

 

lol... come on you know what a Minarchist is. Not that I'd put it on my business card. Just more of how I lean and feel about the overall state of things. #$%@ em all. Arm up and deal in bourbon and ammo.

 

;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NewfoundlandFreeFrog said:

 

I agree but board(s) history says that we need to tread carefully where deep feelings are involved and always remember that we all really do agree on a huge number of important things.

 

Like Hurts coming to TCU!?!?

 

Wait, keep sports outta this!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/7/2019 at 10:56 AM, Duquesne Frog said:

 

I guess not surprisingly, I'm not.  I know we all like to bang on government for not being able to do anything well, but I don't think that notion is universally true (see: space, military, long term technology investment) and there are some things that capitalism doesn't do well.  Capitalism (at least in our current corporatist practice, maybe not in theory) sucks at solving long term problems and problems that run counter to short term profitability.  Touchy-feely shit like the environment, systemic socio-economic biases, healthcare and even less touchy-feely things like basic research investment.

 

I know there are those here who will argue that American Capitalism has sucked at solving those problems because the government has not gotten out of the way, but 1) on a sliding scale of capitalism-to-communism, our economy has always tilted heavily toward the capitalism side of that scale, at least in comparison to most other modern "developed" economies, 2) the "golden age" of American Capitalism, at least with respect to lack of government interference, has to be the robber barron era of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, which was replete with all kinds of negative consequences for society and is not a model I think most Americans would like to return to, and 3) while the "invisible hand" might in theory always guide a society toward the best of all possible worlds, it has failed to do so in practice on many occasions. One might argue that Communism has failed for the same reason; that mankind never actually did a very good job of executing the theory in practice.  What Russia and China have done/did with their economic systems bears very little resemblance to what Marx and Engalls wrote.  And American Capitalism has and probably never will live up to the ideals of Smith or Hayek because human foibles (most importantly, greed) will always push the invisible hand out of the way and toward monopolism, corporatism, and oligarchy.

 

So, I don't agree that unregulated anarchism is the way to go.  But if that ideal could be somehow achieved, then sure, you might get rid of the IRS ...

 

These are all straw men...but you knew that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Duquesne Frog said:

More of that non-essential stuff ...

 

Government Shutdown Curtails F.D.A. Food Inspections

 

The free market will take care of any problems with food safety, so it cannot be a problem. No honest entrepreneur just trying to make one more dollar has ever killed a customer as we all know. 

 

Government regulation is just a useless appendage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×